fauxlaw

All through the Maine Primary for Senate, the Democratic Party pushed this waste of human flesh, Graham Platner, as the best thing going for Maine. I have naught to do with Maine. I've been there only once, and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. But if Democrats cannot do better than this nitwit with a covered Nazi tat and a towel for teenagers, call the police expletives, let alone several women accusing him of taking off the towel, at a minimum, y'all deserve him.

Senate? This guy doesn't belong in a Slum. If y'all can't recognize that, y'all have bigger problems than Trump. It's desperation. Not even bottom of the barrel.

Some of you have mentioned that you think the economy of the US is sinking, tanking, and otherwise in decline. As if it were better under SloJo. By the way, higher employment, stock market, 401K,. Gold and silver and most other commodity investment, etc, now than then. Sorry for you, guys. I don't see it. I conclude that you do not invest in yourselves. Neither by finance nor by education. Education can, and does for me, increase my net worth. I engage in both, and I've never been better off than I am right now. My last degree, a B.A. came last fall, in linguistics. It has measurably improved my writing, and I do profit from that activity. 

So, if you think the economy is bad, what are YOU doing about it? No one but you handles your personal economy. Get to work and stop screaming at the moon. And stop listening to biased reporting. Most of that is a wish balloon.

Mayor of NYC Mandami took his seat at the little-boy-desk, emulating Joe Biden in his dark basement, but in Mando's case, it was a mimic of the Oval, complete with a string of people standing beside the little-boy desk. It looked like Trump. Under the circumstances, that is hillarious.

Mandami offered a missive; his inaugural SOSU* speech: State of the Socialist Union.

The term refers to a written address, but in this case, it sounded like the State of the Cave. Old school. Very old.

He missed the memo that such speeches are supposed to be upbeat. Mandami? No beat at all.

Well, that's socialism for you: a guaranteed failed system. Show me one example that has lasted the duration of America. No commentary necessary, Just show me your best example.

Two days from the 250th anniversary of our American Declaration of Independence from the monarchy of Great Britain, I am reminded that the leadership of our Founding Fathers and their Constitutional Convention tried something new and experimental. That’s what they called it: a grand experiment, not just another government typical of the times, moving generally among several nations of western civilization. Experiment because it was not ordinary, typical, or guaranteed to work.

I am proud in these days of celebration because my ancestry is American. My father’s ancestry first came to these shores l0png ago before America was America. His name was John, a Scot whose own ancestry was from France in the 11th century. He was an enterprising man who wanted to build an iron foundry. He arrived in Boston in 1625, only five years after the landing of the Mayflower, so Boston, then, was a village. He went north to what is now Maine, and built and ran his foundry, achieving his American dream. I am richly blessed to be one of his descendants, achieving my own American dream.

"Big Tent" has found it's way into simultaneous Democrat mouths, mostly to include its sudden embracae of socialism. Sorry, "democratic" socialism. There is, apparently, a difference, though the difference is hardly measurable.

If you disagree on meassnurement, please provide the tool used, assuring that it is properly chosen to mesaure adquately, accuratelty, and repeatably. And it must be calibrated. I know a thing or three about the nature of these factors.

What is ignored in all this new, simultaneous "big tent" mantra is that a big tent is exactly that: big. Big enough to include, among other things, a simulraneous blend of ingredients the party is not at all certain will bake a cake any number of tent-residents can eat without expectring a stomach ache.

Evidence that this particular tent is not at all certain of its palatability, let alone its future.

This particular case beforee the Supreme Court to reach a decision on whether or not the original framers of the14th Amendment citrizenship clause [Clause 1] intended what has been determned by US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and this case today, let alone several cases in between. This case was not an adequate case to reach a decision on the matter. But, cases are what they are; it's difficult to expect that every case before SCOTUS is the ideal case. This was not one of them.

I am not suprised by the decision to maintain birthright citizenship. I oppose it because of the effect on birth by "tourism" being a reason - and it is becoming a huge issue bevcause of the numbers of bierths by that reason - to allow birthright citizenship. It all turns on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States]" is interpretted to say n all cases. Tourism birth was not likely an issue the 14th framers anticipated.

Bio-male thinks he's a female? Well... no. Biology isn't a matter of choice, boys and girls. This is ultimately a decision for States, and it just may end up that the States which disagree, allowing bio males to compete as females may find populstion shifts of greater proportion than occur due to pure politics. With generational change in parenting, this decision may swing the other way, being a State by State decision, but for now, reason has a level-headed cause settled.

Sorry trannies, but your gender was detrermined at conception. Call it something else, if you must, but gender is binary, or so says science in the cells.* All trillion of them in each of us.

