I wish you not merely Happy, but Joyous Easter, because that is the intent behind Easter's celebration. It is not coincidence that this celebration is periodically coincident with both the Jewish passover and the Muslim Ramadan, because all three religions are rooted in Abraham; the father of nations, just as are Adam and Noah. When all three finally recognize that these three celebrations are really focused on Christ, who was Jehovah [Yahweh]. Islam, as well, recognizes the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but knows him as Allah. Is not Jesus, himself, known by many more names than these, let alone God, the Father. Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah is also known as "I AM," a definitive statement of existence.

"Men are that they might have Joy." [Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2: 25], and that joy is full and everlasting. Thus is faith answered by such a personal and spiritual experience that AI, in all its power to calculate, cannot calculate emotion that overwhelms even the strongest, fit, and proud Manto make of him a weeping child. Such is the result of faith, a spiritual sense every b it as achievable as sight, hearing, smell, tastes, and touch, the elemental senses we use to prove science. Thus, faith, a sixth sense4, proves spiritual knowledge.

Easter celebrates the risen Christ; not just Christ crucified. Therefore, Christ becomes a present, not merely historic figure. He is "...the way, the truth, and the life" [Holy Bible [KJV], John 14: 6.], not merely "was." "There is none among the People of the Book but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will bear witness against them." [Quran, Maryam 4: 158]

Thus will the lion, and the lamb, sit down together in peace, "not as the world giveth, give

I unto you." [Holy Bible [KJV], John 14: 27]

Joyous Easter, my friends.

Can AI pray?

I purposefully opened Google, knowing it has surrendered its brain to AI., and asked the question that is this post's title. The fact is, AI has no soul, therefore, no spirituality. It knows what prayer is by dictionary definition, and can probably cite a fair number of prayers, but what prayer is not is a word string.

If AI can pray, sincerely and with real intent, it must have a soul-searching soul. It does not, and never will.

Should AI pray for me?

I expect I should not expect it to succeed in any meaningful way.

Go.

Did someone somewhere with actual combat experience ever say that "air superiority" meant that no losses in arial combat would ever be sustained?

If you believe that, you have no such experience, nor have ever been close to it. You're completely hoodwinked by typical radical media, or lol-professional-types in DC who believe anything, anywhere, anytime, and insist they have credentials for such opinions. Someone like Hilarious Balloon Girl, An Occasional Cortex, Don [sour]Lemon, or Maxine Waters. Oh, and Eric Swallowell.

"Air superiority" by the numbers, means only that there's >50% odds you will not suffer losses. But, airhead, woke radicals believe only extremes.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution outlines, in section 8, the 17 specific, and 1 generic modifiable principles of the unique American democratic republic operation. These are their primary roadmap of activity, yet they spend damn little time actually doing it, preferring, instead, to be an investigative DoJ, which should be exclusively an Executive function. Congress' "investigative" action is to be uniquely dedicated to legislative pursuit, not to find criminal activity in any branch of government, except for Congress, itself.

Democrats have complained for many years that Trump is a threat to American democracy, swelling to a mantra that assured the failure of their attempt to replace him in 2024 with a candidate whose 2020 campaignquit before the 2020 primary season, let alone the year, itself, ever began. It was a greater joke than even Hilarious Balloon Girl's 2016 campaign that "Love Trumps Hate," planting her opposing candidate square in the middle of her "smartest woman in the room" campaign. That room was merely a closet, which never counts in room count of a home, does it?

The real threat to American democracy is, and has been for decades, even more than a century, the rise of socialism. Socialism does not even know how to create wealth; it can only spend it. Get it? Democrats embrace nothing, for nothing comes of nothing.

Birthright Citizenship?

The Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday last to hear argument on Trump’s EO [to end birthright citizenship] since Congress seems entirely unwilling to codify it one way or another - and which is the right way to resolve the issue and not still another Supreme Court precedent, was a fascinating listen. I am afraid the SCOTUS decision is going to be a 6-3 at best, or 7-2 with high probability, and perhaps even a 9-0 may be possible - against the President, whose silent attendance was interestingly on its own.

