Breaking Fake News Update (v2)

 Fake News Broke on August 8, 2025!

This news broke after MAGA Reps. Elise Stefanik and Nick Langworthy wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on August 6th, telling him to do something about the wildfires burning in his country and causing smoke issues for New Yorkers. The letter stated

The scale and severity of these fires continue to raise concerns about forest mismanagement and lack of effective deterrence of human-caused fire.

No word on Carney's response, but the fake news response was quick, and we're grateful to Rawanda for taking these two pesky representatives on with the next planeload of undocumented immigrants the US is shipping there.

We'll continue to share fake news as it breaks.

Wondering on Wednesday 11/13/24

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

It's been a while since I've published my mid-week Wonderings, but today seems like as good a time as any to get back in the saddle. Let's dive in!

Our once and future president (OAFP) visited the White House today to shake hands with President Joe Biden. Current presidents welcoming incoming presidents is all about putting our best feet forward and letting the country know there'll be a smooth transition between administrations. 

I don't wonder, at all, why Biden invited the guy to stop by, even though he was denied the same courtesy four years ago. After all, one of these men is a decent human being, and the other threw paper towels to hurricane victims he didn't even know were Americans. 

Why the OAFP showed up is open to question. I doubt he cares about the transition; I'm sure it was for the cameras, and nothing else. I wonder if we'll see him selling trading cards of him standing over Biden during their handshake. 

Speaking of a smooth transition, Congress passed The Presidential Transition Enhancement Act a while back; the law requires the Democrat and Republican nominees to submit, no later than October 1st of a presidential election year, Memorandums of Understanding with the government related to transition activities, including 

(1) ...an agreement that the eligible candidate will implement and enforce an ethics plan to guide the conduct of the transition beginning on the date on which the eligible candidate becomes the President-elect.

47's team has yet to sign the overdue documents, so while the OAFP is busy lining up his minions, no official transition stuff can happen. If you're wondering what the holdup is, reports point to the ethics requirements. Shocked? I didn't think so. 

Speaking of minions, the joke is he doesn't have a Cabinet, he has a junk drawer, so there's no wonder it's shaping up to be a doozy:

• NY Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has been tapped to be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.  She's not known for her reasonable, even-tempered demeanor, and she's made a name for herself in two ways: her unwavering attacks on anyone who speaks ill of Israel and/or supports Palestinians, and for sucking up to Trump. 

• Another New Yorker, former Congressman Lee Zeldin, has been tapped to head the Environmental Protection Agency. His most notable qualification for this role, it seems, is his 14% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters. 

• Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is Trump's pick for Ambassador to Isreal. The first non-Jew to be chosen for this role, he believes that there's no such thing as 'the West Bank' and said that "of course" the annexation of that land is a possibility under the new administration.

• Fox News host (and husband of another Fox News host) Pete Hegseth has been picked to be the new Secretary of Defense. Now, he's not completely without qualification for the role - he is a veteran, after all. And he's got more than a passing familiarity with weapons of war, like these aromatic grenades.  How much of a shock was this, you might be wondering? Well, even his cohost was stunned. 

• Ethically challenged Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz has just been picked to be the Attorney General. This is so absurd, the only thing I'm wondering is if Rep. Jim Jordan turned it down first. 

• Also joining the administration from Florida are Secretary of State pick Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Mike Waltz, who's been chosen to be National Security Advisor.

• And moments ago, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who's also a former Democrat and a big friend of Russia, was tapped to be the Director of National Security.  

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.  If this first round of appointments is indicative of what's to come, I can't help wondering whether our allies are laughing or crying right now.

On the plus side? Most of these appointments will require the advice and consent of the Senate. But there's a catch here, that the OAFP is already lobbying for: recess appointments. Given the Rs are now in control of the Senate,  it seems unnecessary - and contrary to the principle of the Legislative branch being separate from but equal to the Executive.

Other presidents have used this mechanism to get stalled appointments through, but the OAFP seems to be plotting to have this be the rule, not the exception, even demanding that whoever became the new Senate Majority Leader had to agree to this foolishness.  I wonder if all the voters who thought they were electing someone who 'believed in the Constitution' had any idea who they really voted for? 

