There Is Other News (Not Just The Coronavirus)

It is easy to forget that we are in a presidential election year, given the way the news about the coronavirus virus appears to be crowding out other news stories. It was not that long ago that the prognosticators were saying that Joe Biden was done, and Sanders would be the Democratic Party nominee. Then Super Tuesday happened. Now, the pressure is on Sanders to drop out. That seems unfair as it takes 1991 delegates to win the nomination, and Biden leads Sanders 890 to 736. That does not seem like an insurmountable lead. Sanders, in fact, announced he would not drop out. Then he added a new member to his campaign - one Phillip Agnew. Mr. Agnew has called Zionism (the national movement for a Jewish homeland) "a racist, exploitative, and exclusionary ideology." Agnew also said that Obama, when he defended Jews right to a homeland, was supporting "ethnic cleansing, slavery, genocide, exploitation, and appropriation." Sanders has aligned himself with more anti-Semites than any major presidential candidate has in modern times. Imagine if he staffed his campaign with racists, sexists, islamophobes, or anti-LGBTQ people. He would face daily attacks by the mainstream media and other Democrats.

Recently, Brian Williams of MSNBC, had Mara Gay, a member of the New York Times editorial board, as a guest. Gay commented on Twitter post she saw. The post said: "Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The US population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over. I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST." Gay: "It's an incredible way of putting it. It's true. It's disturbing." It is disturbing - that these two opinion makers are unable to do simple math. $500 million divided by 327 million people comes to $1.53 per person. Not what I would call "life-changing." But when your agenda drives your discussion, then there is no need for thinking. What these two should have concluded was that the Democrats' claim that big money wins elections is a lie. It did not work for Tom Steyer and it did not work for Mike Bloomberg - two billionaires. They both lacked the personal connection to people. And the right message.

Speaking of Joe Biden (see top paragraph) he said this while campaigning before the South Carolina primary: "My name's Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden." I do not say that to make fun of Biden. I point it out because it may be a gross understatement to say that he has merely lost a step. Plus, as William McGurn pointed out in a 3/3/20 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Biden, under pressure from the left-wing of the party, has apologized for his prior policy positions, including a crime bill he sponsored, his votes to ban federal funding for abortions, and even for referring to Mike Pence as a "decent guy." Biden stands for one thing only - he is not Donald Trump. That seems to be enough for many in the Democratic Party.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, was recently speaking at a pro-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court, while the Court was hearing arguments on an abortion related case. Schumer furiously yelled this: "I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price...You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." It was outrageous for Schumer to threaten Supreme Court Justices, by name no less. Schumer is said to be a "moderate," compared, say, with Maxine Waters. But in 2018 Waters said this: "...and if you see anybody from that Cabinet (Trump's) in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere..." These two politicians reflect the overall attitude of the Democratic Party - if they disagree with you, they have the right to harass you, to assault you, and for some, to batter you.

The Chief Justice, John Roberts, was so off-put by Schumer's comments that he issued a rebuke to Schumer. Rare for a Chief Justice to do. Roberts: "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter." But some on the Left felt that Schumer's attack on the Court was justified because, you know, the Court now has a conservative majority. For example, one executive V.P. at People For the American Way noted that "he (Schumer) is acutely aware that Trump and the far right are packing the courts with extreme ideologues..." "Packing the court" now means appointing conservatives to the Left, turning its historical meaning (see below) on its head.

This attack on the Supreme Court by Democrats is not new. It's been happening ever since a conservative majority sits on the Court for the first time in decades. That's right - once the Court was majority conservative, it was time to attack, and to propose "reforms." Five Senators previously threatened the Court in an amicus (friend of the Court) brief: "The Supreme Court is not well. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'" That "restructuring" has included calls by Democrats to "pack" the Court (add to the number of justices on the Court after the next Democrat is elected President in order to allow the appointment of more left-wing justices), term limits for the justices (in order to get the conservatives off the bench), and limiting the jurisdiction of the Court. (Article 3 of the Constitution does not state how many justices must be on the Court. It does say what cases over which the Court has exclusive (original) jurisdiction, and where it may have appellate jurisdiction.)

After Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said this: "If Hillary Clinton can't win when she gets the nomination and you (Warren) can't get the nomination and neither can Kamala Harris, and neither can Amy Klobuchar, and neither can Kirsten Gillibrand...is it just that it can't be any woman ever?" I'm sure that's it. The country did not know Klobuchar or Gillibrand, and really did not know Harris (who stood for ?). As for Warren, she was popular, but many or her ideas overlapped with Sanders', who already had that left-wing base in his corner.

Finally, in a demonstration of left-wing hypocrisy, we have Human Rights Watch (HRW), an NGO. The Jerusalem Post reported that their executive Director, Ken Roth, "accepted a major donation (said to be $470,000) from a Saudi real estate tycoon by promising not to support advocacy of the LGBT community in the Middle East and North Africa." So, when Iran executed by hanging a man charged with violation of that country's anti-gay laws, HRW said...nothing. But, you can count on HRW to continue their ongoing criticisms of Israel. The Saudis are well known to use their money to buy influence; and use their money in the US to fund numerous mosques, and worse, to help fund major US universities. Not that the money would influence left-wing professors at all.