Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

Trump v Illinois

At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.

One implication...some states (CA, IL, WA, NJ, et al) will reject 'help' (that is, the Nat Guard) to protect ICE officers who enforce federal immigration law, and other states (meaning red) will welcome the the Nat Guard to facilitate ICE detaining and deporting illegal aliens. That is quite a split, I guess each state can go their own way. That is how the decision reads to me.

Where else might that reasoning apply, meaning states are free to go their own way on enforcement of federal law?

[ReaderY]

The Constitution makes calling in the military tro
something completely different from enforcing federal law generally. While the President has general power to enforce federal law, he does NOT have the power to call in the military. Only Congress has that power.

So the whole premise of your question is mistaken. Calling in the military, like suspending the writ of habeas corpus, can only be done by Congress. It is entirely outside the President’s power except when and to the extent Congress chooses to delegate it. There is no analogy to anything else.

[ReaderY]

In terms of general laws, Congress has made many things dependent on state consent. Many spending programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, work that way.

[David Nieporent]

Unlike Medicaid, Medicare has nothing to do with the states.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Interesting -- the states license the people receiving the money but have "nothing to do with" it???

[bernard11]

I think so.

I, for example, receive Medicare, but lack any sort of license to do so.

[Kazinski]

The supreme court said that Trump invoked the wrong law, because it says 'regular forces' have to be unable to handle the unrest.

The Insurrection act would allow him to use 'regular forces'', because it overrides the posse comititus act, the statute he invoked does not. Form Wikipedia:
"The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to nationally deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the U.S.[1] The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's deploying the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States."

[jb]

States generally can't be commandeered to enforce federal law; this isn't some new principle that's just being invented to mess with the Trump administration.

[Kazinski]

States can't be commandeered, but their national guards can be federalized, and then be used to enforce federal law.

If you doubt that look up the Little Rock Central High School desegregation, when Eisenhower used both Federal troops, and the federalized Arkansas National guard to stop Governor Faubus from interfering with school desegregation in Little Rock in 1957.

[Mr. Bumble]

"States generally can't be commandeered to enforce federal law;..."
Are they free to block federal officers from enforcing federal law?

[jb]

No. Got any other really basic questions you need help with?

[Mr. Bumble]

Glad to hear that you understand that.

[grb]

Glad you think you made a point…

[Dr. Ed 2]

New Hampshire is bordered by the leftist gulags of Massachusetts, Maine, & Vermont. Because of geography (mountains), all the good roads in New England run north/south, and the easiest way to get from Maine to Vermont is to go through Massachusetts -- the most northern east/west Interstate is the Mass Pike (I-90). Most of New Hampshire is within 100 miles of either the Atlantic Ocean or the Canadian Border.

Could New Hampshire go to ICE and arrange for roadblocks where every vehicle entering the state was stopped and every occupant was required to produce evidence of citizenship? Actually go as far as checking passports electronically (as is done on the NH/Quebec border, waving those people through while subjecting those without one to further inquiry as to citizenship? Even going so far as to have separate lanes for those without passports (which wouldn't be required, but would expedite your trip through NH)?

That's where I see us going -- some states wanting to enforce the law and some not -- and then there will be the fight over welfare money for the latter.

[David Nieporent]

Could New Hampshire go to ICE and arrange for roadblocks where every vehicle entering the state was stopped and every occupant was required to produce evidence of citizenship?

Since American citizens are not required to even have evidence of citizenship, let alone to carry it around with them, no.

[Frank Drackman]

Haven't flown in the last 24 years, have you? Or bought a Car, opened a Bank Account, cashed a Check, drank at a Bar, purchased (Legal) Ganja, rented a Hotel Room.......

[apedad]

Today, Frankie learns the difference between proof of citizensip (what DN is talking about) and proof of identification.

[David Nieporent]

I have him muted so I don't know what he said, but based on your response, I'd point out that even having ID is not required. It's required in order to do certain things — driving a car, for instance — but nothing requires you to have ID with you if you're not doing those things. If you're walking down the street, or riding in a car, the government can't demand that you show ID.

[Frank Drackman]

David Never-coherent, as usual, he doesn't know what I said, but comments on it nevertheless.

[grb]

Frank Drackman: “… doesn’t know what I said, but comments on it regardless.”

Doesn’t it worry you, Frank, that he doesn’t have to even read your comment to successfully dope-slap you?

[MoreCurious]

You've made it too easy for us, Frankie. For many of us, when we see a muted comment we know it's from you. And history tells us that everything you write is stupid, hateful, bigoted, racist, sophmoric, homophobic, ill-informed, and/or vulgar.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Haven't flown in the last 24 years, "
I have and only had to prove citizenship on international flights.
"bought a Car,"
Yes No proof of citizenship required.
"opened a Bank Account" Yes, on line -- no id at all required.
"cashed a check" haven't cashed a check in a long, long time. Have written checks without id required.
" drank at a Bar"
Yes, and haven't been required to show ID since my 30th birthday which was a long, long time ago.
Have never bought weed, either legal or otherwise.

[Commenter_XY]

David, suppose an LEO pulls over a car for a traffic violation. Asks for ID, and notices that 'Hector' is a foreign national.

Can the LEO ask for Hector's green card for purposes of identity verification?

My thought is that if Hector doesn't have his green card with him, he has a problem. And he could be detained.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Is Hector the driver of the car? Does Hector have a driver's license? How is Hector identified as a foreign national?

[Moderation4ever]

Because he is not white. Hugh Grant or Mike Meyers could be riding in the car and the LEO would not think of asking either for an ID.

[David Nieporent]

How can the officer "notice" that someone is a foreign national? By the yellow star sewn onto his clothing?

Non-citizens are required by federal law to carry their green card/visa/other proof of legal status with them at all times; it is a misdemeanor not to do so. But citizens are not required to carry anything.

[Frank Drackman]

Same way they can tell you have Marriage-a-Juan-a in your Console, the Smell.

[Nelson]

“ and notices that 'Hector' is a foreign national.”

How would he notice such a thing in the absence of ID, which he isn’t required to have?

“ My thought is that if Hector doesn't have his green card with him, he has a problem.”

I could be wrong, but a green card is an authorization to work, not an authorization to be in the country (which is a visa for foreign citizens).

I have no idea if the officer could ask for their visa, but since immigration is a federal, not state, function it wouldn’t surprise me if they couldn’t absent a criminal act.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I could be wrong, but a green card is an authorization to work, not an authorization to be in the country..."

You would be wrong. It is both.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not at all sure under what circumstances a cop is entitled to ask to see your Green card, but I DO know that if you're an alien (18 and older...) in the US you're legally required to have your documents on your person at all times, (OK, if you're swimming or bathing they can just be nearby.) and report any change of address within 10 days. And that includes green card holders.

This has been the case legally for better than half a century, even if it was seldom strictly enforced.

[David Nieporent]

To be clear, it is a very minor misdemeanor, carrying a maximum $100 fine or 30 days in jail, for a non-citizen to not carry his or her documents. And I don't think it has ever been enforced at all. What prosecutor who's not a crazy person (like Trump's nominees) would waste time and resources on such a trivial matter?

[Commenter_XY]

A misdemeanor whose sentence can be 30 days in jail, you say? That is very interesting, David. You know, that is long enough for a search of social media history. 😉

[not guilty]

"You know, that is long enough for a search of social media history."

And the lead time before trial of that misdemeanor would be ample time for the accused to scrub his/her social media history.

[John F. Carr]

State law enforcement has limited ability to enforce federal immigration law. The hypothetical would need to include details of any cooperation agreements between the state agency and federal immigration authorities.

A team of one state police officer and one federal immigration officer could haul Hector away to be airdropped onto Uganda. The state police officer makes a stop for touching a white line. The federal officer notices the foreign ID and does the rest.

[jb]

Gee, I wonder why people on the left these days are talking about authoritarianism when people like Dr. Ed are fantasizing about a full on "papers please" society as the next big step forward for New Hampshire.

[windycityattorney]

They might have to change their license plate slogan.

[bernard11]

and the easiest way to get from Maine to Vermont is to go through Massachusetts

No. It's not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you insane?!?

Heck, you could take US Route 2 out of Bangor -- I wouldn't but you could...

I've driven a school bus (BBall teams) up US 302 between Portland and Fryburg -- it's an "interesting" road and moreso as you go further up into the White Mountains in NH. And the other route appears to be State Route 113 -- well, it is paved...

No, the sane route is I-95 south and then I-93 North.

[bernard11]

No, I'm not insane. Did you look at my link? I picked the two cities pretty much at random, but Google Maps gets you from Portland to Burlington, VT without entering MA.

You can try other combinations if you like.

[John F. Carr]

I-93 runs like a dagger from francophone Canada into New England. About ten years ago there was an immigration roadblock on I-93 north of Concord. It was really a drug roadblock. But they did make a pretense of doing immigration stuff. They can not arrest people simply for not having proof of citizenship. They can ask questions to get incriminating information. The driver may be required to produce ID, which will in most cases allow agents to determine whether the driver is here legally.

I crossed the border before passports were required. They asked everybody in the car for a birthplace. "New York" "New York" "Pennsylvania" "Nova Scotia". The last person was asked for proof of legal status. If he had lied I think we would have been waved through without further inquiry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Could New Hampshire go to ICE and arrange for roadblocks where every vehicle entering the state was stopped and every occupant was required to produce evidence of citizenship?”

Well, since most of NH is within 100 miles of either a land or sea border, iiuc ICE can set up checkpoints and ask everyone in the car if they’re a citizen.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://youtu.be/cx4rO6T1I4I

After 20 years of handouts to the Somalis -- handouts that native-born citizens are not entitled to, including free cars, the fraud is really starting to pile up in Maine.

Perhaps the most egregious -- some of the mass shooting victims in Lewiston have major medial bills that aren't covered by insurance and money donated to them was instead diverted to the Somali clans, even though all the shooting victims are White.

[Frank Drackman]

On the brighter side, you don't have many Stray Cats (Underrated Band IMHO)

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Stray Cats (Underrated Band IMHO
Hardly underrated.

[Frank Drackman]

But.....
NOT in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame, friggin Duran Duran is in, Dick Friggin Clark is in, Eminem is in,
after further review, the call of "Underrated" is confirmed.
Stella Link's Ghost is charged a Time Out

Frank

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Brian Setzer isn't in the main Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (yet!), but he's honored in several significant halls, including the Rockabilly Hall of Fame, the Long Island Music Hall of Fame (with Stray Cats), and Guitar Player's Hall of Fame, recognized for his reinvention of rockabilly and swing and legendary guitar work with Stray Cats and the Brian Setzer Orchestra, plus his iconic Gretsch guitars and Grammy wins. "

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I'm just bustin Ovaries here, but......
In the Music Video for "Rock this Town"(1981 Arista Records)
Which Celebrity plays the "Real Square Cat from 1974"???
OK, he swears it wasn't him, but Video doesn't lie.
Can't find who played the "Girlfriend", thought it might be
a young Kate Moss, but it was 1982, when she'd have been 8.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Duran Duran is infinitely more deserving to be in the Rock N’ Roll HOF than the Stray Cats. Hungry Like The Wolf, Rio, Ordinary World, Notorious, The Reflex, etc., are all better than Stray Cat Strut or Rock This Town.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, right, Young MC has more talent in one of his Corn Rows than Duran Duran had in their entire Portfolio

[Nelson]

Is there any element of this diatribe that is true? And if so, why should the nationality of the fraudsters make a difference?

Are you trying to say that all Somalis are criminals because some Somalis are criminals? If so, I should plan for a lot more suspicion about being a criminal, since I’m white.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm saying that there is a significantly higher percentage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With "friends" like Trump, does Putin really need enemies?

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one who thinks DK Metcalf should get a friggin Presidential Medal for punching that Bonehead Lions fan? (did he even punch him? all I saw was him pulling that stupid blue Wig)
Lions were eliminated from the Playoffs yesterday, Steelers are looking pretty good at 9-6.
Might even work out good for Pittsburgh, letting DJ rest up for the Playoffs, and frees up some $$$$ they don't have to pay him in Bonuses.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

I read he lost his appeal. Who decides these appeals, Roger Goodell?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably, he's the one who turned one of the most exciting plays in Foo-Bawl, the Kickoff, into the lame way we'd start games in Intramural Flag Foobawl at Auburn. (Way Auburn's played this Decade maybe they should move to the Intramural Class)
Kicking Team could either Kick or Throw to the Receiving team, but nobody could move until the Kick/Throw Receiver caught the ball. Everyone stood around with their thumbs up their asses (thumbs up their asses! HT M. Bolton)
Great thing about F(l)ag Foo-bawl, there was still blocking, and you never knew when one of the guys who'd played (Real) Foo-bawl was gonna return to form and just lay out one of the Prancing Sprites with a perfect Form Tackle (amazing how agile and fast one can be when there's no danger involved), Oh Sure, he'd get a Penalty and maybe even ejected, it was worth it.
For what it's worth, Google what Ty Cobb did to a Heckling Yankees Fan in 1912.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The Trump administration celebrated Christmas on Thursday by posting a series of religious messages from official government accounts, using language that drew criticism from those who pointed to the country’s separation of church and state…

“Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote. “May His light bring peace, hope, and joy to you and your families.”

Posts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Homeland Security Department and the Labor Department followed in a similar vein.

One of the most extensive Christmas messages was posted by the Homeland Security Department on Christmas Eve. It read, “We are blessed to share a nation and a Savior,” and included a video that featured images including the American flag, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, President Trump and a Nativity scene, along with the words “Remember the miracle of Christ’s birth.”

The Homeland Security post also drew strong responses online. Alex Nowrasteh, senior vice president for policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said: “Americans don’t share a religion. Our state is secular.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/25/admin/trump-administration-religion-christmas.html

[Davedave]

It's sweet they think a formerly pagan, now purely commercial celebration has anything to do with the religion they pretend to believe in.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Linus

[Riva]

Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. And maybe you’ve seen this phrase before: In God we trust. We’re not modern France.

[SRG2]

In God we trust.

As you assuredly know the history of the use of that phrase, you're being dishonest again.

[Malika la Maize]

That information hasn’t been entered into its programming, perhaps?

[Riva]

Rather you seem to be ignorant of this country’s religious heritage.

[Malika la Maize]

Bots don’t really have countries, do they?

[not guilty]

"Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ. And maybe you’ve seen this phrase before: In God we trust. We’re not modern France."

Yes, Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus, who later came to be known as the Christ. He is likely the most consequential figure in human history.

But for the federal government to recognize anyone as "our Lord and Savior" constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment. As Chief Justice Burger wrote about the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island's annual erection of a Christmas display in a park owned by a nonprofit organization -- which was found not to offend the First Amendment -- "Focus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984).

President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Noem, as citizens, unquestionably have the right to celebrate what they claim to be their salvation. (Even if Trump is far more likely to eventually run for president of Hell and thereafter claim that Satan stole the election.) For these officials to employ governmental resources in doing so, however, is quite problematic.

[Riva]

No it is unquestionably proper to recognize that Christmas exists because of the birth of Christ. Many in this country are faithful believers. The government is not required and never has ignored and disregarded our profoundly religious history, notwithstanding nonbelievers such as yourself.

[not guilty]

"No it is unquestionably proper to recognize that Christmas exists because of the birth of Christ."

Christmas exists as a national holiday in the United States by virtue of an act of Congress, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 6103. The customs associated with Christmas in various countries have a mix of pre-Christian, Christian, and secular themes and origins. Pagans celebrated the winter solstice in late December. The designation of December 25 dates from the fourth century C.E., aping the Roman festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of Sol Invictus), which had been held on that date since 274.

If Christmas were a purely religious observance, its designation as a national holiday would pose potential Establishment Clause problems. For example, some states designate Good Friday as a holiday. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue, and lower federal courts are divided as to whether such designation is unconstitutional. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-1-Brookman.pdf

[Riva]

Warp the meaning of Christmas all you want, there is nothing impermissible or unconstitutional in government officiers acknowledging this country’s religious heritage.

[Malika la Maize]

Saying “remember the miracle of Christ’s birth” is not acknowledging the nation’s religious heritage (that would be something like “on this day when many celebrate the birth of Jesus”), it’s urging the acknowledgment of a theological assertion.

[Riva]

To "remember the miracle of Christ's birth" is literally the definition of "Christmas."

[Malika la Maize]

That’s not responsive to my comment.

[David Nieporent]

Did you expect a bot to actually be responsive rather than just to repeat a talking point?

[Riva]

My comment points out the utter inanity of your complaint that acknowledging the meaning of Christmas is somehow inappropriate on Christmas Day. Your subsequent response simply doubles down on stupid.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "the" meaning of Christmas.

[Malika la Maize]

Riva bot missed my point again and is not responsive.

Riva 4 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Warp the meaning of Christmas all you want, there is nothing impermissible or unconstitutional in government officiers acknowledging this country’s religious heritage.

Reply
Malika la Maize 3 hours ago
Saying “remember the miracle of Christ’s birth” is not acknowledging the nation’s religious heritage (that would be something like “on this day when many celebrate the birth of Jesus”), it’s urging the acknowledgment of a theological assertion.

[Riva]

If you clowns don't like Christmas and don't want to celebrate Christmas, then go play Festivus if you want. But your childish anti-religious bias doesn't redefine Christmas.

[Magister]

When I worked for the Wisconsin state government in 1994, the afternoon of Good Friday was a state holiday "for purposes of worship"; unsurprisingly, this was struck down in state courts when the Freedom from Religion Foundation challenged it, and state employees subsequently got a half personal day which they could request for that day if they wanted to.

[not guilty]

Riva, your incessantly repeated references to me as a nonbeliever would make Joseph Goebbels blush. You have no clue what my religious beliefs are, and you appear to regard truth as such a precious commodity that you use it sparingly.

[Riva]

Don’t know what you are. Is this more projection? And, as noted below, your ignorance of the Faith shines through in your sarcastic comments.

[Riva]

And, if you were Christian, you would understand that He did not “become” Christ. He always was and is Savior.

[not guilty]

What part of "later came to be known as" do you not understand, Riva?

[Riva]

Apparently there is much you do not understand about Christianity. And you reveal your ignorance and antipathy to the Faith in your sloppy comments. Christ is not a vocation or merely an honorific title. Jesus Christ was born Savior. You might want to explore what the Word becomes flesh means.

[not guilty]

Riva, I haven't addressed whether Jesus is the savior, let alone disputed it. I am saying that he came to be known by others as the Christ -- a title, not a name -- subsequent to his being born. The rabbis he conversed with at age 12 in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-47) did not address him as the Christ. His ministry did not begin for another twelve years, during which time he "increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52.) The fact that he "increased" in those measures during the intervening years indicates that, unlike Athena of Greek mythology, Jesus did not emerge from the mind of a deity who had swallowed his mother.

On multiple occasions in the gospels, Jesus commanded his disciples not to speak of his being the Christ -- Mark 8:29-30; Matthew 16:20; Luke 9:20-21. That is not to say that he was not the Christ; he merely wanted to wait until a later time for that to become known more widely -- a wise move for an itinerant preacher who didn't fit the Jewish leaders' political agenda. Had his divine nature become known sooner, he might have been killed sooner.

And FWIW, he was not named "Jesus Christ." As the angel instructed in Joseph's dream, he was named Jesus. (Matthew 1:20-25)

[Riva]

I am not going to argue superficialities with you. Do you deny that Jesus Christ was born Savior? If not, I fail to see any point to your ranting.

[not guilty]

How many different ways do you know to cry uncle, Riva?

But since you have asked, I do regard Jesus the Christ as having been born as savior for (some of) those who purport to follow him. But not all, per his Sermon on the Mount as recorded at Matthew 7:21-23 (RSV):

21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

As to the fate awaiting non-Christians, I am not so arrogant as to claim to speak for Jesus and his father.

I am also not sure that the deity of whom Jesus speaks as his father is Yahweh,* whom the Hebrew Bible describes as a monster. But I am quite unsure as to how much of scripture to interpret literally. Stories such as the Great Flood, animals conversing with humans, sons of God impregnating daughters of men, Jonah and the great fish, the sun standing still, a three hour eclipse which presaged "many" zombies arising from their tombs and wandering about Jerusalem simply defy credulity.

_______________________
*The First Commandment, Exodus 20:3 (RSV), presupposes the existence of multiple gods. And the Psalmist at Chapter 82, verse 1 states: " A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment"

[Riva]

Your silly comments further suggest that whatever you believe, it is certainly not Christianity (Christians do not believe in multiple "gods") and, more specifically, do not answer the question. You pepper most if not every comment/response you post with questions. Just be honest and answer one yourself. Do you deny that Jesus Christ was born Savior? That you go out of your way to avoid answering speaks volumes.

