This is the second in what will be a regular feature (see our first post here). It’s based upon what is known as the original position fallacy:
A situation in which a character promotes an action, revolution or social system that harms or will harm other people, under the assumption that it will not harm them. They will invariably discover that they were wrong, with the double whammy of knowing they supported the measure that caused their suffering when they thought it would happen to ‘somebody else’
This, of course, was predictable for the average MAGA voter, they were warned many times that Trump & Company had no true regard for their own supporters (except their mega wealthy cabal). Cheering on all of Trump’s plans the MAGA crowd were looking forward to the firing huge swathes of our federal workforce according to the Project 2025 playbook. And without thought of consequences these MAGAs failed to take notice that there are many MAGA adherents in that federal workforce. Thinking things through is not one of the characteristics of the entire MAGA movement, from top to bottom.
So, now, just seven weeks into the Re-Trumping of America, thousands of federal workers have been summarily laid off and RIFed. Those MAGAs who have been directly or indirectly harmed by this have learned the lesson of the original position fallacy. And more lessons will be forthcoming to MAGAs who disproportionately rely on programs being axed by the GOP/MAGA, for instance, Medicaid, administration interference with Social Security and Medicare, and the decimation of the Veterans Administration.
So, here’s is today’s example of buyer’s regret, courtesy of Twitter/X poster Tim Hannon’s retweet of a February 6th cris de coeur from MAGA town:
Two days before Trump placed a 25% tariff on nearly all goods from Canada (he placed a 10% tariff on energy and energy resources), Senators Coons (DE) and Kaine (VA) introduced legislation sure to raise Trump’s blood pressure. It’s a bill to restrict a president’s authority to impose tariffs on allies and free trade agreement partners by requiring the consent of Congress. Presently, presidents’ tariff authority is so strong as to be arguably plenary.
Here’s the joint statement by Coons and Kaine. Note that it was introduced two days before the tariffs were imposed. Chances for passage in a MAGA dominated House? Very iffy. . .
Better still, Democrats could create a simple test for Trump’s nominees, and insist they all clear it: Who will you work for, Trump, or the citizens of the United States?
Brian Beutler, Off Message substack, December 9, 2024
Cowering is not a good look . . .
Brian Beutler, formerly Crooked Media editor in chief, and a New Republic senior editor, has a way of concisely stating his messages. Yes, it’s a simple ask of a potential Trump cabinet candidate, “Who will you work for, Trump, or the citizens of the United States.” Nonetheless, getting GOP senators to ask that soft ball question has been a panic-inducing vision of a four alarm fire among those who have the “advise and consent” duty. Beutler’s quote above, however, did not have as its target the GOP, he’s calling out his own, the Democratic party. Their lack of a sense of the moment is appalling, so relatively silent have they been about the level of spirited, angry resistance that is demanded of them as Trump trots out his “best people” to run our government . . . into the ground.
That’s not just my imagination working overtime, it’s what his nominees for top positions themselves say; Nearly everyone is a demolition expert, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, Pam Bondi, Elise Stefanik, Robert Kennedy Jr., and “woman bites dog and goat” Kristi Noem. And that’s merely a partial list, pick your favorite from this group of mugshots at the New York Times. They are a chorus line of wrecking balls, not to mention the obnoxious Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
At any rate, Beutler provides a surgical scalpel to the primary problem, a problem I’ve written about since 2008, spinelessness. In a New Republic interview, published today, he laid it out:
“What I’m concerned they’re going to do is what you alluded to, which is that they’re going to, in some sense, hector the most activist elements of the big D and small d democratic base in the country and say, Elections have consequences, more people should have voted, and take the wind out of the sails of any new resistance to Trump. What I think they should say is: Elections do have consequences, but they don’t entitle anybody to break the law. They don’t entitle anybody to violate the Constitution, and they don’t entitle anybody to encourage political violence against the opposition.
If that’s the attitude that they take, then the public at large will see them as natural allies to a ground level resistance to Trump. But it’s not just as simple as saying that. It’s acting like it. It’s acting like, Yes, you won the election, but that doesn’t mean that you get to appoint a fascist to run the FBI. I find it a little bit mystifying and a little bit concerning that they’re trying to let news cycles essentially defeat these nominees instead of trying to defeat them themselves.