Speaking of the Senate Majority Leader, say hello to Sen. John Thune, the gentleman from South Dakota. He might be the most reasonable announcement of the day.

What's got you wondering these days?

Wondering on Wednesday 1/3/24

It's been a minute since I last 'officially' wondered on a Wednesday, but there's no time like a new year to jump back into the fray. 

Perhaps today, maybe even before I finish this post, part or all of Jeffrey Epstein's 'list' will be released.  The list contains names that were included but redacted in court documents. Among the folks whose names are expected? Former President Bill Clinton, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Britain's Prince Andrew, former president Donald Trump, and one-time Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz, if media reports are correct. 

To my knowledge, only one of those folks has suggested that he'd date his daughter, if only she weren't his daughter, and was accused of raping a thirteen-year-old child. But he's not the one who's getting the most attention here... I wonder why that is?

Also rumored to be on the list? Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, according to noted conspiracy theorist Aaron Rodgers. I'm not exactly sure where Rodgers got his information, and Kimmel has vigorously denied the accusation. When I think of Rogers and conspiracy theories, the one I've wondered about is how he managed to get hurt on the first play of his first game with the NY Jets, and still collect his full salary. 

Harvard president Claudine Gay has tendered her resignation, making her the shortest-tenured president in the school's history. She's had a tough go of it since Rep. Elise Stefanik (MAGA-NY) attacked Gay and two other female college presidents over allegations that they did not sufficiently protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism in the aftermath of the horrific Hamas terrorist attack in Israel last October. Gay is the second to resign; Penn's Liz Magill did so in December. 

Stefanik, a Harvard alum, seems an odd choice to lead the attack on this issue, given her use of 'replacement theory' rhetoric in campaign ads, and her strong support of Trump, who recently spoke of immigrants poisoning the blood of our country. Both of those themes, of course, can be tied back to Nazi Germany. I have to wonder how she ignores that connection, and then attacks others for not doing enough to protect Jews.

Speaking of ignoring things, there was lots of chatter about Ambassagov Nikki Haley (Running in 5-inch heels -SC) and her 'gaffe' at a town hall in New Hampshire, where she said that the cause of the Civil War

was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. 

This was after she took a deep breath and suggested that it wasn't an easy question. But here's the thing many in the media missed, which is what I'm wondering about:  this is not the first time she's given this kind of answer. Back in 2010, when she was running for governor of the first state to secede from the Union, she said one side was fighting for tradition and the other side was fighting for change.  

Folks, that's not a gaffe - it's a mindset. And it's perfectly OK for the media to call a spade a spade, especially when a person's standing in a garden holding one by the handle.

Finally, wonder with me as I meander through some of the reasons states shouldn't be allowed to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. 

• There's the argument that, while an insurrectionist is not qualified to hold office, there's no reason why an insurrectionist can't run and win. Now, I don't know for sure why anyone would want to allow a candidate who's not eligible to serve to participate. I mean, Trump himself went to great lengths to convince Americans that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president due to him having a funny name not being a natural-born American... can you imagine Trump allowing an insurrectionist Obama to be on any ballot? 

• There's the argument that the 14th Amendment's Section 3 - the 'Disqualification Clause' - was put in because we needed to keep secessionists out of office, and it "hasn't been used since then," so why would it apply now since the Civil War has nothing to do with what's happening today?  I'm sure folks would be shocked - shocked, I say - to learn that in 2022, a New Mexico judge removed one of the state's county commissioners for participating in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol. 

• There's the argument that Trump hasn't been charged, tried, or convicted of insurrection, so you can't disqualify him. Except that the disqualification clause doesn't require charges, a trial, or a conviction. We certainly shouldn't be putting words into the mouths of the folks who wrote the Amendment, should we? And, there's the little matter of a Colorado district court judge who determined that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th. That judge stopped short of banning Trump from the ballot, and the state's Supreme Court overturned that part of his decision. 

• Finally, there's the argument that Trump can't be held accountable because we need to prevent a civil war - what a bunch of hooey! We cannot use the threat of danger - especially when that threat has been suggested by you-know-who and his MAGA minions - to allow the Constitution to be tossed aside. And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself what Trump would be saying right now if any of his opponents had done what he did and were trying to stay on the ballot. There's no need to wonder about that, at all - he'd be suing to block them from every ballot in the country. 

I'd forgotten how good it felt to get this stuff out of my head... what are you wondering about?

In Case You Missed It (v104)

Another light week of posts, in an overwhelmingly heavy week of news, conspiracies and threats, primaries, and more. Here's your recap of what made it out of my head. 

I dropped Part Four of A Future Tale, the dream/nightmare series that I've been trying to get my arms around for a while now.  Pere are links to Parts One, Two, and Three, if you want to see why our narrator was trying to deal with an old revolving door - in an alley. 

I put my hand on the brass plate and gave a little push, to see if there was even a chance I could get out this way. At first, there was quite a bit of resistance. That wasn't surprising; who knows how long it's been since anyone else was in this alley? I gave another push, thinking how much this was like pushing the gate at the other end of the alley. When was that, anyway? How long have I been in here? I have no idea.

Finally, on the third push, it actually moved noticeably, if slowly, with a bit of a grinding noise, as if it needed to be oiled. Or, thinking back to when I was a child, maybe it just needed some kids to push and push and keep pushing, going round and round in their little cages within the door, like I did, chasing my older brothers... or, were they chasing me?

Thoughts of anything chasing me right now were unwelcomed, and I pushed those memories aside, focusing on the task at hand: getting this darn thing to move and, hopefully, finding a way out on the other side. I leaned in a bit, putting some oomph into it, and finally, the door moved, with purpose. 

I think I've almost figured the whole thing out - almost - and will have the Epilogue soon. 

For Sunday School, one of the classrooms I sat in on was Face the Nation, where Ed O'Keefe interviewed Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) on the Mar-a-Lago stuff.  One of his questions? "What use could a former president have for classified or top-secret information once he's left office?" Turner was unsure. 

Well, I don't know. I mean, you would have to ask him. But certainly, we all know that every former president has access to their documents. It's how they write their memoirs...

Have any used Top Secret/SCI documents for that, I wonder? Turner seems to doubt the classification of what was found. He said the FBI said "they were identified as marked classified," and, he said, Trump said he declassified them. He thinks the important thing is the "abuse of discretion" on the part of the FBI.

...we have evidence of the FBI abusing that discretion, and of misconduct on behalf of the FBI...There are real questions as, what is the FBI doing here? ...the rank-and-file FBI agents, everybody agrees we support them. We have great faith in them. But the leadership of the FBI, when they undertake a raid against the current president's political rival, you have to ask these questions.

Turner's right: there are real questions here, but he and all the other Rs seem incapable of asking the most important ones: What the hell was Trump planning to do with all of this stuff? Why did he keep it, knowing as he since before he left the White House that the information is not his? And, my favorite, what would the Rs be doing if the person stashing this kind of stuff insecurely was a Democrat? 

In the State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper talked with Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) on all of this, and even gave Crenshaw some breathing room on 'skepticism' but pointed to law enforcement and asked if they weren't innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, again, people signing off on it doesn't mean it's -- it doesn't -- that it has precedent. It doesn't. This is a very unprecedented measure. And you know that when you're going after an ex-president who may run again, that this is -- this is automatically political. You can't -- you cannot separate the legal aspects of this from the political aspects of it. You can't. And it doesn't seem to me like they have acted responsibly as a result of that. And look, again, why not just ask him? Why not just ask him?

OK, the "why not just ask him?" is a barnful of Texas longhorn bull shit (two words on purpose) and either (a) Crenshaw hasn't read any of the news on this issue, (b) he's covering for Trump out of fear, or (c) he's an idiot.

Remember, everything is unprecedented until someone does it. In this case, how many ex-presidents who may run again have allegedly taken TS/SCI and other classified documents with them after losing an election, have lied to the government about it, have paid liars to lie to the government about it, have a record of cavalier handling of national security, including in the very place that was searched, and of destroying documents? 

The idiocy only increased as the week went on, but I turned to a different subject for Wondering on Wednesday, mostly because I couldn't take it any more. Much of the post was about primaries in New York, one of which garnered a lot of attention in the national media and tea leaf-reading parlors: the race to fill the seat of former Rep. Antonio Delgado, who resigned to become our Lt. Governor.  Democrat Pat Ryan

won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really...

