Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
By now it is clear and undeniable that the GOP stands firmly opposed to democracy, free elections, secularism, pluralism, regulations on businesses and all inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning (IFTSR). IFTSR no longer matter. What feels good and self-affirming matters. That sentiment of going with your guts, emotions, biases, intuitions and tribe-cult over IFTSR seems to be something that increasing numbers of Republicans are willing to say in public.
This mass phenomenon of mental retreat to pre-Enlightenment dark ages seems to be real, not a mirage. It came up when Tucker Carlson admitted in court under oath that he was a liar and no one should believe him. The judge agreed that sane people would not believe the things he said. Despite that public admission, there was no blowback or damage to Carlson's career. His audience does not care about IFTSR. They need to feel good about themselves. They consciously know or unconsciously sense that IFTSR clearly stands against them. They need to find a way to make the cognitive dissonance that IFTSR causes go away.
So why bother with any concern about IFTSR? Why not just admit that feeling good about one's self is more important than the painful cognitive dissonance? Facing and accepting IFTSR takes moral courage. Believing in comforting lies, falsehoods and crackpot motivated reasoning (LFCMR) is far more pleasant and simple. Moral cowardice feels soooo good. And, it's soooo easy and the smug self-righteousness that comes with good feelings is a blast. So why not just give in and enjoy the fantasy ride?
Moral authority for believing LFCMR comes the the highest political, religious and social authority among the elites that control the Republican Party and its propaganda Leviathan. Those elites are ruthless, professional liars, emotional manipulators and radical crackpots. They have less than no concern for IFTSR. They hate it, deny it, distort it and constantly attack it. Well, if the elites that run your cult or tribe rely heavily on LFCMR, then why not accept it as some form of truth?
LFCMR certainly feels right, so maybe it is right, IFTSR be damned.
In my opinion, that "logic" constitutes a basis to mostly understand what most rank and file Republicans are thinking and feeling as they continue to support what is now known to be gigantic lies and even the violent 1/6 coup attempt the GOP leadership downplays as "legitimate political discourse." The elites know exactly what they are doing and what they want, power and wealth. Democracy and free elections stand in the way of power and wealth, so those are under direct attack.
Really? Come on, this can't be possible!
"Escape From Freedom is an analysis of the phenomenon of man's anxiety engendered by the breakdown of the Medieval World in which, in spite of many dangers, he felt himself secure and safe. .... modern man is still anxious and tempted to surrender his freedoms to dictators of all kinds, or to lose it by transforming himself into a small cog in the machine, well fed and well clothed, yet not a free man but an automaton. .... There can be no doubt that in this last quarter of a century the reasons for man's fear of freedom, for his anxiety and willingness to become an automaton, have not only continued but have greatly increased." -- Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom, 1941
There is precedent for a mass public mental retreat from political and social IFTSR into political and social LFCMR. It was described by psychiatrist Erich Fromm in his 1941 masterpiece on this issue, Escape From Freedom (book review here). Fromm argued that many people are alienated and overwhelmed by complex modern societies. There is just too much complexity, ambiguity and IFTSR in democracy, tolerance and pluralism. The human mind did not
evolve the mental capacity to deal calmly and rationally with all of this.
“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” -- Social scientists Chris Achen and Larry Bartels, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, 2016 (book review here)
Matters are made much worse when the public is constantly bombarded with divisive, confusing, distracting and fear-fomenting LFCMR by social, religious and political leaders. For example, consider Faux News and Tucker Carlson's self-professed tactic of lying, deceiving and dividing society for his livelihood. Consider the torrent of gigantic pro-authoritarian, anti-democracy lies and slanders the ex-president constantly spews. Deceptive, manipulative LFCMR propaganda and tactics offer millions of uncomfortable, frightened Americans the escape from freedom, rationality and cognitive dissonance they desperately seek. They are seeking peace and reassurance from people and interests who intend to deliver neither.
Q: Is it likely that as time passes, most Republicans will openly retreat from cold reality and escape to comforting authoritarian LFCMR, or has that already happened?
Stolen-election activists and Trump supporters
have embraced a new tactic in their campaign to unearth supposed proof
of fraud in the 2020 presidential race: using social media to chase down
a fictional breed of fraudster known as a “ballot mule.”
-Originally published by ProPublica: 6/17/22
Update, June 21, 2022: Spokespeople for Facebook, Tik Tok and Twitter said they would remove posts flagged by ProPublica for violating their respective community standards policies. This story has also been updated to include comment from True the Vote, which the organization sent after our story published.
The dummied-up flyer bore
the hallmarks of a real WANTED poster. A grainy photo of a woman outside an election office in the suburbs of Atlanta stamped with the word
“WANTED.” An image of a sheriff’s badge and the phone number for the
Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office. The implication was clear: The woman
was being sought by the local sheriff for voter fraud.
The flyer was fake, and
though the sheriff’s office eventually called it out, the false poster
went viral, amassing tens of thousands of shares, views and threatening
comments on Facebook, Twitter and TikTok and raising fears that harm
could come to the unidentified woman.
Stolen-election activists
and supporters of former President Donald Trump have embraced a new
tactic in their ongoing campaign to unearth supposed proof of fraud in
the 2020 presidential race: chasing down a fictional breed of fraudster
known as a “ballot mule” and using social media to do it.
Inspired by a conservative
documentary film that has won praise from Trump and his allies — and
debunking from critics including former Attorney General William Barr —
self-styled citizen sleuths are posting and sharing photos of unnamed
individuals and accusing them of election crimes. They are calling on
their followers to help identify these “ballot mules,” who are accused
of having violated laws against dropping off multiple absentee ballots
during the 2020 election. A state lawmaker in Arizona has even
encouraged people to act as “vigilantes” and catch future “mules.”
Promoting such false information violates the policies of Facebook, Twitter and TikTok. Facebook’s “Community Standards” says its policy is to remove content that incites harassment or violence or impersonates government officials. Twitter and TikTok have similar rules and guidelines for what can and can’t appear on their platforms.
ProPublica identified at
least a dozen additional posts on Twitter, Facebook and TikTok that
accuse unnamed individuals of being “ballot mules” and engaging in
allegedly illegal activity. Some of these posts echo the “WANTED”-style
language seen in the Gwinnett County meme, while others include similar
calls to action to identify the individuals.
None of the posts reviewed
by ProPublica include evidence that any of the people depicted in the
posters engaged in illegal activity. Yet the social media companies have
reacted slowly or not at all to such posts, some of which clearly
violate their policies, experts say.
Disinformation researchers
from the nonpartisan clean-government nonprofit Common Cause alerted
Facebook and Twitter that the platforms were allowing users to post such
incendiary claims in May. Not only did the claims lack evidence that
crimes had been committed, but experts worry that poll workers,
volunteers and regular voters could face unwarranted harassment or
physical harm if they are wrongfully accused of illegal election
activity.
So far, there is no sign that any of the people depicted have been identified or suffered any threats.
Emma Steiner, a
disinformation analyst with Common Cause who sent warnings to the
social-media companies, says the lack of action suggests that tech
companies relaxed their efforts to police election-related threats ahead
of the 2022 midterms.
“This is the new playbook,
and I’m worried that platforms are not prepared to deal with this
tactic that encourages dangerous behavior,” Steiner said.
Spokespeople for Facebook,
TikTok and Twitter said they would remove posts flagged by ProPublica
for violating their respective community standards policies.
Thirty-one states allow
a third party to collect and return an absentee or mail-in ballot on
behalf of another voter. These laws help voters who are disabled or
infirm, live in spread-out rural areas or reside on tribal lands with
limited access to polling places or ballot drop boxes. In states with a
history of absentee voting, both Democratic and Republican operatives
have engaged in organized ballot-collection drives.
Critics, labeling the
practice “ballot harvesting,” have sought to restrict its use, warning
about the potential for fraud. However, incidents of proven fraud
related to ballot collection are extremely rare. A database maintained
by the conservative Heritage Foundation identifies
just 238 cases of “fraudulent use of absentee ballots” since 1988. One
high-profile case of fraud involving absentee ballots occurred in a 2018
North Carolina congressional race. A Republican operative engaged in a
ballot-tampering scheme involving hundreds of ballots. The state election board later threw out the election result and ordered a redo. It was likely the first federal election overturned due to fraud, according to historians and election-law experts.
The phrases “ballot mules”
and “ballot trafficking” — with their intentional echoes of the
language of drugs and cartels — started to gain traction online in 2021,
according to Mike Caulfield, a misinformation researcher at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public. An analysis by Caulfield and his colleagues found that prominent Republicans including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel invoked “ballot trafficking” last spring.
But it wasn’t until conservative provocateur Dinesh D’Souza and a discredited
conservative group called True the Vote last fall began to tease
findings that would later appear in D’Souza’s movie “2000 Mules” that
uses of “ballot trafficking” and “ballot mules” shot up, according to
Caulfield’s research.
The “2000 Mules” film
claims that a network of thousands of people illegally stuffed ballot
boxes in swing states to steal the presidency for Joe Biden. It draws
heavily on the work of True the Vote, which purported to use
surveillance footage and geolocation data to make its claims of illegal
ballot activity.
Numerousfact-checks of the film have cast serious doubt
over its central premise. In a deposition with the Jan. 6 select
committee, Barr said he found the conclusions of “2000 Mules” far from
convincing. “My opinion then and my opinion now,” he said, “is that the
election was not stolen by fraud, and I haven’t seen anything since the
election that changes my mind on that, including the ‘2000 Mules’
movie.”
True the Vote founder
Catherine Engelbrecht said her group had never spoken with Barr and
disputed the notion that True the Vote had not proven its claims about
voter fraud. “I do think that when 80%+ of America is concerned about
election integrity, something must be done to address the situation,”
she said. “It is the failure of leaders across all branches of
government, who have allowed lawlessness to be the new law, that we find
ourselves where we do.” D’Souza did not respond to a request for
comment.
Despite its flimsy conclusions, “2000 Mules” found an enthusiastic audience in Trump and his supporters. In early May, Trump screened the film at his Mar-a-Lago private club. The film has since earned nearly $1.5 million at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo. In a recent 12-page letter responding to the public hearings organized by the Jan. 6 select committee, Trump cited “2000 Mules” nearly 20 times.
As the film’s dubious
claims have spread online, stolen-election activists are creating and
sharing online content purporting to reveal more “mules” and accusing
those individuals of illegal behavior without actual evidence of
wrongdoing.
The most striking example
is the meme that depicts an older white woman leaving a ballot drop box
in Georgia’s suburban Gwinnett County. The word “WANTED” appears above
her head as does the image of a sheriff’s badge labeled “Gwinnett
County” and the sheriff office’s phone number.
“Ballot mule,” the meme says. “If you can ID her, call Gwinnett Co. sheriff’s office.”
A spokeswoman for the
Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office says the meme is fake. The sheriff’s
office hasn’t received calls purporting to identify the woman. The
spokeswoman said that the office was investigating who created the meme.
ProPublica was unable to
identify the woman in the “WANTED” meme. A spokesman for the Gwinnett
County elections office confirmed that the name tag worn by the woman in
the meme matched those worn by county election workers in 2020. He also
verified that the drop box in the video was located outside of the
county’s election headquarters.
The origins of the woman’s
photo in the “WANTED” meme appear to point back to a Georgia
businessman and self-described election-fraud investigator named David Cross.