If they want to see an energized electorate rise up against the incoming Trump administration, they need to act like there’s something to get energized about. They’re currently not really doing that . . .”
Unfortunately, but given Democratic party uber reticence, realistically, Beutler expresses little confidence that anything is on the near horizon:
“[We’re] in this transition period after Trump won the election outright. There’s some reason to suspect that that more stiff-spined opposition politics is just going to wait until we’re closer to confirmation votes, to Trump issuing executive orders that are clearly illegal or corrupt or immoral. That’ll be the moment when we know which way things are going to go.”
He’s suggesting that the next seven weeks will yield little in the spirited opposition column until Trump is inaugurated. Yet, if this interregnum is void of Democratic outrage, the Trumpists will continue to heap it on, solidifying their base further and wearing out the rest of us.
“District Attorney = Democrat Prosecutor = donated to Biden in 2020 = Prosecutor = paid by the DNC, former Biden DOJ official = Jury = pulled from one of the most liberal areas = Judge, donated to Biden in 2020 = Trial and Conviction = total sham” Twitter/X May 31, 2024, MAGA & causation expert Rep. Russell Fry, R SC-District 6, immediately after Trump’s 34 NY felony convictions
As you can see above, first term backbench GOP/MAGA congressman Russell Fry had his dander up on May 31st, one day after Trump was convicted of 34 felonies. He torched the usual MAGA suspects: the District Attorney, the prosecutor, the jury, and, as a result, the 34 convictions.
And. as we’ll see after the next section, in April of 2023 Fry began to take on the federal criminal procedure that disallowed Trump from removing his election fraud case from New York to a federal District Court. His bill, H.R. 2553, has been percolating since then and, significantly, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in January 2024 onto the House Calendar. It’s shyly named, “No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023”. It’s important and potentially game changing.
But first, and briefly . . .
For a Backbencher He’s Got Front Bench Chutzpah
Fry is a typical MAGA extremist, beloved of Donald Trump. He describes himself on Twitter/X as: “Husband. Dad. Sock game on point. 8th grade ping pong champ. Fmr Chief Whip in SC House. #AmericaFirst. Trump Endorsed.” And there’s more than just sock game on point to please him.
His voting record for his first 19 months in Congress is rated as highly as the most MAGA Republicans in the House. He’s earned a 94% from the maniacal Heritage Foundation (the average House Republican garners an 745% rating). The Freedom Index has him at 90%, and for comparison, madman Jim Jeffords is at 80% and the equally mad Speaker of the House is at 73%). So, you know who we’re dealing with here . . . If you need any more info, there’s this: He received the Award for Conservative Excellence from the infamous The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He liked that: “It is an honor to receive the Award for Conservative Excellence and be rated among the top 10% of the most conservative members of Congress. I will never stop fighting for conservative wins in Washington!” In short, he’s a MAGA doozy, thinking erroneously that he’s a “conservative,” when he’s a MAGA bomb thrower. And he seems to be a MAGA up and comer, especially given his bill’s success, No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023, now on the House Union Calendar.
The No More Political Prosecutions Act of 2023
On April 11, 2023, Fry introduced H.R. 2553 and referred to which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by the MAGA star and irritant Jim Jordan. Fry’s website described the bill,
“Congressman Russell Fry (SC-07) has introduced the No More Political Prosecutions Act, legislation that would give Presidents and Vice Presidents, both former and current, the option to move their own civil or criminal cases from a state court to a federal court. Presidents and Vice Presidents are among the most visible politicians in the United States government — making them a target for rogue prosecutors looking to build up their profile and make a name for themselves on the political stage. Because of that threat, it’s important for Presidents and Vice Presidents to have the option to move their case to a federal court — where judges are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, serve in their role for life, and don’t need to win an election to keep their position.
