We Came in Peace for All Mankind

How about we send him there to go get it for us? pic.twitter.com/exzicHJx3k

— Arbiter of Cool (@ArbiterofCool) September 6, 2026

Not quite the soaring rhetoric of the man whose memorial Trump is pissing on:

[S]pace can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind...

So yeah, it tracks that the racist rapist with dementia would try to introduce strife, prejudice, and national conflict up there.  Since there's not an agreement that he doesn't enjoy tearing up, I'm sure he's dying (cross fingers!) to abrogate the Outer Space Treaty:

Article I

The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.

There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Anyway, I take issue with the OP's suggestion that we send Trump.  No need to trash the place.

Selah.

QOTD

Plough Jogger:

The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it...

Happy Shays' Rebellion Day to all who celebrate. 

Narcissist-in-Chief

🤦‍♂️

It’s a fucking aircraft carrier, it’s not supposed to be pretty. I don’t understand why the Navy would even entertain this nonsense.

He wants the tower/command center to be closer to the front of the ship. It would cost billions and result in years of delays. https://t.co/x1RQqqZ7vk

— Angry Staffer (@Angry_Staffer) August 15, 2026

Ericka used to do the same sort of shit all the time, albeit on a slightly smaller scale.  It's all part of being a narcissist, exercising control and whatnot to fill the void, etc.

Can't tell you how much time I spent following her directions¹, moving shit around the yard or the living room or whatever (when I was supposed to be working, even).  All just to change something that needed no changing, often making it worse.

And my god, she slathered fucking chalk paint on everything.  For example, Sam's dresser (which was mine before his, and my mother's before mine), lovely antique with a rich finish that showed off the gorgeous wood grain...covered in taupe-ish (I think?) chalk paint with some geometrical designs in muted colors.  Otherwise, generally leaning into lots of grey, lots of black.  Reminds me of Trump's obsession with gold paint.

Anyway, of course none of what our pathological president demands makes sense to us who don't suffer from the same compulsions.  Prolly a good reason not to put a person like that in charge.

Selah.

1 - Always fraught with danger because not only was her emotional regulation eroding, so were her language faculties.  "Put that in the center."  [Puts it in the center]  "You never fucking listen to me, put it in the center!"  [She meant the corner]  3 days later...  "Put that in the center."  [Confirms 'corner' vs 'center', puts it in the corner]  "You never fucking listen to me, put it in the center!"  Rinse, repeat.

If Only

52 years ago tonight, August 8th 1974

President Nixon shocks the country & the world in a lengthy address at 9pm est when he announces his resignation, effective the next day.

This comes after his own Republican party puts country above party and almost completely abandons… pic.twitter.com/T0S1A8nCtF

— Spiro’s Ghost (@AntiToxicPeople) August 8, 2026

My first political memory.

Dude resigned because the GOP still had a sense of morality and dignity, and a collective spine.  Yesterday, the Senate approved a pedophile protector to be the Attorney General.

RIP, Richard Milhous Nixon, you would've loved this age of corruption.

Well, the Weeks Went by and Spring Turned to Summer

RMJ on Max Miller, who reportedly engaged in psychological abuse, including withholding his daughter's favorite toy:

I know I’m only reading headlines, but according to them, this reprehensible representative has kept the favorite doll of his daughter away from her on multiple occasions. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

Why this man is not restricted to severely limited, supervised visitations, is beyond me. 34 years ago when I was practicing family law, I could have gotten those limitations on a father like this just on the headline record I’ve read.

I am baffled by the lack of concern for the best interests of this poor child.

Abuse is about control, leveraging any and all levers to exert it, which includes fucking with personal belongings.  Ericka destroyed a lot of our things; especially, but not exclusively, my family heirlooms (she also forced me to get rid of so much stuff).  I made the King County Superior Court Clerk smile and say, "oh, that's so sweet, I've never seen that before," when I'd indicated explicitly that I wanted possession of my 50yo teddy bear on my DVPO application¹.  I wasn't about to let my abuser take away one of the very last things I've had since childhood.

I was granted a temporary order on January 17, 2020.  The most dangerous point in a relationship with abusers is when you are leaving, particularly when you get a court order².  Fortunately, I guess, Ericka did not engage in lethal violence, but filed for her own order on January 23 (literally the day after I quit drinking).  That's when I took my teddy bear to an undisclosed location, where I lived until our permanent order was granted on April 9.

