The Frankish Reich

Tom Cotton was considered presidential timber just a few short years ago. Now he's completely out of the mix. Why? He refused to go full Trump Mode and retained just a bit of common sense. Meanwhile, Elon: what do you propose we do? Just let Putin have Ukraine? Because that's "the outcome" if we do.

Me too.

I'm responding to an article that says Vivek is trying to appeal to evangelical Christians (not my variety, and apparently not yours either) by suggesting that his Hinduism is close enough. It isn't for them. Either you're a Christian who has unequivocally accepted Jesus as your lord and savior, or you are doomed. Their doctrine, not mine. That depends. I have lived in strongly evangelical areas of the country in which people don't even consider Catholics "Christians."

I don't see anything misleading. He goes on and on about COVID being genetically engineered to selectively target blacks and caucasians (which to him apparently doesn't include Ashkenazi Jews). He later retracted that with respect to Ashkenazi Jews, but without any indication of why - other than political blowback - his original musings were incorrect, but only to the extent that he (mistakenly? why?) included Ashkenazi Jews, and "clarifying" that he didn't suggest it was deliberately engineered to have a different impact on different races/Jews. Which only leads one to wonder what on earth he thought he was talking about, because without that idea his rambling thoughts become less offensive but more idiotic. If anything the NY Post kind of softballed the story, in that the totatlity of RFK's musings is even stupider than indicated.

Other than that one Commandment most of them follow about "thou shalt not have false gods before me." You know, the first one. (Actually, I consider myself a Christian but of the sort that believes that the New Covenant wiped away much of the Old)

About time we were rid of Kennedy hangers-on.

This will really, really help him with raising money from all of his wife's west side LA Jewish friends ... ... time for this nut to go away. By the way, his anti-vax shtick is a profitable one! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/us/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-money.html

You missed out on the "I'm Hindu, which means that I worship the false gods you Christian evangelicals are always on about, but even so it's better to have a religion, even a polytheistic one, than no religion at all, so we're not that different after all and you should vote for me." He is really taking that tack: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/us/vivek-ramaswamy-hindu-republican-christianj.html

Now, either you're going the snarky response route or you're not a real doctor. Maybe ... IF they are actually somehow protected (is there ANY epidemiological evidence of that?) then there would have to be some genetic basis for immunity. It is a preposterous stretch. So why does he say these things? Simple explanation: it feeds the Jewish conspiracy myths that have sustained the conspiracy theorists for centuries.

I need to draw a Venn diagram. Do they still teach those in California?

Well, I know you understand logic better than this ... ... "The constitution doesn't PROHIBIT the right to use most types of birth control" is quite a different proposition than "The constitution PROTECTS the right to use most types of birth control." These propositions are (to me) both true. But they are not equivalent in logic or law.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/rfk-jr-says-covid-was-ethnically-targeted-to-spare-jews/ Drunk old man at fundraiser dinner starts talking about "the Ashkenazi Jews." Can anything good come from drunk old gentiles talking about "the Jews?" Umm, no. Then defends himself by saying that he didn't mean that COVID-19 was engineered to save the Ashkenazi Jews. But doesn't deny that it was engineered to affect caucasians (but not Ashkenazi Jews? What are they? Sub-Saharan Africans?) and blacks. And to spare Asians. And says something about genetic codes. Which is also very interesting since COVID-19 first burst on the scene when a BUNCH OF CHINESE PEOPLE DIED in Wuhan. What a frickin' idiot. How people have convinced themselves to support this guy is beyond me.

I assume you mean fetus = person. Which we can have a philosophical argument about, but let me ask you this: what clause of the federal constitution or its amendments tells the state that they must protect "other people?" But that is precisely what Connecticut did before Griswold and its recognition of a constitutional right to privacy. So ... you may be saying "but no state currently WANTS to ban birth control," but that's quite a different thing than saying "the constitution protects the right to use birth control."

Of course there is! Biden Crime Family proponents say he was getting a cut of Hunter's illicit deals. Biden supporters say there's no proof of any such thing. Put on your evidence! And if Hunter's guilty plea is accepted (it will be), he presumably won't have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Let's get it on!

Why not? What better time than when you control the House? I have said that there ought to be Hunter Biden hearings. And I mean it. There is enough there to probe - publicly - what Joe knew and when he knew it.

Two particular regions. The Crimea counts too. Talk about silly - "the U.S. has gone back on its word?" Remember the post-Soviet agreement. Ukraine surrenders its Soviet nukes, the new Russian Federation agrees to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity. It is like the U.S. Government and the Native American nations, but the party reneging on its obligations is Russia.

So ... there are two possible reasons for why the House isn't planning all those promised hearings. 1. They are afraid they'd backfire. Hearings would simply amplify the ultra-right voices in the House that are, quite frankly, an embarrassment to the party. 2. They really don't have any kind of smoking gun to present. So ... yes, put up or shut up.

Almost certainly under Russian control. This is what I'm talking about - to these New Republicans freedom isn't worth any price at all. "Mr. Gorbachev, fortify this Wall and stay within your designated sphere of influence and we'll get along just fine."

Every day I am astounded by this new "Republican Party." It is like an old classic rock band that has lost all its original members, now touring as The New Ramones or something. So we will not sell weapons to a country if it could "escalate" a war. Does that apply if the de-escalation involves allowing the aggressor to simply win outright and then declare a peace? Does it apply to selling arms to Israel or Our Friends the Saudis and their never-ending proxy wars against Iran? Does it apply to South Korea? Maybe we should just let a Peace of The New Millennium to descend upon them under the leadership of their very strong, very shrewd leader. I guess I could understand some kind of Kissinger type justification, some geopolitical realpolitik defense of keeping out of certain conflicts that don't impact our direct interests. But this "we will bend over and take it" justification is to advocate for a weak America on the world stage. Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you "The New Republicans," not to be confused with any prior use of the term "Republican."

Republicans control the House. They can have hearings on whatever they want. Go for it. Or shut up about it.

Well, no. The adjective here simply reflects the idea that a right to privacy exists as a matter of constitutional law. It is not a statutory right that may be taken away by Congress; it is an inherent right, guaranteed by the constitution. And this is where the rubber meets the road. Do you believe the only rights a person may have are those that are expressly enumerated in the constitution? It is no sufficient to say, "but as a practical matter, no state is seriously proposing to ban birth control." The question is would a state have the constitutional authority to do that if the legislature were so inclined. Because if you answer "yes" to that question, you are necessarily rejecting the idea that the constitution protects some right (yes, an inherent right) to privacy. That implication - that there is no such thing - is clear in the Dobbs decision.

Hmm, let's check the scorecard, early 2021 vs. today: - obsession with manufactured epidemic of child sex trafficking? Check. - obsession with "deep state" conspiracies to thwart the will of the American people? Check - obsession with alleged and utterly unproven mass voter fraud? Check. Even a damn fool knows not to label themselves Q Anon anymore, given that time has shown that it was a colossal fraud perpetrated by father/son weirdos operating out of the south Pacific. But its adherents refuse to let go of the central idiotic beliefs that started the whole thing. So, yes, this is So Summer 2023.

So I take it you believe in gay conversion and support a complete abortion ban?

Good question, since he promises a pretty Bernie-ish agenda, including "aggressive action on climate change."

So let's say we have a purely technocratic military leadership. The question is this: "Is it more cost effective to grant 3 weeks leave to a pregnant soldier to travel to get an abortion, or to have that soldier unable to perform her duties for an extended period of time during late term pregnancy, childbirth, and post-childbirth?" To ask the question is to answer it. In one case your employee is out of commission for 3 weeks and you're out of pocket a bit of travel money; in the other case your employee is sidelined for months.