Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A good and dear friend of ours, who just happened to have also been one of the best lawyers ever produced by the Louisiana Bar, Mike Walker (a most worthy adversary, and I have the scars to prove it!), recently sent out a message about an invaluable treasure trove of information about the 2020 Election and offered his own analysis of the findings of that study. The website he referenced can be accessed here, and I cannot recommend it too highly, especially for those of us, and I include myself in that number, who thought we were well informed about( a) the totality of the irregularities in that election and the number of legal actions taken to try to remedy those problems and (b) just how blatant the mainstream media lies about the suits filed by or on behalf of President Trump really were and how corruptly inaccurate they were in their incessant bleating about the fact that they were all, or almost all, about claims of fraud.
Here are the highlights of Mike’s analysis:
It’s raining, and I’m recuperating from back surgery. So out of sheer boredom, I got to looking around on the internet, prompted primarily the Stasi raid on Trump and the hit on Rep. Scott Perry. ….
I’ve gotten real tired of hearing from the media that Trump/Trump supporters have “lost every lawsuit brought to challenge the election” and that there has never been any evidence of fraud produced to maintain these suits. Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “There are liars, damned liars, and there are God-damned liars.” Put the media and the Dems behind Door #3.
If you go to https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm, you will find an excellent breakdown of all election cases filed to date, with tabular descriptions of all 2020 Presidential Election-Related Lawsuits. A physicist by the name John Droz, Jr., compiled it apparently aided by a group calling itself “Promoting American Election Integrity,” whose website contains this and a number of other reports offered in an effort directed toward advocating making voting easy and cheating hard. What you will find is very granular—the author(s) put a lot of painstaking research into this project—but the takeaways put the lie to the popular version advanced by the media, that there has been nothing but failure for interests seeking to challenge elections. Examples:
–there have been 92 decisions, but only 30 decided on the merits;
–of those 30, 22 were decided favorably to Trump/GOP or Trump interests;
–5 cases involved Trump, his campaign, or the GOP as a or the defendant;
–of those 5, 4 were decided on the merits, 3 favorably to GOP defendants.
The other 62 cases did not reach adjudication on the merits. Primary among them were dismissals for lack of standing (i.e., voter who filed as plaintiff had never registered to vote), mootness (the complaint resolved without the court’s intervention), the complaint was untimely or subject to the defense of laches (whoever filed it waited too long or conditions had evolved making it manifestly unfair to allow the lawsuit to go to decision), jurisdiction (court found it had no legal authority to entertain the claim) or ripeness (the condition complained of had not evolved to the point causing injury which could be addressed by the court).
What inspired me to write this, though, is that mainstream reporting has disingenuously invited the public to believe that all of the election-related cases sought to throw out election results due to fraud, and resulted in courts’ rejection of that allegation. Another complete and utter falsehood. Of the cases dismissed or withdrawn for mootness, lack of standing, etc., the claims were in large part objections to poll observer access; requests to sequester ballots until after election day; failure of the state to enforce absentee ballot deadlines; use of unreliable voting machines; legality of no-excuse absentee voting; and unsolicited mailing of absentee voter registration applications, to name those comprising the majority of the claims. Thus, the media would have you believe that Trump interests/GOP went to trial on whether cheating had occurred to such an extent that the vote totals were illicitly skewed in Biden’s favor. To the contrary, every one of the 92 cases dealt with election rules, voters, machines or processes, and very few got to the merits on those. But NONE ever adjudicated a claim that elections were thrown to Biden through fraud, as the media would have you believe. The issue has simply never been tried. Of the 92 cases filed, 51 were about election rules; 33 were about election processes; 3 were about voters’ qualifications or fulfillment of state law requirements for voting; and 6 were about voting machines. While these 6 conceivably might have decided the issue of whether fraud had changed the election outcome, none of them ever got to the merits; some are still pending. One, O’Rourke v. Dominion, which conceivably could have gotten to the stage where the court would opine on whether skullduggery had in fact taken place, was couched as a civil rights action on behalf of 160 million voters seeking damages against Dominion, Facebook, Mich. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Ga. Secy. of State Raffensperger, and a host of other public officials around the country. On a Motion to Dismiss, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for relief legally cognizant under civil rights law and therefore lacked standing to bring the suit. The case was thrown out without ever getting to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Trump/GOP were not plaintiffs in this suit. BUT THAT IS THE CLOSEST ANY CASE HAS COME TO A COURT DECIDING THE “ISSUE OF ELECTION FRAUD.”