*There are physical anomalies in all of 0.00000007 percent of us, about 3 people per country, worldwide, based on a world population of 8 billion people. And what percentage of that number are serious sports competitors? This amounts to affecting such a small percentage of us, statistically, it is a non-issue. That said, there are those convinced by a headtrip that all the above is an issue. So be it. Not all will agree with the Court decision.

Y'all hang that "DEMOCRAT" flag in front of socialism, and you think that makes it a different philosophy? Bullshyte. The only difference is that the donkey is now pulling a failed cart. That is what socialism is: FAILED. Failed because it has never, ever, ever been able to sustain itself in 178 years siince the failures, Marx/Engels, proposed the Communist Manifedsto in 1848. Why? Because socialism has no clue how to create wqewalth. Beg, borrow and steal it, sure, but any arsewipe can do that. Create from scratch? Not in the formula of that politick.

You show me what makes this proposed political party viable.

This slogan was masively popularized by Marx & Engels, your socialist heroes. It is, however, incorrect to believe your heroes coined the phrase. Nope, just like money, these socialists depended on another's cleverness and productivity. They merely borrowed the phrase, to the extent that the true creator is utterly forgotten. She was Flora Tristan, a French-Peruvian feminist/activist who actually had working, paying jobs.

Accordng to Google, when asked "did marx and engels ever acknowledge flora tristan as creator of their popular phrase, "workers of the world unite?" Here's Google AI response:

"No, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels never acknowledged Flora Tristan as the creator of their famous slogan, "Workers of the world, unite!" In fact, they never directly cited or credited her as the source for the idea of a universal working-class union. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

However, when Google is asked "who created the term "workers of the world, unite," Google AI replied: "The phrase was created by philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It first appeared as the famous concluding rallying cry in The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848. [1]"

No, it first appeared in Flora Tristan's book in 1843: "The Worker's Union."

That's the spoils of other peoples' money, apparently including Google AI's money: Deadbeatism. AKA: failure.

Virtrually nothing. Oh, they claim they are:

1. Establishing a dedicated task force...
2. Developing mechanisms...
3. Security Council resollutions...

Wow! Such action. Unfortunatly, I read these direct quotes from the UN as nothing more than talk-talk-say-nothing. Something the UN is well-practiced doing. They pattern themselves after something like the U.S. Congress, which, for being a third-leg of US government, manages to be sorely crippled. All talk, little-to-no action.

Kind of like how socialists talk.

Is it now time to expand the Persian Gulf? Are they really that stupid to shoot down a US Apache helicopter?

Pick any color at random; you could probably describe it in a single word, regardlessd of what the object is. It's red or green, yellow, purple... you get it. But let that object be skin, and all of a sudden, we get society twisted in knots trying to give it a demographic, count it, subdivide it, classify it, discriminate it, and either love it or hate it.

When are we going to figure out that absolutely none of us, not one in 8 billion, is either black or white, or any other "color" we've devised for skin? So, why do we try to make that distinction? It says nothing of what or who we are, and not one of us determined it in the first place, so... so what?

"'Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I... belive without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builderes of Babel." - Benjamin Franklin, 1789

You will recall, since y'all profess to know the Holy Bible, how successful building Babel was, both the tower and the city surrounding it. Yeah, they were bukding more than just a tower in their pride, intending to reach heaven and take it from God. oops.

When movies develop a realistic, 3D holographic image, will images like a burning structure be excluded as an allowed image due to the risk of an audience member thinking the theater itself is on fire, causing a panic and potential injury to others by shouting "Fire!"

The shootings in San Diego today by a pair of barely adult males were okay, according to the Democrat mantra, because they were not privileged white men, and they took themselves out, anyway. Had they not off'd themselves, it would also have been okay to release them prior to arraignment without bail. Welcome to the 2026 Democrat Party.

Without benefit of amendment [amending the 14A, Clause 1], the Democrats will propose that all space aliens landing in America are US citizens deserving of benefits.

“No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

This is the 39th Clause of the Magna Carta of 1215; the primary inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. We summarize these words in two words: due process. These latter two words find purchase in the Constitution, so we [should] treat them as statutory law if not holy writ. By personal conviction, it is.

And yet, while the presidential oath of office was being performed on 20 January, 1917, within the hour, the Washington Post declared by headline: "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun" All Trump had done, as President, to commit the impeachable crime of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was to walk along Pennsylvania Ave hand-in-hand with his wife. Where was due process? Being trashed by the 4th estate, which estate has not let-up, since, now 9 tears hence. When will the 4th estate recognize the trash due process? When will you who join in; when you, yourselves, may find need of its protection? Should it justly come to your protection when you have trashed it, yourselves?

Due process says a person is innocent until indicted [not merely accused by mouth], tried [in a court of law, and not merely by opinion], and convicted [found guilty by sworn testimony and evidence]. Only then is there guilt, and even that is open to appeal.

