Comments posted organically
Homepage

Top Contributors Articles by: Curt_Anderson Donna HatetheSwamp Indy! islander meagain myce Navy2711 oldedude Ponderer ROB3RT tuk22

Recent Article Activity Most Commented Articles Highest Rated Articles All Articles Most Viewed Articles Articles Without Comments

The Super Bowl ad that won the night for ole pb...
Business by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Donna (9 comments)

Why I, as an American transwoman don't fear Muslims
Gay & Lesbian by Donna (0.0) Last comment by: Donna (10 comments)

That was a GREAT half-time show!
Entertainment by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (15 comments)

Too busy? Trump's unusual Supreme Court push to toss E. Jean Carroll case
Weird by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments)

Oh, Great AI... tell us...
How-to by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (118 comments)

Evidently even Trump didn't watch Turning Point USA’s Kid Rock Halftime show! 😁
Music by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (4 comments)

Bad Bunny's show had more performers than TPUSA's show's live audience!
Weird by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (17 comments)

Timothy McVeigh was not the only dangerous former military member.
Military by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments)

So... Are We Living Under a Fascist Regime Yet...?
History by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (83 comments)

ICE protester says she was 'disgusted' after fake arrest image shared by White House
Media by myce (0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments)

Demanding obsequience to Trump, DOJ having difficulty in recruiting quality lawyers
Law by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments)

Remember all the MAGA condemnation of the Biden administration and their angst about Afghan allies left behind to face death, torture and slavery?
Politics by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (48 comments)

pb's Legal Goober #2 & Megyn Kelly dissect Don Lemon in the church By HatetheSwamp February 2, 2026 1:17 pm Category: Media (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post & Tips. Write & edit articles How To Post Here

HolyfreakinfrigginEFFINcow! A gathering of literal Titans!

"Petty tyrant." Bang on.

Stunningly, #2 says much of what pb's been saying. It appears that pb's a gifted student.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeha, baha

Comments Start Below

by Curt_Anderson on February 2, 2026 2:24 pm In case anybody is wondering what Jonathan Turley's opinion is, he predicted that Don Lemon "will have the advantage" in court and Turley predicted that judges will rule that Don Lemon was engaged in a "journalistic enterprise". Megyn Kelly could not get Turley to say that he thought Don Lemon would be found guilty. Turley also agrees with me that the protestors, unlike Don Lemon, at City Church don't have first amendment freedom of the press protections and are liable to be charged with something. Kelly attempted to argue that Don Lemon is an "advocacy journalist", not a "real journalist" (like she presumably thinks that she is). She opined the first amendment protections were not intended for "advocacy journalists". She apparently does not realize that in the in the 18th and 19th centuries nearly all newspapers were aligned with a political party and often had the name of the political party in their name. by HatetheSwamp on February 2, 2026 2:39 pm Either you didn't watch the whole thing, or you watched with your commie heart. You are increasingly po-ish a willing prisoner of the preferences and prejudices that you bring to every moment of your life. by Curt_Anderson on February 2, 2026 3:08 pm I watched it and I quoted Turley. If you can find anything in that video that contradicts what I posted regarding Turley's opinions of the case, go for it and quote him! by HatetheSwamp on February 2, 2026 4:57 pm It's there Curt. Turley is saying what I said from the beginning. Lemon has an advantage because of claim to be a reporter but Turley also noted that Lemon practices advocate journalism. Further, he didn't shoot down the notion that Lemon was guilty of participating in a Conspiracy Against Rights... the 1870 KKK thing. You know if say, Jesse Watters and a mob of white supremacists, invaded a black church, or a Mosque, like Lemon and his mob did with the middle class white evangelicals, you'd be $#!tt!ng bricks!!!!! by Curt_Anderson on February 2, 2026 5:26 pm HtS, You obviously did not grasp what Jonathan Turley was saying. Even Megyn Kelly in her very first words said that she expected that she and Turley would disagree on Don Lemon being found guilty or not. And she was right. You were also wrong or at least misleading when you quoted the term "petty tyrant" as if Turley had applied that to Lemmon. Turley called the Jacobins of the French revolution "little tyrants" and "petty tyrants". Turley predicts judges will be persuaded by Don Lemon’s appeal he was at Minnesota church protest as journalist Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley assesses the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon in connection to his appearance at a Minnesota church protest on ‘The Will Cain Show.’ It appears that you want to change your tune and now agree with me that Lemon will be able to successfully use a first amendment freedom of the press argument to avoid conviction. You and Kelly are both wrong if you think that the First Amendment has a protection exception for "advocacy journalists". That's lucky for Kelly, FOX News and all the other rightwing journalists and people like you who gullibly swallow what they sell. foxnews.com by myce on February 2, 2026 7:18 pm HatetheSwamp: You know if say, Jesse Watters and a mob of white supremacists, invaded a black church, or a Mosque, like Lemon and his mob did with the middle class white evangelicals, you'd be $#!tt!ng bricks!!!!! Correct, because Jesse "Ankle Biter" Watters and his posse would come with torches and gasoline. Did any of the protesters at this church have torches? Your video conveyed to me that Don Lemon was acting as a journalist. He was editorializing, but that doesn't matter. The Retching Harpy who sold her soul to the devil is in no position to judge activist journalists. By the way, it might've been Breaking Points where I saw Emily Jashinky before. In my link they discuss Don Lemon and his being charged as a co-conspirator. Emily is not comfortable with Don Lemon being prosecuted as it sets a bad precedent. She mentioned a journalist named Steve Baker who was arrested at J6 and charged with misdemeanor offenses. I don't know the facts so maybe he was over-prosecuted. But he was not charged with the ridiculousness of Trump's DOJ while they ignore all of the criminals on their own side and continue trying to distract from Trump's associations with sex trafficking and sexual offenses against minors. apnews.com View Video by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2026 2:59 am "Emily is not comfortable with Don Lemon being prosecuted as it sets a bad precedent. She mentioned a journalist named Steve Baker who was arrested at J6 and charged with misdemeanor offenses." What Lemon did puts every thinking American in a difficult place, AS pb's BEEN SAYING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Ole pb's the huuuuuugest advocate on SS of liberty for liberty's sake... by far. The issue is that two First Amendment rights are involved. One foundational American civil right is going to have to be subordinated to the other. If Lemon had stationed himself outside of the church and observed the "trauma" he claims is "necessary" there'd be no problem. But, Bill Clinton's FACE Act specifically protects the sanctity of what happens inside a church building. That's critical. Two very practical realities. 1. In the First Amendment, religious freedom is listed First, given priority over every other liberty. (I would have written my dissertation on the very first freedom, i.e., the Free Exercise clause had the politics worked out with faculty members at my school.) The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights were intentional in ordering the liberties. Religious freedom received the highest priority. This Supreme Court has that in mind. 2. If this gets to the Supreme Court, think about the COVID rulings. The Supreme Court went out of its way to uphold the rights of worshipers and churches against COVID restrictions. This Court groves on religious freedom. I think a lot of Jashinsky's analysis but she is a journalist. She may be displaying her own subjectivity in emphasizing the freedom of the press. by myce on February 3, 2026 6:26 am HatetheSwamp It would be nice if people could just have reasonable discussions on policy but authoritarians are motivated by power and control rather than working out a social contract. It makes no sense to attack a black journalist with laws that were designed to protect blacks from lynchings, church burnings etc. you know, actual threats to their rights and their lives. Maybe you didn't learn history at school but I would encourage you to learn history before comparing white people clutching their pearls to black people getting lynched and entire towns razed because of white supremacy. Fascists hate history, they hate education because uneducated people are easier to control. I would say the persecution of a black man using laws designed to protect blacks is akin to boiling a calf in its mother's milk. This administration is evil and they delight in drinking cruelty. Secondly is the outstanding hypocrisy of ostensibly protecting the 1st Rights of white people at the same time brown people are dragged away by white supremacist thugs. The inconsistency of your arguments shows that you don't actually care about rights at all. This administration is about white supremacy, not civil rights. by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2026 6:41 am "It makes no sense to attack a black journalist with laws that were designed to protect blacks from lynchings, church burnings etc. you know, actual threats to their rights and their lives." He'p me out. How's the FACE Act about black lynchings. by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2026 6:44 am "This administration is about white supremacy, not civil rights." I love how it is two Hispanic ICE officers who slaughtered st Alex of Minneapolis, baha. Don't you, keehee ha by myce on February 3, 2026 7:18 am I didn't think I had to spell it out that I was talking about the kkk act. I don't know the circumstances or the law to comment on the face act, though I think punishing journalists for doing journalism is probably a fascist act. The Latino border control officers were in their positions before Trump. That they are enforcing white supremacist policy now, because they are in a live version of Stanford Prison Experiment, and whites are dying to oppose it, but it is white supremacist policy nevertheless. Did you know there are women who oppose women's voting rights too? They might be some of your friends. Though women participate in the oppression of women, it's still misogyny. Though black and brown people participate in white supremacy for personal gain, it's still white supremacy. by oldedude on February 3, 2026 7:46 am myce- HatetheSwamp It would be nice if people could just have reasonable discussions on policy but authoritarians are motivated by power and control rather than working out a social contract. I agree full heartedly. The issue REALLY is, this "could" be a winwinwin. and cities/states are not only refusing the aid, but using this as a political bat. IF there would be cooperation, there isn't the need or desire for ICE to do what they're doing. I've said this over and over and over. NOT working with the locals puts DHS at an extreme disadvantage in local areas. The local gang units and drug task forces understand the problems and know and have the names, locations, etc of local assholes they've been working on without federal support. That's the proverbial one- legged man in an ass kicking contest. The feds have so many more resources and give the states a lot more reasonable power to take the true assholes down. Nobody has to fish here. That's a big boost for everyone, some LEAs know and understand. The other thing that DHS has asked for since pedojoe was "president" is to just give them a heads up when you have aliens in jail for, oh I dunno, murder, rape, use of illegal guns, domestic violence, things like that. Why not? There is NO violation of their rights. They are in the system with charges they actually violated the law (yes, beating your wife, and sexually assaulting a 14 year old are actually "illegal"). So the left has a choice. If you want to protect murderers, rapists, and wife beaters, fine. You get what you got. Period. If you believe these assholes deserve to walk your streets and go on doing what they're doing you won't support the interoperability, the way it was set up to do for a few decades and did a job you rarely heard about The other thing is you don't have a "wide net" looking and messing with everyone. But that IS part of the asshole political game. AND the left falls hook line and sinker for it. Just look at this site. The division of something that doesn't have to be is honestly the fault of politicians that are earning money (campaign funds, etc) and people that don't understand that are just their useful idiots. Instead, the political assholes are forcing the fed's hands. Ergo, what you get is what you've wanted all along. Fucking with the administration because of your TPS with something they have an obligation to do by federal law. The end result is that two people that have too much TPS and hatred are NOW DEAD. I'm sure they than you very much. truthout.org cis.org by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2026 7:49 am "I don't know the circumstances or the law to comment on the face act, though I think punishing journalists for doing journalism is probably a fascist act." Of course you don't know. The compelling truth here is that our nation's passion for the free exercise of religion predates the Declaration of Independence by more than 160 years. The unimpaired search for spirituality is at our core. Even the Declaration of Independence couched its argument for freedom from England in the contention that all of us are gifted by our CREATOR with rights that no human being or institution can invalidate. Lemon stepped in it when he attacked a group of people in the act of pursuing the quintessential American dream,... to search freely and peacefully for spiritual truth in community. Obviously, you're happy to %#!t on that. But, Congress didn't pass the KKK Act and FACE Act because it had nuthin else to do. I get that you are a woke secularist. But, history is history and the Bill of Rights is what makes the nation's heart beat. Ole pb hates that Don Lemon pitted two of our most basic freedoms against each other, but he did. Foolishly. Unnecessarily. If this brouhaha is reviewed by the Supreme Court, pb predicts that Freedom of Religion will win. by HatetheSwamp on February 3, 2026 7:51 am Joe Rogan wrecks Don Lemon... youtube.com by oldedude on February 3, 2026 7:51 am Concur; no exceptions by myce on February 3, 2026 7:02 pm OldeDude, your description of the federal government sounds like a protection raquet. I don't know the laws if individual jurisdictions so can just speak in generalities. Law enforcement works better when they're not seen as a threat to the communities they serve. Therefore it's not necessarily in the interest of local police to share information with immigration officials. People will be more reluctant to report crimes if they fear deportation. So there has to be a balance between local interests and federal interests. HatetheSwamp, no doubt that since you're an expert on subjectivity, you do realize how subjective your Colonial-American perspective is. Native Americans were prohibited from practicing their religion until protected by law in 1979. Also, the history of violent racial attacks on churches, and recent ICE raids on churches. But I do understand in your view no disruption of religious freedom could be as egregious as protesters who you disagree with you making noise in a church. by Indy! on February 3, 2026 7:40 pm The Founders put freedom of religion first because they were tired of having to bow down to a bunch of superstitious pedophiles and corrupt kings who used religion to oppress people. Just as you "Christians" have the right to hold your comically antiquated ceremonies worshipping magical men in the sky, so too do reasoned people who can think without some costumed buffoon telling them what's right or wrong have the freedom to NOT be involved in your silly medieval Sunday torture sessions. by oldedude on February 3, 2026 8:33 pm You're full of shit. It really is that simple. by HatetheSwamp on February 4, 2026 2:29 am "Native Americans were prohibited from practicing their religion until protected by law in 1979." Really, now!!!!! I'd love a link to that from a trustworthy source. "Also, the history of violent racial attacks on churches, and recent ICE raids on churches." Really now? I don't think so. But, please, enlighten us, baha by myce on February 4, 2026 6:17 am Here's a few links, Mr. Subjectivity. google.com google.com google.com by HatetheSwamp on February 4, 2026 6:21 am Your links don't say what you say they say. by myce on February 4, 2026 6:44 am This is called a Google search, albeit with a couple of typos. Sorry. This way you can find information yourself, if you choose to be open minded enough to learn. by HatetheSwamp on February 4, 2026 7:10 am myce, I hesitate to engage in a serious dialog with you, but Freedom of Religion in the US is an issue I know stuff about. The First Amendment actually has two Religion Clauses. The second is the Free Exercise Clause: "Congress" can't make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court and Congress has been in an ongoing struggle to make sense of that liberty since the Bill of Rights was ratified because people have often attempted to behave illegally, or immorally, by claiming that what they are doing is a religious ritual. Say, you are a pedophile. Over the years, numerous child rapers have attempted to engage in that behavior, claiming that the First Amendment guarantees them the right to have sex with children because it's their religion. That sort of "religion" has always been regarded as illegal. So,... some practices in certain Indigenous People's religions involve activities that are, otherwise, illegal. If memory serves, it was smoking peyote... as a religious ritual, a sacrament,... which is illegal, that forced the passage of the 1978 law which recognized that, in that setting, smoking peyote was a legitimate religious practice. But, c'mon, gimme a break. Don't be silly. It was never illegal, across the US, for Indigenous people to practice their religion. by myce on February 4, 2026 8:09 am I don't think you're serious about studying the issues I mentioned with an open mind, HtS. by HatetheSwamp on February 4, 2026 8:19 am Why? by Indy! on February 4, 2026 9:59 am There is