It's funny how so many media outlets jumped on the Ryan win, and how many have been so keen on interviewing him since then. Another race got less national attention, but may have deserved more, I'm not sure. It's about the power of a huge Trump supporter, endorsing a horrid fellow New Yorker and a smarmy fellow New Yorker - and losing both races. 

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams. 

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

The stuff that I didn't let out of my head? It was more Mar-a-Lago stuff, the RINOs reactions,  student loan forgiveness, the RINO (and the Dem) reactions, and stuff like that. There's already so much noise out there, I decided to hold back. We'll see how long that lasts...

See you later for Sunday School, if not sooner. 

Wondering on Wednesday 8/24/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where do we start tonight's wondering? 

Right here in my neck of the woods - in the Empire State - where I find myself wondering why so many national political reporters are talking today about the Dems losing a prominent House member in New York, when there was literally no possible way that two Dems could survive a primary for the same district? The only question in this one was who would survive:  Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, or Rep. Jerry Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler won easily.

I read an article in a major national newspaper today about the Nadler/Maloney battle, and was not shocked to see many comments complaining about the redistricting process in NY. No one was complaining about efforts by the Dems to gerrymander five seats blue; rather, the complaints were that a judge didn't accept their efforts the way judges seem to accept the bad Republican maps. And I wonder, if you think gerrymandering is wrong, why are you mad when the courts agree with you? 

Another race in NY that's gotten a ridiculous amount of nation attention was the election to see who would fill the remaining months of former Rep. Antonio Delgado's term (he resigned to become our Lt. Governor). Pat Ryan won the "bellwether" race, as multiple media outlets referred to it, campaigning on a woman's right to choose being a national issue, not a state issue, while Marc Molinaro, the Republican, ran on crime and inflation. How much does this matter in the overall scheme of things, I wonder? I'm not convinced it's indicative of anything, really; NY's a pro-choice state; the 19th district's been blue since 2018; and Ryan will be on the ballot again in November, trying to win the seat in the new 18th district. If he wins that, it might mean something. Until then, I don't think so.

I can't help wondering how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the number three RINO in the House is feeling today. (A RINO, in these pages, is a MAGA Republican). Stefanik strongly supported the deplorable Carl Paladino in the primary for NY's new 23rd district; Paladino lost to NYS GOP chair Nick Langworthy. Stefanik also strongly supported Steve Wells in the primary for NY's new 22nd district. Wells lost to Brandon Williams. 

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy might not have had a great morning, after the Paladino loss. It's been reported that McCarthy and Rep. Steve Scalise, his Number Two, weren't happy with Stefanik 'going rogue' with her endorsement. I wonder how today's leadership chat went?

And then we've got President Biden's student loan forgiveness program, announced today. There's lots to dive into on that, and I've got a few bookmarked articles to digest tomorrow. I did wonder, though, at how hard the media worked to find Dem-leaning economists to chime in and say how bad an idea it was - and it wasn't even Larry Summers, the favorite DLE of all.

What's on your wondering minds?

In Case You Missed It (v95)

It seems like last week was extra-long, doesn't it? Or, is it just me? 

I was surprised I managed to get four posts out; if you had asked me how the writing went, I'd have guessed two posts made it out the door - the week was a blur.

Here's a recap of the posts that made the cut. 

Sunday was the day I confronted Father's Day 15. And it's the day I confronted the moodiness that often overwhelms me three months of the year when I feel his absence most dramatically.

I know, now, reflecting on 15 Father's Days without you, that it's not out of my control. It's within my control, within my capabilities, t0 react better to January, the month we lost you; February, the month you were born; and June, the month with a day to celebrate you.

Well, maybe not react better - but to react differently. To focus differently: on what's present, not on what's missing. On the fullness, not the emptiness. To remember, rather than trying to forget. So many ways of saying basically the same thing, right? Darn words...

Darn words, indeed. 

Moving on to your Sunday School lesson, I covered three interviews; here are highlights from Dana Bash's conversation with Sen. Fred Upton (R-MI). One of the ten Republican senators who voted to impeach Donald Trump, Upton is not running for re-election. 