After the ex parte phase of our saga ended, and we entered the adversarial process, we were given joint custody of the kids with weekly swaps.  Our initial exchanges were set up to be "touchless": Ericka would drop them at school, and I'd pick them up (that lasted just a couple weeks before COVID shutdown school, so we switched to the fire station where there were cameras and people who could intervene in a crisis).

First time, though, I went to get the kids and discovered that she had not sent them with any clothes or items of comfort.  Good thing at the time there was a second-hand clothing store on island where I was able to acquire some items to stretch until their mother finally deigned to leave some suitcases at the school for them a couple days later.

Ericka was, like most abusers, constitutionally unable give up the manipulation (not to mention avoid behavior in violation of court orders), even when Family Court Services and Child Protective Services were investigating both of us as our case proceeded.  Just a small part of the extensive, disturbing pattern that thankfully became crystal clear to all observers, which is why I'm here with the kids more than six years later, and she is not.

I hope Emily Moreno and her daughter stay safe.  I also hope more people learn about the fucked up dynamics of domestic violence, and why survivors often can't imagine leaving.

Selah.

1 - I also specifically granted her use of my Land Rover, just so she'd leave the island.  When we lived in Vermont, Ericka went out and bought two cars without my input, and without my name on the titles.  She would threaten to call the cops on me if I drove them without her permission.  When I bought my car, I was the only title holder, but it still was essentially her car.  Such is the nature of abuse.

2 - But Earl walked right through that restraining order...a song that Ericka would ironically sing.  Always off key, which was actually one of the most endearing things about her, and I miss it unironically.

We Are Ruled By Abusers

Rep. Max Miller: "My former wife has claimed that during a custody exchange at my home that day, I assaulted her…If I had assaulted her, would she have offered to cook me dinner six days later?" pic.twitter.com/1IhkykMWpw

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) August 2, 2026

Six days later?  Hell, I regularly cooked for Ericka¹ quite literally the same day she gave me black eyes or strangled me or told me to kill myself.  That is dispositive of absolutely nothing.  

Everybody needs to really understand domestic violence dynamics better.  I find the current political climate to be especially triggering because all these abusive assholes are in power and flaunting their impunity, and gaslighting so much even our abuser would find it beyond the pale.

Selah.

1 - I mean, I did always do the cooking since the very beginning of our relationship.  We all would've starved to death if I refused just because she treated me like shit.

The Advantage of Encouraging Foreigners Was Obvious & Admitted

Mamdani being a Muslim immigrant who has risen to the Mayor of NYC and a prominent voice in Democratic politics is a testament to the opportunity America offers all people. That this clown hates that shows he doesn’t understand America at all. pic.twitter.com/TJgYmr7gOC

— Poker and Politics (@PokerPolitics) July 3, 2026

Declaration of Independence, Grievance VII¹:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither...

Fun footnote:

Secret agents were sent to America soon after the accession of George the Third to the throne of England, to spy out the condition of the colonists. A large influx of liberty-loving German emigrants was observed, and the king was advised to discourage these immigrations. Obstacles in the way of procuring lands, and otherwise, were put in the way of all emigrants, except from England, and the tendency of French Roman Catholics to settle in Maryland was also discouraged. 

The British government was jealous of the increasing power of the colonies ; and the danger of having that power controlled by democratic ideas, caused the employment of restrictive measures. The easy conditions upon which actual settlers might obtain lands on the Western frontier, after the peace of 1763, were so changed, that toward the dawning of the Revolution, the vast solitudes west of the Alleghanies were seldom penetrated by any but the hunter from the seaboard provinces. When the War for Independence broke out, immigration had almost ceased. The king conjectured wisely, for almost the entire German population in the colonies were on the side of the patriots.

The United States of America is a country of immigrants.  This fact was debated and codified into our Constitution, so shut your unpatriotic pie holes, you ignorant, racist MAGA fuckwits.

1 - The elided part does suggest that our Revolution was a land grab by greedy slavers, but we don't need to get into that here.

Jus soli

It is the first of its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon falsehood¹ in the main as to the facts...