plenty of proof that the Founders were - for the most part - not religious at all. by myce on February 4, 2026 5:20 pm HatetheSwamp, not pointing fingers, but people here have a tendency to complain about the sources that others choose and then not engage with the topic. I was just trying to bypass that habit and invite you to look into these topics using my search suggestions. I should have explained earlier. Maybe read about kkk attacks on black churches and consider why I said the application of the reconstruction era kkk law against Don Lemon is like boiling a calf in its mother's milk. It was intended to protect people from the threat of death for exercising their rights. by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 3:42 am myce, How is it like boiling a calf... I get the Old Testament reference. I don't get the point you are trying to make. by myce on February 5, 2026 4:40 am I think you're stuck in your own subjectivity and you're going to have to step outside of yourself, learn some American history, learn empathy for people who aren't in your in-group, before my reference will make sense to you. by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 5:00 am We're all stuck in our subjectivity. I HAVE A Ph. D. IN AMERICAN HISTORY How bout you? by myce on February 5, 2026 5:04 am DID YOU GET YOUR PHD IN 1890? by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 5:36 am If I had, the KKK Act would have been fresh history. If you care to dialog about this, I'll enjoy it. But, your run-of-the-mill sanctimonious woke, "you're too stoopid or ignert to understand" schtick is off the table. by myce on February 5, 2026 6:02 am Sometimes masters speak in metaphors, parables and riddles because plain language doesn't quite convey the idea. If Don Lemon gets a ticket for trespassing or something, fine. That depends on local law and the results of a full investigation. But the application of the kkk law in this context is so egregious that I think it is best described as boiling a calf. I can't explain what I mean unless you choose to understand what I mean. by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 6:14 am Fine. Explain why you think it is egregious. by myce on February 5, 2026 6:38 am The kkk act was intended to protect people from severe violations of civil rights that included violence and death. Today, immigrants are facing severe violations of their civil rights that include violence and death. The protesters are protesting against severe violations of civil rights that are destroying people's lives. The federal government is trying to use the kkk act as a tool of oppression rather than for protection. by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 6:59 am "The kkk act was intended to protect people from severe violations of civil rights that included violence and death." Well, not exactly. The KKK Act is really called "the Conspiracy Against Rights law." 150 years ago, the KKK was very guilty of that. But, it's the engaging in a conspiracy that is what makes people guilty of violating the law, violence or not. As far as Don Lemon is concerned, it's his close association and apparent collaboration with the mob that invaded a church in the act of worship that is the issue. In my opinion, Lemon's behavior, in his six hours of live stream, makes him obviously indictable (able to be charged) as a participant in the conspiracy. Whether or not he can be convicted remains to be seen. "Today, immigrants are facing severe violations of their civil rights that include violence and death. The protesters are protesting against severe violations of civil rights that are destroying people's lives. The federal government is trying to use the kkk act as a tool of oppression rather than for protection." Illegal immigrants don't possess all of the rights of citizens, nor even legal immigrants. by myce on February 5, 2026 7:14 am What happened to the idea that rights are granted by the Creator, HtS? Now you don't really believe that, do you? by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 7:19 am How did you make that leap? by myce on February 5, 2026 7:53 am Read your own words, the last sentence of your last post. by HatetheSwamp on February 5, 2026 8:16 am We're discussing several different things. The "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" was a foundational conviction of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. I used it as a link in historical chain running from Plymouth Rock in 1620 through the writing of the Declaration to the composing of the Bill of Rights through the protections provided in 1870 by the so-called KKK Act up to the passage of the FACE Act in the 1990s. The right of religious people to worship freely and peacefully traces to the first moments of the settlement of our colonies. It has always been central to identity. There can be no doubt. by myce on February 5, 2026 9:33 am Do you believe there is a such thing as unalienable rights granted by a Creator, or not? by Indy! on February 5, 2026 9:37 am He doesn't even know what he's quoting. Here is the actual "unalienable rights" sentence in the Declaration of Independence... "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 these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't see religion in there anywhere. by Indy! on February 5, 2026 9:43 am The First Amendment - which Brown Shorts has also obviously never seen... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Doesn't say anything about Don Lemon asking questions after service is over. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page