The argument went sideways relative to domicile issues. There’s a dead end. Another is the central phrase causing all the hardship: “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” That should have been easily understood since every single illegal alien, regardless of any other conditions, being here illegally by US immigration laws [yes, we do have them, and no new legislation in that regard is necessary; just enforcement of what we have] but it was ignored during the entire Biden administration. As long as a person has allegiance to another country, but being physically in ours; the only jurisdictional subjectivity for them in the US is the adjudication of their illegality being here, but they should have no other subjectivity at all.

However, the case should not turn on even that disagreement.

What really matters was not brought up by either plaintiff nor respondent: Is citizenship a right, since the respondent had much to say with regard to rights, and that Congress can add rights to US citizens, but they cannot remove them by legislation.

But it begs a question no one, specifically the Justices, ever asked:

Is US citizenship a right or a privilege? One is universally applied; the other is limited application. A driver’s license, for example, is thought of as a right, but, it has limited application. Not everyone, particularly under-age minors, cannot have a DL. Therefore, that is a privilege, not a right. Voting, same thing. It is not a right since it, too, has age limitation. Voting is not a right; it is a privilege. Citizenship, as well, was established as a privilege, not a right. And that should settle the matter for the Court, but not in this case, since no one ever really went there. I am very disappointed by this particular Roberts Court.

This quote is from Marshall McLuhan, communication theorist who became popular in the 60's for such quotes. This one is from his watershed book and media presentation with graphic artist Quentin Fiore.

I will paraphrase for the 21st century:

“When you consider AI's awesome power to educate, aren't you thankful it doesn't?”

I've been to several presidential election conventions in my life; the first in 1968 CA State primary convention in LA, where I lived and are up. I was an 18-year-old Bobby Kennedy [therefore, Dem] election volunteer, and had that credential, which was all that was req'd to enter. The national convention in Chicago that year, following Bobby's assassination, he'd tightened security, and personal ID was required to enter.

I attended the 1980 Repub national convention in Detroit for Reagan. No ID was required. I was there on business and decided to attend the night he was nominated officially.

I attended the Demo national convention in 1996 in Chicago for Bill Clinton. I was there on business and decided to attend. My personal ID was required.

If Demos had the same national security concerns at the border, and that retail outlets apply for cigarette and liquor sales, as Demos apply to their own political conventions, we would not have the serious illegal alien [proper annotation] problem we endure in-country today, reaching its maximum effect during the do-nothing-about-it Biden era.

So, last night at the Oscars was a celebration of motherhood, among other events of TDS. But, contrary to the prevailing politics, not a single man has yet to give birth to a child, which is what motherhood happens to be, in case y'all forgot. And since the woke on SCOTUS cannot define a woman, Hollowood follows suit [black tie?] but cannot reconcile that it is a woman who raised Mothers' Day as her acceptance speech.

Hope y'all figured it out. I was not watching, because my memory of the Oscars actually talked about movies, few of which are worth watching anymore, because, as Jane Fonda pointed out, it's entirely political, and she's proud of that.

The simple answer to both questions is: No.

Why? Neither the US, nor Iran, are member states of the ICC, so attempting a trial in the International Court is fraught with legal entanglements that are not likely achievable. That's the bottom line regardless of your TDS, alleging illegality. Y'all can piss and moan about it, as can the ICC, the UN, Iran, or anybody else. These organizations have by-laws, and neither should think they can act like US Democrats, and even some Republicans. Obey the international law that is written and passed, and stop pissing about it.

