Yes, Joe Biden actually said to a black man: "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black." Yes, he did apologize afterwards. But so what? He could not have said, or even thought of, something like that unless he actually believed it. And they tell us that Republicans are the racists. But it is not just Biden. There are blacks who agree. And there are Jews who do not understand how I, a Jew, can vote Republican. Frankly, it is racist group think.
Meanwhile, over in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz formed a unity government, after 3 elections produced no clear winner. As part of their unity agreement there was discussion of Israel "annexing" parts of the West Bank. However, 18 US Senators, all Democrats and including two Jews, sent a letter to Netanyahu and Gantz, objecting to annexation. "As friends and supporters of Israel, we caution you against taking unilateral steps that would fray our unique bonds, imperil Israel's future and place out of reach the prospect of a lasting peace." Some friends these Democrats are. I don't need friends threatening me.
Instigating the letter were Senators Chris Murphy, Connecticut, Tim Kaine, Virginia, and Chris Van Hollen, Maryland. Also signing the letter were these Senators: Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren (who may be Biden's running mate as VP), Tammy Duckworth, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Patrick Leahy, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey, Martin Heinrich, Jeanne Shaheen and Tom Carper. I have discussed in many prior posts Israel's right to "occupy" and even "annex" part of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). I will simply point out here that the Jordan River valley must always remain under Israeli control, lest outside forces (think Iran, Al Qaeda and ISIS) are mere minutes away from Israel's greatest population centers. Furthermore, applying Israeli sovereignty to the 500,000 Jews living across the 1949 armistice lines, makes clear that those people are part of the State of Israel.
The Dems are not taking any chances. In the event that Donald Trump wins reelection, they have put impeachment back on the table. Really. In their recent arguments to get the Supreme Court to order the release of the Mueller investigation's grand jury testimony, the Democrats argued they have an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation," which they describe as part of their "weighty constitutional responsibility." Essentially, they were on a fishing expedition, and argued that new material may lead to new articles of impeachment. These people are disgusting. They never accepted their 2016 defeat, and it is clear they have no intention of accepting another defeat. (It is worth rereading the March 12, 2017 post (less than 2 months after Trump's inauguration) called "The Deposing of an American President.")
After acting DNI Rick Grenell ordered the release of Omama Administration officials' testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, we learned what a farce the entire Russian collusion story was. James Clapper, Obama's DNI: "I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting or conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election." Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice: "I don't recall intelligence that I would consider evidence." Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch: "I do not recall that being briefed up to me." Then we have Evelyn Farkas, Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, who desperately sought to distribute as much information as possible about the incoming Administration of Donald Trump: "I didn't know anything." Then Congressman Trey Gowdy specifically asked her: "You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?" Farkas: "I didn't." And all the while Democratic Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, was telling the American people he had definitive evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
The Justice Department decided to drop their prosecution of Michael Flynn, after it became clear that it was a set-up. The FBI agents who interviewed him did not think he was lying. But an FBI memo made clear, when asking what the goal was - "get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Obama was unable to refrain from commenting on the DOJ dropping its prosecution of Michael Flynn: "That's the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic - not just institutional norms - but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk." Please. How sad that so many Dems actually believe that Obama was squeaky clean. But here is the real story.
As David Hirsanyi wrote in the 5/12/20 National Review: "By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA Director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate, with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist...The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters, which the news organization called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." He further explains: "Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal." Not to mention Obama's use of the IRS to target conservative groups.
But Obama is worried about the rule of law? And Trump is the threat to democracy? I've got the London Bridge for sale, if you're interested.
Sunday, May 24, 2020
The Coronavirus Ten Weeks Later - the States Start to Reopen
In the week ending on 5/16/2020, another 2.4 million people applied for unemployment benefits. That brings the 9 week total to 38.6 million people unemployed. I do not even know what to say anymore. On Fox they were talking about bread/food lines in New York City. On the other hand, NBC reported that Walmart and Target combined made $10 billion more online and in stores in the first quarter of 2020 compared to the same quarter in 2019. Unfortunately, small business revenue was down by 75%.