Among the topics they covered was the January 6th Committee hearings; he felt they are making a difference, but he also 

expressed frustration with folks who are talking to the committee now, saying

...where have they been for the last year-and-a-half? Why weren't they saying what they're saying now a year-and-a-half ago, particularly to those of us that actually witnessed what was going on, to back us up a little bit?

The other two interviews? George talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in the This Week classroom, and in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the network's go-to guy for COVID stuff, about the newly authorized vaccine for kids five and under. 

I was going to devote your Extra Credit to Juneteenth, but there was so little discussion on that topic in the classrooms, there wasn't a post. Personally, I think that's sad.

There was Wondering on Wednesday, last week, including this piece about free speech, the NFL, and the horrible Rep. Jim Jordan.

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

And there, was a piece on Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who's currently #3 in the House Republican leadership. She's more "conservative" than most NY pols. 

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. 

There was more wondering, too, of course. 

And, almost before I knew it, it was Friday, and it was time for your TGIF entry. I didn't do a standard good week/bad week list; it was more like a future bad week list. Here's a bit of the post.

 If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer... 

You see what's happening, right? Remove one right, and removing the next one is easier. The one after that is easier, and the next is even easier... The question is, where does it end? 

At what point will a government so small it fits in a uterus stop trying to fit into smaller and smaller places? And at what cost?

I'll be back later, with Sunday School, or something else - you just never know.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/22/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Separate from the foolishness of a Congressional Oversight Committee holding hearings on the NFL's Washington Commandos, which in and of itself deserves wondering, I can't help wondering why people continue to think that there's a quote-unquote First Amendment issue when an employer fines, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee for comments made, or for bad behavior, or other such infractions. 

For the folks in the back, here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything there about the NFL? The Washington Commandos, or Redskins, as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ick) called the team? 

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

I also find myself wondering about this part, too, and whether Jordan knew how ironically funny it sounded, given the former president's well-documented proclivities....

Jordan then mentioned that Portnoy, whom multiple women have accused of sexual assault, is an established journalist who interviewed former President Trump, saying, “Seems to me, [if you] can get into the White House, you should be able to get into a football game.”

Moving from the First Amendment to the Second, there appears to be enough bipartisan agreement to pass some gun reforms this time; the initial vote to advance the legislation passed 64-34. Folks are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle, with some Dems suggesting they might not vote for it because it doesn't go far enough, and some Rs saying outright they won't vote for it because it goes too far. 

Here's one who suggests exactly that: the #3 Republican in the House, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Embarrassing NY as Best I Can). Stefanik, who's got a better-than-fair chance of becoming the House Majority Leader if the Rs win in November, given Trump's public souring on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, released this statement today.

I will continue to stand up for Second Amendment rights against this legislation that shreds the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans with no effect on deterring criminals who do not follow the law when obtaining firearms. This bill contains unconstitutional gun control provisions and allows the implementation of red flag laws that take away due process rights. It would restrict men and women who are able to serve in our military from purchasing a firearm and would strip the Constitutional rights of gunowners by broadening the scope of punishment for even nonviolent misdemeanors. As this blatant government overreach seeks to make gun owners second-class citizens, I will continue to stand up for the Constitution and push for solutions, including advocating for increased mental health resources across the country.

I feel kind of bad for her, that she feels compelled to say stuff like this, particularly that last part, about her intention to advocate for increased mental health resources. And I wonder if she's even read the bill, or any news reports about it?

According to this article, the bill "provides $15 billion in federal funding to bolster mental health services..." from training programs to pediatric mental health care to community health services to intervention and prevention services t0 school-based mental health services, and more.

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. The second is below. 

Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:

Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.

Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty.

Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self-defense in emergencies such as riots.

Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights.

We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). 

One more thing on Stefanik? Taking a page out of her Dear Leader's playbook, she's endorsing sketchy characters for office. For example, she proudly endorsed Carl Paladino for Congress in the new #NY23 district.

Carl is a job creator and conservative outsider who will be a tireless fighter for the people of New York in our fight to put America First to save the country.

I guess it makes sense that she'd endorse a guy who said Hitler is the kind of leader we need today. After all, someone very much in Stefanik's corner seems to meet the "get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized" definition Paladino used to describe Hitler... 

