New Law Will Remove The Term “Lunatic” From Federal Statutes : Texas Congressloon Louie Gohmert Disappointed

by Michael Matthew Bloomer, December 9, 2012

“I don’t have a problem with lunatic being used in the Federal law.
Apparently, I was the only one here on the floor that didn’t have a problem with using the term ‘lunatic.'”
Congressloon Louie Gohmert (R-TX),
GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE WITH THE ECONOMY
House of Representatives – December 05, 2012

Last Wednesday, in an attempt to continue purging offensive colloquial words and phrases from the United States Code, the House passed S. 2367, the ‘‘21st Century Language Act of 2012.”¹  The Senate passed the bill on May 23rd, which I reported on.² The AP reported:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The word “lunatic” will be stricken from federal law under legislation that passed the House on Wednesday and is headed to President Obama for his signature.

The Congressional action is the latest effort to remove language from federal law that has become outdated or is considered demeaning. Two years ago Congress took out references to “mental retardation.”

“The term ‘lunatic’ holds a place in antiquity and should no longer have a prominent place in our U.S. code,” said Representative Robert C. Scott, Democrat of Virginia, shortly before the 398-to-1 vote in the House. The word, derived from the Latin word from moon, arises from ancient beliefs that people could become “moonstruck” by lunar movements.³

As you see, there was one Congressperson who voted “Nay.” Unsurprisingly, that individual was Congressloon Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Mr. Gohmert, you see, has a rep. Like a crazy Uncle has a rep at Thanksgiving dinner. Like your friend who thinks radios work because there a little people in them. Like anything Donald Trump says, thinks, or does.

Louie marches to the beat of a different mental capacity. He once suggested that the Aurora Colorado shootings might have been prevented if everyone in the theater had been armed. He once confused the word “tourist” with “terrorist”  in relation to the practice of “birth tourism.”  He then warned America that “terrorist babies” were being born in the United States in order to qualify as American citizens and then immediately returned to the Mideast for terrorist training.   Oh, yes, three weeks ago, for the upcoming 113th Congress convening in January 2013, Mr. Gohmert nominated for Speaker of the House  the inimitable Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker who carries the word “disgraced” as a prefix to his former title, and, furthermore, a person not elected to anything at the present.

I could go on and on, but here’s just one more: During the 2012 campaign he opined :

“And I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and I’m well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states in the world. Perhaps there was some confusion whether he’d been to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. states.”

Indeed.

Mr. Gohmert’s refusal to vote “Yea” to remove the word “lunatic” from the U.S. Code, therefore, is as consistent, principled and reasoned a position as any other he’s taken in his House career. He may believe that once we remove “lunatic” from the U.S. Code, well, what next? Will the word “nut” or “nuts” be banned? They appear 43 times in the code.⁴  always on the lookout for big government encroachment on, well, you know, freedom, Gohmert may fear that the ban on “lunatic” will be extended to our day-to-day lives.  For example, will it one day soon be impermissible for my brothers-in-law to affectionately refer to me as a lunatic? Or nuts? Or unzipped?

Mr. Gohmert stands on guard with his sword drawn for all of us who deped on the word lunatic. And, deservedly, for himself as well and for his legacy. For if “lunatic” is ever banned from our vocabulary, how then will Congressman Louie Gohmert ever be adequately described in the histories of his era?

_____________________________________

Please follow and like us: