An Update And A Single Snarky Snippet

Well, I had a number of snippets for this afternoon’s post, but by the time I finished the first snippet, I had a long enough post, so in the interest of not boring you to tears, I shall save the rest for tomorrow!

An update on “ice fishing => prostitution”

I’ll start with a brief update to my post of February 11th where I wrote about Hudson, Ohio Mayor Craig Shubert who had claimed that to allow ice fishing on Hudson Springs Lake would lead to prostitution!  Well, it seems that Mayor Shubert lacks a sense of humility and humour, and after days of being mocked and hearing the jokes that were bound to ensue, the mayor turned in his resignation on Monday, saying …

“My attempt to inject a bit of dry humor to make a point about this, in the midst of a cold, snowy February, was grossly misunderstood.”

Au revoir Mr. Shubert … next time perhaps you will have learned to think before you speak.

Election 2022 – Madison Cawthorn

Madison Cawthorn has served in the U.S. House of Representatives for just over a year, since January 2021, but yet has managed to stir up a heck of a lot of trouble in such a short time.  Cawthorn is only 26 years of age, the youngest to serve in Congress since Jed Johnson (1965-1967).  A few examples …

  • In 2017, Cawthorn posted an Instagram picture of his visit to Adolf Hitler’s vacation residence Eagle’s Nest, which he said had been on his “bucket list for a while”. In the post, he referred to Hitler as Führer.
  • Cawthorn has been accused by at least four women of sexually aggressive behavior, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault.
  • During his time in Congress, Cawthorn has been known for incendiary rhetoric and promulgating conspiracy theories. He had said he intended to use his position to be a messenger rather than a legislator, writing to his colleagues, “I have built my staff around comms rather than legislation.”
  • In December 2020, at a Turning Point USA conference in Florida, Cawthorn said that he would try to contest the 2020 United States presidential election results when Congress counted the Electoral College votes in January, citing fraud, though there was no evidence that fraud affected the election results. He subsequently used conspiracy theories about fraud to run advertisements and raise money for himself. He called on the TPUSA event’s attendees to “lightly threaten” their representatives.

And the list goes on with incidents involving firearms, threats of violence, and conspiracy theories, but it is his role in the events of January 6th 2021 when he had been in office for only three days that have landed him in hot water.  A number of groups in his home state of North Carolina are claiming that, under Amendment 14, Section 3, Cawthorn is ineligible for re-election in November.  The clause states that …

“No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Now, despite having studied ConLaw for a few semesters in college and grad school, I am not a Constitutional Law scholar, but it seems to me that the burden of proof, which is on those seeking to nullify Cawthorn’s candidacy in 2022, may be difficult.  What, exactly, constitutes “engagement” in insurrection?  Did Josh Hawley ‘engage’ when he threw a fist pump to the insurrectionists?  Did Lauren Boebert engage when she when she and other Republican members of Congress met with the insurrectionists prior to January 6?

There can be no doubt that the attack on the Capitol on January 6th was insurrection, was an attempted coup, but what exactly was Mr. Cawthorn’s role?  There must be solid proof in order to render him ineligible to serve in Congress and I’m not sure if that proof exists.  Yes, he was obviously empathetic to the insurrectionists, but is that sufficient?  I am told, however, that under North Carolina law, the burden is on Cawthorn to prove that he is not an insurrectionist.  This could be an interesting case from a legal point of view.

At any rate, Mr. Cawthorn has filed a ‘legal challenge’ claiming that the North Carolina State Board of Elections has no authority to keep him off the ballot in the first place, and so the challenge against him should be dropped and the state law allowing for such challenges should be ruled unconstitutional.  I strongly suspect that Mr. Cawthorn will be on the November ballot, but I hope for the sake of this nation that the voters in his North Carolina district have the good sense to vote en masse for his opponent.

Is THIS really who you want sitting in the House of Representatives, making decisions that will affect all of our lives? Think about it.

37 thoughts on “An Update And A Single Snarky Snippet

  1. Jill, he won Mark Meadows old seat when Meadows became chief of staff for the former president. Meadows was also an attack dog, so apparently the constituents like that kind of behavior, truth be damned. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “he referred to Hitler as Führer.”
    Which is correct since at the time Führer (guide, leader) was his inofficial title, just like Mussolini was known as the duce (same meaning). Hitler was officially Führer and Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor of the empire), while his predecessor (von Hindenburg) and successor (Dönitz) were Presidents.

    President and Chancelor obviously sounded much too democratic for the German and Italian massses, so they had leaders instead. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    • But you’re right. That Cawthorn guy is a case for the madhouse, not for any parliament. Would I see him in the road I’d change to the other side of the street. 😮

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sadly, he isn’t the only Republican in Congress with such beliefs and disregard for the people of this nation. Yes, I’d cross the street, too! Sometimes it’s probably good that I rarely leave my house 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • Of course I’m right, I studied that shit in uni, ya know? 🙂

        And also of course we know now that Hitler didn’t deserve the Führer moniker, since he wasn’t a Mussolini. In fact far from. You know what they say about that time period: “Mussolini was a 1st rate dictator, leading a 3rd rate people; Hitler was a 3rd rate dictator leading a 1st rate people.”

        Although Hitler obviously had something going for him, some aura that rendered him irresistable for most people. Maybe that ‘stache? 😮 But what do we know, we weren’t there, were we?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Oh yeah!!! I would certainly agree with that saying about Mussolini vs Hitler. Yes, they said Hitler was ‘charismatic’ which, from the clips I’ve seen, I just don’t understand … to me he seemed vulgar and obnoxious. But then, many here claim that Trump is ‘charismatic’ and I see him as vulgar and obnoxious, too. Hmmmm … a fair comparison? Maybe. Trump doesn’t have that ‘stache, but he wears that critter on his head that’s just as bad!


  3. In Jim McGrath’s third book in the Collins & Clark series, “A Death in Spring : 1968”, (which I read in early 2020) there are some words that I thought quite fitting for the then president now thankfully the “former guy” : “What he lacks in intelligence he makes up for with ego.” They are a good fit for Madison Cawthorn as well…may he soon be known as a former Representative! WHAK!! Thank-you!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh yes, those words apply perfectly to at least half of the Republicans in Congress, and definitely to the former guy who better remain ‘FORMER’!!! Cawthorn seems to have, as many Republicans do, a sense of entitlement. I look forward to seeing the words “Madison Cawthorn, former one-term member of the House of Representatives” WHAK!!!


  4. That’s what we get when we let the, politicians rule the, country, instead of having, trained professionals in these, areas of, expertise taking care of, the separate agencies of our government, and we the voters are still, enabling this bad behavior because, we are the ones voting those, brainless into the office.

    Liked by 1 person

    • True … the responsibility to remove these fools from office falls on the shoulders of We the People when we cast our votes. In large part, however, this is why the Republicans are fighting so hard to scale back voting rights at both the state and federal level.


  5. I think the problem for the court is only the definition of the word engage. The VERY FIRST definition of “engage” in the Oxford Languages web page (I think that means the Oxford English Dictionary) is, I quote: occupy, attract, or involve (someone’s interest or attention).
    Using this definition, and the circumstances around the “fist pump” (did he say or do anything else to make someone think he wanted them to support or take part in the insurrection, before, during, or after said insurrection) that he “engaged in seditious activity.”
    IF I was a part of the court, judge or member of a jury, I would vote to disqualify him. Other definitions may muddy the waters, but I think, that definition given above means he engaged. My verdict is “REMOVE THE BUM’S NAME FROM THE BALLOT!”

    Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know … we will have to wait for the commission investigating the events leading up to and surrounding that day, and even then we may never hear the full truth of “who did what and when”. Yes, the decision were up to me, I would say no way does he deserve to be on the ballot, and the same can be said of many, many others like Margie Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley … the list is endless! But alas, nobody asked me.


  6. Pingback: AN UPDATE AND A SINGLE SNARK SNIPPET. | | Ramblings of an Occupy Liberal

Comments are closed.