[Malika la Maize]

“Christians do not believe in multiple "gods’l

Bot misses ng’s point here which is a textual one, not a sociological one.

[not guilty]

"You pepper most if not every comment/response you post with questions. Just be honest and answer one yourself. Do you deny that Jesus Christ was born Savior? That you go out of your way to avoid answering speaks volumes."

Reading comprehension -- it's a wonderful thing, Riva. Try it sometime.

As I have said upthread, I do regard Jesus the Christ as having been born as savior for (some, not all of) those who purport to follow him.

As to those outside the Christian faith, I do not claim to speak for Jesus. That having been said, Matthew 17:3, Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30 each suggest that Moses and Elijah each made it to glory before the birth of Jesus.

Riva, your comments about Christianity are remarkably bereft of citations to Holy Scripture. Why is that? Your ipse dixit pronouncements as to what all "Christians" believe are worth squat.

As I have cited upthread, the Psalmist and Yahweh spoke of multiple gods, of whom Yahweh is one. Why should that belief be prohibited to Christians?

The Apostle (not Pope) Peter referred to Christian disciples as "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." I Peter 2:9 (RSV). Those of us who parse the scriptures have no need of Father Kid E. Diddler or his ilk to tell us what to believe regarding Jesus and his kingdom.

[David Nieporent]

(Christians do not believe in multiple "gods")

Well, no more than 3, anyway.

[Riva]

What an offensive POS you are crazy Dave. Could be a complete ignorance of Christianity, but I think you're also just a bit of a jackass.

[Riva]

That wasn't my question NG. Do you deny that Jesus Christ was born Savior? I think the answer is obvious. So is your lack of courage and character.

[Riva]

And, just so you know NG, those who believe that Christ wasn’t born Savior are what we call non-Christians. I doubt even you believe your perverse interpretation of Scripture.

[not guilty]

"That wasn't my question NG. Do you deny that Jesus Christ was born Savior? I think the answer is obvious. So is your lack of courage and character."

I affirm that Jesus Christ was born Savior to some. I deny that he was born Savior to all, including per his own words quoted above from Matthew 7:21-23, to many who purport to follow him.

As to the cleavage between the two categories of individuals, I make no claim to know who falls where.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[not guilty]

"What an offensive POS you are crazy Dave. Could be a complete ignorance of Christianity, but I think you're also just a bit of a jackass."

David is fully capable of answering for himself, but I surmise that he was alluding to the trinity.

[David Nieporent]

David is fully capable of answering for himself, but I surmise that he was alluding to the trinity.

Yes, of course. (I am of course aware of the rhetorical sleight of hand by which that's somehow not polytheism.)

[Riva]

Really, NG? You surmise crazy Dave was referring to the Holy Trinity? No shit. Yeah, he was, in his own sick, ignorant and insulting way. As noted above, he's just an obnoxious POS. And a fairly ignorant one at that.

[Riva]

And, NG, it is not "Jesus Christ was born Savior to some" Christians. It's all Christians. I have no idea what you are, other than that you seem to be a little deranged.

[not guilty]

"And, NG, it is not "Jesus Christ was born Savior to some" Christians. It's all Christians. I have no idea what you are, other than that you seem to be a little deranged."

So am I to believe Riva? Or the words attributed to Jesus the Christ himself during his Sermon on the Mount at Matthew 7:21-23?

BTW, do you call his first cousin John Baptist?

[David Nieporent]

The Rivabot is what I was referring to the other day when I commented that David French was one of the few vocal Christians in public life I've encountered who actually walked the walk. The vast majority wear their supposed Christianity as a skin suit and wield it as a weapon against their enemies. There is nothing even the tiniest bit Christian about the way the Rivabot is programmed to behave. I'm not saying that I expect real people, as opposed to fictional characters like Jesus, to actually love their enemies; that's a bridge too far for almost everyone. But "Hey look at me I'm a Christian so I'm great and fuck you" is pretty much the opposite extreme.

[Riva]

This is getting a little crazy even by crazy Dave standards. He makes grossly offensive comments mocking Christianity and apparently becomes outraged when challenged on his sick insults. Capping his tantrum with even more offensive anti-Christian bile. I bet he drooled a little typing it out.

I was too generous referring to crazy Dave as a POS.

[David Nieporent]

QED.

[not guilty]

And also FWIW, I have been proof texting scripture long before I became a lawyer.

I reached voting age during the truncated second term of Prick Nixon as President. I was then a Christian fundamentalist, believing that the Bible was the inspired and inerrant word of God. Those two facts had much to do with my deciding in 1974 to affiliate with the Democratic Party. I reasoned that a Christian should want no part of any political party that would five times nominate Nixon for national office.

I long believed that the Republicans could do no worse, but they have proved me wrong by nominating Donald Trump three times.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"You might want to explore what the Word becomes flesh means."

From the anonymous gospel of John which was written sometime about 70-90 years after the death of Jesus by someone who probably never met anyone who knew the living man. As for what it means, nobody knows as the expression is outside of human experience and understanding.

As for the miracle birth story, the first that it appears is in Matthew and then Luke each written about 50 to 70 years after the death of Jesus. It's almost certain that nobody knew of these stories while Jesus was alive. When NG writes, "later came to be known as," he is correct.

[Riva]

"Nobody knows"? Spare me your atheistic bS. Billions of Christians across the world know. And all celebrated the meaning on Christmas.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

There's a bit of a difference between knowing something and claiming to know something. As there is a similar difference with respect to understanding. Of course, you don't understand this.

[Riva]

Good thing you're here to educate us ignoramuses on the Doctrine of the Faith. How fortunate we are to have you here to set Christianity on course after 2000 years. Now do Islam.

[Malika la Maize]

NG didn’t say become he said come to be known as.

Matthew 16:13–16

13 xNow when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say yJohn the Baptist, others say zElijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, a“You are bthe Christ, cthe Son of dthe living God.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Riva, Malika is a Voodoo Scientist who worships the God of Psychology. There can't be a Christian Psychologist, the APA prohibits it.

[ReaderY]

Suppose a group of people come in and restore a sign from a building that Congress named by statute but Trump renamed - the Department of Defense, the Kennedy Center, etc.

1. Would they have a defense to a charge of vandalism that they are simply good Samaritans who are removing the defacement previously made to the sign, and hence not vandalising it?

2. Could they sue for a false arrest, perhaps after the first time?

[Commenter_XY]

I'll go out on a limb here and say 'No, and No'.

[ReaderY]

Why? Someone changed the name to be other than what Congress said it is. Why is it vandalism to simply correct the sign?

That is, it seems to me the only way to avoid standing problems on these matters is to take direct action, replace the sign with a correct one, get arrested, and then take the matter up with the courts from there. Once arrested, there is then standing to get the courts to decide who has the right to name things, Congress or the President. If Congress has the right to name things, it is not vandalism to correct the name to the one Congress gave.