‘I’m proud to introduce the No More Political Prosecutions Act. Politically motivated prosecutors should not be able to wield unwarranted power and target our nation’s top leaders for their own personal gain. This legislation will prevent the political prosecutions of Presidents and Vice Presidents and thwart corrupt prosecutors’ agendas.’” [Emphasis in original]
28 U.S. Code § 1442 – Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue. (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States. (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties. (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House; (5) The President or Vice President, or a former President or Vice President. [Emphasis added]
(b) Application.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to civil actions or criminal prosecutions pending on the date of enactment of this Act or commenced on or after such date. [Emphasis added]”
The Donald Trump Legislation Machine
Fortunately, this legislative proposal, which is among many MAGA/GOP ideas specifically designed to protect Donald Trump from accountability, languishes on the House Calendar; let’s hope it stays that way. It’s another super-partisan example of the extent to which MAGA politicos go to subvert the very idea of creating laws of general applicability. The No More Political Prosecutions Act was introduced in January 2024, two months before Trump’s New York state criminal trial began, a trial that Trump, in 2023, tried to remove from state court to federal court where his team believed he’d fare better than in New York’s state court. This attempted movement is not illegal or even underhanded, it is an attempt at what is labeled forum shopping and is subject to complex removal rules.
Trump averred that the federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction because he was charged “for conduct committed while he was President of the United States that was within the ‘color of his office,'” and that the charges involved both federal and state election law violations about which the state election law was preempted by federal law, and thus ought to be removed to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who heard Trump’s removal request, denied it. POLITICO reported:
“In his written decision Wednesday [July 19, 2023], however, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein found that ‘[t]he evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event. He added: “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.’” [Emphasis added]
As you see again, Trumpists have a very “liberal” view of official presidential acts. Don’t they see the irony in that? Of course they do. They just don’t give a damn.
In any event, Trump stayed in the New York judicial system and was crowned on the last day of May with 34 criminal convictions.
One can see, then, that Congressloon Russell Fry’s No More Political Prosecutions Act, introduced in January 2024, was then an obvious pander to Trump and for no other purpose. The bill’s language (see above) is phrased in general terms; it would be a bridge too far for even a MAGA superstar like Fry to explicitly limit the proposed legislation to Donald Trump exclusively. But for many MAGA acolytes, Trump presents a single purpose for them, to protect and defend. I have little doubt that Fry’s interest in the complexities of federal-state removal law ever burdened even a moment of thought prior to Trump’s New York indictment. He is, after all, just a water boy.
You DO have to live like a refugee, young man Copyright, Michael V. Matheron
Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. The entry of any noncitizen into the United States across the southern border is hereby suspended and limited, subject to section 3 of this proclamation. This suspension and limitation on entry shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 5, 2024. The suspension and limitation directed in this proclamation shall be discontinued pursuant to subsection 2(a) of this proclamation, subject to subsection 2(b) of this proclamation.
Sec. 2. Applicability of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall monitor the number of daily encounters and, subject to subsection (b) of this section, the suspension and limitation on entry pursuant to section 1 of this proclamation shall be discontinued at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on the date that is 14 calendar days after the Secretary makes a factual determination that there has been a 7-consecutive-calendar-day average of less than 1,500 encounters, not including encounters described in subsection 4(a)(iii) of this proclamation.
Also, it directs that:
For purposes of subsection (a) and subsection (b) of this section, unaccompanied children (as defined in section 279(g)(2) of title 6, United States Code) from non-contiguous countries shall not be included in calculating the number of encounters.
President Biden has had understandably difficult policy, humanitarian, and political choices since day one of his administration. Hyperbolic MAGA/GOP criticism was expected, but due to Trump’s meddling this has not been consistent: during February, the GOP scuttled a Senate-created very workable and strict bipartisan immigration bill, one that the Senate fought hard to produce. Why refuse to pass a bipartisan bill MAGA/GOP members had helped craft? Well, enter the usual suspects: firstly, it’s impossible to please them, especially House MAGAs, with any Biden- or Democratic-supported victory, and, secondly, because Trump directed his congressional minions to deny Biden a victory – regardless of the human toll at the border. This interference is now commonplace since Trump is a demanding god who wants to mendaciously campaign on Biden’s failure to enact immigration reform. Thus, the southern border has devolved into a very serious train wreck with Trump the berserk engineman.