- Abraham Lincoln (July 10, 1858)

I'm as shocked as anybody that SCOTUS upheld - 5 to 4, which should've been 9 to zip in a rational world - the plain text and long-understood meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.  I honestly wondered if corrupt Alito would convince his fellow MAGAts that Wong Kim Ark was "wrongly decided".  Nope, corrupt Roberts apparently wanted to avoid being worse than racist Roger:

In the odious decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford, this Court imposed the Southern States’ beliefs onto the Nation... Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, concluded that “the words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizen[s]’” had an unexpressed (and atextual) racial component—one that excluded all those descended from slaves... Even if Massachusetts or Connecticut chose to grant citizenship to the freedmen, they still could not participate in national affairs... They were “born in the country,” Chief Justice Taney acknowledged, and thus “did owe allegiance to the Government”—the precise criteria for citizenship at common law... But they were “not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution.” ... For them, blood, not soil, was made the rule.

Good callback.  Speaking of Dred Scott, and since the Declaration of Independence is on everybody's minds:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men -- high in literary acquirements, high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery.

I mean...the thing is, Taney wasn't entirely wrong.  Most of the Founders were hypocritical pieces of shit, so he was just acknowledging what righteous Patriots like Tom Paine called out during the Revolution:

With what consistency, or decency they complain so loudly of attempts to enslave them, while they hold so many hundred thousands in slavery; and annually enslave many thousands more, without any pretense of authority, or claim upon them?

Anyway, Happy 250th birthday, America; at least the rule of law still kinda sorta means something...

Selah.

1 - The falsehood Honest Abe was referring to was Dred Scott's premise that "the right of property in a slave" is enshrined in the Constitution (5th Lincoln-Douglas debate, October 7, 1858).  A little bit later, BTW, he essentially notes that elections have consequences.

PS - Couch fucker echoes Lincoln.

Floor Wax, Dessert Topping

Liberals say that Trump has ruined the 250th anniversary of our democracy. They're wrong—Trump has ruined the 250th anniversary of our republic.

— NYTPitchbot (@DougJBalloon) June 29, 2026

I think it's important to start with 'republic' bc the Framers cite Monty (e.g., Federalist 47), the Guarantee clause (ArtIVsec4), Ben Franklin ("a Republic if you can not fuck it up"), etc. https://t.co/zxank3ua5k

— NTodd - Antifa IT Support 🇺🇦🐸 (@ntoddpax) June 28, 2026

Saw the Pitchbot's post today, and while I'm not gonna recapitulate everything, I did want to capture my little threaded response to Machine Pun Kelly (who is not wrong per se).

The bottom line, as usual, is that 'democracy' and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive.  MPK argues from the former, but I think the latter is a more correct starting point, as I lay out sparsely on Twitter.

When the We're A Republic crowd gets going, it's in large part because the word 'democracy' does not appear in the Constitution (you know how they are about that), and the Framers really disliked like one flavor of it (direct "mob rule" democracy, as opposed to our representative form).  From where I sit, everything thus devolves from Montesquieu's distinctions.

Either way, we're both, duh.  Anybody who says otherwise is an aristocrat, and if they're MAGA, that really means a monarchist (ironic, perhaps, given the election of 1800).

Selah.

I Closed the Day as It Had Begun with Thanksgiving to God

Fake quote, boys. JQA never said it. It was said ABOUT him by an author named John Wingate Thornton in 1860. Call David Barton and get your money back. https://t.co/CVwxLx1fe2

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 27, 2026

Reminds me of some shit Hawley tried to pull a few years back with a real (for a change) JQA quote.  I don't understand why they have such a hardon for using him to connect the Declaration, which was written when he was a lad of 9, to Christianity.  It's weird.

John Quincy was indeed a rather spiritual man, but also a sober jurist and constitutionalist.  In fact, he didn't swear his oath of office on a Bible¹:

I repaired to the Hall of the House of Representatives, and after delivering from the Speakers Chair my inaugural Address to a crowded auditory, and I pronounced from a Volume of the Laws, held up to me by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, the Oath faithfully to execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...

Another weird thing is that these same people distorting his views on church and state never seem to celebrate, or even acknowledge, his tireless efforts fighting the Gag Rule that prevented speaking of abolition in the House.  Wonder why?

