"Natural immunity" is the latest fad among the Trump cultists.

In my area, one local medical professional is preaching the religion of natural immunity.

I wonder if he graduated from the Rand Paul school of fantasy medicine.

But for those who live in reality:

My Second Amendment "Constitutional originalist" version, with explanation.

Informed voters know that, in order to arrive at his interpretation of the real meaning of the Second Amendment, Antonin Scalia, the self-described Constitutional originalist who served on the SCOTUS, decided to literally dismiss half of the actual wording of the Amendment as, in his words, “merely prefatory”.

In that spirit, I have decided to turn my own Constitutional originalist lens on the Amendment, and explain what the founders really intended. Mine has the added attraction of being in line with their actual thinking, and their actions in forming the government and additional Agencies.

First, the unredacted Amendment reads:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

First, it is obvious that the first 2 clauses, “A well-regulated militia”, are the primary clauses. All of the rest of the Amendment explains those clauses. So, following the example of Antonin Scalia, I decided to dismiss the next two clauses as being merely referential to the primary clause, and not necessary in any interpretation of the Amendment.

Given that the founders refused to establish a standing army, instead stating that the new nation would rely on an organized militia for security and protection, the Amendment should read:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, will forthwith be established.


This version is in keeping with the intent of the founders, and eliminates any idea that everyone who feels the “need” for a weapon should have access to one.

The "modern" GOP is fueled by hate, and fear, and violence.

It has been since 1968.

It IS that simple.

And yes, the GOP is only concerned with the interests of the rich donors who actually run the Party, but they use hate, and fear, and violence to motivate their base.

I would love to read arguments that prove that my post is far too simplistic, and I will wait for those arguments.

Who is to blame?

Freedom versus freedumb.

Freedom recognizes that all rights are limited, and that with rights, come responsibilities.

Freedumb insists that it is unlimited.

Freedom recognizes that any person is merely one part of society.

Freedumb acts as if it is alone in the world.

Freedom recognizes limitations.

Freedumb never learns.

The GOP is all about freedumb as a characteristic of Libertarianism.

One of the people that I follow is a blogger named Shower Cap.

Here is a tiny bit of his latest:

In the country of FOXlandia....

In the country of FOXlandia....Trump actually is a successful businessman.

In the country of FOXlandia....Trump is innocent of every accusation of sexual misconduct.

In the country of FOXlandia....Trump won the 2020 election, beating Biden by millions of votes.

I could continue, but it is fairly obvious that millions of apparently sane US citizens live in FOXlandia.

Can we reach them?

My thoughts on the Ahmad Arbery case:

The case of Ahmad Arbery, like that of Trayvon Martin, and so many others, involves white citizens stopping and killing black citizens because those black citizens are running.

Students of US history know that the first police forces in the southern US were slave patrols. Often, all white males were legally required to be part of the slave patrols, and they were generally required to be armed.

The foundation for this was that blacks were slaves, and their movements were strictly controlled by the white, slave holding class. Any black person outside could expect to be stopped and questioned. Especially a running person.

Consider the case of Ahmad Arbery. He was running for exercise in the area where he lived.

But he was a black male running.

As a white male, if I run in my area, or any area, it is assumed that I am exercising,
but if a black male is running, racists assume that he is running from something, or running away from someone. And that assumption is the foundation for why these white civilians felt empowered to go home, arm themselves, and literally hunt Arbery down, trapping him with their trucks, before killing him.

These white vigilantes could have called the police, and let them handle the situation, but they felt entitled and empowered to go out and arrest Arbery. The killers claimed to be making a citizen’s arrest, but Georgia law only allows for that if the citizen making the arrest saw a crime being committed, or has knowledge of the crime that was committed.

Neither situation applied, and all three were convicted. But that conviction does not change anything. It does not change the underlying assumption that if a black person is running, they are running away because, in the eyes of their white pursuers, they are guilty.

How do we, or can we, educate white people to reject the dead hand of the slaveholding past? How do we, or can we, educate armed white citizens to stop playing at being police? Self-defense is one thing, but these three convicted killers literally hunted Arbery down, then confronting him with weapons.

I was listening to Hal Sparks today as I canvassed for Marie Newman.

He played numerous clips of Trump....speaking, I suppose it should be called, in the sense that words were coming out of his lying mouth.

But it sounded as if someone threw some words in a pile and picked them out in random order.

When I read comments from the red hatted sheep about how smart Trump is, and how well he speaks, I can only wonder if the speaker/write is joking, or high, or engaging in "owning the liberals" performance art.

And 71 million voted for him.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State....."

How exactly does the NRA/GOP/SCOTUS decide that this means that anyone can become a vigilante patrolling the streets and becoming judge, jury, and executioner?

Scalia, and the GOP segment of the SCOTUS, essentially dismissed half of the actual Amendment as "merely prefatory" so that Mr. Originalist, Antonin Scalia, could "discover" a right that gives every (white) person the right to carry a firearm.