Also, of no small measure, there’s a pox on both houses. For example, Democratic progressives were unmoved by many of the concessions to GOP/MAGA allowed by Democratic senators during the border bill negotiations. The Congressional Progressive Caucus had this to say on May 22:
“We are disappointed that the Senate will once again vote on an already-failed border bill in a move that only splits the Democratic Caucus over extreme and unworkable enforcement-only policies. This framework, which was constructed under Republican hostage-taking, does nothing to address the longstanding updates needed to modernize our outdated immigration system, create more legal pathways, and recognize the enormous contributions of immigrants to communities and our economy. . . It is tempting to simply embrace the very policies we rejected under Donald Trump to counter the horrific xenophobic and racist attacks against immigrants coming from the right. We urge our Senate Democratic colleagues to resist this urge and instead show a clear contrast between Republicans and Democrats. Abandon unworkable policy solutions offered by Republicans and instead work with our caucuses to craft a common-sense bipartisan bill that provides holistic solutions that address our economic, humanitarian, and security needs — not more of the same enforcement-only approach that has failed us for the last 30 years.”
Moreover, the Tri-Caucus – a diverse group of legislative leaders comprised of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) – were leery of the Senate’s deal. One of their group, CHC, issued a statement, excerpted below:
“The Senate border bill once again fails to meet the moment by putting forth enforcement-only policies and failing to include provisions that will keep families together . . . As written, the bill excludes critical protections and legal pathways for families, farm workers and America’s Dreamers who have been in the U.S. contributing to our Nation’s communities and economy for decades. . . CHC recognizes that our immigration system is broken and that there are challenges at the border that Congress must address. However, if this bill passes, it will set back real comprehensive immigration reform by years.”
I sympathize with the progressive concerns and usually side with them, and there indeed were some MAGA/GOP nasty provisions in the bipartisan border bill. The tactics here missed the moment though, when Democrats needed to present a solid front. There are times when one must accept the possible versus the perfect. This bipartisan bill was that moment when a Pyrrhic victory was worthwhile. With a win on the bipartisan bill, Democrats would have:
pleased most American voters (many Democrats consider border security their greatest concern);
helped Biden and Democratic 2024 candidates in red and purple states by giving them a big win by softening the resistance of swing voters; and;
turned some of those highly border-concerned independent votes from leaning MAGA/GOP to Democratic votes, and that group will be decisive in 2024 for Biden and Senate and House races with control of two out of three government branches at stake; and;
provided Democrats – should they capture majorities in Congress and return Biden to the White House – many chances to modify the bipartisan bill’s immigration policies to revise or remove some or all of the most objectionable MAGA/GOP provisions.
It was that important to compromise on the border security bill and there will be no more chances before the election. Opportunity – a big one – missed.
Is it too late for President’s border closing effort to remedy the harm done by failing to pass the bipartisan bill through a divided Congress? I do think the border issue will swing this election. Bear in mind, should MAGA/GOP forces repopulate the federal government in 2025, the immigration bill they will formulate will be draconian. For example, see a GOP bill that cleared the House one-year ago, a bill that would have codified President Trump’s policies and added ever more severe policies. Hopefully, the future of Biden’s Proclamation in the five months before election day will cure much of the public’s intense concern about the administration’s immigration policies and turn undecided votes to Democratic votes. Hope especially for a minor miracle – that the disappointing Biden campaign staff will know/learn how to use and widely publicize this win From my typewriter to God’s ears.
Six years ago, the publication Inside Higher Education ran an article about 2018’s version of the Antisemitism Awareness Act and observed,
“anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time. There is a robust debate, both inside the Jewish community and among experts on the issue, over the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Sometimes anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism; sometimes it doesn’t.”
Their bifurcation framed antisemitism as a set of definitional issues regarding
antisemitism directed against the state of Israel as a state, i.e., a sovereign corporate entity, and thereby a diplomatic issue about which the State Department has its own definition, and
in the education sector, antisemitism directed at individuals, i.e., a civil rights issue under the Department of Education Civil Rights Division’s definition of antisemitism to be used to determine schools’ antidiscrimination legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) “to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” (Note that Title VI does not apply to discrimination based upon religion itself, but applies to race, national origin, and ethnicity which creates confusion in policy. Also note, Title VI applies to institutions which receive federal aid.)