I send this primarily because I keep talking to people who seem to think that every case which has involved election issues was filed by Trump and resulted in a court holding that there was no evidence of fraud, or that the election was not stolen. Such a perception is a stunning win for the Dems and their media, in that they have fooled a significant portion of the population. They are, as Gingrich said yesterday, “Bad people doing bad things.” So maybe I’m just behind the curve and everyone already knows what I’ve set forth above, but I don’t get that impression from the people I’ve spoken with.
Recently, I stumbled upon news about the creation of a truly wretched group in DC (dare I say: but I repeat myself?) named The 65 Project, created to try to get every lawyer who represented President Trump disbarred, suspended, or disciplined in some way for having the ghastly temerity to advance a client’s cause in a Court of Law. My post about this group can be accessed here, and I noted the name was based on what they understood was the number of cases filed by President Trump, every one of which, according to these Masters of the Universe, was unsuccessful for some reason or other. Here is the way it describes its purpose:
Right after the 2020 election, Trump’s Big Lie Lawyers filed 65 lawsuits across swing states to overturn the legitimate election results. Finding the assertions baseless and riddled with false statements, Republican and Democratic appointed judges uniformly dismissed the lawsuits.
Once you read this analysis, you will more fully appreciate the depths of depravity to which so many of our “betters” have sunk. The above statement is, quite simply, one lie after another, a fact that will become crystal clear after you read this set of factual reports on the actual cases filed regarding the 2020 Election.
As I am technologically still residing in the Paleolithic Era, I was unable to include the entire graphic analyzing the cases and their disposition, but I urge all, with full credit and appreciation noted to the group “Promoting American Election Integrity” and to friend Mike for unearthing this invaluable source, to go to the link above and study this report for yourself. It will be time well spent in readying yourself for the inevitable jousting with the stalwarts of the regime, a thankless task if ever there was one.
God Bless America!
Could this be “the tipping point” we hear about all the time? This has never happened in American history:
Question: if you were trying to foment a Second Civil War in America, what would you do differently from what these street thugs are doing right now? I write this after learning of the FBI’s training materials teaching agents to be on the lookout for “Militia Violent Extremists” who revere the Betsy Ross Flag, the Gadsden Flag, the Molon Labe flag, and who view Ashli Babbitt as a martyr. I am all of those and more and have researched and written extensively about why it is clear that Ashli Babbitt was murdered by Pelosi’s lackey on January 6.
No President in our history has been subject to this kind of blatant, raw, Gestapo-like use of blind force. I am very concerned about this act of what is clearly an out-of-control renegade law enforcement agency, deeply corrupted by political influence, and led by one of the sleaziest Directors in its history. In fact, it may trigger some of those who are devoted to President Trump and what he accomplished for us into some retaliatory action the nature of which cannot possibly be predicted, not even by “geniuses” such as Director Wray and the Drooler-in-Chief.
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, this is a dangerous moment for our country, as if we don’t have quite enough on our plate due to the monumental incompetence and radicalism of this Potemkin “Presidency,” and I fear, based on the evidence as I see it, we are more rapidly than most citizens realize moving into the beginnings of a real police state.
Pray for America.
God Bless America!
Reason # i,517 to like the best Governor in America! Our Governor, Ron DeSantis, clearly in my totally non-objective and absolutely biased opinion, the best Governor, by far, in America, has very publicly fired one of George Soros’ hand-picked DA’s who decided what laws he would and would not enforce. And publicly announcing it the way he did is the best way to start getting all this woke [ ] under some kind of control and we can only hope that some of the other Republican governors will have the backbone DeSantis did in the way he handled this rogue “prosecutor” in Tampa. I started to use another anatomical reference but that would eliminate some other good governors such as the Governor of South Dakota.
