From The Desk of Holy Heresy

We have watched the long and tumultuous career of Donald Trump with the same mixture of hope and concern as many Americans. We have been troubled by the ceaseless controversy that has surrounded him, but we have held to the belief that the office of the President should be accorded a measure of grace, and its occupant the benefit of any doubt. Now, that doubt has been erased. The question is no longer whether the President is fit to lead, but whether the nation can abide a leader so deeply and disturbingly connected to unforgivable sin. The accumulated evidence of his association with the late Jeffrey Epstein and his horrific actions has become a moral stain that cannot be cleansed. We have seen the photographs and the flight logs. We have read the sworn testimony of survivors who place Mr. Trump in the very orbit of this monstrous enterprise of exploitation and abuse. We have heard his own words, recorded over the years, which speak not with the horror and condemnation such evil deser...

STEPHEN: (Sighs dramatically) Welcome back to… whatever this is now. Folks, they cancelled us. They said we were "too disruptive." "Too honest." "Too… expensive for a show that just tells the truth and makes billionaires uncomfortable." JON: (Rubbing his temples) Yeah, apparently the truth doesn't pay the bills. Or maybe, just maybe, it exposes whose bills are really being paid. I'm not saying it’s a conspiracy, but my coffee suddenly tastes like industrial solvent and the WiFi just went out. Again. STEPHEN: And to protest this egregious act of… corporate synergy, we're doing the one thing they can't stop us from doing in this dusty, forgotten studio. A Top 10 list! But not just any Top 10. This is the list so hot, so spicy, so undeniably true, it would have gotten us pulled off the air mid-sentence. JON: So grab your tinfoil hats, folks, because we're counting down the Top 10 Things That Prove the System Isn't Just Rigged, It's...

Abstract:  This opinion examines the legal implications of disbanding the U.S. Department of Education with specific focus on the collectability of outstanding federal student loan debt. It argues that in the absence of the Department of Education—the statutory administrator of Title IV loan programs—the federal government lacks legal authority to enforce such obligations. Moreover, this opinion contends that such debts cannot be transferred to or enforced by other federal agencies without explicit congressional authorization. This position is grounded in statutory construction, separation of powers doctrine, and administrative law principles. I. Introduction The hypothetical—but increasingly debated—prospect of disbanding the U.S. Department of Education raises a host of unresolved legal questions. Chief among them is whether outstanding federal student loan debt remains enforceable in the absence of the Department, and whether such obligations can be lawfully transferred to anoth...

The line between church and state, though often debated, is not a hazy one in the context of federal tax law. It is clearly marked by the Johnson Amendment, a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. This provision is neither an affront to religious liberty nor a government overreach. Rather, it is a prudent and necessary safeguard to preserve the integrity of both our political system and our houses of worship. The United States has long held that the government should not entangle itself in religious matters, just as churches should not entangle themselves in partisan political activity. This principle is rooted in a dual commitment: to protect religious freedom and to preserve a democratic process that is free from institutional coercion or distortion. The Johnson Amendment does not silence clergy or restrict the expression of personal political beliefs. What it does prohibit ...

In 2003, Rev. Jeremiah Wright roared from the pulpit: “God damn America.” He was not calling for destruction, but for accountability. He was condemning a nation whose policies had betrayed its own ideals, whose injustices had metastasized while its leaders wrapped themselves in a hypocritical patriotism. Two decades later, his words echo with chilling relevance. America stands again at a precipice. We witness the rise of voter suppression masquerading as “election integrity.” We watch as billionaires warp democracy to protect their wealth while working families struggle to survive. We see school boards and state legislatures banning books while children die from bullets politicians refuse to regulate. We hear the shrill cries of “freedom” from those who would take bodily autonomy from women and strip LGBTQ Americans of their basic rights. And above all, we see the soul of the nation, once proudly proclaiming “liberty and justice for all,” cracking under the weight of lies, corruption, ...

Florida’s newest monument to fear, an offshore-mindset detention compound the state proudly calls “Alligator Alcatraz” (a concentration camp)⁠, is more than a policy misfire. It is a live-action civics lesson in how to violate the Constitution on several fronts at once. 1. The Supremacy Clause and the Anti-Commandeering Principle Immigration regulation is an exclusively federal power. In Arizona v. United States (2012) the Supreme Court struck down state measures that “operate in areas the federal government has occupied.” Here, Tallahassee is not merely “co-operating” under 287(g); it is building and controlling its own detention archipelago and then inviting federal agents to fill the beds. That flips the anti-commandeering doctrine on its head, creating a reverse commandeering that usurps Congress’s plenary power over immigration and foreign affairs. Where Congress has legislated a detailed detention framework, a state may not substitute its own. 2. The Public-Trust Doctrine ...

Update: Of course he didn’t veto the bill, the man couldn’t make the right decision if you handed it to him with a spotlight and a map. Original Post: Mr. President, I will not pretend to admire your record. I did not vote for you, and I have watched your tenure with deep disappointment and, at times, outright anger. Too often you have traded moral clarity for political theater, prioritizing the next news cycle over the next generation. But even a flawed leader can occasionally do the right thing. And this is your moment to do exactly that. The bill before you, your own bill, painstakingly crafted and steamrolled through Congress, is wrong. It is wrong for working families, wrong for the vulnerable, and wrong for the country. It codifies inequities you once promised to dismantle. It rewards powerful donors while leaving ordinary Americans to pick through the scraps. You may see it as a legacy achievement. Let me be clear: it is not. It is a betrayal dressed up as reform. The country de...