But, I wonder if she remembers Paladino going public with plans to threaten NY members of Congress if they didn't support Trump in 2016? Or, later that same year, when he said stuff so bizarre about the Obamas that even the Trump campaign objected? 

And that's where the real wondering comes in: is it possible that Trump's peeps have out-Trumped him? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sunday School 5/9/21

Happily, Mother's Day interfered with getting this week's Sunday School post done, but I've got you covered, with Fox News Sunday and the Chris Wallace chat with Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN). 

Rep. Banks is "one of the Republicans leading the charge to remove Rep. Liz Cheney" and replace her with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). Lots of us find that choice interesting, given Cheney's much more conservative voting record (80% to Stefanik's 48% rating from Heritage Action) and her 93% vote-with-Former Guy record, compared to Stefanik's 78%. 

Of course, Stefanik has a 100% Former Guy Cult rating, compared to Cheney's 0% there, and that's really all that matters. And Former Guy even knows how to pronounce her name now, I think (he used to say Steph-a-nick, for Pete's sake.)

Banks said the Rs are "almost completely unified in a single mission to oppose the radical dangerous Biden agenda and win back the majority" in the midterms - and anything else gets in the way of that. 

And any leader who's not focused on that, on pushing back against the Biden -- the radical dangerous Biden agenda, at this point, needs to be replaced. But the -- the point here is that we are almost entirely unified on that mission except for Liz Cheney.

When Wallace pushed him to define what Cheney's not doing in that regard, Banks just started babbling.

I'm the -- I'm the leader of the largest conservative caucus Republican study committee. Chris, it's uncomfortable at times, but one of my jobs is to hold my Republican leadership accountable for being focused on the Republican ideals that we stand for and the single mission that we have to win back the majority. And, at this point, the reason, Chris, that you and I are talking about Liz Cheney on this important program on Sunday morning is -- is exact -- the exact evidence that she's failed in her mission as the chief spokesperson of our party. We shouldn't be talking about Liz Cheney; we should be talking about pushing back against the radical Biden agenda. And this is all a distraction from our ability to be able to do that. That -- that's why she will likely be replaced this week.

He says he doesn't know who'll replace her, but the entire universe, including the Chinese rocket derbis, knows it's going to be Stefanik. Wallace asked Banks why he wouldn't talk about Cheney's criticism of Former Guy. More babbling ensued, including Banks saying again that Cheney has lost focus on "the single mission we have in winning back the majority, to push back against the radical Biden agenda is the reason that she needs to be replaced." And, he continued,

 -- and -- and make it clear, make it clear to all of your viewers, Chris, that we're not kicking her out of the Republican Party if she's removed from her leadership post. But in her leadership post, she doesn't just -- any member of Congress doesn't just represent their district, they represent 212 members of the Republican conference and -- and right now it's clear that she doesn't represent the views of the majority of our conference or the focus that all of us have to win back the majority. 

Wallace then asked if Joe Biden was the legitimate president. Banks said "Yes, Joe Biden was elected. He was -- he was inaugurated on January 20th. And he -- he's -- he's the -- our focus."  And when Wallace explained that he asked the question because Banks supported the Texas lawsuit challenging the election results in other states. And he asked Banks if he still questions "whether or not Joe Biden won the election fair and square and got over 270 electoral votes fair and square?" The answer to that question is, well, yes, he does question it.

Yes, Chris, I -- I stand by my vote to object on January 6th. I stand by the Texas lawsuit because I have serious concerns about how the election in November was -- was carried out. 

The rest of his answer was the same as his answer to every other question Wallace asked: fighting the radical dangerous Biden agenda and taking back the majority and having a singular focus (on getting rid of Liz Cheney, of course, but he didn't come right out and say that this time). 

Wallace - he did a great job with this interview, I must say - pushed Banks again on Former Guy and the insurrection, pointing out that Banks had said "... (Former Guy) was not responsible for the attack on the Capitol," something that even GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said was not true. Banks generalized, noting that 

...every single Republican in the Republican conference denounced what happened on January 6 and almost all of us agree there should be some sort of a bipartisan commission to study what happened on that day to make sure that it never happens again.