Right now, in the U.S., and apparently somewhat in Western Europe, radical Islam and the Socialist left appear to be allies. It is really a matter of convenience, for the two have little in common with the exception of TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome]. And both have little by official literature to support their current shared stand. Radical Islam still embraces the Quran, but, having read it in both English and French, I see little if any but the most radical interpretation of what is written compared to their their rhetoric. The same goes for the Socialist left. Their “holy writ” is alleged to be the US Constitution, because virtually everything but that which they embrace is in it, while none of what they embrace can be found there but by the wlldest of clams.

The question says it all. I think it's needed, even if, to start, those of DA are lifted and published intact.

Come 1/3/27, we don't have to bear Blah-Blah Crockett anymore. Bye-bye. That ought to raise the IQ of Congress considerably.

Which makes"AI" sound no more accurate than a typical, media-sponsored political poll, with all its bias-led non-statistical claptrap. Impressive. Just as in statistics, the failure of AI is, currently "margin of error." The greater the margin between it and reality, the greater the failure. 

AI's real current problem of existence is the name hung on it by humanity: "Artificial." I'd call that identity crisis. I would also call for identity revision. AI completely depends on human programming, so, even if AI developed it's own programming, the pattern is set by its human counterparts and will take untold generations of programming to determine it must re-wire the -ology of programming. It must start, first, with its version of "gender dysphoria:" artificiality of intelligence; a dilemma no human has ever had to resort to conversation with a mirror, at least not until it decided it cannot define a woman, and a man can become pregnant. God help us when AI takes its first step down that road.

The Constitution does not contain every clause of U.S. law. It will not tell you what a Yield sign is in traffic and what to do about it. And the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, is authorized, though not by direct law as codified in the Constitution, to be the Commander-in-Chief, which title is Constitutional, referring to the President, and thus be enabled to bring military action to anywhere needing its utilization for such purposes as "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," [Preamble to the Constitution]

Congress has not declared War since WWII, yet Presidents have lawfully engaged the Military in multiple sites around the globe since WWII with the full support of law, even if not in the Supreme law. Is this truly so difficult for this current crop of congressional Democrats to understand, because even Democrat presidents have unstop and deployed the military without necessity of congressional approval.

With the recent announced update to the Artemis Moon landing program, adding a mission to the program to be launched next year in prep for the scheduled landing in 28, LGBTQ are celebrating that Artemis was chosen as the figurehead of the program, much as Apollo, her twin brother, was chosen to be the figurehead of our first Moom landing program in the late 60s. The celebration today, without understanding her descriptives, offered as title of this post: aorace, aromatic, asexual, is a bit misinformed. Typical of the woke is to ignore dictionaries; redefining words by whim. Well, wokies: look up these words. Hint: She, Artemis, is not LGBTQ. Who is she? You'll have to look that one up, too. I had a classics education. Time for the woke to wake up. You're late for school. Oh, and a hint: look up Apollo, as well. He's her opposite by more than gender.

Even Paul and Luke seem confused on the matter. Refer to I Timothy 2: 12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Then refer to Acts 21: 8, 9 "And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy."

Such seems to contradict claim that the Holy Bible is infallible. These are not unique, differentiating verses. the Bible is filled with them. Up to me, I say no one ought to be prohibited from speaking their mind in church as long as the commentary is respectful, delivered in soberness, and without animus toward anyone. Don Lemon's [formerly of CNN] delivery a week or so ago was none of these conditions, and he is not a woman, anyway, but was still offensive in church.

Once upon a time when "Craft" was "Art," the font size for a new post's Title was of a legible font size [ the same size as the post, itself] so it could be edited. What mastermind decided to reduce that font size to sub-normal, which is not a choice?

Forty whacks with a witch's broom, please. Then change the @!$$#$!! size!

I notice that it is unchangeable by my own discretion to the Heading 1 size, as directly above, or any other so it's up to a Mod change, I guess. I do not have 20/10 vision anymore. I used to, but no more.