Here is part of the Governor’s press release:
TAMPA, Fla.— Today, Governor Ron DeSantis suspended State Attorney Andrew Warren of the 13th Judicial Circuit due to neglect of duty. The Governor has the authority to suspend a state officer under Article IV, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Florida. The Governor has appointed Susan Lopez to serve as State Attorney for the period of suspension. She has most recently been serving as a Judge on the Hillsborough County Court. To view the order suspending Andrew Warren and appointing Susan Lopez, click here.
“State Attorneys have a duty to prosecute crimes as defined in Florida law, not to pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal agenda,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “It is my duty to hold Florida’s elected officials to the highest standards for the people of Florida. I have the utmost trust that Judge Susan Lopez will lead the office through this transition and faithfully uphold the rule of law.”
More specifics on the hubris displayed by this Soros-created monstrosity of a public official are spelled out in this article from Just the News:
In June of last year, Warren “signed a letter saying that he would not enforce any prohibitions on sex change operations for minors,” DeSantis said during the press conference; elsewhere, Warren also “signed a letter saying he would not enforce ANY laws relating to protecting the right to life in the state of Florida,” the governor added.
As a longtime actual trial lawyer, a phrase used to distinguish what we did from “billboard” and “TV” “lawyers, in a time long, long ago, I am continually astonished that a member of the Bar — ANY member of the Bar — would be arrogant enough to take it upon themselves to decide which laws they simply would not enforce. I knew, and dealt with, some very arrogant lawyers (and, sad to say, Judges), and some of my adversaries almost certainly applied that label to me from time to time. However, acknowledging the effect of the passage of (much) time, I do not recall any of them suggesting we should just ignore a law, any law, at any time. It seems that Mr. Warren, like so many far-leftists, learned nothing from the recall of the Marxist DA in San Francisco and what appears to be the coming recall of the nutcase DA in Los Angeles due to their picking and choosing what laws they would or would not enforce.
We thank our lucky stars every single day that we have a Governor with the strength to do what no other Governor, to my knowledge, has done, and we applaud him for taking this one small step in rescuing the Rule of Law from the woke mob of Social Justice warriors!
Thank you, Governor DeSantis!
God Bless America!
Very short and very challenging food for thought. I was drawn to read the entire piece and that proved to be a most rewarding exercise as it introduced me to an excellent short talk on the virtues of Donald Trump and why we shouldn’t be turning our backs on him at this early stage of the 2024 Presidential Campaign. Here, before linking to the video itself, is the opening paragraph of the article, which can be found here:
I recently wrote a column about why I believed Trump should not run in 2024. I was wrong. I allowed my distaste for Trump’s personality to override his virtues, which are considerable. Some people want Trump without his vices. I was among them — until yesterday, when I watched and listened to Tom Klingenstein’s speech titled “Trump’s virtues.” It was masterful and shamed me that I did not make the distinction between Trump’s character and his virtues, the former being deeply flawed, the latter being almost perfect. I need to man up in my defense of the former President’s virtues. The speech was among the most pointed I have heard and deserves some exposure. Klingenstein says:
Other Republicans say some version of “I like Trump policies but I don’t like the rest of him.” This gets it almost backwards. Although Trump advanced many important policies, it is the ‘rest of him’ that contains the virtue that inspires the movement… Trump was born for the current crisis, a life and death struggle against a totalitarian enemy I call woke communism… that control all the cultural and economic powers in America…
[Trump] revealed, not caused, the divide in this country. In war, you must make a stand… Trump is a manly man… traditional manhood, even when flawed, is absolutely essential… Trump plays to win… There are no clean hands in a fistfight…Trump is unreservedly, unquestionably pro-America… Trump is a refreshing break from the guilt and self-loathing that marks our age…
How wonderful it is to hear a speaker in this age of wokeness and cowardly cancellation for saying the “wrong” thing, i.e., something not within the approved narrative of the Ruling Elite come right out and refer to someone as “a manly man”! I must admit I had to go back and rerun that part of the video I enjoyed hearing it so much! I am sending this video along not in the interest of starting any kind of debate about the 2024 election as it is far too early to be joining that battle. I am, however, sending it along as I think it represents a very valuable contribution to that future debate and the decision we will all be required to make in the future. I hope you find it as interesting and illuminating as I did.