[Mr. Bumble]

Go to it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why is it vandalism to simply correct the sign?

That's what these gals figured.

[Dr. Ed 2]

On the other hand ...
https://www.welikela.com/richard-ankrom-guerilla-public-service/

[Commenter_XY]

I'll go out a little further on that proverbial limb and say that defacing gov't property (your -- changing the sign to be 'right') is in fact vandalism; and no, it would not be a false arrest. I do not think we want random citizens just 'fixing' govt signs spontaneously around the country. That is madness, a recipe for mixed mayhem.

Tell you what: Get elected POTUS, then you change the name. You get to enforce the law.

[bernard11]

defacing gov't property (your -- changing the sign to be 'right') is in fact vandalism;

So Trump, who is in fact the one defacing government property, is guilty of vandalism? Yes, I can see that, though it pales in the face of his other crimes, which now include murder.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would be a moot point if the USSS fatally shoot you for being in a secure area which would have been the right thing for them to have done because they mistook your crowbar for a rifle.

[Riva]

No statutory change is required for the Kennedy Center board to change how it presents itself to the public and the President has full authority to direct that executive branch communications refer to the “Department of War.” In other words, you’re full of it.

[Longtobefree]

Besides, Trump would charge them with trespass, not vandalism.
And if there was more than one, conspiracy.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

There is no Department of War. Trump can call it anything he wants, the Department of Good Humor, if he desires, but it doesn't change the department's name.

[Frank Drackman]

Lalalalalalalala Thanks Pee Wee!

[Bored Lawyer]

the Department of Good Humor

Chocolate or Vanilla?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Tutti Frutti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F13JNjpNW6c

They just don't write songs like that anymore. Allah be praised.

[Riva]

That’s President Trump. And it certainly does require executive branch officials to refer to the Department of War.

[Malika la Maize]

“how it presents”

So MAGAns (or at least bots programmed to act like them) are all about presenting over official names now?

[David Nieporent]

No statutory change is required for the Kennedy Center board to change how it presents itself to the public

You are such a fucking pathetic hack. The law establishes the name. The board cannot say, "We're not changing our name; we're just changing how we present ourselves to the public." That's what a name is.

[Riva]

I’m not surprised that clowns such as yourself seem to be ignorant of the common practice of businesses in this country operating under names other than their legal names.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's just its name assigned at establishment. How it chooses to identify itself is its own business, and anybody deadnaming the Trump-Kennedy center is engaging in literal violence.

[David Nieporent]

I'll bet you thought that sounded a lot funnier in your head than it did when you typed it out.

[Malika la Maize]

Especially coming two hours after mine (which is the same point but in reverse).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, you screwed it up, so I had to jump in and do it right.

[John F. Carr]

Does the law require that the sign in question have a certain text? Did the people restoring the name follow applicable regulations in doing the work?

A former post office building has an inscription from Herodotus praising the couriers of the Persian empire. If, while it was still used for mail, you replaced the motto with the more accurate "Post Office" you might get in trouble despite being technically correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service_creed

[Malika la Maize]

A man yelling racial slurs and threatening to burn down a woman’s home accidentally set himself on fire, according to a Texas arrest warrant affidavit.

https://www.wsaw.com/2025/12/19/suspect-accidentally-set-himself-fire-while-trying-burn-womans-house-down-police-say/

[Nelson]

Instant karma’s a bitch.

[Commenter_XY]

What are the odds that Fed Dist Ct Judge Aileen Cannon hears the case about John Brennan in her court?

How does that even work, meaning case assignment? Who does the assigning?

[David Nieporent]

What "case about John Brennan"?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Might be premature, but this is what google AI pops up when I search for "Brennan grand jury" Do you have an opinion about this going to a grand jury in Florida, or a grand jury at all?

"Former CIA Director John Brennan is reportedly the target of a
grand jury investigation in Florida, concerning the 2016 Russian election meddling assessment, with his lawyers accusing the DOJ of seeking to steer the case to Judge Aileen Cannon, who favors Donald Trump, leading Brennan's team to request the Chief Judge block this "judge shopping" and potential improper leaks for a politically charged probe stemming from a House Judiciary referral. "

[David Nieporent]

Anyone can be investigated by a grand jury. It takes an illegally appointed insurance lawyer lying to a grand jury to turn that investigation into a case.

[Commenter_XY]

So you're saying...the case is not here yet, since the GJ has not returned a true bill. That is true, no debate. The GJ can always decline to issue a true bill, and that might well happen here.

Suppose the GJ does return a true bill? How do they decide what judge hears the case? It would be a case of serious karma were Judge Cannon to hear the case. Can Judge Cannon be impartial? Could any judge be impartial?

[not guilty]

If the indictment is found by a grand jury sitting in the Fort Pierce division of the Southern District, it would likely (though not invariably) go before Judge Loose Cannon. For example, the civil action brought on behalf of Trump by Alina Habba, alleging a RICO conspiracy by Hillary Clinton and others, was filed in the Fort Pierce division, but it wound up assigned to Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who eventually ordered monetary sanctions of just a hair shy of $1 million against Trump and his lawyers.

More importantly at this stage of the putative litigation, any controversy regarding proceedings before a Fort Pierce grand jury would go before that Trump whore.*

________________________
*If she sues me for defamation, I will gleefully waive service of process.

[windycityattorney]

I don't understand why it would be investigated or pursued in the southern district of FL for activities Brennan engaged in while he was in D.C. years ago.

This is another personal revenge/political score settling thing. So like the others, the DOJ will likely fuck it all up and I full expect them to.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand why it would be investigated or pursued in the southern district of FL for activities Brennan engaged in while he was in D.C. years ago.

Yes; that's Brennan's lawyers just wrote in a letter to the Chief Judge of the SDFL.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Yes; that's Brennan's lawyers just wrote in a letter to the Chief Judge of the SDFL."
Who authorized the empaneling of the grand jury.

[not guilty]

"Who authorized the empaneling of the grand jury."

Is that a rhetorical question, Mr. Bumble, or are you genuinely curious?

Per Rule 6(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "When the public interest so requires, the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned." Every district court, in every federal district, at any time the public interest so requires, is authorized to empanel grand jurors.

That appears to have been done here in the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida, in that defense counsel for John Brennan has represented to the chief judge of the Southern District:

We have been formally advised by prosecutors of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that Director Brennan is a target of grand jury investigation NS 1840-020 in the Miami Division (24-06), which is examining the circumstances surrounding the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/BrennanAltongaLetter12-22-25.pdf This letter further recites:

The United States Attorney also opened an investigation in a grand jury of the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida - Grand Jury Investigation Number NS1840-020. On November 11, 2025, Director Brennan received a subpoena dated November7, 2025, from that grand jury investigation requesting the production of materials from 2016-2017 "related to the preparation of, discussion of, creation of, or otherwise associated with the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment ("ICA") published on or about January 6, 2017, titled 'Assessing Russian Activities
and Intentions in Recent US Elections. The subpoena and accompanying letter were signed by the Executive Assistant United States Attorney. News reports indicate that at least other current and former officials of the United States Intelligence Community received similar subpoenas and letters. [Footnotes omitted.]