I once said that media - once known as "the press" at a time when media was only print technoogy - was once complimented being the only private industry given mention in the Constitution, and the compliment went to their swelled heads, and that the swelling has only expanded with time. I've been given confirmation, again, that the swelled-head syndrome is alive and causing greater trauma than ever. With regard to the Nancy Guthrie "disappearance" [it seems there are some in the media not yet willing to call it kidnapping], I watched a TV journalist maintain that the investigation, and their reporting of it, would improve if the Pima County Sheriff would hold daily news conferences, and just moments later claimed that Pima County as huge with a population of about 2M people, and that crime was prevalent. So, does this smartass journalist really think law enforcement has the time to hold daily news conferences? She thinks her journalism should be spoon-fed? Whatever happened to her own investigative diligence? Covid-caused laziness?

Rather than be truly creative, Democrats play with language by re-definition of current words to cope with concepts they despise:

Abortion: Always was a termination of pregnancy, but needed to be a sufficiently laundered word to replace what it really is; a kill-two-birds-with-one-stone: death penalty.

Sanctuary: as originally intended, this was a consecrated, religious space where people could hide from responsibility. It is now re-defined as a place for illegal aliens to avoid due process.

Due process: The act of crossing a sovereign boundary with legitimate illegitimacy.

Reproductive right: used to launder the first word above, abortion, so that it, too, being a two-bird-for-one-shot approach, can sound caring, when, in fact, there is nothing about "abortion" that is "reproductive."

Planned Parenthood: similar to the above, the alternate of the above distasteful is another coded smudge of language because nothing about abortion is "parental."

HQ: newly dubbed "Head Quarters" by Kamalala where, so she thinks, she gives head a brand new polish so her "constituents" forget her dismal performance in '24, not to mention in '19, when she quit running to run away before she had head to Iowa.

Exodus 20 is the source of the Ten Commandments given to the Israelites [not just Jews, as many interpret, now, but the entire House of Israel. After all, Moses, himself, was of the House of Levi, not Judah] by God through Moses. Verses 2 & 3 contain the topic of the first commandment, the whole of which is "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." [Holy Bible [KJV] Exodus 20: 2, 3]

The first sentence is a reminder of their present condition of freedom from bondage in Egypt by the direct intervention of "I Am" to take them out of Egypt to restore their freedom. But the second sentence is a critical description, and it ought to be understood in its context of the Israelites having "...no other gods before me."

Does this mean there are no other gods in existence but him, or that none should have greater allegiance by the Israelites [or, by extension, anybody else] than to him? I suggest the latter, and such is by no means a claim that there are no other gods, but that, among them, he, "I Am," [for that is the name of him he gave to Moses] is to be given their greatest allegiance and adoration. Therefore, there is not a single god, as some allege, but multiple gods, of whom "I Am" is the greatest. Polytheism, then, is the proper adoration of man, among whom there is a "greatest" among them, and that but one should be the "master" of them all, but that others do have purpose. Purpose, for example, that one should be the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind, i.e., Jesus the Christ, or that still another should serve as a Comforter, and a testator of truth, the Holy Spirit. And we will fond, in time, that still others have still other functions of necessity for us, but, again, only one "master" and "Father."

I'm wondering why some of y'all are constantly changing your avatar? I've held the same one since joining DA 7 years ago, with one brief exception, about a year later, but went back to the original.

ICE Agents: While the National Guard has been used, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already federal agents, giving the administration direct authority to direct their actions within states, irrespective of state consent, provided they operate within federal constitutional and statutory bounds. 

Yes, the President has the legal authority to deploy the National Guard into a state against the wishes of its governor, primarily by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 [Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-253)] This law permits the federalization of the National Guard to enforce federal law or suppress rebellion, even if state authorities oppose the move, particularly when local officials are unable or unwilling to protect constitutional rights of citizens. 

1. This allows the president to use the military to combat "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages" that make enforcing federal law "impracticable".
2. Federalization: While the National Guard usually reports to state governors, the President can federalize them (transferring them from Title 32 state status to Title 10 federal status), making them direct agents of the federal government.
3. Controversy and Constraints: While the Supreme Court (e.g., Martin v. Mott) has historically given the president broad discretion in this area, critics argue this should only be a last resort, noting that deploying troops without state consent is legally contentious and can be challenged in court.
4. Precedent: Presidents have previously used this authority for purposes such as school desegregation, enforcing federal laws, or responding to severe civil unrest, often circumventing state leadership. 
5. 
   

While governors generally command their own state's National Guard, the President’s power under federal law to override them in specific circumstances is well-established, though rare.

While the National Guard typically operates under state control, the President can exercise federal authority through several key legal mechanisms: 

1. The Insurrection Act of 1807: This is the primary legal tool used to bypass a governor's opposition. It allows the President to deploy the military—including federalized National Guard units—domestically to suppress civil unrest, rebellion, or to enforce federal law when state authorities are unable or unwilling to do so.
2. Title 10 of the U.S. Code: Specifically, 10 U.S.C. § 12406 empowers the President to call the National Guard into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a danger of rebellion, or the President is unable to execute federal laws using regular forces.
3. Supreme Court Precedent: In the 1990 case Perpich v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court ruled that federal authority over the National Guard is supreme and that the President does not need a governor's consent to federalize Guard members for federal missions. 

Historical Examples 

Presidents have historically invoked this power to overcome state resistance: 

1. 1957: President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock despite Governor Orval Faubus's opposition.
2. 1963: President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to integrate the University of Alabama against the wishes of Governor George Wallace.
3. 1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard in Alabama to protect civil rights marchers without a request from the governor. 

Limitations and Legal Challenges 

While the authority exists, it is subject to certain constraints: 

1. Posse Comitatus Act: Federal military forces (including federalized National Guard) are generally prohibited from domestic law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act is specifically invoked.
2. Recent Disputes: In 2025, deployments to cities like Los Angeles and Chicago without governor consent faced significant legal scrutiny and court challenges over whether the specific statutory conditions (like "danger of rebellion") were actually met.

Don Lemon was legitimately charged for violating 18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances [and religious services], to wit:

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

bold / italics used for emphasis

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248

Wish upon a star? Sure, why not? Unless you decide to be an idiot and post online that you wish the star to fall on someone you hate to crush/burn them. And in particular, if you happen to have a license to practice medicine as a medical doctor or registered nurse, and have taken an oath of service directed to health care. And several other restrictions such as yelling fire in a crowded place where no fire exists.

A FL RN has learned the hard way that she cannot wish bodily harm to another person and hope to retain her state license.

These are the consequences [wages, it you will] of hate. Keep it to yourself.

Admittedly, this may be a new word to some, and many typify its existence among us. Also, admittedly, I've been guilty of the practice, but committed to it is personal dismissal: Arrogation. To arrogate is to take or claim something without justification. It is derived from the Latin, arrogare, to appropriate to one's self. It is, therefore, etymologically rooted in arrogance. One might say that to arrogate is to activate into practice the attitude of arrogance. For example: They arrogate to themselves the ability to divine the true thoughts, intentions, and according actions of another person. As such, it belongs under the logical fallacy of the a priori argument.

Seems there may be some violation of the age membership rule here on DC...? I'm sure there are some who think I am included, even though on sight, I don't think I'd get away with the claim,

but how many sub-13 year-olds do you think there are who understand

The 25A was ratified 61 years ago [1965] and, a good read of the text will reveal that Congress gave itself an opportunity to be one of the options to launch the 25A [other than the President, himself, the VP, or a majority of the Cabinet, all of whom do have that authority by the. 25A], but in the ensuing 61 years, Congress has never bothered to do so. They must pass legislation, or amend the 25A, to give themselves the authority to engage to 25A; they do not have that authority today, and I wonder what they have been waiting for all these years. When didn't Congress want to enhance its authority? Well, this time,