God Bless America!
“Something Wicked This Way Comes.”
There is a movement afoot, launched by denizens of The Swamp who stealthily slithered out from their dark waters, which is extremely dangerous to the future of the Rule of Law in America. To those who may be saying or thinking something right now to the effect of “just another tale of woe from another lawyer about lawyers — who cares?”, I would ask that you recall when you or a family member or a close friend really needed a good lawyer to advocate for your cause, whatever it might have been. I would wager that one of your first requirements, if the matter was a contentious one as many are by the time they get to the lawyer’s office, was that the lawyer “fight like hell” for your side of the case. And that he or she fight for you against all obstacles no matter what his or her own personal beliefs might be about your cause. It is highly unlikely that you narrowed your field of choices to members of a certain political party, lawyers who wore red hats or blue hats, lawyers who checked off certain “identity boxes” so prevalent these days as most likely none of these artificial “qualities” mattered in the slightest to your selection of an attorney.
Shakespeare’s Misunderstood High Praise of Lawyers.
The line usually cited about the roles of lawyers is from Shakespeare: “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Rarely is enough context given when that line is offered in support of those who hate lawyers for a realization that it is one of the most highly complimentary statements ever made about the legal profession; but that’s for another day. For those who might wish to look further into it, and explore how Dick the Butcher was actually saying that if a tyranny (such as that of Cade) is to succeed, the first thing the tyrant must do is get rid of all the lawyers, see here and here.
A Man For All Seasons Explains Why We -and The Devil- Need Lawyers.
However, to me this passage from A Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt paints a vivid picture of what happens when lawyers are removed from society, along with their primary function: to be a warrior for a client’s cause, come hell or high water and to “Never, never, ever give up” as Sir Winston so memorably phrased it. Here is what Sir Thomas More had to say on the subject:
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
The Tyrannical Thinking Behind the New Movement Threatening The Rule of Law.
While I am no longer in the arena where the battle lines are drawn, the basic foundational principles on which our kind of practice, trial advocacy, was based have remained unchanged. And the move afoot, primarily spearheaded by The 65 Project, is described as:
“A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits …”
This kind of thinking is so foreign and antithetical to everything we learned and experienced in many years of trial practice that when I first started reading about this new movement, fueled by far-leftists in the throes of the most extreme form of Trump Derangement Syndrome, I thought it couldn’t possibly be a serious effort on the part of responsible Americans who had even a minimal knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer under our legal system. The more I read, the more frightening this Stasi-like organization became and the more obviously evil – I use that word advisedly- the thinking of some of its leaders became.
The Actual Sworn Duties of an Actual Lawyer to a Client.
Before taking a closer look at the bizarre activities of the hatemongers of this despicable “non”-profit, it might help to take a brief look at what are the actual duties of a lawyer to the client, whether the client is Joe the Plumber, Jack the Deplorable Clinger or President Donald J. Trump. Here are the current rules by which we were bound, from the Louisiana Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.2 [partial]: “… A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. …”
(b) “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, religious, economic, social or moral views or activities.”
Rule 1.3: “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”
Rule 3.1: “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. … ”
Nowhere in these rules is there an exception for lawyers who have the unmitigated gall to actually (!) represent, and -even worse!- advocate for, President Trump, nor a limitation as to the points which may be argued for him- or any client. And one will search in vain to find the words Democrat or Republican, left or right, red or blue, liberal or conservative. They are not there, and hopefully never will be, something The 65 Project is striving mightily to change. If they are successful, our society may well wind up in the situation Sir Thomas More warned Roper about, with all the laws cut down and nothing to protect its citizens from the all-too-rapacious demands of the far left for utter tyranny and subjugation in the true form of 1984 or Kafka’s The Trial. Or, for that matter, to protect its citizens from precisely the kind of despicable and disgraceful treatment to which the Federal Courts in the District of Columbia are subjecting the January 6 defendants, with total disregard for their rights under the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
The 65 Project: A Clear and Present Danger to the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law.