Presumably one of the nine district judges in the Miami Division of the Southern District of Florida empaneled the grand jury that issued the subpoena for Mr. Brennan.

[not guilty]

David is correct that there is not a "case about John Brennan", with the matter being at the investigative stage. The controversy is about the United States Attorney's apparent attempt to steer the investigation to a grand jury sitting in the Fort Pierce Division of the Southern District of Florida, where the duty judge is the Trump whore Aileen Cannon.

Read the letter from Mr. Brennan's defense counsel to the chief judge of the Southern District, Cecilia Altonaga, XY. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f22ed5abbbceaa38/4b7ed9db-full.pdf

EDIT: I don't know whether that site is paywalled. Here is another site with a pdf of defense counsel's letter: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-12/BrennanAltongaLetter12-22-25.pdf

[Riva]

Brennan’s attorney’s letter is about as pointless as your comment. It has the same legal effect. I’ll wait and read the Indictment.

[Commenter_XY]

I can tell. You really don't care for Judge Aileen Cannon, do you? 😉

[Malika la Maize]

Lukashenko wanted Washington to ease the raft of sanctions on some of his country’s most profitable companies—and get his presidential jet fixed. 

In return, the dictator was open to trading the one resource he had plenty of: political prisoners. If Coale succeeded, it could be a test run for the Trump administration’s central prize of bringing Putin and Russia’s $2 trillion economy out of isolation.

And maybe, U.S. officials thought, there could be a way to help a heavyset 71-year-old head of state interested in shedding some pounds. They resolved to look into arranging a supply of Zepbound for Lukashenko’s personal use.

“I don’t care who we talk to,” said Coale, in an interview at his midcentury mansion overlooking Washington’s Rock Creek Park. His effort to establish a personal relationship with Lukashenko, he added, is intended to mirror Trump’s approach to world leaders that the West finds odious. “This really is Trumpesque,” he said. “The hell with who you’re talking to, if this person can deliver what you want, that’s all that counts.”

Last month Lukashenko, who has referred to himself as “the last and only dictator in Europe,” released 123 prisoners, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski and opposition figure Maria Kalesnikava. Since Trump took office, Belarus has freed more than 250 detainees from over 10 countries, among them at least five with American citizenship, in one of the biggest political prisoner releases since the collapse of Communism. 

https://www.wsj.com/world/belarus-lukashenko-obesity-drug-02941fb3

[Malika la Maize]

FWIW-I think the administration has done good here.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, did not see that one coming, like how I thought Barry Hussein O did a good job with Bin Laden

[hobie]

Cannot read beyond the paywall, so how exactly does this world leader need help getting a drug any one else in the world can get? Has the man never heard of Tiajuana?

[Michael P]

His Tia Juana wasn't a doctor or pharmacist even when she was alive, how would she have provided a prescription drug for him?

[hobie]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nUmhWfWP7CvVF1818

Because I live 5 blocks from the world-famous Cleveland Clinic. I get nurses from time to time in one of my Airbnbs. Today I had two: one in her official capacity as a nurse made to work the nightshift on Christmas; and the other in his official capacity as a dad who's daughter is in the ICU. Two people who deserve a fine meal because of their service. The working nurse is an Asian woman and the dad - who is probably one of the most decorated nurses in the country - is a dwarf. So neither can control air traffic.

Mini beef wellingtons with port-demi sauce (demi glace made in house). Potatoes dauphinoise with rosemary and truffle salt, and Finnish gruyere. Spinach crepe parcels filled with roasted brussel sprouts, topped with bacon jam. My only perfectly nonstick pan made crepes that were too small to tie up with blanched spring onion greens like a purse, so I just bunched them all up and hoped no body would notice.

[Frank Drackman]

Why do all of your Vignettes sound like the set up for a dirty joke?
"So this Asian Chick, an Air Traffic Controller, and a Dwarf share an Airbnb...."

Frank "And the Dwarf says, "They all smell that way!!!!!"

[John 4]

The answer is inside you, Drank.

[Malika la Maize]

An annual Christmas Eve jazz concert scheduled for Wednesday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was canceled by its host after a board appointed by President Trump added his name to the building.

Chuck Redd, a musician who has hosted the show for nearly two decades, said that he decided last Friday to call off the performance after learning that the name was being changed on the building in Washington…

Congress designated the center as a “living memorial” to President John F. Kennedy in 1964. Relatives of the slain 35th president opposed the change in posts on social media.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/24/us/kennedy-center-christmas-eve-concert-trump.html

[hobie]

Of all the outrages, this one seems beyond the pale. Like scrawling your name on the man's tombstone. It's more than classless. What's the word I'm looking for here? Vulgar?

[Michael P]

"hobiesque".

[hobie]

Ah yes, a new eponymous adjective for our lexicon. I like it!

[Malika la Maize]

Crass egoism.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is it different from changing the name of the mountain named after him?

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand Dr. Ed's pronouns here. Can anyone help me with what the referent is for "him"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_William_McKinley

[David Nieporent]

Was anyone talking about McKinley? Had anyone even so much as alluded to McKinley? So how could "him" possibly refer to that?

[Josh R]

Congress gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to name the mountain in 43 U.S. Code § 364. In contrast Congress established the name of the Kennedy Center in 20 U.S. Code § 76i. No one can change the name without brand new Congressional authorization.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And I hope that Chuck Redd gets sued for breach of contract.

This schmuck has no class...

[Nelson]

But the guy who thinks a solid gold toilet is the height of the decorative arts? That guy is all class.

[not guilty]

"And I hope that Chuck Redd gets sued for breach of contract."

I haven't read the contracts at issue, but provided that Mr. Redd pays his musicians, who would sue?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The people with tickets and dates for the event.

[not guilty]

How are the ticketholders in privity with Mr. Redd? Did he sell tickets to the event himself?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of subrogation?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Which of the people we are discussing do you think is an insurance company?

[Mr. Bumble]

The venue for breach of contract?

[not guilty]

In a post yesterday primarily about another topic, Professor Blackman linked a New York Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/confederate-school-names.html , about a federal lawsuit being tried in Harrisonburg, Virginia regarding the Shenandoah County School Board's action in 2024 reinstating the names of two schools that once honored the Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and Turner Ashby, after such school names had been replaced in 2020.

(I haven't tried it myself -- I am not too cheap to subscribe -- but for the benefit of those who wish to evade the NYT paywall, there is this: https://lifehacker.com/how-to-bypass-a-paywall-to-read-an-article-for-free )

When I read the NYT article, I was initially skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims, but after having read the memorandum opinion of the District Court denying the defendant's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I can better understand the issues at stake. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vawd.131807/gov.uscourts.vawd.131807.61.0.pdf

Whether the plaintiffs will succeed is yet to be determined, but their claims under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act are at least plausible, as the District Court opined on January 22, 2025.

