Kyrie eleison

If Trump can attend the Mass of consecration of the altar of Notre-Dame de Paris without the flesh melting from his bones, perhaps there really is no hope.

Vox Veritatis is on extended leave.

 

-- Diogenes, 12/10/24

Bring in the Clowns, Part 2b

My friends, I thank you for your good wishes and for your forbearance concerning the lapse of days between posts. Life just will intrude on the important stuff.

Now onward to the second half of the Clown Cabinet. We left off with Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the Clown-in-Chief's pick for secretary of Labor. Next:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services. I have found it very difficult to retain even a semblance of objectivity regarding this nomination. Part of the days-long delay of this part has been due to my waffling on it, and particularly trying to decide to go long or go short.

This is short:

Kennedy has a solid record as an environmental attorney who has won several cases against large corporations for polluting, endangering marine life, and for using destructive mining practices. He opposes coal-fired power plants, but conversely is also opposed to alternative forms of energy generation, having successfully fought against hydroelectric dams and wind farms, and brought about the closure of a nuclear power generation station in New York. One might wonder why he wasn't tapped for Interior or Agriculture.

The reason is because he's a wing nut when it comes to human health. He did all the environmental stuff as a Democrat.

During the COVID crisis Kennedy promoted the use of the quack drug Ivermectin and published a number of articles containing disinformation about vaccine safety.

And he has besmirched his family's legacy by cuddling up to Trump. CQ 95%

Scott Turner, HUD: Turner is a former NFL player turned politician. He worked in Trump's first term as executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council. HUD is no stranger to massive budget cuts, and it is a target in Trump's spending-reduction drive. At a time when the cost of even modest homes is beyond the reach of nearly half of Americans,¹ HUD's role of helping Americans get into and stay in their homes is exceptionally important.

Turner is an associate pastor in his church, and religion plays a large role in his life. Caught between American homeowners' need for support and his boss' desire to slash and burn departmental budgets Turner may need to lean hard into his faith. CQ 25%

Sean Duffy, Transportation: Former Fox News presenter. Automatic CQ 100%.

Chris Wright, Energy: Now here's a change. Wright has degrees from MIT and some study at UC Berkeley. He is CEO of Liberty Energy, a large fracking company. He has been labeled a climate change denier, but an article in Forbes² notes that he has publicly stated his belief that carbon dioxide, which scientists consider to be the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities, is in fact a greenhouse gas. (The Trump camp maintains that humans bear no responsibility for climate change.)

Wright has been clear in his promotion of nuclear energy, and he is invested in plants that build reactors. He is an intelligent candidate with well founded positions. But we have to wonder what will happen to his ideas once he moves into government. His opinions have changed in the past, but he does not seem to be tied slavishly to Trump ideas. CQ 45%.

Linda McMahon, Education: Given the Clown-in-Chief's antipathy to the Department of Education, it's surprising he even bothered to nominate anyone--and that anyone would accept the nomination. But such is the lust for power in Clown City.

In his announcement of McMahon's nomination, Trump shouted out his all-caps education mantra, "bring education back to the states." Just to soothe my fellow grammarians, I know the verb in that sentence should be "send" rather than "bring," but it's moot anyway. Public education is already administered by the states. 

McMahon's work history barely touches directly on education. She spent a year on the Connecticut State Board of Education and is a major donor to Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut. She also supports a number of charitable organizations.

The largest chunk of McMahon's history and ongoing work belongs to her position as co-founder (with her husband Vince) and CEO of Titan Sports Inc., the parent of the World Wrestling Foundation and World Wrestling Entertainment. She is likely a DEI hire to entertain all those Manly MAGA Men.

It has been suggested that Trump and McMahon will focus on bringing about changed to American higher education.  That's hardly surprising, given the C-i-C's dislike of higher ed. It's an open question whether Trump actually owns a post-secondary degree, and there are all those people out there who have something he doesn't and can't get. But I digress . . .

McMahon is an unknown at this point, as is her plan for education. CQ 50%.

Doug Collins, Veterans' Affairs: Collins is genuinely a mixed bag: lawyer, minister, politician, business owner, hazardous materials safety products salesman, Air Force Reserve chaplain. 