To fully appreciate the vile and vicious nature of The 65 Project’s aims, it is only necessary to quote the words of its “Senior Advisor” and apparent founder, David Brock, and here it is necessary that I include a note about that name. I must note, with sorrow, that my Mother’s family name was Brock and we named our Son Brock in honor of the family. My Grandfather, obviously a man of another era with very different standards of personal decency and manners, would have been horrified to learn that this cretin carried his family’s name. Here, with some background on the organization, is the way he describes what they hope to achieve:
Here’s what Brock describes as the mission of his project: “[Project 65] will not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints but shame them and make them toxic in their communities.” According to Axios, Brock’s plan is nothing less than a war of the strong against the weak: “I think the littler fish are probably more vulnerable to what we’re doing… You’re threatening their livelihoods. And you know, they’ve got reputations in their local communities.”
Give Brock points for honesty, at least. Not everyone has the guts to gloat about being pure evil. Project 65 is torn right from the playbook of Saul Alinsky (“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”): Shame lawyers, plague them with hefty legal bills, and especially pick off ones who are less famous and backed by fewer resources. Given all that, it’s better to call Project 65 Project Shame, Project Fear, or the Project of Personal Destruction. And wait, why is it even called Project 65? Because (groan) that’s the number of lawsuits filed to support the “Big Lie,” of course.
One must ask: Who appointed David Brock to be some kind of deity with the power to “shame” his fellow Americans and to threaten their livelihoods, by which they feed and clothe and keep a roof over the heads of their family? The hubris involved in such a statement may fairly be called breathtaking, but it is typical of the mindset of the “Masters of the Universe” in Washington these days. And it is also fair to ask who gave this person (?) and others like him in the leadership of The 65 Project the power to deem those even raising questions about the legitimacy of the 2020 election guilty of “spreading The Big Lie”? I appreciate, regretfully, that there is such a deep and abiding hatred of President Trump that it has affected the mental health of many on the left—and the right, a/k/a NTers- but the idea that one cannot even advance arguments to that effect have been, until recently, unknown in our society.
I should also note that the article from which the above quote was taken was authored by Jeffrey Clark, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States, who has recently been the subject of an ethics charge by the District of Columbia Bar. A cursory review of the report outlining the charges against him, which can be found here, bear the faint aroma, to be kind about it, of a pure vendetta as they relate to a research document in the form of a letter he drafted for his superiors at the DOJ which was never sent. One must ask: is faulty research now the stuff of disbarment? If so, I am thankful my research memoranda are not being examined by the ghouls of The 65 Project or I would be a goner.
Who Are The Targets of The 65 Project?
It has filed many ethics complaints in several states and the targets, as outlined in one of the first articles about the group, fall into three categories:
- Trump’s legal inner circle, including lawyers such as campaign hands Jenna Ellis and Boris Epshteyn and post-election lawyers like Sidney Powell and Joe DiGenova.
- Lawyers who signed on as “alternate electors,” who planned to submit their names to the Electoral College in lieu of legitimate elector slates if Trump-aligned legal challenges succeeded.
- Licensed attorneys who participated in or were present at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Before examining these claims a bit closer, it should not have to be said that conduct such as a lawyer lying to a Court in a document filed in the record of any matter, for example, should be punished to the full extent of any applicable ethical rules. An example of this would be the FBI lawyer who forged documents filed with FISA, received a ludicrously light discipline by the DC Bar and is now back in practice with his license fully restored. Maybe not a perfect fit for our discussion, but that definitely is the kind of blatant conduct which should be addressed by the Bar.
But, and it is a critically important “but” in this discussion, arguing various positions for a client, even if those are unpopular or are viewed as “frivolous” or a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law, are permissible, in the latter case, expressly permitted under the Louisiana Rule cited above. If the latter category were a basis for ethical charges, would the Attorney General of Mississippi be in jeopardy of losing his license for arguing, in the Dobbs case, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? While the answer is obvious, the hypothet is no more outlandish than claiming that an attorney lied to a Court in making arguments based on sworn testimony and affidavits as were made by many of the attorneys targeted by this sleazy group. Examples of —at the minimum – irregularities are legion and are collected, to name just one such publication, in my opinion the best, Mollie Hemingway’s excellent book Rigged.