Selah.

1 - I haven't done a deep dive into his intent, but it has been suggested he did so "to underscore his belief in the separation of church and state."

A Matter Which Lies Solely Between Man & His God

Trump dozes off as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says there's no such thing as separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution https://t.co/22uBKTUcFy

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) June 26, 2026

Indeed, as RMJ notes, "Patrick’s argument the phrase is not in the Constitution is correct."  I might also add that there is no such thing as "Christian-based nation."  However, in Article VI of the US Constitution: no religious Test shall ever be required.

The dude who drafted the Declaration of Independence wrote some stuff down, too:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. it still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally past; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.

So did the dude who introduced the independence resolution:

The declaration of Rights, it seems to me, rather contends against forcing modes of faith and forms of worship, than against compelling contribution for the support of religion in general. I fully agree with the presbyterians, that true freedom embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo as well as the Xn religion and upon this liberal ground I hope our Assembly will conduct themselves.

And since Hamilton was wrong that it was a bad idea to make a list of our rights, Madison got this written down: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Finally, there is no mention of G-d in the Constitution, but guess where you will find one?

Selah.

I Feel Bad For Us

https://t.co/5lUrlkywSC pic.twitter.com/sRn4x8DEgb

— NTodd - Antifa IT Support 🇺🇦🐸 (@ntoddpax) May 12, 2026

The great thing about his increasing disinhibition as he stumbles further down Dementia Lane is that he just says the quiet part out loud all the time now.  Won't change the completely lost cultists' minds, but maybe it'll help to peel away enough of the voters who brought us this nightmare so we can overcome racist gerrymandering and all the other structural constraints we're up against.

Then maybe someday we won't have to think about this fascist rapist criminal asshole any more...

He Is Risen!

Happy Easter, I guess? pic.twitter.com/dWrAe7aa7G

— celia (@_celia_bedelia_) April 5, 2026

Jesus fucking christ.

No, it's not 25th Amendment time.  It's impeach, convict, remove, disqualify, and throw into the deepest pits of Hell time.

It's time for Congress to rise, Inshallah.  And I'll retire to Bedlam.

Now You Do What They Told Ya

I note that Jefferson Davis, who previously served as interim president of the CSA, was sworn in for a full six-year term (well, three years and change, actually).  Here's something interesting from his inaugural address:

For proof of the sincerity of our purpose to maintain our ancient institutions, we may point to the Constitution of the Confederacy and the laws enacted under it...

Ah, yes, their constitution makes mention of a particular, peculiar ancient institution:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed... 

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired... 

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due... 

The Confederate States may...form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

What about the laws enacted under it?

President Abraham Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. Critics of the proclamation, both North and South, claimed Lincoln was trying to incite slave rebellions, which had been a persistent fear for white slaveholders in the South since the American Revolution. In order to prevent events similar to Nat Turner’s revolt in 1831, the Confederate Congress passed a Second Conscription Act, which included a piece of legislation that would  become known as the “Twenty Negro Law.” It exempted from military service one white overseer for every 20 enslaved people on a plantation, “to secure the proper police of the country.” This would allow enough white males to stay home to defend against a so-called domestic insurrection.

The birth of ACAB.

<exits singing, Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses>

À l'ombre de la loi et au nom de la justice

Born on this date in 1689, Montesquieu had some things to say about this our tottering state:

• "[I]n moderate governments, where the life of the meanest subject is deemed precious, no man is stripped of his honor or property until after a long inquiry; and no man is bereft of life till his very country has attacked him--an attack that is never made without leaving him all possible means of making his defence."

- Spirit of Laws, Book 6, Chapter 2

• "The tyranny of a prince does no more to ruin a state than does indifference to the common good to ruin a republic...The advantage of a free state is that there are no favorites in it. But when that is not the case — when it is necessary to line the pockets of the friends and relatives, not of a prince, but of all those who participate in the government — all is lost."

- Considerations on the Causes of  the Greatness of the Romans  and their Decline, Chapter 4

Anyway, RIP Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, you would've loved debating whether the United States is a republic or a democracy with a bunch of brain dead pedophile protectors.

Selah.

All of This Could Have Been Avoided

Five years ago:

Donald Trump, serving as the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired. On that date, the House of Representatives adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection. On February 13, 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on the article of impeachment.