Much comes to mind since the Inside Higher Education article referenced above pointed out the perennial truth that “anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time.” Today’s manifestation arises from the latest and most vicious war in many years between the state of Israel and Gaza’s Hamas. In the education sphere regulated under Title VI, mass protests grow in intensity and they often mix attacks on Jewish and Palestinian individuals with attacks upon the Jewish state.
How broad or narrow ought antisemitism be defined to maintain reasonable First Amendment free speech rights? And what about the distinction between the diplomatic vs. the personhood definition for federal enforcement purposes? And that definition variance is the rub. What makes this bill so controversial is its reliance on equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism: one is criticism of an entity, the other of a person. Indeed, it’s a categorical error. So, it appears, if the bill passes Senate muster, on-campus criticism of the Jewish state is antisemitic. And the Antisemitism Awareness Act seeks to resolve this by empowering the Education Department to take action against educational institutions that do not sufficiently combat anti-Israel speech on campus where this kind of “diplomatic” free speech ought to be encouraged in order to air out attitudes about countries’ treatment of, for example in Gaza, noncombatant rights.
This round of concern has, of course, arisen as fallout from the ongoing Israel-Palestine war, and the resulting protests roiling campuses. And this is a time of existential crisis for both sides, their disputed homelands up for destruction. The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt a broad definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM), an intergovernmental group. The group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel. These manifestations are directed at Jewish individuals and ought to be prevented even to the point of shackling free speech rights.
However, as noted above, importantly, the House-adopted definition of antisemitism arguably includes offenses against the Jewish state, ‘‘[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,’’ and ‘‘[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’’ This is the substance of the Antisemitism Awareness Act. The scope of this expanded definition makes it illegal in an educational setting to merely claim “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” or, if heavily enforced by DOE, to forbid any criticism of, for example, Israel’s brutal conduct of the present conflict. That goes too far, discussions of the behavior of our allies must be free-flowing, particularly in an educational setting.
An Example That Eats the Rule
Interestingly, and counterintuitively, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM) examples of antisemitic behavior adopted by the House-passed bill contain a limitation: “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” [emphasis added]
Is this the exception that eats the rule? After all, most of the present on-campus criticism of Israel is based upon the international laws of war, and the responsibility for treatment of refugees and noncombatants. And isn’t this the same kind of criticism any other country receives in these circumstances,and therefore, according to the definitional section of the Antisemitism Awareness Act itself “cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” That creates confusion, it does not resolve it. Thus, the Antisemitism Awareness Act which is intended to, in large part, prevent criticism of Israel, the sovereign nation, contains a serious internal contradiction provided by the very IHRM definition it seeks to codify. As such, it needs to be considered carefully by the Senate.
MAGA’s Core Antisemitism
As an aside, but an important one, it’s interesting to note the overwhelming support of Republicans for a measure that supports Israel’s stated right to exist as a state. The GOP has not shown itself to be an avid supporter of Jewish causes, particularly since Jewish voters are largely Democratic party voters. Hardly a day goes by when a Marjory Taylor Greene or the erstwhile Kevin McCarthy pins most of the world’s problems on George Soros, in general, or the Rothschild’s Jewish Space Lasers. How there are Jewish Zionist Republicans I’ll never understand.
The MAGA movement (which is, basically, the Republican party at this point) is riddled with proud nazi sympathizers who openly encourage an end to the Israel and to the Jews themselves. Trump himself doesn’t have a clearly stated policy and recently has used antisemitic rhetoric that directly quotes many classic bits of antisemitism, for example, that Jews support Democrats, that they support Israeli interests over American interests. As has been pointed out often, Trump is a “transactional” political actor, so his position may remain forever unknown, but he does know his supporters are primarily and loudly antisemite, singling out both Israel as a country and Jews as individuals.
So here’s how the GOP/MAGA party acolytes voted. Given their widespread antisemitism, one is reminded that Napoleon once remarked,
After his GOP majority “shut down” a workable, bipartisan, and tough-on-immigrant border deal simply because Maximus Trump ordered them to do so, Texas congressloon Chip Roy prematurely warned the world of disaster a day before the budget deal was struck, and signed, immediately, by President Biden. Roy has been in the House since 2019, and ought to have known that rarely do these threatened shutdowns occur, although they have done three times, once each, under Clinton (16 days), Obama (21 days), and under Chip Roy’s unprecedented President Trump (the longest shutdown at 33 days).
Roy, by the way, is a prototypical MAGA/Tea Party budget ax man who has never met a budget item he didn’t want to cut, especially social welfare programs and taxes. Hypocritically, he would have applauded a shutdown. Like most of his GOP/MAGA congressloon colleagues (and, sadly, this includes some fifth column Democrats), causing the federal government to shut down is their overriding primary rationale, intimately intertwined with their tax cutting fever. This is why they continually underfund important federal programs: this causes inefficiencies and poor management of these programs, thus proving, to those who don’t make the connection, that the federal government does not work, in general and in particular. They are for decades the quintessential anti-government force in American history.
As of today, a budget compromise seems near complete. The MAGA-Steroids do not, it appears, to have the votes to stop it because a fair number of Democrats will vote for it. It’s complicated, of course. Nonetheless, it’s not absolutely resistant to me, an amateur historian, or to my spouse, a University of Pennsylvania Communications major, and the mental machinations of three university trained engineers who comprise my family of in-laws. This surely qualifies as a brain trust; after all, the Heritage Foundation, chock full of addlebrained Right-wing PhD’s has long been considered brain trust worthy by other groups of addlebrained foundations, liberal and conservative. I, being the most addlepated member of this group, was immediately selected as the Director-In-Chief, I believe primarily because I would be the easiest one to blame for our output should our mission have failed. Be that as it may, working together, often with me in one room, and my spouse and two brothers-in-law and one sister-in-law in another far more spacious and better furnished another, we set to our task.
I immediately considered my qualifications as an amateur historian and decided to use what I learned from a course (college level) in the First World War (1914-1918), a course in which I was awarded a C+ and quite representative of the kind of grade I was capable of if I put my mind to it. So, WW1 had a very complicated beginning, with juicy events like a major assassination in Sarajevo, a bunch of insults flying to an fro from Austria, Germany, England, France, and Eastern Europe. In the event, putting many rather boring events aside, territorial in invasions followed in quick succession only to end four years later in a world of hurt. However, the map of the European theatre of war and the various troop movements and countries involved seemed to me to represent the very complicated “map” of this, and other, budget processes throughout our modern history. So obvious was this, I felt I had no need to delve further. I spent my time drawing a map of those WW1 events and presented it to the engineers as my contribution.
This group of four very down-to-earth mechanical and electrical engineers, and one Communications graduate (University of Pennsylvania, if I neglected to mention it) had struggled for a few days trying to translate Congressional budget procedures into engineering lingo. This had produced blackboards filled with so-called “equations” and symbolic language that frankly caused me to lose all feeling in my brain for a few hours. Despite that, once back in mental shape, I immediately noticed that my chart of the nations’ movements during WW1 matched exactly their map of what they called the quasi-electrical circuits of the budget process! We then simply overlaid their circuit map over my map of Europe – exact to the millimeter.
Knowing we had cracked the code we celebrated like the folks at Bletchley after they’d solved the German’s WW2 Enigma code. Awakening en masse thirty hours later we celebrated again; this family of ours is addicted to celebration. We make no apologies, especially since it yielded the elegant chart below which combines science and history and communications theory at the highest level.
We hereby introduce the world to our Laypersons’ Guide to the Congressional Budget Process. Simply begin following the lines from Sarajevo and continue in consecutive fashion for the easiest budget process chart you will ever find on the internet. What a glorious blending of science and humanities in this time when people scoff at the scientific method, if I do say so myself and for three engineers and one University of Pennsylvania Communications graduate.