As a Republican member of the Georgia House from 2007 to 2013 and the U. S. House from 2013 to 2021 he has hardly followed a Christian path. He is against abortion but for capital punishment; received high marks from the NRA and a failing grade from NORML; he is against all aspects of LGBTQ; is opposed to the Affordable Care Act; is a climate change denier; signed the Republican amicus brief supporting a case brought by Texas trying to get the Supreme Court to set aside the 2020 election.

Isn't that enough? CQ 95%.

Kristi Noem, Homeland Security: Really? She is the governor of South Dakota and the bozo who approved having hundreds of thousands of anti-masking bikers invade Sturgeon in the midst of the COVID plague, ultimately leading to hundreds of cases and an unknown number of deaths.³ And she's going to lead a department that numbers about a quarter the population of her entire state? That includes armed services?

Noem's action so alarmed the indigenous nations of South Dakota that several of them banned her from their lands during the rally and blocked roads that rally-goers might use to cross their lands. As of this date all South Dakota's indigenous nations have declared Noem persona non grata.

South Dakota's original inhabitants don't want her, and neither do we. CQ 95%.

Rather than extend this after so long a delay in getting it out, I'm going to stop here and do all the follow-up in the next part.

--Diogenes, 12/4/24

 

¹ National Association of Home Builders: "Nearly Half of U.S. Households Can’t Afford a $250,000 Home," 5/17/24. https://www.nahb.org/blog/2024/05/housing-affordability-pyramid

² "Fracker Chris Wright, Trump’s Energy Pick, Isn’t A Climate Denier–He’s A Pragmatist," Forbes, 11/19/24.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2024/11/19/fracker-chris-wright-trumps-energy-pick-isnt-a-climate-denierhes-a-pragmatist/

³ "South Dakota Covid cases quintuple after Sturgis motorcycle rally," NBC, 8/25/2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/south-dakota-covid-cases-quintuple-after-sturgis-motorcycle-rally-n1277567

 

  

 

Bring In The Clowns, Part 2a

In our former post we presented a roster of individuals who Donald Trump has presented as candidates for the Cabinet and other high offices.

Here they are again, in order of their departments' seniority:

• State: Marco Rubio
• Treasury: Scott Bessent
• Defense: Pete Hegseth
• Attorney General: Pam Bondi
• Interior: Doug Burgum
• Agriculture: Brooke Rollins
• Commerce: Howard Lutnick
• Labor: Lori Chavez-DeRemer
• Health & Human Services: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
• Housing & Urban Development: Scott Turner
• Transportation: Sean Duffy
• Energy: Chris Wright
• Education: Linda McMahon
• Veterans' Affairs: Doug Collins
• Homeland Security: Kristi Noem

I'll remind you, loyal readers, that we here at Vox Veritatis are not news reporters. We report and opine on the news post facto. You can find lengthy bios of all these people all over the Internet. We are simply reporting on their Clown Quotient. Were we too severe in calling them clowns? Are they just simple minions? Let's see:

Marco Rubio: First-generation American born in Miami to Cuban immigrants; has been taken to court at least once for not being a natural-born American; the case was dismissed. Since at least 2010 he has waffled on immigration policy; misstated the circumstances of his immigration to the U.S.; and not mentioned that his grandfather worked in the Treasury ministry during Castro's reign. Clown Quotient 60%.

Scott Bessant: Billionaire, hedge fund manager, long-time Trump friend and supporter, openly gay and married. DEI pick? CQ 50%.

Pete Hegseth: Former Fox News personality. Automatic CQ 100%.

Pam Bondi: Former Florida AG who has promised to go after other prosecutors who have brought Trump up on charges. Election denier, deep state believer. CQ 90%.

Doug Burgum: ND governor. Successful as an honest businessman with solid high-tech cred. Supports CO₂ sequestration. Anti-choice, anti-trans, pro-gun, co-creator of American Governors' Border Strike Force--has deployed ND National Guard to Texas to bolster wall "defense." CQ 85%.

Brooke Rollins: A Texas attorney who seems to have her heart in the right place, but who has been associated with questionable enterprises like Trump's United States Domestic Policy Council, a major player in Project 2025.  CQ 75%.

Howard Lutnick: Billionaire who has survived a tough life, being orphaned, losing virtually his entire company in 9/11. Despite being a strong Trump follower he financially supports several good works and institutions. Also believes in cryptocurrency and supports tariffs, which he doesn't seem to understand any better than Trump. CQ 65%.