The House of Representatives of the 117th U.S. Congress adopted one article of impeachment against Trump of "incitement of insurrection", stating that he had incited the January 6 attack of the U.S. Capitol. The House impeachment managers formally triggered the start of the impeachment trial on January 25 by delivering to the Senate the charge against Trump. The trial in the Senate started on February 9. At the trial in the Senate, 57 senators voted "guilty", which was less than the two-thirds majority needed (67) to convict Trump, and 43 senators voted "not guilty", resulting in Trump being acquitted of the charges on February 13, 2021.

Ah, well...

Lex Plautia de vi

Never knew a lot about this - not much more now, I guess - but I noticed it today and figured it would make for a quick little post:

The Catilinarian conspiracy, sometimes Second Catilinarian conspiracy, was an attempted coup d'état by Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline) to overthrow the Roman consuls of 63 BC – Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida – and forcibly assume control of the state in their stead.

The conspiracy was formed after Catiline's defeat in the consular elections for 62, held in early autumn 63. He assembled a coalition of malcontents – aristocrats who had been denied political advancement by the voters, dispossessed farmers, and indebted veterans of Sulla – and planned to seize the consulship from Cicero and Antonius by force. 

In November 63, Cicero exposed the conspiracy, causing Catiline to flee from Rome and eventually to his army in Etruria. In December, Cicero uncovered nine more conspirators organising for Catiline in the city and, on advice of the senate, had them executed without trial. In early January 62 BC, Antonius defeated Catiline in battle, putting an end to the plot.

A little more about that penultimate bit in the executive summary:

December 5:

Senate debates punishment of conspirators. The majority of senators agreed with the death penalty for the currently incarcerated prisoners as well as those still to be apprehended until Caesar spoke, warning against the implications of the oligarchy taking such drastic measures against the populace. He argued against a rash decision while the senators were still full of passion and instead suggested property confiscations and life imprisonments in Roman towns. Cicero delivered the Fourth Catilinarian, followed by a rousing speech from the young Marcus Cato. The senators were then fully persuaded that a harsh sentence would dissuade Catiline from marching against Rome on the 17th.

A snip from Cicero's oratory that day:

Wherefore, O conscript fathers, attend to the safety of the republic; look round upon all the storms which are impending, unless you guard against them. It is not Tiberius Gracchus, who wished to be made a second time a tribune of the people; it is not Caius Gracchus, who endeavoured to excite the partisans of the agrarian law; it is not Lucius Saturninus, who slew Memmius, who is now in some danger, who is now brought before the tribunal of your severity. 

They are now in your hands who withstood all Rome, with the object of bringing conflagration on the whole city, massacre on all of you, and of receiving Catiline; their letters are in your possession, their seals, their handwriting, and the confession of each individual of them; the Allobroges are tampered with, the slaves are excited, Catiline is sent for; the design is actually begun to be put in execution, that all should be put to death, so that no one should be left even to mourn the name of the republic, and to lament over the downfall of so mighty a dominion. 

Finale:

Without a strong bloc of consulares to unite the senators, a consensus was very difficult to reach. When Cicero saw that Caesar had dissuaded the senators from supporting execution, he interrupted the discussion to deliver what is now his fourth Catilinarian speech, which urged immediate action.

Yet this speech by Rome's great orator apparently failed to persuade the senators, and Caesar's suggestion continued to gain support. Then it was Cato's turn as tribune-elect to speak, and he gave a powerful oration calling for the execution of the conspirators...  

Cato begins the speech by chastising the senators for taking the time to debate the punishment of the captives instead of simply punishing them, and for caring more about their wealth and possessions than about the security of their lives and freedom. He complains that they are being too soft and liberal with those who mean them harm. 

He attacks Caesar's recommendation of gentleness and mercy, complaining that it will bring the state into greater danger. He characterizes Caesar's plan as foolish and perhaps seditious, and he appeals to the senators to think of their history and tradition, and rails against the moral decline he sees in the state. 

He emphasizes the imminent destruction facing them, and says that the gods will not help them unless they help themselves. He reminds them that their national hero T. Aulus Manlius Torquatus (cos. 347 and 344 BC) executed his own excellent son for disobeying military orders even though his disobedi-ence had brought glory and advantage to his army, and he urges the senators to be no less zealous in putting to death confessed traitors who—he says—have never benefited the Republic. 