[not guilty]

Quite apart from the legal merits of the lawsuit arising out of Shenandoah County, naming government facilities after Confederate generals who committed treason in service of human chattel slavery is moral idiocy.

Robert E. Lee is likely responsible for the killing of more Americans than anyone in history. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/robert-e-lee-wasnt-a-hero-he-was-a-traitor

[Frank Drackman]

You're not only "Not Guilty" (and "Not Funny", "Not Intelligent", "Not Good Looking) but "Not Current"
All of the Military Bases formerly named after Confederate Generals are now named after Amurican Heroes who just coincidentally happen to have the same last names as Confederate Generals,
OK, no, I don't think there will be a "Camp Hitler" anytime soon.
Remember the Story Line on "Hill Street Blues" where the Cops sponsor this great Stand-Up Comic, "Vic Hitler", gets all sorts of offers to play Vegas, Tahoe, Catskills,
Even his name get's laughs, "Vic Hitler", you gotta admit it's funny.
Except he has to change the last name, "Hitler" doesn't go over well at Kellerman's.
Vic refuses, leaving hundreds of thousands on the table, it's a Family name and he's not going to let one Austrian Paper Hanger ruin it.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

“All of the Military Bases formerly named after Confederate Generals are now named after Amurican Heroes who just coincidentally happen to have the same last names as Confederate Generals”

The Frankie character performed here might be played currently to be dumb enough to fall for this but real people need not.

https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1889118238019293586

[Frank Drackman]

Your link confirms exactly what I said.

[Malika la Maize]

Nope, if it’s back there was a name to go back too. The only previous name of the base with that name was the Confederate general.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gee Qualika, sorry you were offended by the names of the forts you served at. Of course you realize that they were named by Democrat administrations, right?

[Malika la Maize]

This comment is like a Jenga tower of stupid.

[SRG2]

As I have said before:

GOP: "all those Confederate statues were erected by the Democrats!"
Democrats: "and now we want to take them down"
GOP: "No."

The modern Democratic party has renounced the Confederate heritage, while the modern Replicans have taken it up. And clearly you support the Replicans here.

[Mr. Bumble]

Modern Democrat party same as the old one.
Erasing history doesn't change it.

[Malika la Maize]

“Modern Democrat party same as the old one.”

Well, with the obvious difference on whether Confederates should be memorialized, you know, what this discussion is about?

[SRG2]

Nobody believes that, least of all you. So why lie? Why is it that the Replican Party is now the party of the Confederate Traitors?

Now let's see you condemn the Confederacy for treason and racism, and likewise those who support the Confederacy in the present day - e..g., by restoring a portrait of Robert E Lee to the West Point library, or continuing to fly Confederate flags.

After all, if it's the Democrats - a party you oppose - doing these things, you'd have no problem with such a condemnation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the thing: We excoriate the Confederacy for rampant violations of rights, not for offending people's sensibilities.

So, I don't give a damn if a portrait of Robert E Lee hangs in the West Point library. I really don't. Is he a famous graduate? Yeah, he is.

It offends some people if his portrait hangs there? I. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

I do give a damn if West Point is discriminating on the basis of race. Now, which party today strongly defends policies that discriminate the basis of race?

Oh, yeah, same one that did a century ago, go figure.

Nobody has a right to be free of being offended. They do have a right to be free from (governmental) discrimination. And only one party today defends governmental discrimination: The Democrats.

[SRG2]

Yeah, and the Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery. Now make the connection.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, in your mind a painting you disapprove of is just as big a deal as racial quotas?

[bernard11]

It offends some people if his portrait hangs there? I. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

You utterly fail to understand the objection top Lee's portrait. To put it simply, he was a traitor who violated his oath to the US, and waged war against it. And all for an odious cause - defense of slavery. Why such a man should be honored, rather than regarded as a disgraceful individual, is a mystery.

And of course, he was a particularly nasty slaveholder to boot. Whatever you think of Democrats and racial preferences - and you seem to be unable to get through a thread without raising the same tedious points - it has nothing to do with honoring Lee and his fellow traitors.

[SRG2]

Nope.

Obviously, returning a painting of Robert E. Lee is a statement of intent to discriminate.

[not guilty]

Frank, I did not specifically mention military bases, although the most recent renaming thereof is majorly disingenuous. The schools in Shenandoah County are expressly named for the Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee and Turner Ashby.

[apedad]

That's OK.

Harrisonburg, VA, is on the southern edge of the Great State of Northern Virginia, so it's understandable there'll be some residual backslipping to bigotry and racism.

The ultimate, long-term trend is undeniable and the MAGAts will simply have to accept the future . . . or move to Tennessippi.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apedad, Condi Rice is right on this -- we have to live with our history, not sanitize it.

[Frank Drackman]

With Virginia's "Changing Demographics" might as well name them after Mexican or Somalian Generals.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, is it illegal to evade the paywall?

[not guilty]

Not that I know of. And I am quite sure that calling attention to instructions on how to do so is First Amendment protected.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who are the "colonizers"? (It's a short clip)
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2004357090836467729?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004357090836467729%7Ctwgr%5Ee0d846f1e06f7d0624ce4bc801933e04a8b6c363%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F764913%2F

[hobie]

How does Muslim conquests wiping out indigenous cultures differ from Christianity's worldwide conquests?

[Roger S]

The Christians were missionaries.

[jb]

Kind of a weird set of claims, since, e.g., Iran is definitely still Persian.

Obviously, there's been a lot of attempts at empire through the millennia, some of them at least as durable as what we think of as the era of European colonization, which is particularly notable for its extent since it coincided with better ability to travel over very long distances. It's fair to say that 1492 represented both the end of one form of colonization in Span and the beginning of another.

Not sure why you would think this is surprising to anyone with a passing understanding of world history.

[David Nieporent]

Kind of a weird set of claims, since, e.g., Iran is definitely still Persian.

The author doesn't understand the difference between religion and ethnicity.

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Boxing Day!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On Christmas Night [5:59 PM to be exact], some Internet rando posted this statement (I added paragraph breaks):

Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries! [What previous event does he have in mind here? No. Best not to try to parse Trumpian war poetry.]

I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was.

The Department of War executed numerous perfect strikes, as only the United States is capable of doing.

Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.

God was surely cheering about the death of "scum" (aka God's children) as others celebrated the birth of the "Prince of Peace."

The Nigerian government stated that the attack had its backing. It also noted:

the strikes would be an "ongoing process" [and] Nigeria's fight against armed groups is not driven by religion, whether Muslims or Christians, and irrespective of the type of terrorism.

There were concerns:

But critics say President Trump's social media post announcing the strikes — issued hours before any Nigerian government statement — risks undermining that message.

Some in Nigeria are already questioning whether this signals a new, longer-term U.S. military role. That, in turn, raises questions about what comes next — and whether Nigeria is strong enough to exert any real influence over U.S. military operations in the region - or prevent them from escalating.

https://www.npr.org/2025/12/25/g-s1-103704/nigeria-isis-islamic-state

I'm interested in the United States' special role to launch perfect attacks worldwide to protect Christians (most of whom are innocent). An AP report did not have enough details to determine how "perfect" the attacks were.

