"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?