Self Explanatory Chart of the U.S. Federal Budget Process (as of January 2024)
Note: The always dependable Texas congressloon, Louie Gohmert, spends much of his time studying logic, and in 2011 he “logicked” about spoons and firearms. In my earlier version of this blog (2007-2017) I posted what follows as an explanation to my many readers, obviously not logicians, who failed to follow his meaning. I post this again here in commemoration and admiration of Mr. Gohmert’s demonstration of logic. Read it and learn. ———————-
Military grade spoons, I say!!!!
“We have spoons that are too big and too numerous. It’s not the spoons that make people fat and it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people.”
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX), January 2011
Try taking down a wart hog with a spoon. Spoons do not have triggers, so, unlike bullets expelled from guns at high velocity, spoons cannot kill a wart hog from a distance of more than approximately three inches and not without an abnormal amount of exertion on the attacker’s part and an equally abnormal passivity on the wart hog’s part. Without a doubt, a spoon-armed attack on a wart hog is a nasty task, as I found out. I still wake up running through the neighborhood screaming like a guy in a Wes Craven movie.
I looked this up. In any event, statistics bear out the Congressloon’s observations: In the United States, from 1990 to date the number of accidental deaths/homicides/suicides by spoon are obviously swamped by bullet-related deaths. Swamped. (Although, please note, I do not wish to imply that spoon crimes and negligence ought to remain unaddressed.) Also, from the FBI website, arrests in the 50 states for carrying a concealed spoon track quite closely Health and Human Services data on obesity and obesity-related violent deaths, think spoons.
Try eating a pudding with a bullet. I did so, forthrightly testing Congressman Gohmert’s logical argument. For a full 10 minutes, using a highly recommended Remington 9mm 124 grain FMJ (full metal jacket) bullet, I attacked a 12 oz. bowl of room temperature pudding. I was able to stuff the concoction into my gullet, but the bullet’s small size caused me to consume far less pudding than I had in the pre-test. Clearly, this validates the Congressman’s observations.
I hope this helps and never forget: All men are mortal. Louie Gohmert is a man. Therefore, all men are Louie Gohmert
Two weeks ago I wrote here that on December 5th Speaker of the House Mike Johnson had arguably committed the federal crime of obstruction of justice when he announced that the security videos of January 6, 2021 would be tampered with before releasing them to the public. As he said that day: “As you know, we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ, and to have other concerns and problems.[emphasis added] This appears to have violated 18 U.S.Code § 1501 §§ (c) which forbids alteration of, for example, videotapes with “the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”
What is it I deny doing, again?
Since my posting on the matter, Johnson’s Chief of Staff for Communications Raj Shah issued this essentially dishonest “clarification”, or in political jargon, a craven walk-back: “Faces are to be blurred from public viewing room footage to prevent all forms of retaliation against private citizens from any non-governmental actors. The Department of Justice already has access to raw footage from January 6, 2021.” This is a distinction without a difference because blurring faces may, in fact, hide the identity of a January 6th insurrectionists from viewers of the tapes who might be able to disclose their identities to law enforcement actors who are still investigating the attack. Arguably, this “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so . . .”
Mike Johnson’s Eyes Blur When Reading Federal Laws
Johnson and cohorts, however, may have violated another federal criminal statute:
18 U.S.Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
His blurred faces caper, as he admitted above, was specifically designed to “hinder or prevent . . . apprehension, trial or punishment . . .”
Breaking News: MAGA World Shocked That Laws Still Exist!
Of course, neither of these laws will cause Johnson, and perhaps others, to be perp walked. DOJ will not touch this for obvious reasons. It’s unfortunate, though, that they will never even investigate just a tiny bit as a shot across MAGA’s row boat bow, a warning. The vast majority of MAGA folks, don’t truly recognize a primary fact: the laws of the United States still exist, they could look them up. Despite their self-congratulatory posture as permanent revolutionaries, they have not yet succeeded in bringing their own government to its knees, the government that their legislators swear to support and defend:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
So, Speaker Johnson and other MAGAs, like it or not, have to live in a world where laws still exist and cannot simply be created on the fly, for whatever purpose suits them. There’s a war to win first. And that’s a bit more difficult than merely believing you’ve already won.