We say that we experience death, but who among us, who remain among us once a loved-one, or, in fact, anyone "dies?" Do they really experience death as an event as noteworthy as drssing in unfamiliar clothing, or eating entirely different substances? What does it feel like to our various senses? Do we see in a different spectrum of color, or is it just black and white? Since we who remain are alive, our experience is not death as we understand that term. I believe most Asian religions also believe in at least spiritual if not a physical bodily afterlife. In both cases, then, death is not a permanent condition. Only some atheists believe in the end of life at death; oblivion, but I know a number of atheists who do not believe life ends at death.

Abrahamic religions firmly believe in the physical, bodily resurrection, so death is only a temporary bodily separation.

Therefore, what is death, really, but a passage from one realm to another, like walking through a door to another room, or a place different than this world with which we have become familiar. Is walking through a doorway really a noteworthy, memorable "experience" like going to another country and culture, or is it not even that?

Thoughts?

Let's start with Kamalala's past, as San Francisco's DA, and then, CA's DA. Having lived the majority of my life in L..A. and SFO, I have never seen an alleged attorney argue so badly in court., I've even attended a few court sessions with her performing. Word salad. Heard of it? That's a Kamalala brand. Bad ideas from go.

Let's start with the fact that even the idea by the Demos to violate the will of the people by replacing 2024 campaign figurehead, SloJo Biden, with Kamalala, which was their choice, not the people's, was as bad idea, and she was trounced for it. Tasked by Biden in March of 2021 to address the border issue, she did not go to the border until June 2021, and then not again until September of 2024. I've been to places along our southern border, and into Mexico more than a dozen times, to CA, AZ, NM, TX, and FL, all on business. Maybe Biden ought to have tasked me to that assignment; at least I* have experience. [a joke, in case you missed it]

All of Kamalala's ideas do not serve the people, but do serve Democrat politics. How are you served a better taste of the American dream by a stacked Supreme Court? How are you better served by "going around the Electoral College?" Just one of the E.C.'s better accomplishments is preventing large States in population, like CA and NY from overloading the vote. The E.C. allows small pop. states, like WY, an equal share of the vote. It's a more accurate playing field for elections than by popular vote, which is really the invention of the media. That shows you how ignorant the media is. The Constitution says nothing about "popular vote."

Our now common, but non-constitutional phrase [i.e., the words are not contained therein, but, many words are absent from the Constitution that we selectively choose to include] "separation of church and state," a.k.a.. "a high wall of separation." The "separation" phrase comes from the SCOTUS decision of Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/330us1

Some claim it originats with Tommy Jefferson. However, at the time of drafting the Constitution, Tommy was separated from both church and state, as our minister to France. Yes, Tommy said the words, and believed them, but the concept of "separation" came from Roger Williams, a hundred years earlier in the 17th century.

What we only selectively remember, though I was reminded of the memory from high school, because we discussed it in my high school, and just seven years ago, read the full syllabus of the case [see the "Oyez" citation above. It contains, as part of the assenting decision, the following:

“…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.”

Be honest: did you know that was part of the decision? Sobering, considering the conflict that currently exists between the factions of "freedom of religion," because the 1st Amendment does not say that

government cannot cooperate with religion to improve our effort to become "a more perfect union," it just says government cannot "establish" a religion, that is, start one. Prayer does not establish a religion. Talking about religion does not establish one. Come on, words mean things. Need a dictionary?

As we approach the U.S. 250th anniversary, I thought it would be fun to see what tech was developed in the 18th century that is still in use today, essentially unchanged from when invented;

1. The plumbing S-trap: Alexander Cummings patented the S-trap in 1775, which allows standing water in the pipe to seal out sewer gas from entering the interior of a building.
2. Bio-focal lenses: Benjamin Franklin is credited with inventing bifocals around 1780.
3. Circular saw: Patented by Samuel Miller in 1777, this is still the standard for cutting wood.
4. Lightning rod: Developed by Benjamin Franklin in 1752 [the only double-dipper on the list]
5. Parachute: Developed by Louis Sebastien in 1783

Did Trump watch a marathon release of "X-Files" with David Duchovny & Gillian Anderson? You decide.

Does ebuc have a formula for us to calculate it?

AOC has demonstrated one fact that is prevalent in the Democrat Party: it does not have a single political platform plank that does not have its opposing plank. How can any political platform succeed when every point is argued by another conflicting point? That's what cancel culture means, defined by the very group which invented the term.

A review of Forum activity [the Forum home page] demonstrates that the general topic of religion has the highest commentary of any topic within Forum [with > 4,700 comments], and the second-highest number of

topics [148 - where no other topic other than Politics exceeds 100]. Politics has the highest number of posts, at > 200.