And when Wallace had to explain that he was asking Banks for his opinion on whether Former Guy contributed to the insurrection, and about the Big Lie, that the election was stolen from him, Banks said he "never said the election was stolen," but he did have concerns about how it was run, and that he'd never apologize for going along with the Texas lawsuit. And then, almost like clockwork, it was back to the distraction and Liz Cheney and "what we have to do to save this country" and that's why they don't need her any more.

And the final question? Did Banks think that Cheney was "misguided" when she makes points like "history is watching and you can't go forward until you resolve this question, the election was fair and square, and that Former Guy played a negative role?" Yep, he does.

 Yes, I -- I've called on Liz Cheney to rejoin the Republican team and help us go out and win the majority in the midterm election. That -- that's where my frustration has bubbled up. I wrote a memo, Chris, recently to Leader McCarthy about how we keep Trump voters in the Republican fold... And Liz Cheney is the only Republican leader who attacked the memo about making the Republican Party the party of the working class. If she doesn't get that, that that's an important part of the formula to win the majority back in the midterm election and win the White House back in 2024, then she doesn't belong in a leadership position.

So, to recap:  Former Guy good. Former Guy voters good. Mission to win back the majority good. Election bad. Cheney bad. Any questions?

See you around campus. 

OrangeVerse XXXV: Drumming up Support

The president came to New York yesterday, to drum up support for two Republicans seeking to hold on to their seats in Congress.

Trump made an appearance at Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain Division, to sign an apparently nameless military spending authorization bill and to mispronounce the name of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who made a very brief appearance on stage with Trump. Oh wait, it wasn't a nameless bill, it was the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, according to the White House website. Trump must not have known that, right, because he failed to mention McCain's name?

Vice President Mike Pence flew in to Fort Drum to deliver yet another obsequious introduction for the president. I have no idea how much it cost, but it had to be worth it for a five-minute speech that, pointedly, also did not mention McCain's name, I'm sure.

These two, I swear... Anyway. When the president speaks, poetry leaks. Or something. Excerpts:

Atten-HUT!

So I want to start by saying

At Ease. Just Relax. Do you have seats? 

You can sit down. Come on. Sit.

If you want to stand you can. We'll just get 

one.big.standing.ovation, right?

NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act

is the most significant investment

in our military and our warfighters in modern history 

and I am proud

to be a big, big, part of it. 

It was not very hard.

You know, I went to Congress

I said let's do it. We got to do it...

And that's what we did.

Not Even Close

Because we know that to survive 

and having that survival of our freedom

it depends on the might of our military.

And no enemy on earth

can match the strength courage and skill

of the American Army and the

American Armed Forces.

Nobody is even close.

They never will be.

Fur Elise

And I have to tell you about Elise. 

She called me so many times. 

I said, I don't

want to take her call.

She wanted me to be here

I said I won't be able to, we'll

have to change a lot of scheduling.

But that didn't suit her.

She didn't stop. And here I am. Here I am.

Elise, come here. Come here, Elise.

Listen Listen Listen

Listen to this now.

So we've been trying to get money.

They never gave us money

for the military for

years and years and it was depleted.

We got $700B. And next year

already approved we have $716B

to give you the finest

planesandshipsandtanksandmissiles

anywhere on Earth. 

Nobody makes them like we do.

And very, very far distant

in this case - jobs are very important in all cases

but in this case, military  might

is more important than even jobs.

But all of this 

equipment is made right here

in the USA and it's the

best equipment on Earth.

Nobody makes it like we do.

Right? Right? Bueller? Anyone?

America is a 

peaceful nation

But if conflict

is forced upon us

we will fight

and we will win

Right General? Right? Right?

Better believe it Generals.

They're the guys.

We're powered by

the unstoppable force

of the United States Army.

Very Special. 

And then he talked about jobs and himself, and jobs, and himself, and himself, and called out by name one of the soldiers and an Army wife who selflessly helps others, and he talked about fake news, and General Patton, and himself, and Space Force! And then he turned his attention back to the soldiers in front of him and thanked them for their service. 

And then he went off to Utica to stump for Claudia Tenney, a name that's much easier to pronounce than Stefanik.

Or John S. McCain.