Meanwhile, many counties in California have been given the okay to partially reopen. Mall stores that have curbside access can reopen. Dining in restaurants is permitted again - assuming they maintain social distancing between the tables, as well as other safety measures. As I expected, partial opening seemed to mean to many people "back to normal." We have seen young people standing in a group right next to one another, outside of a local Starbucks. We have seen similar non-social distancing on TV. In an AP/NORC poll, conducted 5/14-5/18, 69% of Republicans said they would likely go to reopened restaurants, compared to 37% of Democrats. There was less of a disparity with regards to retail shopping - 82% of Republicans were likely to go, compared to 61% of Democrats. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 4.2%.
Dr. Mark Siegel reported on an interesting study by JP Morgan, as reported by Yael Halon on Fox. "States and countries where lockdowns were implemented have had a higher rate of COVID-19 cases than locations that remained open throughout the pandemic." Dr. Siegel: "Locking down destroys our health care system to the point where we have more heart attacks that are not going to the hospital now, more strokes that are not going to the hospital now. More cancer that is not being screened. People say they are afraid to go to the emergency room right now."
Meanwhile, we continue to see a struggle between the federal government and certain local governments. President Trump was particularly concerned about houses of worship not being allowed to reopen when retail outlets were. Trump: "I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If they don't do it, I will override the governors." While I agree that houses of worship should be allowed to reopen if they can maintain the same safety protocols that restaurants and retail stores must abide by, I do not agree that the President has the authority to override the governors. General police powers are reserved to the states. And, I am not a fan of the heavy hand of the federal government interfering with state actions, absent a clear violation of federal law.
The DOJ was also threatening both LA City and LA County. In a letter to Mayor Garcetti and the County's Director of Public Health, the DOJ wrote: "Reports of your recent public statements indicate that you suggested the possibility of long-term lockdown of the residents in the City and County of Los Angeles, regardless of the legal justification for such restrictions...Any such approach may be both arbitrary and unlawful." Again, I am not convinced of either the legitimacy or the appropriateness of federal interference with states, counties and cities, absent a violation of federal law.
Speaking of the heavy hand of the federal government, it was recently reported that Lori Laughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, decided to plead guilty in connection with their actions related to the college admissions scandal. The allegation is that the couple paid $500,000 to Rick Singer in order to get their daughters admitted to the University of Southern California. Laughlin pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and in exchange for the plea is to serve 2 months in prison, pay a fine of $150,000, and perform 100 hours of community service. Her husband pleaded guilty to the same charges, plus honest services wire and mail fraud, in exchange for a 5 month prison term, a fine of $250,000 and 250 hours of community service. I am not sure why the different charges and punishment. But that's not my beef.
What bothers me is that, having committed the act of bribery (through Singer), and falsifying their daughters' involvement in sports, they faced up to 50 years in prison if they went to trial and were convicted on all counts. 50 years in prison for trying to get their daughters admitted to USC? That is outrageous. They were not accused of terrorism or mass murder or running a drug cartel. But, because the feds are able to allege their actions violate various federal laws, each carrying lengthy prison terms, they dared not risk a trial. I am not defending this couple's actions - but I am objecting to the fact that what is essentially a single act can violate numerous laws, allowing the Feds to threaten what amounts to life in prison. What if they were innocent? Could anyone take the risk of a 50 year prison sentence? It is not an answer to say they are only getting 2 and 5 months respectively. Not when the threat of 50 years hangs over their heads.
As of today, the latest numbers I saw showed that the US had 1.68 million cases of coronavirus, with 98,011 deaths. New York and New Jersey combine to have 30.5% of the total cases in the US (360,000 and 153,000, respectively), and 35% of the total deaths (23,282 and 11,081, respectively). Next is Illinois with 108,000 cases and 4,790 deaths, Massachusetts with 91,662 cases and 6,304 deaths, and California with 90,631 cases and 3,708 deaths. LA County, with a quarter of the state's population, had 49.6% of the state's cases (44,988) and 56.7% of the state's deaths (2,104). So, who is to say who knows better on reopening LA? Ultimately, it appears the people will decide.