He closes with the appeal that their imminent danger required the swift and assertive execution of the conspirators. In this last part of his speech, Cato (or perhaps Sallust) exaggerates and even lies in order to push the senators into action: he claims that Catiline was at their throats, and that the captured conspirators had confessed to planning murder, arson, and other crimes. In truth, Catiline's force was far off and on the verge of being crushed by two larger state armies, and the conspirators are not recorded as having confessed as Cato asserted...

[H]e shames his audience for their departure from the ancestral customs which he represents, he presents the current debate as a dilemma between (only) two extreme positions, he avoids any discussion of compromise or a middle ground, and he employs scare tactics by presenting the state under threat of imminent destruction. These tactics succeeded in pushing the senators together into a consensus that the conspirators must be executed immediately. 

It is left as an exercise for the reader to relate all this to our current political situation.

In conclusion: the Roman Republic was a land of contrasts.

Their Deeds of Glory and Renown Will Then Be Felt Only Through the Cold Medium of the Historic Page

The Monroe Doctrine is 202 years young today:

[T]he occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

Of course, the progenitor of the doctrine was John Quincy Adams, who recorded in his diary:

[House Speaker Henry Clay] entered also into conversation upon the Message, which he said seemed to be the work of several hands— And that the War and Navy Departments made a magnificent figure in it; as well as the Post-Office.— I said there was an account of a full treasury; and much concerning foreign Affairs, which was within the business of the Department of State— 

He said yes, and the part relating to foreign affairs, was he thought the best part of the Message— He thought the Government had weakened itself and the tone of the Country, by withholding so long the acknowledgment of the South-American Independence: and he believed even a War for it against all Europe including even England, would be advantageous to us— I told him I believed a War for South-American Independence might be inevitable, and under certain circumstances might be expedient, but that I viewed War in a very different light from him— As necessarily placing high interests of different portions of the Union in conflict with each other; and thereby imminently endangering the Union itself— 

Not a successful War, he said— But a successful War to be sure created a military influence, and power, which he considered as the greatest danger of War— He said he had thoughts of offering a Resolution, to declare this Country an Asylum for all fugitives from oppression; and to connect with it a proposal for modifying the naturalization Law, to make it more easily attainable.

How intriguing, and so germane today.  Now let's go a little further back:

In 1818, during the First Seminole War, Jackson invaded Spanish Florida—likely without authorization—illegally convened a court-martial to try two British subjects for aiding the Indians, and executed them both. Many Americans, particularly in the South and West, again ignored the unconstitutional moves and high-handed approach, and instead roundly applauded those various deeds. This time Henry Clay did not remain silent. Such egomaniacal actions had to be curbed or this home-grown Bonaparte might continue his march toward military despotism.

Hmm, that also sounds vaguely familiar (small wonder that Trump loves Andy Jackson so much).  Anyway, this is what Henry Clay said in the House on January 16, 1819:

However guilty these men were, they should not have been condemned or executed without the authority of the law. I will not dwell, at this time, on the effect of these precedents in foreign countries ; but I shall not pass unnoticed their dangerous influence in our own country.  

Bad examples are generally set in the cases of bad men...I beseech the committee not to be so captivated with the charms of eloquence, and the appeals made to our passions and our sympathies, as to forget the fundamental principles of our government. The influence of a bad example will often be felt, when its authors and all the circumstances connected with it are no longer remembered.

How about that?  Going even further back to February 22, 1810:

Another effect of war will be the reproduction and cherishing of a commercial¹ spirit among us. Is there not danger that we shall become enervated by the spirit of avarice unfortunately so predominant? I do not wish to see that diffusive military character, which, pervading the whole nation, might possibly eventuate in the aggrandizement of some ambitious chief, by prostrating the liberties of the country.

Yeah, seems bad.  In conclusion: America is a land of...well, the same shit over and over again.

1 - I've seen "commercial" replaced with "martial" in various texts, but I'll take what's in the Annals as definitive.

"I have since thought proper to extend the said pardon to all persons guilty of the said treasons..."