Not surprisingly, Trump's analysis of the situation, apparently FOX News-motivated, is somewhat suspect:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/fox-news-report-prompted-trump-post-nigeria-setting-white-house-scramb-rcna241648

Happy Boxing Day! And, of course, the second day of Christmas.

[John F. Carr]

I think these attacks are distinguishable from the boat attacks because the declaration of war on terrorism is still in effect. If Trump can make a link between the Nigerian groups and the 9/11 plotters he can bomb them.

The FY 2026 defense bill is likely to repeal the authorization for use of force but it is not yet law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001

[Kazinski]

Since the Nigerian government is acquiescencing and cooperating and providing intelligence, that should be all the legal authorization the Administration needs.

This is on a much more sound legal footing than the boat strikes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More info on how this is a dubious enterprise:

https://www.duckofminerva.com/2025/12/do-you-want-a-religious-war-because-this-is-how-you-get-a-religious-war.html

But, hey, it is not blatantly murderous to the degree that the Caribbean boat strikes are!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Speaking of boxing day..

A movie has defense counsel cross examining the real killler and the witness hauls off and decks her. Movie has her client instantly found innocent and the witness found guilty, etc. etc. etc.

And you would think that criminal defense attorneys -- male, female, or confused -- would have enough street smarts to not get close enough to get decked, but I digress....

What would happen in real court? Mistrial?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As noted above, Josh Blackmun, in an entry regarding a Native American dispute, tossed in this:

in related news, the NAACP is put [sic] on trial the question of whether naming a school after Robert E. Lee is inherently racist

A dubious summary of the events. The linked NYT article:

https://archive.ph/biiyW

The trial, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, was ostensibly about whether a school board violated the rights of Black students when it reinstated the names of two schools that once honored the Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson after they’d been replaced in of 2020.

So, the issue is the reinstating of previously changed names. A school board lawyer partially responded:

One of the lawyers, Jim Guynn, hit many of those points in his questioning, suggesting that Lee was “the only West Point cadet to finish with no demerits” (he wasn’t), and that Jackson taught his enslaved workers to read.

The litigation has a broader purpose:

To prove that the Black students of Jackson High and Ashby-Lee Elementary were harmed by having the names restored, the plaintiffs sought to explain just what the Confederacy represented.

Blackmun argued that the Native American lawsuit unsuitably tried to enforce 19th-century land claims. He ends the entry this way:

Were there injustices in the past? Of course. Lots of things were unfair in world history. But societies need to move on, and not cling to legal rights that no [sic] in living memory benefited from.

The school naming dispute is "related" to this somehow.

It is somewhat ironic that a dispute involving going back to a previous name (who didn't move on?) is cited here.

Also, this "move on" principle is surely not consistently applied by people on this blog, including the conservatives.

Finally, it is not realistic on a basic level. Certain things continue to matter. We do not simply "get over" our history, especially when it is ongoing. Or involves re-naming things last year.

[Brett Bellmore]

"We do not simply "get over" our history, especially when it is ongoing."

Yeah, that's the problem, isn't it. People today are encouraged not to get over things. To lean into historical grievances.

I'm not saying I'd have restored the school's name. I don't give a shit either way about the name of the school, which is the way it ought to be. As we used to say when I was a kid, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

We didn't say that because insults didn't 'hurt'. It was an ideal to aim for.

Today, apparently, the opposite ideal is the target.

[SRG2]

People today are encouraged not to get over things. To lean into historical grievances.

Yup, whether it's losing the Civil War, or the 2020 election.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or losing the 2000 and 2016 election.

[SRG2]

Those are not the loudest voices.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet it can still be heard.

[SRG2]

Not over the voices of the losers I mentioned. No leader of the Democrats is publicly whining over losing in 2016, no Democratic official is promoting themselves by proclaiming the election was stolen in 2016, nor is denying the result a requirement for acceptance.

[Malika la Maize]

In both of those the losing candidate publicly conceded.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is now clear and convincing evidence that the 2020 election in Fulton County Georgia was stolen.

That would have given us both Republican US Senators and that would have stopped the worst of Brandon's reign of terror. OTOH, had Trump supported one or both in the subsequent runoff, with them able to neuter the worst of Brandon, then Trump would not have won in 2024 and likely would be in prison -- for life -- now.

[David Nieporent]

There is now clear and convincing evidence that the 2020 election in Fulton County Georgia was stolen.

There is no evidence a single invalid vote was cast in Fulton County in 2020.

[Brett Bellmore]

That IS kind of the point of not securing evidence: So that people can't prove what happened.

Look, I'm not on board with this, "We had other procedural safeguards, so it's no big deal if one of them was ignored." line. Why the hell did we not know of this four years ago? Can you tell me that?

And if we can go four years without finding out that there was this fundamental a violation of procedure, why the heck are you so confident there weren't others?

[David Nieporent]

Again: they did a full manual recount of the entire state of Georgia, which includes Fulton County.

[Brett Bellmore]

And you're assuming that you'd know if that recount was done properly in Fulton county, when you went four years not knowing of this.

[Kazinski]

"We do not simply "get over" our history, especially when it is ongoing."

What's the intelligible legal principle there?

Certainly its a good argument to the school board, but not in a lawsuit.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not guilty addressed the legal implications separately.

A legal finding was made that the lawsuit, at this stage, can continue. NG provided a link that discusses the details.

[ThePublius]

"As noted above, Josh Blackmun, ...."

It's Blackman. Blackmun (Harry) was an associate supreme court justice.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You missed my sly joke about JB's predilection for typos.

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting numbers.

However, looking deeper, the decline was roughly the same for January as for October, so it seems extremely unlikely anything the incoming administration did had anything to do with it.

I had an extended discussion with Google Gemini, and the conclusion was that this is a return to the prior long term decline in murder rates, after an upward deviation which was mostly due to Covid (policies?) but not all.

But anyway, good news, we seem to be on track to murder rates not seen since the 1950's and 60's.

At the very least, while I can't honestly credit Trump with causing the above decline, he has apparently done nothing to interrupt it.

[John F. Carr]

Two of the 11 district attorneys in Massachusetts went on the record to complain about murderers getting parole for crimes committed several decades ago. The Supreme Judicial Court declared life without parole unconstitutional for defendants who were 20 or younger. In effect, young defendants sentenced to life without parole for first degree murder are to be treated as convicted of second degree murder with parole eligibility after 15 years. The Parole Board has decided 51 of 210 parole applications for such defendants, allowing 39 to be released.

The Boston Herald tells the story of a 78 year old defendant who was released and a 65 year old defendant who was not.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/12/26/massachusetts-parole-board-has-released-39-murder-convicts-who-were-initially-sentenced-to-life-without-parole/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which makes the case for executions.

This is bullshyte unless SCOTUS is willing to also exempt 19 year olds from contracts.

[David Nieporent]

The word is spelled "bullshit." And what on earth does SCOTUS have to do with this?