Lori Chavez-DeRemer: Lives in Happy Valley, OR. (Irrelevant, but I couldn't resist). A U.S. representative from Oregon since 2022, Chavez-DeRemer bills herself as an independent thinker and may actually have some knowledge of her Cabinet post, unlike most of her colleagues. CQ 40%.

I do hope you'll forgive me, but I have to be elsewhere soon, so I'll need to complete the CQ list on Friday. I dislike leaving things half done, but needs must.

-- Diogenes, 11/27/24

 

To anyone who has been receiving these posts via email, I am sorry, but Blogger no longer has a means of sending batched emails. You can find posts on Facebook and X.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bring In The Clowns, Part 1

 It may be a generational thing, but I cannot understand anyone being scared of a clown. 

What is it exactly that triggers panic in coulrophobes? Is it the makeup that turns faces into oversize parodies of the human visage? Or the strange costumes, sometimes mimicking everyday clothing, sometimes so strangely organized as to seem otherworldly?

Assuredly one could see far more shocking scenes in any number of motion pictures and television shows. Consider any film or program about zombies: there we have grotesque makeup and ragged clothing, yet no one runs screaming from the theater or dives behind the couch when they come on the screen.

Is it the matter of perceived violence in the slapstick, the pratfall, or the pistol that shoots out a "Bang!" flag? Again, what of the material that has entertained generations? The Three Stooges, perhaps, or the venerable Road Runner,  developed in 1948 and still going strong. The image of Wile E. Coyote meeting disaster never fails to draw a laugh from audiences, even though in reality the gags would result in severe injuries or death.

Or is it simply the matter that real clowns, from their ridiculous wigs right down to their outsize shoes, are in the same space we inhabit? Depending on our seat in the auditorium or tent we might be able to reach out and touch them--or more terrible for the clown-fearing members of the audience, they could reach out and touch us.

I will probably never understand coulrophobia, but there are some clowns I do fear: the despicable band of fools that Trump claims to want in his cabinet and other high offices.

In his own twisted notion of government there may be a weird logic to Trump's selections. As a transactional, lucre-driven being he of course puts great store in the long-discredited spoils system, whereby government offices are awarded on the basis of party--or in this case cult--loyalty, rather than on merit, talent, or experience.

We all know that Trump craves approval and fawning praise, and the individuals he has selected for the highest offices in government are among the most shameless toadies, stooges, and sycophants in his orbit.

The current roster of clowns is: Scott Bessent, Pam Bondi, Doug Burgum, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Doug Collins, Sean Duffy, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth,  Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Howard Lutnick, Linda McMahon, Kristi Noem, John Ratcliffe, Brooke Rollins, Marco Rubio, Scott Turner, Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin.

And who are they?

Stay tuned.

--Diogenes, 11/26/24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome, again

 Because we've been mostly silent for the last four years, it occurred to me that reposting the original welcome message might be helpful:

 "This is the inaugural post of Vox Populi. It's rather a trite name--there are other blogs and sites with the same name. Still, I've chosen the name not because of the classical aphorism "Vox populi vox dei" ("The voice of the people is the voice of God"), but for the two words alone. 

I hope to offer a voice, even if it's one crying in the wilderness, for people who feel the outcome of the 2016 election, while it may have been legal and proper, was wrong. I have an image of the U. S. Constitution here because it is the true voice of the people of this country. No one should ever forget or overlook that point.

My choice of the blog name Diogenes--the legendary seeker of truth--is likewise not particularly original. But I'm not trying to be cute or original here. I believe deeply that the election of Donald Trump as president has brought this country to a dangerous juncture. The old advice to never trust a politician now extends to the highest level; and where and what the truth is and from whom it comes are open questions. Welcome, seekers of truth."

And truth, as it turns out, is where we begin again. In fact we've changed our name, from Vox Popoli to Vox Veritatis because we think the truth needs us more than the people do. 

We learned during Trump's first term that Donald Trump has no use for the truth. So we shall be its voice.

As he has aged and as his mental state has apparently started to decay, Trump's core has begun to show; it is ugly and rotten and putrid and corrupt and putrescent,  feculent, and noisome.

And dangerous.

Dangerous because somewhere in that addled brain he surely knows that he is old and that death is stalking him, and that he can't outrun, outbluff, or flimflam the Grim Reaper. And he hates it.

So welcome then again my friends, to the show that never ends . . . come and see the show . . . see the show . . . see the show.

--Diogenes, 11/22/24

 

Do The Right Thing

 An open letter to American voters:

My grandfather once said that he always voted for the best man for the job, and the best man was always a Republican.

I expect that many of us vote the same way, following the party line just as our ancestors did. For some it is an ingrained habit, and we mark our ballots automatically, without much thought.

If you are a Republican I urge you to break that habit, at least for the upcoming election.

Before you check the box or pull the lever for Donald Trump, ask yourself the following questions:

Do you truly want to appoint a man commander in chief of the armed forces who disrespects members of the services, both dead and alive, calling them “losers” and “suckers,” and who has said he will turn troops against the American people?

The next president may have the opportunity to nominate at least three new Supreme Court justices who could serve for decades. If Trump is that president he will see to it that the court locks in his reactionary policies against women.

Do you really want your daughters and granddaughters to be subject to that persecution? Do you genuinely want as president a man who violated his oath to protect the Constitution numerous times, and has even suggested the Constitution—the cornerstone and anchor of our democracy—should be overturned?

Are you 100 percent certain that you want a man who lusts after power at any price, glorifies tyrants, and who sent a mob to attack Congress, to have access to America’s nuclear arsenal?

If you can answer “no” to just one of these questions follow your conscience and vote for Kamala Harris. America has always been great, and continues to be. Let’s keep it so.

-- Diogenes, 28 October 2024

 

 

What Does Colorado Mean?

The Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, as the current taste for acronyms would have it, has unsurprisingly decided that neither the state of Colorado nor any other state may ban any seeker of federal office from an election ballot.¹

I here reverse my comments on the case in a previous post and say this is a good and right decision.

No matter how he or his supporters spin it, this is emphatically NOT a win for Trump except in the most tangential sense. Nor does it in any way excuse Trump's participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, and it does not suggest that that event was not an insurrection.

What it is, is a win for the polity that is the United States of America, emphasis on United, and for the American people.

Why, in the first paragraph, did I say this decision was unsurprising? I say that based on the oral arguments² for the case. I'll admit I haven't plowed through all 140 pages of that document--please do, if you have the stamina--but the trend of the justices' questions strongly suggested they would be looking at the role, if any, that individual states can play in national elections. It occurred to me at the time that the overarching consideration the justices had was that all voters in all states have the opportunity to vote for candidates of their choice. Today's decision has assured continuation of the universal suffrage the United States is known for.

Given the downright wackiness of some decisions in recent years, this one was refreshingly commonsensical. The Court's reasoning is straightforward but wordy. Allow me to paraphrase: If any state is allowed unilaterally to remove a person from a ballot for federal office, the residents of that state who might have voted for the excised candidate are effectively disenfranchised and the election itself is invalidated as a national contest since not all eligible voters in all states could cast votes as they wished. The decision further clarifies the rather murky final part of Section 3 of Amendment XIV by determining that only Congress holds the power to remove a federal-office seeker from the federal ballot, and that the decision would be effective equally in all states. Finally, the decision avoids discussion of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, leaving open the possibility of future litigation of the matter.

While states are prohibited from removing valid candidates for federal office from ballots they may still disqualify candidates for state offices.

The decision is clear and well written. While passed unanimously the it has individual non-dissenting opinions by Justices Barrett, Kagan, Jackson and Sotomayor attached. Anyone interested in the Court's internal relationships might find them interesting.

---Diogenes, 4 March 2024

¹ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23

² https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2023

These references are to the Supreme Court's website. Cases from this year's term have not yet been published in U. S. Reports, the publication of final record.

On cults and brainwashing

Among my guilty pleasures is the enjoyment of science fiction and fantasy literature. I have been an avid reader of such material at least since I was 12. At that age I was thrilled by the written depictions of imaginary planets and civilizations and the heroic actions taken by adventurers of the Buck Rogers ilk. I still admire such invention but I also enjoy finding subtexts that my adolescent self would probably have missed.

Recently in the midst of a story of the swashbuckling sort I was pleasantly surprised to find an excellent elucidation of cult behavior. I have no doubt it was inspired by the credulity of people who still against all reason believe Donald Trump to be an honest person and viable candidate for political office. 