For months Cross has
posted short clips of surveillance footage showing people depositing
ballots at drop boxes in Gwinnett County. Cross sometimes narrates these
videos and makes unverified accusations of illegal ballot harvesting.
In a clip that Cross posted online
on May 3, an older white woman — the same woman in the “WANTED” meme —
deposits multiple ballots into the drop box outside the headquarters for
Gwinnett County’s elections office. In his narration, Cross accuses the
woman of depositing as many as 35 ballots, though it’s not at all clear
from the video exactly how many ballots the woman deposited. “Totally
illegal,” he says in the video. (Cross did not respond to requests for
comment.)
Georgia law prohibits
many third parties from submitting a ballot that’s not their own.
However, the law makes exceptions for caregivers for the elderly and the
disabled, immediate family members, members of the same household,
in-laws, nieces, nephews, grandchildren and more.
Cross, the Georgia activist, has filed complaints
with the State Election Board and secretary of state’s office alleging
illegal ballot deliveries and citing his surveillance footage clips.
Last month, the State Election Board dismissed
three complaints alleging “ballot harvesting” after an investigation by
the secretary of state’s office found that the alleged “mules” were
voters dropping off ballots for themselves and family members.
A spokesman for Georgia
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told ProPublica that the office
has a pending investigation into the woman in the “WANTED” meme. The
spokesman, Walter Jones, stressed that no one should assume that an
individual shown in a video delivering multiple ballots is automatically
guilty of a crime, nor would the ballots in question be invalidated
even if someone had violated the state’s ballot-collection law.
The video published by
Cross of the woman at the Gwinnett County drop box spread rapidly
online. Twitter users accused the woman of being one of the “2000 mules”
and urged their followers to “MAKE HER FAMOUS!” — in other words,
reveal her identity and share it widely.
One Twitter user shared
the woman’s image with the “WANTED” text and the fake Gwinnett County
sheriff’s badge. “Once we find out who paid these people the whole story
will become clear,” the account wrote. That tweet amassed more than
9,000 retweets and more than 14,000 likes before Twitter removed it.
The “WANTED” post spread
across Twitter, Facebook and TikTok. A Facebook group called
“Celebrities for Trump” shared it. “We need more if [sic] these,” the
post said, referring to the WANTED sign. “Keep your eyes open. Report
them all it is a crime.”
Several days after the
“WANTED” flyer surfaced and reached a large audience, the Gwinnett
County sheriff stated that the post was “false.” Yet despite the post
impersonating a law-enforcement agency, social-media companies have been
slow to remove it.
While Twitter removed dozens of posts with the “WANTED” sign, ProPublica was able to find instances of it still on the platform.
Disinformation researchers
tell ProPublica that they also identified posts accusing people of
being ballot mules in other states with laws that restrict
third parties from submitting people’s ballots. “Mule right here in
PA,” one TikTok post read. “Make this Upper Dublin resident famous
#2000Mules #2000MulesDocumentary #2000MulesTheMovie.”
In Arizona, a Republican
state senator named Kelly Townsend has encouraged people to camp out at
ballot drop boxes and write down license plate numbers of people deemed
to be suspicious. “I have been so pleased to hear of all you vigilantes
that want to camp out at these drop boxes,” Townsend recently said. “So, do it. Do it.”
“If you believe the last
election was stolen, you’re going to be more likely to take steps to
steal the next one back,” Hasen said. “It’s pretty obvious that what’s
going on here is using false claims of fraud as a potential pretext to
engage in election subversion in 2024 or another future election. That’s
very dangerous for American democracy.”
The
Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority effectively declared on
Tuesday that the separation of church and state—a principle enshrined in
the Constitution—is, itself, unconstitutional. Its 6–3 decision in Carson v. Makinrequires
Maine to give public money to private religious schools, steamrolling
decades of precedent in a race to compel state funding of religion. Carson is
radical enough on its own, but the implications of the ruling are even
more frightening: As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in dissent, it has the
potential to dismantle secular public education in the United States.
Carson challenges
Maine’s effort to provide quality civic education to every child in the
state. The government created a tuition assistance program to help
families who live in remote, sparsely populated regions without any
public schools. Under the program, parents can send their kids to
certain private schools, and the state covers the cost of tuition. To
qualify, these schools must give students a secular education. They may
be affiliated with, or even run by, a religious organization. But their
actual curricula must align with secular state standards.
Two
families challenged this limitation, arguing that it violated the First
Amendment’s free exercise clause. Just two decades ago, this claim
would’ve been laughed out of court: SCOTUS only permitted states to subsidize religious schools in 2002; at the time, it would’ve been absurd to say that states have a constitutional obligation to subsidize them. Beginning in 2017, the court began to assert
that states may not exclude religious schools from public benefits that
are available to their secular counterparts. And in 2020, the
conservative justices forced states to subsidize religious schools once they began subsidizing secular private education.
Tuesday’s decision in Carson takes this radical theory to a new extreme, ordering Maine to extend public education funds to religious indoctrination.
The
upshot of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court is that
states have no compelling interest in providing public, secular
education to children. Indeed, Roberts suggests that the very concept of
secular schooling is a smokescreen for “discrimination against
religion”—a pretext for unconstitutional animus toward pious Americans.
His opinion reaches far beyond Maine. About 37 states have amendments to their constitutions that bar government funding of religious institutions, including schools. Carson essentially invalidates those laws while undermining the broader constitutional basis for the nation’s public school system.
Roberts
reached this astonishing result by overruling broad swaths of precedent
respecting states’ authority to separate church and state more strictly
than the U.S. Constitution requires. The court previously upheld
states’ interest in avoiding the “establishment” of religion by
refusing to underwrite the indoctrination of students into a particular
faith. No longer. Roberts condemned Maine’s efforts to guard against
religious establishment as nothing more than “discrimination against
religion”—an effort to “exclude some members of the community” from
public benefits “because of their religious exercise.” He also overruled
a line of cases that let the government withhold funding on the basis
of religious use (like indoctrination) but not religious status (like
affiliation with a church). That distinction, he wrote, “lacks a
meaningful application not only in theory, but in practice as well,”
tossing it in the precedential dumpster.
It’s worth pausing to reflect on the victims of Tuesday’sdecision.
The chief justice maintained that Carson’s
rule only kicks in once a state starts sending taxpayer dollars to
private schools through vouchers, tax credits, or scholarships. So, in
theory, a state can send all its money to public schools and avoid
constitutional concerns. Even if that’s true, the consequences are
sweeping: Most states offer at least one of these programs, so Carson gives
millions of families an opportunity to bail out of the public school
system and demand public money for parochial education.
But
can this distinction hold? Roberts’ bright line dims under scrutiny:
Maine, after all, wanted private schools to replace public education for
some students, not supplement it. And yet the court found no good
reason for the state to insist that these substitute schools adhere to
secular standards. Indeed, the chief justice’s rhetoric depicts
education not as a state-sponsored benefit for all, but rather as a
personal matter best left up to parents. There is, he claimed, no
“historic and substantial state interest” in preserving secular
education. If that’s true, how can any state refuse to fund religious
schooling?
Breyer raised these questions in dissent. Does Carson, he asked,“mean
that a school district that pays for public schools must pay equivalent
funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools?”
In other words, must every state begin cutting checks to parents who
want to give their kids a Christian education? Does Carson mean
“school districts that give vouchers for use at charter schools must
pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to give their children a
religious education?” Can states even mandate secular curricula at
charter schools any more? Who knows? In the end, the only limit on Carson is whatever five justices want it to be.
It’s
worth pausing, as both Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor did in
dissent, to reflect on the victims of Tuesday’s decision. The two Maine
schools that may now receive public funding are openly discriminatory,
expelling students and teachers who do not adhere to evangelical
Christianity. LGBTQ students, as well as straight children of same-sex
couples, are not welcome, nor are LGBTQ teachers. Even custodians must
be born-again Christians. One school teaches students to “refute the
teachings of the Islamic religion” and believe that men serve as the
head of the household. Another requires students to sign a “covenant”
promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.
“Legislators,”
Breyer wrote, “did not want Maine taxpayers to pay for these
religiously based practices,” as doing so might violate their own faith
or conscience. The majority tells these Mainers their own views don’t
matter, because the First Amendment forces them to foot the bill for
other people’s religious indoctrination. Doing so creates a “serious
risk of religion-based social divisions,” Breyer explained, exacerbating
the “religious strife” that the religion clauses “were designed to
prevent.” Sotomayor put the point more sharply: “While purporting to
protect against discrimination of one kind,” she wrote, “the court
requires Maine to fund what many of its citizens believe to be
discrimination of other kinds.”
The conservative majority, however, has perfected the art of ignoring
genuine discrimination while perceiving anti-Christian persecution where
none exists. In the process, they are elevating the rights of one sect over all others. Carson will
not benefit any religious minorities; there are not enough Muslims or
Jews to create a school in the far-flung corners of Maine. Every time
Roberts uses the word “religion,” he might as well be saying
“Christian.” The right will praise Carson as a triumph of
religious liberty. But if you practice a religion that does not stand to
gain from the ruling, your liberty does not matter to this Supreme
Court.
In the United States, a few state legal codes still contain
anti-blasphemy laws, but they generally are not enforced
Generally not enforced
There is a problem with looking for truth. The search sometimes or often reveals inconvenient truth. That applies to people who accept inconvenient truth as truth. People who reject it as lies are comfortable and self-assured.
As we all know, Blasphemy!!! once was a crime punishable by death as shown in this historically accurate documentary of early America as fully documented in accord with Christian Young Earth theory:
Clearly, it is best to not have fresh halibut for dinner. But that is a digression.
Despite my false belief, it has come to my attention that Blasphemy!!! is still illegal in parts of America. The Centre for Inquiry Canada (CFIC) writes:
To understand secularism, is to understand the interaction between law and religion. While there are a variety of ways that religion indirectly influences law (such as laws which have the same effect as enforcing a religious perspective on all people in the country), the most direct influence is through blasphemy laws. CFIC encourages an understanding of all blasphemy laws and how they impact their local societies and people around the world. In this article, CFIC examines blasphemy laws in the USA. In 2011 Pew Research Center published a study indicating that 59 countries (30%) still have some form of legislation against blasphemy, apostasy or religious defamation. While nationally the United States has deemed blasphemy laws unconstitutional, some states still have them on the books. In the 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, the U.S. Supreme Court found that
“the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them. . . . It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine . . . .”
Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wyoming, have laws which reference blasphemy.
Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
It makes one wonder, if these laws are never enforced, why does it matter that they exist? They may rarely be enforced but their existence allows for some cases to be brought forward. A Pennsylvanian filmmaker was turned down in 2007 for a corporate name “I Choose Hell Productions”, based on Pennsylvania’s blasphemy law. States have symbolic power to enforce these laws. It’s a form of moral condemnation as stated by Sarah Barringer Gordon, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Blasphemy laws:
Restrict freedom of speech
Infringe on the right to freedom of religion
Often lead to human rights violations during enforcement
Can incite mass violence
Fail to promote religious harmony which is supposedly the intention
From that, one can see that Blasphemy!!! could be an issue in the 2022 and/or 2024 elections. Possibly also fresh halibut.
Q: Since congress is busy endlessly bickering, deceiving the public and thumb twiddling, should outlawing American Blasphemy!!! laws be ignored because US citizens can defend themselves because they are armed with AR-15 assault rifles and billions of rounds of bone-shattering, flesh-ripping ammo?