Meanwhile, many counties in California have been given the okay to partially reopen. Mall stores that have curbside access can reopen. Dining in restaurants is permitted again - assuming they maintain social distancing between the tables, as well as other safety measures. As I expected, partial opening seemed to mean to many people "back to normal." We have seen young people standing in a group right next to one another, outside of a local Starbucks. We have seen similar non-social distancing on TV. In an AP/NORC poll, conducted 5/14-5/18, 69% of Republicans said they would likely go to reopened restaurants, compared to 37% of Democrats. There was less of a disparity with regards to retail shopping - 82% of Republicans were likely to go, compared to 61% of Democrats. The margin of error for the poll was +/- 4.2%.
Dr. Mark Siegel reported on an interesting study by JP Morgan, as reported by Yael Halon on Fox. "States and countries where lockdowns were implemented have had a higher rate of COVID-19 cases than locations that remained open throughout the pandemic." Dr. Siegel: "Locking down destroys our health care system to the point where we have more heart attacks that are not going to the hospital now, more strokes that are not going to the hospital now. More cancer that is not being screened. People say they are afraid to go to the emergency room right now."
Meanwhile, we continue to see a struggle between the federal government and certain local governments. President Trump was particularly concerned about houses of worship not being allowed to reopen when retail outlets were. Trump: "I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If they don't do it, I will override the governors." While I agree that houses of worship should be allowed to reopen if they can maintain the same safety protocols that restaurants and retail stores must abide by, I do not agree that the President has the authority to override the governors. General police powers are reserved to the states. And, I am not a fan of the heavy hand of the federal government interfering with state actions, absent a clear violation of federal law.
The DOJ was also threatening both LA City and LA County. In a letter to Mayor Garcetti and the County's Director of Public Health, the DOJ wrote: "Reports of your recent public statements indicate that you suggested the possibility of long-term lockdown of the residents in the City and County of Los Angeles, regardless of the legal justification for such restrictions...Any such approach may be both arbitrary and unlawful." Again, I am not convinced of either the legitimacy or the appropriateness of federal interference with states, counties and cities, absent a violation of federal law.
Speaking of the heavy hand of the federal government, it was recently reported that Lori Laughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, decided to plead guilty in connection with their actions related to the college admissions scandal. The allegation is that the couple paid $500,000 to Rick Singer in order to get their daughters admitted to the University of Southern California. Laughlin pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and in exchange for the plea is to serve 2 months in prison, pay a fine of $150,000, and perform 100 hours of community service. Her husband pleaded guilty to the same charges, plus honest services wire and mail fraud, in exchange for a 5 month prison term, a fine of $250,000 and 250 hours of community service. I am not sure why the different charges and punishment. But that's not my beef.
What bothers me is that, having committed the act of bribery (through Singer), and falsifying their daughters' involvement in sports, they faced up to 50 years in prison if they went to trial and were convicted on all counts. 50 years in prison for trying to get their daughters admitted to USC? That is outrageous. They were not accused of terrorism or mass murder or running a drug cartel. But, because the feds are able to allege their actions violate various federal laws, each carrying lengthy prison terms, they dared not risk a trial. I am not defending this couple's actions - but I am objecting to the fact that what is essentially a single act can violate numerous laws, allowing the Feds to threaten what amounts to life in prison. What if they were innocent? Could anyone take the risk of a 50 year prison sentence? It is not an answer to say they are only getting 2 and 5 months respectively. Not when the threat of 50 years hangs over their heads.
As of today, the latest numbers I saw showed that the US had 1.68 million cases of coronavirus, with 98,011 deaths. New York and New Jersey combine to have 30.5% of the total cases in the US (360,000 and 153,000, respectively), and 35% of the total deaths (23,282 and 11,081, respectively). Next is Illinois with 108,000 cases and 4,790 deaths, Massachusetts with 91,662 cases and 6,304 deaths, and California with 90,631 cases and 3,708 deaths. LA County, with a quarter of the state's population, had 49.6% of the state's cases (44,988) and 56.7% of the state's deaths (2,104). So, who is to say who knows better on reopening LA? Ultimately, it appears the people will decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)