Curiously, religion has a higher number of Supreme Court cases dedicated to a subject than any other subject, signaling that this topic is of greater interest to people than any other subject under the Sun.

Once I first heard An Occasional Cortex, I was convinced the woman had many loose screws holding her head inadequately together. Now, she makes this insane claim: "You cannot earn a billion dollars." She has, allegedly, an Econ degree, but I've always thought she earned it laying on her corner bar doing the horizontal mamba with her profs. I don't know what excuse Oba'a has, because he said much the same thing back in his day: "There comes a time when you have made enough money."

Socialism insists "The creation of personal wealth is undesirable."

Free market capitalism says "Ambition, planning, and execution creates personal wealth."

Put those two philosophies in opposition in the ring; you tell me which has the more likely knock-out punch.

Hint: Not a single socialist government has lasted longer than 100 years; the average is 40. Meanwhile, the US, as a constitutional, free market democratic republic, has endured 250 years, but if one counts the fact that it began as free market colonies of Great Britain, it has endured over 400 years.

Rules mean things. Rules, like State Constitutions, let alone the U.S. Constitution, or Rules created at the behest of those Constitutions. Rules of procedure, for example. So, new VA Governor, Abigail Spanberger, who once said during her gubernatorial campaign that VA re-districting was not going to be necessary, looked at the political reality and changed her mind. Should have first read her State Constitution, just like Hakeem Jefries should read his US Constitution. You know, the one he swore to uphold and defend. The one to which Nancy Pelosi, his predecessor, swore to uphold, then ignored her House Rules to impeach Donald Trump. Yep, rules mean things, even when Supreme Courts do read those documents, and try to legitimately uphold them, because they, too, swear to do so. Some people are just better at respecting the oaths they take than others.

We have plenty of protesting of Jim Crow law; some of it violent, and some just waving flags with that anthem written on it: "No Jim Crow laws." Something like that other anthem, "No Kings." Sometimes, the writing can actually be read, but this is not a complaint about literacy.

These protests reactive now, as if there were Jim Crow laws still on the books. The complaint used to be "Systemic racism." "Systemic" means racism is evident in current statutory law. OK, show me. point to to just one, current, Jim Crow law. Don't show me what used to be, I know they used to exist, but they do not, now!

All Jim Crow has been removed from law and policy. It no longer exists.

If I am wrong, show me. Cite the law. Cite the policy. Go.

I know you cannot.

Don't show me attitude; that's an individual thing, not systemic. Show me systemic. I know there is individual Jim Crow attitude, and I object to that, too. I am with you, there. Please try to understand the difference.

Something curious about our American society and its insistence that a particular Court precedent, "separation of church and state," enshrined by the people and many in its government, as if statutory law [i.e., law as legislated by Congress]. But no, "separation" is merely Court precedent. Typically, though not by constitutional decree, but merely common sense, any precedent set by the Supreme Court ought to ultimately be codified by Congress, as happened following by some years, the effects of a severe heart attack suffered by President Eisenhower, who, as a result of his coronary, briefly passed the Captain's Chair of the presidency to Richard Nixon for a time. What followed that incident, several years later, somewhat precipitated also by Kennedy's assassnation, was passage and ratification if the 25th Amendment, codifying the succession of the presidency in the event of the president's removal from office, either temporary or permanent.

But to the subject at hand, shortly following WWII, in 1947, was the SCOTUS case, Everson v Board of Education, which was decided 5-4, setting the precedent of "separation of church and state," but that precdedent has never been codified by further congressional action, and stands today as mere precedent, which, though many believe it, is not the same thing as if it was codified. All it takes to change it is a separate, contrary decision by a later Court proceeding, such as happened by 2022's Dobbs. v Jackson Women's Health dismissing 1973's Roe v Wade. One of the most important citations from the Everson case is this commentary in the syllabus: “…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.” https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/the-separation-of-church-and-state--everson-v--board-of-education.html

Yet, in its present context, government has become religion's adversary. Witness the assault by government over abortion, trying to impose abortion or trans surgery on Catholic hospitals and care centers. "separation" in these instrances is hardly religion beating down the doors of government, but the reverse.

As the Democrats bend down/back further to socialism - and this includes more than just Democrats, but anyone who adheres to the belief that we are not personally responsible for our own personal thoughts, public commentary, and actions, whether legally demonstrated, or not - it should be no surprise that this segment of society has likewise bent down to an assassination culture. Don't like your opposition's thinking, pass over merely engaging in discourse to air differences. Rather, this socialism is willing to engage in assassination culture wherein character destruction is no longer sufficient. It is woke-culture to assassinate the opposition in the literal sense of that deadly term.

As a result of the dismissal of personal responsibility, literally anything goes,