In the book's context the cultists are a race of people who believe themselves to be inherently superior to all others, hence the reference to a "superiority obsession." I've not edited the selection below lest I be criticized for twisting the author's intention to fit my own purpose. But replace the phrase "superiority obsession" with any name or political idea and you have a handy, virtually universal explication of how cults work:

Like any cult, the doctrine seemed transparently foolish from the outside, the ideology crumbling at the first sign of critical thought. Their superiority obsession was clearly nonsensical, falling apart when contrasted with almost any information not sourced from their own insular community. But to those born and raised in a cult, or who had found something in it that filled a deep need, the incongruities didn't matter. They had been primed from the beginning to ignore the lies of outsiders, however compelling they might seem. But when they were forced to confront those problems, they did not rationally accept what the outsiders saw as logical, self-evident conclusions. They got angry and they got violent.¹

In previous posts I have cited George Orwell's concept of doublethink in an attempt to make sense of how educated and/or high-placed individuals could be taken in by Trump's lies. I am beginning to think I might have been engaging in some unconscious apologia, trying to explain to myself how seemingly intelligent people could have been taken in.

If so, I was deluding myself. Deverell's flat comment, "the incongruities didn't matter," hits the nail far more precisely. His final words about cultists getting mad and violent when challenged are true to the Trumpian and Republican form. 

The Trump disease disallows conversation in favor of bullying, badgering and intimidation, and debate in favor of deceit, inveigling and obfuscation. Trump is incapable of engaging in discourse; his language skills and behavior are stalled at a grade school level. When challenged he walks away or attacks. He calls his opponents names and uses foul language and obscene phrases to insult and belittle them.

It is beyond reason and belief that a sizeable body of Americans have come to find this behavior acceptable in a public figure. There is a word for it: brainwashing. Democrats and the media need to begin using it.

Brainwashing allows for no deviation--it is Trump's way or the highway, and no one who has drunk the Trump Kool-Aid is going to choose the highway.

As I was writing this, a three-judge federal appeals panel ruled that Trump has no immunity from prosecution for his insurrection-related actions of Jan. 6, 2021. This will almost certainly not be the final word from the courts as the case lurches forward, but each decision against Trump is a chink in his wall of perceived impregnability.

Today, 8 February, a date which may or may not be added to the infamous dates in the Supreme Court annals, the justices are hearing arguments in the so-called Fourteenth Amendment case. As I am sure you know, the states of Colorado and Maine have ruled that Donald Trump's name will not appear on their ballots in the November general election. The Colorado case is the one before the Court.

The case is being played up in the media by pundits and "experts" as excessively complicated. Having a simple mind, however, I have determined that the argument for the case can be reduced to a simple statement.

The writer of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment went to some lengths to name the kinds of people who might be banned from elections due to participation in an insurrection. No list of anything is truly exhaustive, and the list of banned persons has to be understood for what it is: a set of examples of the types of people who could be banned from holding office; not a complete list of all such persons.

In fact, Section 3 can be reduced to a simple declarative sentence by removing the flowery language and lists of examples. Here is its core language:

No person shall . . . hold any office . . . under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.²

There it is: simple, straightforward and unambiguous.

If the justices of the Supreme Court can dredge up some of their misplaced honor and recall their sworn duty to the constitution and the American people, Colorado, and by extension the rest of us, will prevail.

--- Diogenes, 8 February 2024

¹ Deverell, Travis, aka Shirtaloon, He Who Fights with Monsters, Book 9, pp. 620-622. 2023, Aethon Books, www.aethonbooks.com.

² The full text of the Constitution and amendments is at https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs.

Words, words, words

The verbiage used by the media recently in announcing Trump's first place finish in the Iowa caucuses called to mind a humorous piece I read many years ago in a popular publication.

The writer posited a contest among sports journalists as to which of them could use the most colorful and nonrepetitive language to describe the progress of a football game and its outcome. I'm sorry I don't recall where it was published, because it was a hoot. I do remember descriptions of play-by-play announcers thumbing through thesauruses on air, with hilarious mispronunciations, and newspaper writers badgering their colleagues in the newsroom for just one more synonym or non-English term for "won:" "Come on, what is it in Russian? Wonsky?"

Sports journalists and their political counterparts may not seem at first blush to have much in common, but consider this: Both groups cover intensely played contests, and game theory tells us that the strategy used in sports contests is closely related to the strategy of political campaigns. So is the vocabulary used to describe them.

A quick scan of news feeds following the Iowa caucuses--some filed scandalously soon after the meetings were called to order--finds landslide, commanding, resounding, decisive, record smashing, stunning--need I continue?

Can you say hyperbole, Donny Boy?

Let's keep this in perspective. We're not talking about an actual election, but a contest for sufficient electoral points to be declared the Republican candidate for president. Here are the facts:

1. Only registered Republicans could participate in the caucuses;

2. There are approximately 752,200¹ registered Republicans in the state of Iowa;

3. Only about 110,298, or 15% of registered Republicans, participated in the caucuses;

4. Trump garnered about 51% of votes cast, or slightly more than 56,252;

5. About 7.5% of Iowan Republicans voted for Trump; 92.5% did not;

6. Eighty-five percent of Iowa Republicans, almost 642,000, chose not to vote for anyone;

7. And all those powerful words up top? Just so much fluff. Percentages do count, and we have to acknowledge that Iowa's vote at the Republican convention will likely go to Trump, but

8. Getting votes from only seven and a half percent of your base does not a landslide make.

The New Hampshire primary coming up on Tuesday should be interesting. There are about 267,905² registered Republicans in the state, and more than 340,000 independents, who are allowed to vote Republican or Democrat in the primary. That's a sizeable X factor that could well decide which way the state turns this year.

Will the flinty, winter-hardened Granite Staters come out in strength and kick Donny Trump's well-padded ass back to Mar-a-Lago, showing him to be the loser we all know he is?

We can only hope.

--- Diogenes, 21 January 2024

¹ The Des Moines Register, 1/17/2024: "Iowa Caucuses drew 15% of state's registered Republicans. Why the lower turnout?" https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2024/01/16/iowa-caucus-turnout-registered-republicans-15-percent-cold-weather-snow-donald-trump-expectations/72067396007/

² WMUR-TV, Manchester, NH; "Most New Hampshire voters are registered as undeclared, latest data shows," 1/15/24. https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-undeclared-republican-democrat-voter/46398747#

 

Just Another Slob

There is nothing special about Donald John Trump.

He is, and has been since January 20, 2021, a private United States citizen. He is an obscenely wealthy private citizen, but that is all he is--just another number in the approximately 340 million souls who make up this nation.

All of us--every individual in that batch of 340 million people who call themselves Americans--are governed by one set of laws.

I'll say that again because some people just don't seem to get it. Every person who claims citizenship in the United States is subject to one body of law.

And just one more time for the truly thick: No one, including Donald John Trump, is governed by any special body of law. We're all under the same laws and are all subject to the same punishments if we violate those laws, which are grounded in the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Trump is no different. He may be able to hire hundreds of expensive attorneys, but they all answer to the same law as the youngest and poorest public defender. 

When Trump is found guilty, as he will be, he will face the same punishment and will go to the same prison as the poorest defendants.

In Joan Osborne's eloquent phraseology, Trump is "just a slob like one of us."

Go back up a few lines and note again that the laws of this country are anchored in its Constitution. Then think back to Trump's several attempts to weaken or disable the Constitution during his presidency, and his last, most risky and egregiously illegal act: the insurrection of January 6, 2021, which he planned, orchestrated, and cheered while watching it unfold on television in the White House.

The goal of that insurrection was to overthrow the Constitution. Why does Trump want to do away with the Constitution? Very simple: so he can establish a separate set of laws that will apply only to him, which would probably outlaw democracy and make him president for life.

Think about that. I mean, really think about it for some period of time. 

Think what such a condition would mean to you, your job, your family, your church, your kids' schools, and everything else of importance to you. 

Read the Constitution, including the Amendments and imagine life without them. 

You may complain about politicians, but consider life without them, as attractive as that may seem. Not only no Congress, but very likely no state legislatures. Probably no councils in the larger cities.

Then think about the big one: You would have no voice.

You may be a white man who dreams of such a situation, imagining how you and your buddies would be empowered to do anything you want to anyone you don't like.

Think again, Bubba.

No rights for anybody. Period.

Think about it.

--- Diogenes, 13 August 2023