The President’s call for the murder of Americans is simply un-American. When I say there is no place in our country for political violence, I mean it. It doesn’t matter who says it or why. There is no justification. Every American should condemn this in no uncertain terms. pic.twitter.com/YMnCQzv6c0

— Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) November 20, 2025

WWGD?

By the time the militia reached Pittsburgh, the rebels had dispersed and could not be found. The militia apprehended approximately 150 men and tried them for treason. A paucity of evidence and the inability to obtain witnesses hampered the trials. Two men, John Mitchell and Philip Weigel, were found guilty of treason, though both were pardoned by President Washington.

So there you have it: in the wake of an actual, violent insurrection against Federal authority (i.e., they weren't his minions doing his bidding), President George Washington did not, in fact, hang the guilty parties.

Selah.

A Banner Date for Clevelands, All Worlds, All Times

We begin close to home:

On 20 September 1885, the presence of over 3,200 Chinese miners, concentrated along the Tacoma-Seattle corridor bordering Puget Sound, led to a meeting of dis-gruntled workers in Tacoma. Rallying to the slogan "The Chinese must go," these workers considered exerting legislative and social pressures to harass the Chinese and deny them jobs. Many, however, favored more direct action—forcible expulsion...

The proposed ultimatum for the Chinese to depart Seattle alarmed the Imperial Chinese vice consul in San Francisco and the Washington territorial chief justice in Seattle. Having visited Rock Springs, Consul Frederick Bee knew what a racist mob could do. On 4 October he asked Governor Squire whether he could protect the Chinese and, if not, whether he would arrange for federal military protection. Although Squire assured him that local and territorial authorities would suffice, Chief Justice Roger S. Greene declared that, "while the presence of Chinese is an evil," any effort to drive them out "by lawless violence is suicidal."...

Violence erupted first in Tacoma on 2 November. Unopposed by local authorities, a mob of nearly 300 whites, many of them armed, forced some 200 Chinese to leave in wagons. During a drive in pouring rain to Lake View Station, where the Chinese were to board a train for Portland, several Chinese suffered ill effects from exposure and died soon after...

On 6 November [Governor Squire] requested troops from President Cleveland...[His] decision to send federal troops under RS 5298 came the same day... 

Cleveland's proclamation clearly stated the reasons for military intervention: the governor had reported the existence of domestic violence caused by unlawful obstructions, combinations, and assemblages of "evil-disposed persons," that made impracticable the enforcement by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings of federal law in Seattle and elsewhere...The proclamation concluded with the admonition that all citizens desist, disperse, and retire peaceably to their abodes on or before noon on 8 November...

The troops enjoyed friendly relations with Seattle residents. Military discipline had become so lax that several intoxicated soldiers reportedly assaulted some Chinese. Visiting Chinatown on the night of 9 November, one group of soldiers extorted a "special tax" amounting to $150. The Seattle Call noted sardonically that citizens "will (soon) be called upon to protect the Chinese against the troops."

The only event that marred Gibbon's otherwise quiet entry into Seattle was his own inadvertent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

And now, closer in time:

On November 6, 1995, with the team at 4–5, Modell announced in a press conference at Camden Yards that he had signed a deal to move the Browns to Baltimore for the 1996 season. The team would play at the Colts' former home (Memorial Stadium) while the new stadium was being built. Modell said he felt the city of Cleveland did not have the funding nor political will to build a first-class stadium. The very next day, on November 7, Cleveland voters overwhelmingly approved the aforementioned tax issue to remodel Cleveland Stadium.

Despite this, Modell ruled out a reversal of his decision, maintaining publicly that his relationship with Cleveland had been irrevocably severed. "The bridge is down, burned, disappeared", he said. "There's not even a canoe there for me." In truth, Modell had been brought to tears when he signed the memorandum of understanding in September: he had even told Moag that signing it was "the hardest thing I've ever done" and meant "the end of our life in Cleveland." Years later, longtime Browns general counsel Jim Bailey told The Athletic that Modell was "an emotional wreck" when he signed the memorandum.

Oh, poor Art.  I'm sure he gave a warm welcome to Dick Cheney in Hell this week, at least.  Unsure if Grover's there or not.

In conclusion: the only good thing to happen on November 6 was my late mother's birth (not in Cleveland).  

(Happy 78th, Mom.  Miss you always.)