A very few examples of how far this group is reaching in order to assure no lawyer in his or her right mind will ever agree to represent a client who does not get the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from the ruling elite may suffice. Cleta Mitchell, a member of the DC Bar with impeccable credentials, is the target of a complaint because she was on a conference call between President Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State. The details are available here on The Project 65 website. Another attorney, Professor John Eastman, whose integrity was, before he became a target for these thought police patrols, unquestioned has today been hit with an ethics charge filed with the Supreme Court for advancing arguments which troubled the elite’s enforcers; it can be accessed here. Another attorney, in Pennsylvania, was charged with an ethical violation because he made an appearance in a Trump lawsuit-in other words, simply signed a document in behalf of Trump. There are a depressingly large number of other examples available.
Possible Bases for Counterattacks Against These Thought Police Enforcers for the Elite.
There are several arguments available to counter these charges, as noted by Mr. Clark’s article:
Their goals run afoul of the First Amendment’s Petition Clause, as often citizens’ petitions for a redress of grievances come in the form of lawsuits.
It can be argued that forming an organization to hound lawyers who served as advocates for Republicans may be a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the lawyers and their clients.
Counter-complaints can be filed against any 65 Project complainant in his or her own State Bar.
Especially in view of the stated aims, as so graphically stated by one of its own directors, to “shame” and damage the reputations of the targeted attorneys, libel and slander actions could be brought and recent examples have shown these suits can be very, very successful, as in the case of the young student who was slandered by such guardians of the truth as CNN and others.
What is the Future of this Vicious Crusade?
An indication of what could be a powerful backlash against these enforcers is found in a statement of a legal ethics scholar at Fordham University, here:
Some legal scholars have also questioned the 65 Project’s tactics, worrying that their campaign — buttressed by TV ad buys and publicity-heavy rollouts of new complaints — upends the traditionally confidential process for attorney disciplinary proceedings.
”It’s unclear whether the point is to use the publicity and the website and the public nature of it to pressure disciplinary authorities to do something they might not otherwise do,” said Bruce Green, a legal ethics scholar at Fordham University, “or whether the point is to use the filing as a way to publicly shame lawyers.”
While no one knows where this unsavory group will take their campaign of personal destruction or how successful it may be, in the opinion of this “well-seasoned” (euphemism for old) relic of a lawyer, it does seem to me that they have picked some fights with some very competent, very skilled, very able lawyers. Those highly respected lawyers did not get their reputations by being intimidated by the likes of David Brock and his band of hoodlums. In other words, as so memorably exclaimed by Bette Davis long ago, “fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!”
Hunter Biden’s indictments may be “delayed.” As Gomer would say: Gollee!
Remember Gomer Pyle? I recalled one of his most famous expressions when I read an article today about possible plans of the Department of [In]Justice to “delay” moving forward with charges against Hunter Biden because of “election year sensitivities.”
An unapologetic paean to our new home state: Florida!
Author’s Note: While the following discussion will make occasional attempts to be fair and balanced in its analysis and comparisons of these two states, they will probably be fleeting and half-hearted at best. Most of this piece will be almost completely biased, prejudiced, partial, and one-sided, with little or no attempt to be disinterested or objective. My Lady and I love our new home state, and that will certainly be apparent throughout the following article.
Some personal thoughts/impressions about our new home: Keyword: Gratitude.
The Gulf breezes which gave our hometown its name rustling through the pine trees and palm trees around our new home in our wonderful new home state of Florida. The sound of the turtle dove cooing in the late evening shadows. The sounds of silence should be heard by more of our fellow citizens, many of whom occupy what must be called a cauldron of cacophony all their lives. As pleasant as those moments can be, nothing comes close to having that reverie explosively interrupted, as it was a couple of nights ago, by the sound and sight of the Blue Angels flying very low over our deck on their way to a westbound turn for their homeward run up the beach (colloquially known here as a Beach Buzz) to their home at NAS Pensacola after a weekend show (this one was in Michigan). Nothing.
There are many beautiful sunrises around this old orb, but none more beautiful than the one in this photo, taken two blocks from our house: