Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

You searched for: duplicitous

Duplicitous Bastards

These are they who insist on their right to easily buy guns, to own as many guns as they wish. They who insist that mass shootings should be dealt with by prosecution. They who vehemently oppose any addressment of the question of who should be permitted to own guns. They who would only treat the symptoms of gun violence; who dare not look to science for the causes. They who think their Second Amendment rights are more important than the lives of mass shooting victims.

When it comes to voting rights, these same they are those who would make it difficult if not impossible for millions to vote whom they think might vote differently from them. They who think that not everyone has the right to vote. They who fear that the right to vote might fall into the wrong hands. They who think it far better to suppress the votes of many rather than take a chance that the one vote might fall into the wrong hands. They who think laws and prosecution are not the answer for voter fraud. They who deny the absence of voter fraud.

True enough, voters don’t have a Second Amendment giving them the constitutional right to vote (This isn’t the Constitution’s only flaw). Gun owners didn’t have one either before Justice Scalia performed his magic trick in Heller, and then bullied the Court into going along with him. Today, in this the 21st Century, in a democracy, the right to vote is a far more important right than the right to own an assault weapon, a gun.

Why Not Fraud?

First to step out of the right hand corner was John Cornyn of Texas. Floated something he had read in Politico; it didn’t. None of Cornyn’s stings, stung. Departing the ring before the first was over; Cornyn mumbled something about butterflies and bees, or maybe it was something about Dinah. Next, Senator Lindsey of South Carolina would show his fellows how it was done; how to handle an uppity black women. Stepped in; wham never knew what hit him. Lindseee went down without even a sarcastic whimper. Time to bring in the heavyweight favorite from, and now of, Louisiana — in the right corner — John Kennedy. What is that on his lips, all over him? Is that molasses? Ref should check Kennedy’s notes for the presence of a foreign substance, of a fact. Leads off the round with a set of his very best question-interruption feints. Then tries another. Then another. Somewhere along about his fifth question-interruption feint attempt, Kennedy begins to realize that what he is seeing up close is the floor and that his face is the mop.

Irony is, these good old boys are from the same south that for a century had said that blacks weren’t qualified for public office and shouldn’t be allowed to even vote just took a mental whupping from a big beautiful black women in a white hat. Stacy, dear, you were way way too merciful with their dumb asses.

These Three Lilliputians of the US Senate were in turn interviewing the one and only Ms. Stacy Abrams of Georgia about Georgia’s newly enacted voting laws, something Ms. Abrams knows quite a lot about. No amount of training could have prepared them for this contest, they were simply out of their class.

All of which brings us to the question at hand: why are the former confederate states (FCS), if they are to be believed, so afraid of voter fraud? If they really are in such angst, why not go after the fraudsters instead of the voters? Somehow the role of ghost-busters seems fitting this mendacious lot.

These are the very same duplicitous">duplicitous bastards who would have very limited restrictions on who can purchase and own a gun; insisting instead that any control come via arrests for acts committed with a gun. That they have the right to own a gun, but a woman shouldn’t have the right of choice, that their right to own a gun is more important than a woman’s right to choose, or someone else’s right to vote.

Why make it harder to vote? Why the bassackward voter suppression thing? Because that’s precisely the intent. It is not about voter fraud at all. If it were, they would resort to their usual crime and punishment trope. It’s all about voter control; about who gets to vote.

A history, the Right to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia

Ken Melvin has an excellent post, duplicitous-bastards">Duplicitous Bastards. In it, Ken touches upon the right to bear arms as opposed to the right to vote and how the former who advocate the bearing of arms who advocate such are more than likely inclined to make it difficult for the latter who wish to practice their right to vote.

Forty three states are attempting to pass 253 laws restricting the right to vote and the state governments show no fear of those voters as opposed to the fear of those who support the right to bear any type of bullet-spewing-weapon.

Today, Professor of History Heather Cox – Richardson touches upon the supposed – absolute right to bear arms declared by those demanding such exists without any legal impediments necessary for safety, acquisition, etc.

Professor Cox – Richardson offers up a history of the NRA and how we got to where we are today. It is a good read, offering facts I was not aware of in the past.

Letters From an American, Heather Cox – Richardson

A history professor interested the contrast between image and reality in American politics. I believe in American democracy, despite its frequent failures.


Ten more people in Boulder, Colorado, died yesterday, shot by a man with a gun, just days after we lost 8 others in Atlanta, Georgia, shot by a man with a gun.

In 2017, after the murder of 58 people in Las Vegas, political personality Bill O’Reilly said that such mass casualties were “the price of freedom.”

But his is a very recent interpretation of guns and their meaning in America.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is one simple sentence:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840,

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”