Year End Reflections, Part VI (A Personal, and Very Brief, Look Back)

I turned 70 this past year.  That's a big birthday.  Upon hearing of this birthday of mine, some expressed dismay at my "advanced" age.  I did not share those sentiments.  On the contrary, I thank G-d for each and every day.  I have been to far too many funerals of young people and middle-aged people to understand that there is no guarantee of tomorrow.  So I celebrate my age.

My physical condition is another matter.  My cervical spine has been a pain in the neck (a little humor) for over 20 years.  Mostly physical therapy on and off.  But after having a second cervical epidural injection this year, with only slight improvement, my pain management doctor referred me for a cervical MRI.  Upon seeing the results, he referred me to a neurosurgeon.  

According to the neurosurgeon, the MRI showed no significant deterioration in the neck since the last one in 2019.  He also suggested that surgery would be problematic, as he would only be able to access two of the four levels that are most troublesome.  However, as he found no significant neurologic deficits, and good muscle strength, the decision was made to avoid surgery.  Rather, he prescribed physical therapy and exercises, and a return to the pain management doctor for a possible third epidural vs facet blocks.  In the meantime, for those who know me, you know that I keep working and plugging along.

I do not believe that I lost any friends as a result of political differences this year.  Those on the left who could not tolerate my conservative view of the world and/or could not accept that I voted for Trump (twice) have previously abandoned our friendship.  It appears that a budding friendship with a colleague has ended as a result of my "aggressive" actions on behalf of a client.  This colleague is the opposing counsel.  Disappointing, but I cannot say that I am not used to it.

Of course, the highlight of the year was the birth of our granddaughter.  She is so precious.  She is so adorable.  I immediately fell in love with her.  She will soon be six months old.  But she has never (almost never) seen my face.  (Okay, hold the jokes.)  That is disappointing and upsetting.  I only pray that I live long enough to really be able to get to know her, and her me.  G-d willing!

 

Year End Reflections, Part V (Some Additional Year End Quotes)

In commenting on the rapid increase in violent crime, especially the smash and grab offenses, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told us this:  "It's absolutely outrageous.  Obviously it cannot continue...But the fact is there is an attitude of lawlessness that springs from I don't know where..."  I don't know where?  Hmm.  Maybe Madam Speaker you've heard of the defund the police movement.  Maybe you've heard about police quitting their departments across the country, and the poor morale.  Maybe the lack of support from politicians is a problem.  What about no bail?  What about steal under $950 and you get to walk?  And what about left-wing prosecutors who will not prosecute?  But she did tell us with Obamacare that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it," so... 

In criticizing the NFL's support for entities that support defunding the police, the National Sheriffs Association said this:  "Perhaps they (NFL officials) could spend one night in a cruiser or a jail to see the horrendous effects of runaway crime."  And:  "Or they could look into the faces of the victims of crime who are white, black, brown, men, women, elderly, kids, poor, rich and every demographic in America."  You paying attention, Madam Speaker?

Judge Terry Doughty is a federal district court judge.  In blocking Biden's vaccine mandate for private businesses, he wrote these wise words:  "If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency."  The judge's injunction was subsequently lifted by the Circuit Court of Appeals.  It will be up to SCOTUS to decide the issue.

And, to end on a happy note, and apropos to this season, here is a letter to the editor of the New York Sun by one Virginia O'Hanlon:  "I am 8 years old.  Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.  Papa says, 'If you see it in the Sun, it's so.'  Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus."

Here is the paper's reply, in part:  "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.  He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy.  Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus!  It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias.  There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.  We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight.  The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished..."

"...No Santa Claus!  Thank G-d! He lives and lives forever.  A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, Virginia, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood."  

The Sun's reply to Virginia was, of course, published on September 21, 1897.

Merry Christmas to all!

Year End Reflections, Part IV (Some Year End Quotes)

Dr. Monica Casper is the Dean of Gender and Women's Studies at San Diego State University.  San Diego State is part of the Cal State University system.  Here is a recent Tweet:  "Just so we're clear on the Right's agenda:  racism good, abortion bad, money good, women bad, capitalism good, sustainability bad, stupidity good, science bad, power good, equality bad, white people good, nonwhite people bad.  Stench indeed."  There is so much wrong with this Tweet that I could do an entire post on it.

Conservatives do not view people as members of a race in assessing whether they are good or bad.  We know some whites are good and some are bad - the same as for any race or ethnic group.  Capitalism is good (I didn't say perfect) as it has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system.  Abortion bad?  Yes, at times.  But I have discussed that issue in recent posts.  Women bad?  Is she the example?  She is a Dean at a state university.  Clearly she sees no problem in alienating and insulting much of the student body.  Stupidity good?  She is proof that it is not.

In the 12/20/21 New York Times was short letter to the editor by a medical doctor.  "...in my opinion, with very rare exceptions, no critical care or intensive care beds should be given to unvaccinated patients being treated for Covid-19."  That is reprehensible.  What's next, asking if the patient voted for Trump?  Or is a conservative?  I wonder if he ever treated AIDS patients and told them "well, you brought it upon yourself."  

Recall that Darrell Brooks is the man who drove his car into a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin.  He killed 6 people and injured over 60 more.  He had also posted online "Hitler was right...did the world a favor by killing..." Jews.  Here was a CNN Tweet about the terrible event:  "Waukesha will hold a moment of silence today, marking one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring scores of others."  You just can't trust those cars.  You never know when they're going to decide to drive into a crowd of people.  What CNN declined to say was that a Brooks is a black man who drove his car into the Christmas parade.  

Steven Spielberg produced a remake of "West Side Story."  He stated that it was his intention "to hire a totally Latino, Latinx cast to play the Shark boys and girls."  Boys and girls?  Whatever.  Anyway, in explaining why he chose not to use English subtitles for those who do not speak or understand Spanish, he said this:  "If I subtitled the Spanish, I'd simply be doubling down on the English and giving English the power over the Spanish."  I have to say, I'm proud of the fact that I have no idea what he is talking about.  But I do know that it is some politically correct and woke nonsense.  Although I would ask him - are you in favor then of getting rid of "press 1 for English?"  

Former, but then, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu had congratulated Biden on his election victory, as is customary for world leaders to do.  Here was Trump:  "He (Bibi) was very early (in congratulating Biden).  Like earlier than most.  I haven't spoken to him since.  Fuck him."  Actually, Bibi was not early in congratulating Biden.  Many other world leaders had already called Biden.  But Bibi was gracious anyway, saying he "really appreciates" the support Trump gave to Israel.  It's just too bad that Trump will never get past his own ego.  

Many Democrats have been highly critical of Joe Manchin for his refusal to support Biden's Build Back Better legislation.  Of particular note is the nasty Tweet by Bette Midler:  "What Joe Manchin, who represents a population smaller than Brooklyn, has done to the rest of America, who wants to move forward, not backward, like his state, is horrible.  He sold us out.  He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia.  Poor, illiterate and strung out."  Typical elitist condescension.  I dare say there are many poor and illiterate people who possess greater common sense and wisdom than doth Ms. Midler.

Saying that West Virginia has less people than Brooklyn only serves to reflect her lack of understanding and/or appreciation for our federal system.  Brooklyn has more people than 15 states (not only West Virginia) and Washington, D.C.  So what?  New York City, at approximately 8.8 million people, is more populous than all but 10 states, with New Jersey being in a tie.  Again, so what?  I would bet that she never had any concern for the utterances of one Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont.  Yet Vermont has only 623,251 people, as compared to West Virginia's 1,767,859 people.  And, when it comes to being "strung out," Vermont is not exactly a shining example of a drug free state.

As for the wisdom of Build Back Better, that will have to wait for another post.  However, the Democrats have only themselves to blame with their massive pieces of legislation (think the Affordable Care Act).  I suspect that they could have gotten bipartisan support for individual pieces of that legislation, had they simply broken it up into separate bills for each of the issues contained in their massive bill.  They did, after all, get bipartisan support for the infrastructure bill.  But now, they talk as if it's the end of the world.  Unlike John McCain, heralded as a Maverick by the left, Joe Manchin gets no such accolades.  Rather, it is typical gloom and doom, and fearmongering, from the Democrats and the left.          

     

Year End Reflections, Part III (A Look Back at 2021)

 Who knew we would be living in the never-ending world of Covid?  As the world was reopening, and many people were returning to some sense of normality, along came the Omicron variant.  So far, it sounds as if Omicron spreads more easily, but is less serious.  We certainly hope that is the case.

So what stands out politically for you as you look back at 2021?  If you are a liberal/Democrat (and I've heard from a few about this) it is Trump and January 6 and insurrection.  For some on the left, there is no other news.  The world ended on January 6.  But what if you are a conservative/Republican?  How has 2021 gone under President Biden?

Of course, Afghanistan stands out as a total fiasco.  And our willingness to abandon the Afghanis has only served to embolden Iran, Russia and China.  Immigration?  In July, 2021, there were about 200,000 illegal entries into the U.S. - the highest monthly total in about 21 years (according to Pew).  And as of 10/22/21, the New York Times reported a record of 1.7 million illegal entries into the U.S. in the prior 12 months - most of which were under Joe Biden.  Recall that during the campaign Biden said the country could easily absorb another 2 million people.  Which misses the point entirely of having a sovereign country with borders.

Inflation?  In November, the inflation rate was 6.8% - the highest since June, 1982.  Inflation acts as a tax on the spending power of Americans.  So how about Covid?  Here's Joe Biden in October, 2020:  "We're eight months into this pandemic, and Donald Trump still doesn't have a plan to get this virus under control.  I do."  What's his plan?  Get vaccinated with one of the vaccines which Trump helped get to market in record time.

And what about Biden criticizing Trump's travel ban?  Biden in 2020:  "We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus.  We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fearmongering."  Yet on 11/26/21 Biden ordered a ban on travel from people who had been in Botswana, Eswatini (I didn't know either, formerly Swaziland), Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.  Is Biden a racist?  

Crime?  Out of control.  Where is Biden's legislative proposal to deal with that?  Critical Race Theory?  Biden has infused all aspects of the federal bureaucracy with this divisive ideology.  Energy independence?  No more.  And just how well has Biden done with Covid?  Well, more people died from Covid in 2021 under the Biden Administration, than in 2020 under the Trump Administration.  Doesn't matter.  All my friends on the left will blame Trump for the 2021 deaths as well.

There are few, if any, comparisons of another President's first year in office going so poorly.  Perhaps Jimmy Carter.  Not a comparison to which one should be proud.  I have said that I do not want Trump running in 2024.  But if the election ended up being between Biden and Trump...  

 

Year End Reflections, Part II (Abortion Rights at SCOTUS)

Imagine my surprise when, while eating my breakfast, I turned on the TV last Wednesday morning and found myself listening to oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization.  While there was no video, only audio, I could not recall another time where I was able to listen in on arguments at the Supreme Court.  As an attorney, I was fascinated.  

Allow me to start with what should be obvious, but maybe not.  Neither side argued "morality" or religious doctrine.  While much of our society, and laws, are founded in Judeo-Christian doctrine, we are not run as a religious country.  Our government is, and should be, a secular one.  

The Dobbs case involves a Mississippi statute banning most abortions after 15 weeks.  (See the October 5, 2021 post for a discussion of this and the Texas abortion law, which banned abortions after 6 weeks.)  The 15 week limit conflicts with the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, allowing abortions prior to the date of fetal viability, generally considered to be at 24 weeks.  (Some would argue now as early as 22 or even 20 weeks.)  In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court added (modified Roe?) an "undue burden" on abortion rights standard.

Arguing on behalf of Mississippi was their Solicitor General, and opposing was the US Solicitor General and counsel for Jackson Women's Health.  The pro abortion side argued that Roe should be treated as a "super precedent," akin to the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education.  Brown overturned the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which had held racial segregation laws that were "separate but equal" were constitutional.  Brown reversed that decision.  I am reluctant to declare any court decision a "super" precedent.  If it is deserving of that nomenclature, then perhaps the proper approach is to add a constitutional amendment based upon the Court's holding.  

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether or not the so-called "safe haven" laws obviate the need for abortions.  There are safe haven laws in all 50 states, although the terms vary somewhat state to state.  Generally, a woman or legal guardian is able to drop off a newborn baby at a fire station or hospital and, assuming no issues of child abuse, they can remain anonymous and not face any legal charges.  

Chief Justice Roberts tried to keep the arguments focused on Mississippi's 15 week rule which was technically the only issue before the Court, even though there was much argument on both sides on the overturning or upholding of Roe v. Wade.  Roberts wanted to know if 15 weeks was an undue burden, and why it would be considered a significant departure from the 24 weeks allowed by Roe.  I do not believe Roberts wants to explicitly overturn Roe.  

Justice Kavanaugh inquired why the Court should even be involved in the abortion issue, suggesting that the Court remain "neutral" on the issue.  It would seem that "neutral" would necessitate the overturning of Roe, and leaving the decision to the States.  Although, I imagine Pelosi and Schumer would immediately pass federal legislation permitting abortions consistent with Roe, if the Court overturned Roe.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was having none of it.  She was outraged at the mere possibility that the Court might reverse Roe based upon a change in the make-up of the Court.  After all, President Trump ended up being able to appoint three justices to the Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett).  Sotomayor:  "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?...I don't see how it is possible."

In the October 5 post, I opined that I thought the Court would not overturn Roe, with a 6 to 3 vote.  Listening to the arguments (not all of it) I am inclined to slightly amend that opinion.  There is a chance that the Court will uphold the Mississippi statute's 15 week limit, without expressly reversing Roe.  In other words, abortion would still be a constitutional right.  And, they would need to declare that the 15 weeks is not an undue burden, consistent with Casey.  If Roberts is able to get a majority to agree with that, he would like assign the writing of the opinion to himself, in order to guarantee that Roe was not overturned.

Year End Reflections, Part I (In Case You Had Any Doubt)

I certainly had no doubt, especially given the number of times that people on the left stopped being friends with me because of political differences.  But now I have located poll numbers to prove it.  People on the left are far more intolerant than people on the right.  Does this really surprise anyone?

An Axios poll of college students conducted last month is quite revealing.  71% of Democrats would not go on a date with the someone who voted for the opposing party's presidential candidate, while only 31% of Republicans felt the same way.

41% of Democrats said they would not shop at, nor support a business, who voted for the opposing candidate.  But only 7% of Republicans agreed with that.  And while 30% of Democrats would not work for someone who voted for the opposing party, only 7% of Republicans concurred.

And, perhaps most telling, 37% of Democrats would not be friends with someone who voted for the opposing party, a mere 5% of Republicans agreed with that position.

A Pew Research poll of all adults from 2019 bears out the same findings.  43% of "single and looking" Democrats would not be willing to be in a relationship with a Republican.  But only 24% of Republicans described an unwillingness to be in a relationship with a Democrat.  

Now, some may argue these differences are all due to Trump/Trump derangement syndrome.  Maybe in part.  But some commentators have long discussed the fact that Democrats think Republicans are evil, while Republicans tend to think that Democrats are wrong.  And Axios commented on the fact that some Democrats simply believe their issues - such as abortion, LGBTQ rights, and immigration - are more important than any issues Republicans care about.  I guess that means things like free speech, liberty, less government involvement in our lives, capitalism and the like, are relatively unimportant. 

One thing is certain.  I have not ended any friendships with those holding opposing political beliefs.  But that has not stopped friends and colleagues of 25 years, 30 years and 40 years (3 different individuals) from ceasing their friendships with me - simply providing yet more examples of left-wing intolerance.    

Why I Now Oppose Capital Punishment

Just this month, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt granted clemency to a Julius Jones, reducing his death sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Jones had been convicted in the 1999 shooting death of a businessman, during a carjacking.  Not surprisingly, Jones claimed that he was innocent.  I am not familiar with the underlying facts of the case, beyond the few words stated here.  And while I believe that such a crime is deserving of the death penalty, I nevertheless believe that the Governor made the right decision.

Also this month, I saw that the two men convicted in the killing of Malcolm X were recently exonerated.  Malcolm X was killed in 1965.  But evidence was disclosed that the NYPD and FBI withheld key exculpatory evidence.  While both men were released from prison (one in 1985 and one in 1987) they had to live with the stigma of being convicted murderers.  One is now 83 years old, while the other died in 2009.

And, in a case much closer to home here in California, is the story of Craig Coley.  Coley was convicted of killing 24 year-old Rhonda Wicht and her 4-year old son, in Simi Valley.  Coley had dated Wicht for two years, but they had recently broken up before the murders.  And a witness said they had seen Coley and his truck at Wicht's apartment building after hearing a disturbance.  Coley was promptly arrested.  The young police officer who was directed by a superior to arrest Coley has since become a dear friend.  But, Coley ended up serving 39 years in prison for crimes he did not commit.

In November, 2017, former California Governor Jerry Brown issued a full pardon, declaring Coley to be innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted.  The dedication of a single detective, Michael Bender, ultimately led to the discovery of evidence which, through DNA testing, showed no sign of Coley's DNA.  Furthermore, three officers testified that the original investigation was mishandled at best, or that Coley was framed at worst.  

But for the dedication of Detective Mike Bender, who saw problems with the case from the beginning, and but for his tireless pursuit of the truth for years and decades, Coley would have died in prison.  (The arresting officer is of the belief that the prosecutor was not getting favorable responses from the jury pool with regards to the death penalty, and therefore sought life without parole.)  Coley has made peace with that young officer who arrested him on the orders of a superior.  That same officer also helped Detective Bender in his investigation, whenever possible.

I do not know how many detectives like Mike Bender there are in police departments across the country.  I do not know how many police officers and detectives will spend as much time as necessary to learn the truth about a suspected criminal, in order to see that justice is done.  I certainly hope that the vast majority of officers would do that.  Coley got out of prison at age 69 or 70, after 39 years in prison.  The state paid him a settlement of $2 million, and Simi Valley paid him $21 million.  Thankfully, he gets to live out his remaining days as a free man, without any need to worry about how he will support himself after 39 years behind bars.  A death sentence would not have allowed for any of this to happen.  That injustice would have been irrevocable.  And unacceptable.   

A Few Words About The Blog And My Readers

(Note.  On May 2, 2021, I wrote a post called "A Few Words About The Blog And Me."  This post is more about readers' comments, and how some (many) on the left perceive me.)

In various posts this past year I have said things that should have gotten agreement from those on the left.  Here are some examples that come to mind.  Following the events of January 6, 2021, I wrote that I was appalled by what I saw.  I said then, and more recently, that I wanted Trump out of politics.  I said that Trump was wrong when claiming that Pence could, and should, overturn the December, 2020 Electoral College.  I made it clear that the Vice President does not have that power, nor should any Vice President have the power to overturn election results.

I wrote back in November, 2020, that I accepted that Biden won late on election night.  That was days before any media outlet had called the election.   More recently, I explained that I opposed the Texas abortion law.  

And twice recently, I spoke in favor of the Covid vaccines.  I explained that I had gotten the two Pfizer injections, and more recently the booster.  I discussed the positive history of vaccines in our country helping to eradicate disease.  

I received no agreements from those on the left to any of the above.  I used to get agreement.  I did get some disagreements from those on the right.  But here is the difference.  When I hear from readers on the right, they do not mock me, or stop being friends with me (if we are friends).  They engage.  They will tell me why they believe that I may be wrong, or may have overlooked somethings.  Some will send links to articles.

It is difficult to engage with those on the left.  I recently told someone on the left that the world ended for him on January 6.  Not matter what I say, the reply is always "January 6" and "Trump."  He is not the only one.  As long as Trump is alive, there is no other issue of any importance.  Anything that Biden and the Democrats are currently doing to harm the country is insignificant compared to Trump.  

As I hear non-stop about the "insurrection," I suggested that one reader take a look at my March 12, 2017 post, "The Deposing of an American President."  I suggested that the three year effort to "depose" a duly elected president was worse that the few hours of violence at the Capitol on January 6.  Of course, there was disagreement.  Trump was trying to overthrow the government.  So imagine my surprise when I was told that this particular reader had no problem with any lawful means being used to unseat Trump from the day he took office.

Let's think about that for a moment.  It astounds me to think that this individual has no qualms about seeking to immediately remove a duly elected president from office, while telling me that my blog causes great damage to our country and democracy.  What an excellent idea.  Every time a new president takes office with the opposing party in control of Congress, the Congress should immediately impeach that new president because...?  That's some way to keep a stable democracy.  

What I have also noticed from readers, and even family, is their usually unstated belief that I am a right-wing extremist.  Why?  Because I voted for Trump.  Which is all they need to know about me, my beliefs and my character.  So when I said that I wanted Trump out of politics, one reader was upset that I did not explain why.  When I said that I was vaccinated, and believed in vaccines, I was told that I did not tell unvaccinated people that they needed to get vaccinated - it was part of their civic duty.  Well, whether or not you believe it is a civic duty, one thing is certain - it is not my civic duty to tell other people what they must do.    

    

The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part III (You Cannot Even Trust The Dean Of An Elite Law School)

Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.  Berkeley law school is an elite school, and arguably among the top five law schools in the country.  So, what the Dean of this school says should be considered as important, right?  Wrong.  Chemerinsky wrote an Op-Ed that was published in the 11/20/21 Los Angeles Times.

After stating that the jury only gets to decide the case before it, he said this:  "The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all counts sends a chilling message about the acceptability of vigilantism."  How does it do that?  The evidence showed that the aggressors were the ones who Rittenhouse shot, not Rittenhouse.  And what message does the Dean want the jury to send - ignore the facts and the law and hand down a verdict that is acceptable to the mob?  I don't get it.  

After noting that Rittenhouse testified to going to Kenosha to protect local businesses, Chemerinsky said this:  "There is so much that is disturbing about that: a teenager deciding that he needed to provide law enforcement, when he lacked training or experience, and illegally arming himself with a semiautomatic rifle."  First, teenagers also fight in our armed services.  Second, the allegation of illegally carrying a weapon was dropped by the prosecutor, apparently because it was not illegal.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, private citizens might not feel a need to arm themselves if the police did their jobs.

But the police are not allowed to do their jobs, their hands having been tied by left-wing elected officials and district attorneys.  If you need any examples, then you were asleep during the summer of 2020 when mobs caused an estimated $2 billion in damage to businesses, and even government facilities, across the country, following last summer's "mostly peaceful" protests (read, riots) following the murder of George Floyd.  It is completely unreasonable to ask people to stand by and watch their businesses, their life savings often, be destroyed by a mob.  

Some on the left have suggested to me that these businesses have insurance anyway.  What kind of answer is that in a civil society?  Let the criminals run amok because it's only insurance companies who have to pay?  Pretty outrageous.  Plus, many of the businesses destroyed last summer did not have insurance.  And even if they did, taking months to collect and then rebuild could easily put them out of business.  

I am also disturbed by the way Chemerinsky presents the fact of the case.  He said Rosenbaum "allegedly" grabbed at Rittenhouse's rifle.  From the video I saw he definitely appeared to grab for the rifle.  Chemerinisky said Huber "apparently" struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard.  From the video I saw, Huber struck him in the back of the head, knocking him to the ground.  Most egregious was Chemerinsky saying Grosskreutz "reached for a weapon."  Grosskreutz's own testimony was that he pointed his gun directly at Rittenhouse.  He didn't just reach for it.

Chemerinsky:  "I worry that the acquittal conveys the message that Rittenhouse did nothing wrong..."  Well, Dean Chemerinsky, the jury found exactly that - Rittenhouse did nothing wrong legally.  Chemerinsky:  "But looking at the events in this way obscures what precipitated these shootings: A 17 year-old with an assault weapon was misguidedly taking the law into his own hands."  See above paragraphs.  Further, the jury found that those Rittenhouse shot precipitated the shootings.  And if we are looking at the bigger picture, the violent mob following the lawful shooting of Jacob Blake were the ones who precipitated these events.   

Chemerinsky ends with this:  "The tragedy in Kenosha could have been avoided.  Sometimes the law really ignores common sense."  I cannot help but wonder what change in the law Chemerinsky seeks?  Eliminate the thousands year old doctrine of self-defense?  

(A closing note to these three posts.  Readers will notice that I have not celebrated anyone's death.  But if I have to choose between harm to a perpetrator versus harm to an innocent, in any situation, I will always side with the innocent.  And, we can debate all day long about whether any 17 year old should be out on the streets at night during violent protests.  The fact that Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as the ones burning and looting should go without saying.  However, these nighttime protests are rarely, if ever, peaceful.  But if you ask me, would I like to see my own son at age 17 out on the streets in the midst of violence (armed or not), I'd say definitely not.)  

The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part II (A Few Words From Democratic Officials)

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass) Tweeted this:  "A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR15.  He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity and worth of Black Lives."  One lie after the next.  No evidence of white supremacy and not a domestic terrorist.  Traveling across state lines meaningless, and did not so with a rifle.  How is it that the widespread damage and destruction to local businesses in Kenosha did anything to support the "value, dignity and worth of black lives?"  And, STOP saying Rittenhouse is white, unless your intent is to start a race war.  I was not aware that it is a criminal offense to be white.

Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) Tweeted this:  "The judge.  The jury.  The defendant.  It's white supremacy in action - this system isn't built to hold white supremacists accountable."  So now everyone involved is a white supremacist.  Which is curious, because the identity of the jurors is unknown.  And, it's a safe bet that the jury consisted of both Democrats and Republicans, as Kenosha is fairly evenly split.  And she does know that the people who were shot were white, right?  

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  He Tweeted that it was a "heartbreaking verdict (and) a miscarriage of justice."  Imagine that - the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee doing his best to undermine the judicial system.  (Remind me again, who is the threat to democracy?)  Nadler:  this "sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ."  Here is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee pandering to the mob.  Someone ought to explain to him that the jury system, while imperfect, is meant to act as a bulwark against the mob.  

Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) had this to say:  "It is disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into a protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man."  By protest, does he mean violent burning and looting?  Rittenhouse testified that he went there to protect businesses.  Unjust killing of Jacob Blake?  Blake is not dead.  Unjust?  Both the state and federal investigations found no basis to charge the police involved in his shooting.  Unarmed?  He had a knife.  Black man?  Yes, but yet another example of the dangerous attempt by the left to divide the country into black and white.

Here is Joe Biden, the President of the United States, appearing to get it right:  "I stand by what the jury has concluded...the jury system works, and we have to abide by it."  But shortly after we got this:  "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."  There's Biden, contradicting his own attempt to sound reasonable by saying he is angry.  If he is angry at the jury, then he does not accept and abide by the jury's decision.  But if he is angry, he should have kept it to himself, instead of pandering to the left-wing mob.  After all, he claimed numerous times during his campaign and in his inaugural speech, that he would be a unifier.  Not unifying when you are trying to undermine our jury system. 

I will not set forth here all the times that the mainstream media have lied about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist.  Nor will I rehash all the other lies they have made.  Some, before the verdict was handed down, even referred to him as a "murderer," as opposed to an "alleged murderer."  So, while many of us are not surprised by the mob mentality of the left-wing media, it is extremely disappointing that elected officials, even though they are Democrats, truly have no respect for our judicial system, nor for our democracy.   

The Rittenhouse Verdict, Part I (Let's Dispense With The Misconceptions, Irrelevancies and Lies)

(Note:  Some context.  In August of 2020, Jacob Blake was shot, and seriously injured, by the police in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  Blake is black.  Both the state investigators and the federal government looked into the shooting and concluded there was no basis to charge the police officers involved in the shooting.  But that did not deter a mob from not only immediately protesting, but burning and looting as well.  Only a few days later, Kyle Rittenhouse was on the streets of Kenosha, and armed with a rifle, he shot and killed two men and injured a third.  He has been acquitted of all charges relating to those shootings.  A further note.  I only watched a little of the trial, but I have read some of the testimony and other analyses.  As an attorney trained to look at the facts and the law, I believe the jury reached the proper verdict, notwithstanding what was likely an enormous amount of pressure on them to find Rittenhouse guilty.)

Rittenhouse has been repeatedly referred to as a "white supremacist."  I have not seen any support for that allegation.  The men he shot were white.  But I'm wondering if just being white today is enough to get one branded as a white supremacist.  

Rittenhouse "crossed state lines."  Yes, he lived in Antioch, Illinois with his mother and sister,  But his father lives in Kenosha, and Rittenhouse has worked there.  Question: when did it become illegal to cross state lines?  Was the media concerned about how many "protesters" crossed state lines following the shooting of Jacob Blake?  

Rittenhouse was a "vigilante," and initiated aggressive actions against those he shot.  Wrong.  Joseph Rosenbaum (who was shot and killed) was seen charging after Rittenhouse on video, and reaching for the barrel of the rifle.  Rosenbaum was previously heard threatening Rittenhouse.  Rosenbaum had a criminal record, but that is also irrelevant, as we don't get to shoot people for having a record.  

A star witness for the prosecution was the man who was shot and survived, Gaige Grosskreutz.  But here is how it went on cross-examination by defense counsel:  Question:  "When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"  Answer:  "Correct."  Question:  "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?"  Answer:  "Correct."  The defense to the shootings was that they were done in "self-defense."  The prosecution helped to prove that.

The other man who was shot and killed was Anthony Huber.  A video seems to show Huber chasing Rittenhouse, and hitting him with a skateboard in the back of the head and knocking him to the ground.  So, in none of these instances was Rittenhouse the aggressor.  Huber also had a criminal record.  Again, irrelevant to the issues.  

Commentators have said that Rittenhouse not only crossed state lines, but did so with the rifle.  No, he didn't.  The rifle was in Kenosha.  

Finally, as we always hear from the mainstream media, the protests following the Jacob Blake shooting, were "mostly peaceful."  I am not sure how peaceful protests result in the destruction of 40 local businesses, and a total of at least 100 being damaged.  (And for those concerned about the source, it was not Fox News, but the Chicago affiliate ABC News.)    

Pelosi Gives Biden A Win

After Tuesday's drubbing at the polls, it was clear that the Democratic leadership felt the need for a win.  The infrastructure bill had already passed in the Senate back in August, by a vote of 69 to 30, with nineteen Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in order to pass the measure.  

But the proposal stalled in the House when the progressives declared that they would vote against the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill unless the President's Build Back Better plan, the so-called "human infrastructure" bill, passed first.  Speaker Pelosi was perfectly willing to defer to the progressives, and not bring the infrastructure bill to a floor vote - until Tuesday.  Biden's Build Back Better bill was originally put forward as a $3.5 trillion measure.  With objections from within their own party, the Democrats scaled that back to $1.75 trillion.  However, the analysis from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School suggested that the true cost could exceed $4 trillion.

With the Congressional Budget Office not having scored the Build Back Better plan, and with progressives still holding out for Build Back Better to be voted on first, Pelosi divorced herself from the left-wing of her party and held a vote on the infrastructure bill.  

Six "Squad" members (Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Ayanna Pressley and Jamaal Bowman) still refused to vote for the infrastructure bill.  So Pelosi had to depend on 13 Republicans to get the bill passed.  My guess is that she did not want to have to rely on Republicans.  The bipartisan votes in the House and Senate likely undermine one of the Democrats' election talking points for next year, that only their party cares about repairing our infrastructure. 

And the political necessity of getting a win weakened the influence of the Squad. 

Republicans Bounce Back!

The biggest upset on election day 2021 was, of course, in Virginia.  Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin defeated Democrat, and former governor, Terry McAuliffe.  If, as former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill famously said, "all politics is local," then McAuliffe ran a terrible campaign.  McAuliffe repeatedly spoke as if he was running against Trump, even referring to the Republican candidate as Trumpkin.  But voters knew this election was not about Trump.  

Nor did McAuliffe help himself when he opined that "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."  It also did not help when he lied about critical race theory (CRT), saying that it has "never been taught" in Virginia's public schools.  That was an easily proven lie, given that the expression "critical race theory" is on the Virginia Department of Education website, and apparently was when McAuliffe had been governor.  (Per reporting by Fox.)

Fox also reported that in July one school district in Virginia spent over $30,000 for training administrators in CRT.  And, McAuliffe asserted, with the now commonly heard refrain, that those who oppose CRT are engaging in a "racist dog whistle."  NBC reported that Youngkin won with a two point, 66,000 vote margin, 50.6% to 48.6%, and 1,663, 249 votes to 1,596,840 votes.  

Democrats, and their supporters in the mainstream media, continued to lie about the election days later.  Howard Dean, former Vermont Governor and head of the DNC, Tweeted:  "Racism still works in Virginia."  As education was a considerable issue in the Virginia election, MSNBC commentator Joy Reid declared:  "'Education'...is code for white parents (who) don't like the idea of teaching about race."  Another MSNBC commentator said:  "This is about the fact that a good chunk of voters out there are okay with white supremacy."

What lying, reprehensible people.  Republicans have not won the governor's race in Virginia since 2009.  So the voters were not racist in 2013 and 2017 when Democrats won?  They were not racist in 2020 when Biden won Virginia's electoral votes by 10 points?  And these very same racist voters elected a black woman, Winsome Sears, as Lt. Gov.  And they elected Jason Miyares, of Cuban heritage, to be the state's attorney general.  Said Dee Duncan, President of the Republican State Leadership Committee, "Fifty-seven percent of the candidates that we ran in flips in Virginia were either female or minority candidates and that is something that we're incredibly proud of."  Those racist misogynists!   

Here was Winsome Sears celebrating her victory:  "I'm telling you that what you are looking at is the American Dream.  When I joined the Marine Corps, I was still Jamaican.  But this country had done so much for me, I was willing, willing, to die for this country."  Compare and contrast with Somali immigrant Ilhan Omar.  

Republicans in Virginia also succeeded in taking the House of Delegates.  Prior to the election the Democrats controlled that part of the state legislature by 55 seats to 45 seats.  After the election last Tuesday, Republicans now control the House of Delegates, 52 seats to 48 seats.  

While Republicans did not take the governor's race in NJ from Democrat incumbent Phil Murphy, the race was far tighter than predicted.    Biden won NJ by 16 points in 2020.  Murphy won by 2.6% on Tuesday, 50.9% to 48.3%.  1,285,351 votes to 1,219,906 votes.  And the defund the police movement did poorly.  In Minneapolis, 56% of the voters rejected replacing the police department with a department of public safety.  And conservatives did well nationally by winning school board seats in various cities across the country, with parents letting school boards know what they think of critical race theory being taught in public schools.   

With voters rebelling against the idea that all aspects of society should be viewed through a racial lens, perhaps we are witnessing the beginning of a new Tea Party movement.           

 

A Postscript to the 10/31/21 Post on The Biden Administration and Israel

Recall that the Biden Administration is intent on opening a Palestinian consulate on Israeli soil in Jerusalem.  However, there has been some pushback from Congress; at least from some Republicans in Congress.

Thirty-four Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would block Biden from opening a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem.  

And some 200 House Republicans signed off on a letter to Biden making clear their objections:  "We write today to express our strong opposition to your administration's proposal to reopen the US consulate general in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem, that would provide separate diplomatic outreach to the Palestinians...(which) would be inconsistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 by promoting division of Jerusalem."  

The letter went on to describe the proposed Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem as "unacceptable, shameful, and wrong."  Indeed.  After Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, other countries followed with moving their embassies.  It is beyond outrageous that Biden believes he has the right to do this.  The effect of such a move would serve to support the Palestinians' view that they have a right to any part of Jerusalem.  But it does demonstrate, once again, which party today will consistently have Israel's back.     

The Biden Administration and Israel

In case you were worried that Biden and the State Department were not aggressively dealing with our country's enemies, have no fear.  They are going after Israel big time.  Wait, Israel is not an enemy?  Israel was to Biden's former boss, Obama.  I guess Biden learned well.

The Biden Administration is determined to open a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem.  But wait, isn't Jerusalem part of the State of Israel?  Yes.  In fact, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  So how can the US open a Palestinian consulate in Israel without Israel's permission?  They can't, under international law.

The US embassy in Israel is in Jerusalem, thanks to President Trump.  It had been in Tel Aviv, which is not the capital city.  Other presidents said they would move our embassy to Jerusalem, where it should have been, but never did.  And our existing embassy does, in fact, also deal with Palestinian concerns.    Not surprisingly, as Israel says Jerusalem is its capital city, the Israelis have opposed the opening of a Palestinian consulate there.  As they have every right to do.  

A very brief history.  The Palestinians say they want a state on the so-called 1967 borders, the borders that existed between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, before Israel defeated those countries in the Six Day War.  But those pre-1967 war borders were of no legal significance.  Rather, those were the borders that existed following Israel's war of independence; a war that was started by the surrounding Arab countries after Israel declared its independence in 1948.  When the fighting ended in 1949, there was no peace treaty declaring boundaries.  There was simply a cessation of hostilities.   

The Old City of Jerusalem is in the eastern part of Jerusalem.  At the end of hostilities in 1949, Jordan controlled the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and part of Jerusalem.  When Israel was victorious in the Six Day War, all of Jerusalem was under its control.  As an aside, under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites in Jerusalem.  That was not the case under Jordanian Arab rule.

So, what does Secretary of State Antony Blinken think about getting Israeli approval for a Palestinian consulate on Israeli soil?  He doesn't.  Blinken:  "We'll be moving forward with the process of opening a consulate as part of deepening of those ties with the Palestinians."  I get that the US, EU and UN want to pursue a two state solution.  But it is beyond outrageous for the US to open a Palestinian consulate in Jerusalem.  Why not Ramallah, the city which houses the Palestinian Administrative Authority.

But here is a better idea yet.  Why is the US rewarding the Palestinian Authority with any consulate?  What have they done to merit that?  Do they recognize Israel's right to exist, as the Jewish state?  No.  Have they agreed to stop attacking Israeli cities with rockets and missiles?  No.  But, you say, Hamas is doing that.  So what?  

If elections were held in the West Bank today (something that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to do since elected to a four year term that began in 2005), would Hamas prevail over Fatah, the ruling party of the PA?  Is that why Abbas has refused any further elections since 2005?  If so, exactly who is Biden rewarding with the consulate?  Abbas is 85 years old.  Who takes over when he's gone?  Hamas? 

President Trump, of course, knew better.  He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.    Democrats and progressives predicted a bloody war if he did that.  Never happened.  Because Trump made it clear that he stood with Israel.  Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Trump helped bring about the historic Abraham Accords, with four Arab countries to date establishing relations with Israel.  And Trump did this while ignoring the Palestinians, telling them to not expect further aid until they stop using US tax dollars to reward Palestinian terrorists who kill Jews. 

But that was Trump.  Now we have Biden - Obama 2.0.  Reward our enemies and punish our allies.  Excellent.    

The Biden Administration and the State Department Have Numerous Crises Confronting Them

No, not China.  Or Russia or Iran or Afghanistan.  Not terrorism.  Not an uncontrolled southern border.  No, no, no.  On October 21, the State Department Tweeted:  "Today on International Pronouns Day, we share why many people list pronouns on their email and social media profiles."  I did not even know that there was such a thing as International Pronouns Day.  

And I get it.  I pay attention to our "evolving" culture.  I'm just not sure what any of this has to do with our Department of State.  But then I saw this:  for the first time the State Department issued a passport with the person's gender listed as...'X.'  X?  What does that even mean?  

Not to be outdone, our Vice President posted this Tweet:  "President Biden and I released the first ever National Gender Strategy.  This is our vision for the future of our nation - one that is bold in strategy and one that this moment calls for."  (Apparently the strategy is a 42 page document.)  

Bold in strategy?  How about we see some of that bold strategic stuff being applied at our southern border?  Or maybe apply that bold strategic stuff against any of the numerous crises facing this President.        

Is Speech Really Free?

We know that the First Amendment protects our right to speech.  "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."  We also know that engaging in speech (such as the writing of this blog) can have negative consequences.  

Enes Kanter, of the NBA's Boston Celtics, has been critical of China's oppressive regime.  He had "Free Tibet" on his sneakers, and called China's President Xi a "brutal dictator."  His speech definitely had consequences.  As China is known to do, they used their economic power to retaliate.  Tencent Sports (China's streaming sports company) indicated they would not show any more Celtic games - for the foreseeable future.  (As reported by Fox.)  

Kanter's speech will likely end up costing the NBA and the Celtics and his teammates some money.  With the average salary in the NBA being reported as being $7.5 million, does that mean Kanter need not worry about pushback from his teammates?  How about from the league?  Will the team average income being over $260 million annually protect Kanter?  People overwhelmingly used to support the right to free speech, although less so in current times with political correctness, wokeness and the need for safe spaces.  But what about when that speech affects one's bottom line?  Do we still adhere to the First Amendment, or do we side with the suppression of speech?   

Speaking of the NBA...Grant Napear had been the announcer for the Sacramento Kings since 1988.  However, he was let go by the radio station that aired the games, after posting a politically incorrect Tweet.  Apparently, after George Floyd was killed, Napear Tweeted "ALL LIVES MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE."  

The company that owns the radio station fired Napear, saying that "...his recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views or values of Bonneville International Corporation.  The timing of Grant's Tweet was particularly insensitive."  As I previously stated in the blog, I do not support the Black Lives Matter movement, given its anti-police and antisemitic inclinations.  But I do support black lives, and yes, all lives.  

Dorian Abbot is a professor at the University of Chicago.  Whereas colleges and universities should be the center of free speech in our society, we know that is no longer the case.  Professor Abbot was to give a lecture at MIT, but asserts (in a 10/30-31/21 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal) that he was uninvited based on his previously expressed views.  Abbot:  "I believe that every human being should be treated as an individual worthy of dignity and respect."  No good?

Abbot:  "I care for all of my students equally.  None of them are overrepresented or underrepresented to me: they represent themselves."  No good?  Abbot:  "I believe that admissions and faculty hiring at universities are best focused on academic merit, with the goal of producing intellectual excellence."  No good?  Abbot says that if some students come from disadvantaged backgrounds, "the solution is improving K-12 education, not introducing discrimination at late stages."  No good?

Abbot makes an important point that the "safe spaces" crowd would do well to consider:  "It is normal to feel discomfort when someone contends against your strongly held beliefs.  But in a truth-seeking atmosphere, you must master this discomfort and either confront opposing arguments rationally or accept their validity."  Sounds like Classic Liberalism to me, and what used to be a fundamental part of a university's pedagogy.  

  

A Postscript to the 10/17/21 Post on The Tyranny of the Democrats, Part I

It's hard not to love a politician who speaks so directly.  Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).  On October 21, the House Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.  In the hot seat was Attorney General Merrick Garland, the AG who issued the directive discussed in Part I of the 10/17/21 posts.  

Here is no nonsense Jordan:  "The Chairman (Jerry Nadler, D-NY) just said the Trump DOJ was political and went after their opponents.  Are you kidding me?  Three weeks ago the National School Board Association writes President Biden asking him to involve the FBI in local school Board matters.  Five days later, the Attorney General of the United States does just that..."

Jordan:  "Republicans on the Committee have sent the Attorney General 13 letters in the last six months.  It takes weeks and months to get a response.  Eight of the letters we've got nothing...And all our letters were actually sent to the Attorney General."  What Congressman Jordan knows, of course, is that the National School Board/teachers/administrators donate to the Democratic Party.  But it is a joke when Nadler says Trump's DOJ was political, but won't say the same about Biden's, which is obviously political. 

It turns out that the National School Board backed off of their initial assertions that "threats and acts of violence" might constitute "domestic terrorism."  One would think that the Board's retraction might get the AG to rescind his directive.  But not so.  Garland insisted that the threat of violence still existed.  Dear General Garland:  When did all local violence become a federal matter?    

Former retired FBI agent Thomas J. Baker had an Op-Ed in the 10/18/21 Wall Street Journal.  Baker:  When FDR's AG, Francis Biddle, ordered that Japanese-Americans be detained, "J. Edgar Hoover (then FBI Director) refused to cooperate.  The bureau would help apprehend aliens of enemy nationality (not only Japanese), but not U.S. citizens."  

Baker:  "Louis Freeh (another former FBI Director) often dodged meetings, contacts and invitations from President Bill Clinton so as not to receive awkward requests."  

Baker's suggestion for the current FBI Director, Christopher Wray?  "He could remind the public, and hence Mr. Garland, that the FBI - in conformity with existing attorney general guidelines for domestic investigations - won't undertake any investigation based on speech alone.  He could remind agents and the public that if any violence occurs at a local schoolboard meeting, its resolution is properly the purview of state and local law enforcement." 

Remember when former FBI Director James Comey alleged that Trump demanded loyalty from him, and Comey said he should have stood up to Trump, but instead "compromised to avoid a conflict."  Clearly, he was too weak a man to be FBI Director.  Will Christopher Wray stand up to Garland?  We should all be listening.

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part III (Newsom Goes After...Everyone?)

As Governor of the most populous state in the nation, what Gavin Newsom does is often copied by other states.  Given that the Democrats have super majorities in the State Assembly and State Senate, there is nothing to restrain their push for asserting government control over ever increasing aspects of our lives.

I was not aware of the fact that parents looking for toys for their children did not know how to shop properly.  I was not aware of the fact that private businesses needed to be told how to properly display their merchandise.  But now I know.  "A retail department store that offers childcare items or toys for sale shall maintain a gender-neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys."  This law will apply to businesses physically within California, with 500 or more employees in the state.

Exactly what is the purpose of this law?  Is it to make it easier for parents to find toys for their children?  Really?  Without this law, parents would not be able to walk through the aisles and find a suitable toy for their child?  I don't buy it.  There are fines that go along with this law for those companies violating it.  

No, as I wrote years ago (see the post "My Ex-Wife," 7/20/14, and "My Ex-Son and Ex-Daughters," 10/19/14), the Democratic "progressives" are simply pushing us down the path of obliterating all distinctions between men and women, boys and girls.  Follow the science?  Not when they come up with 57 "genders."   

Here is another.  Public schools and colleges in California must now provide free menstrual products in their restrooms.  Why?  Here is the author of that bill:  "Just as toilet paper and paper towels are provided in virtually every public bathroom, so should menstrual products."  I could be wrong, but I believe toilet paper and paper towels are used by boys and girls, by men and women.  Are menstrual products used by men?  I'm sure I will be sorry that I asked that question. 

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part II (Biden Goes After The Unvaccinated)

Honestly, I do not need to hear from anyone claiming that I am anti-vaccinations.  In a prior post, I made it clear that I had gotten 2 Pfizer injections and planned on getting a booster.  I have since had the booster.  In that earlier post I also said that I believe in the efficacy of vaccines, as they do have an excellent history of helping to eradicate disease in our country.  And, I do not understand some of the objections to the vaccines.

Having said that, there is a legitimate issue regarding the proper role of the federal government.  President Biden has asked his Labor Department to come up with an emergency rule that will compel private businesses with over 100 employees to require those employees to either be fully vaccinated or test negative every week.  It is estimated that as many as 80 million Americans could be affected by this new rule.  It is quite telling that Biden decided to have his Administration simply issue a rule, without seeking Congressional authorization.  It is also quite telling that the Democrats in Congress are not objecting to this usurpation of their power.  Just do not expect the mainstream media to assert that Biden is acting like a king or dictator.  

The federal government can mandate military personnel to be vaccinated.  My brother, a Viet Nam vet, recounted how he had to get multiple vaccines, for the plague, polio and malaria, among others.  States, having the general police power, have for a very long time required that children attending public schools get certain vaccinations.  However, it is unlikely that the federal government has the authority to demand that a large segment of the civilian population get vaccinated.  Joe Biden admitted as much - until he decided he was going to do it anyway.  

Here was Biden last month:  "Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective and free."  And Biden made this incredibly ignorant comment:  "Our patience is wearing thin."  Maybe somebody ought to get him a copy of "How To Win Friends And Influence People," by Dale Carnegie.  In what universe does that kind of threatening remark by the President help to persuade people.  If I was advising him, I would have suggested giving facts and figures proving the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.  

I realize that facts alone will not necessarily persuade people to any point of view.  But the art of persuasion was definitely lacking in our President.  State and local governments, as well as private businesses, have followed Biden's lead.  It has been reported that dozens of State Troopers in Massachusetts have resigned because of vaccine mandates.  Such resignations are happening throughout the country.  I do believe that states likely have the power to insist on state employees getting vaccinated.  But in a time of rising crime, do we want fewer police?  Do we want fewer firefighters?  Do we want anyone losing their livelihood over this?  Everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs.  Do we need even more jobs going unfilled? 

It is somewhat ironic that during the campaign last year, then vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris said:  "...if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it (the vaccine), I'm not taking it."  To which Vice President Pence replied:  "We're going to have a vaccine in record time...And we're right now producing tens of millions of doses.  So the fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if the vaccine emerges during the Trump Administration, I think is unconscionable.  And Senator, I just ask you - stop playing politics with people's lives." 

If the vaccines protect the vaccinated, and if the unvaccinated are the ones getting sick and dying, then perhaps government mandates causing greater unemployment are not the answer.  Maybe all government officials who make the rules should take a look at Dale Carnegie's book.

The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part I (Biden Goes After Parents)

Recently, the National School Boards Association decided to ask the Biden Administration for some help.  Parents were showing up at school board meetings and objecting to the nonsense being taught to their children.  Alleging various threats, and citing only one example that could be construed as a criminal offense, the Board wanted Biden to treat these parents as "domestic terrorists," and sought prosecutions under the Patriot Act and federal hate crime laws.  You see, parents were disruptive, were shouting and acting like a mob.  The Board claimed, as all the talking heads on the left do, that no schools teach critical race theory (CRT); therefore the parents should have no complaints.

There have been numerous reports of children being taught CRT, even if under a different name.  Nevertheless, not wanting to alienate any part of their base, the Biden Administration dutifully complied with the School Boards' request.  On October 4, Attorney General Merrick Garland sent a memo to the Director of the FBI, the Director of the US Attorneys and the Assistant AG in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department.  Here is part of the memo:  "In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation's public schools.  While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views."

He then directed the FBI and the various United States Attorneys across the country to meet with federal, state, local, tribal and territorial leaders within 30 days.  Imagine that.  A federally run, nationwide task force to address what?  Unruly parents who are upset with the racist pedagogy being pushed on their children.  Where is the task force going after Antifa?  Or Black Lives Matter?  What is the AG doing about United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who was harassed and followed into a bathroom, no less, by left-wing immigration "activists."  How about a task force to go after the Palestinians and their supporters who have harassed and intimidated Jews?

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, of course, for a right to free speech.  But it also provides for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Does "peaceably" also mean that people must speak softly?  I don't think so.  Yes, I saw scenes of parents holding up signs against CRT.  I saw parents taking pictures and/or recording audio with their phones.  And I saw parents shouting.  How does any of that warrant a federal task force headed up by the FBI?  Are there no more local police and District Attorneys able to handle actual criminal violations?  The federal government has no business being involved in these local matters.

Does the FBI have nothing else to do?  See two paragraphs up.  Maybe they can also be used to determine who is entering our country illegally, with an estimated 2 million people likely to have entered during Biden's first year in office.  Are any criminals, members of gangs or criminal cartels, or terrorists crossing our borders?  No, the biggest threat seems to be parents fed up with left-wing propaganda being taught in the schools.  Terry McAuliffe, the once and hoping to be future governor of Virginia, said this:  "I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."  Maybe not, if it was just about "reading, writing and arithmetic."  But when it comes to propagandizing their children into left-wing ideology, you better believe parents will be speaking up.  

Former US Representative James Sensenbrenner was a principal author of the Patriot Act (per his Op-Ed in the 10/13/21 Wall Street Journal).  As such, he wrote that "the legislation defined terrorism as unlawful acts of violence or acts dangerous to human life intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to affect the conduct of government by 'mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."  It was not intended to put a chill on free speech and civil liberties.  

But teachers and the bureaucrats in the school boards across the country are major donors to the Democrat Party.  So Biden did not push back.  Perhaps Gerard Baker, in his 10/12/21 Op-Ed in the WSJ, said it best:  "This flagrant attempt to intimidate parents into handing their children over to the mercies of the state is as sinister as anything the modern progressives who now control the Democratic Party have done."  When parents are told to sit down and shut up it sounds an awful lot like communist or totalitarian societies.  And with federal crimes often carrying sentences of 10 to 20 years, the threat to civil liberties - speech and assembly - is substantial.  

Why I Oppose The Texas Abortion Law

The Texas law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.  Obviously, that is unconstitutional as decided by Roe v. Wade.  If the purpose in passing the law was to set up a legal challenge to Roe, it was poorly done.  The law provided no exceptions for rape or incest.  And enforcement of the law is left to private citizens, allowing anyone to sue another if that person "aids or abets" in an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.  These private lawsuits could enrich the filer of the suit with up to $10,000 per abortion, plus legal costs.  I do not like the idea of encouraging private citizens to turn on one another.  This is America, not the USSR.  (I am aware of laws that provide compensation to various whistleblowers.  Generally, those laws are enforced against government agencies and government contractors, and big businesses.)  

The Supreme Court refused to put a stay on enforcement of the Texas law.  However, in the session that began yesterday, is a case out of Mississippi, where a law bans abortions after 15 weeks.  If the Supreme Court is inclined to overturn Roe, the Mississippi case is cleaner.

The original decision in Roe was not based upon any Constitutional provision regarding "abortion" or the right to "privacy."  Those words are not in the Constitution.  Trying to guess the outcome of any Supreme Court case is always challenging, especially when the issue is so divisive and controversial.  However, if I was to guess, it would be a 6 to 3 vote in favor of upholding Roe.  Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would definitely vote to uphold Roe.  Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh probably would not.  That leaves the CJ Roberts, Gorsuch and Barrett.  My gut is that those three would be very reluctant to overturn a nearly 50 year old precedent.  

And, if the Court can find a way to decide a case without ruling on the constitutionality of a law, they often prefer that type of limited decision.  But we should know, no later than next June.   

  

Two Other Voices Speak On Israel

 Howard Dean was the Democratic Governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2003.  In 2004 he ran for President of the United States.  From 2005 to 2009 he was the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  And he is yet another Democratic Israel-hater.  Here is a Tweet from Dean:  "I've been there and I think our alliance with Israel is important (for) both the US and Israel.  And Israel is in fact, an apartheid state."

Liar!  No, Israel is not an apartheid state.  Unless they changed the definition to mean that, although the minority (Palestinians) are doctors and lawyers and judges, and hold seats in the legislature (the Knesset) and even hold ministerial offices in the current government, if that is the definition of apartheid, then yes, Israel meets that definition.  As do most Western countries.  

Comedian and actress Sarah Silverman is Jewish.  But she was disappointed with the Squad, and just didn't get their vote against the funding of Iron Dome.  Silverman:  "It's frustrating because my girls, ma gurls in the Squad, really didn't want it to be funded...all the Iron Dome does is protect civilians from getting hit by missiles and bombs.  That's all it does!  It's not a weapon!...Voting against the Iron Dome defense system is voting for dead Israelis and that's Muslims, Christians and Jews."

And Silverman said this:  "I'm really trying to understand it, though...none of them talk about Hamas!  No one in the Squad is bringing up Hamas.  I can't - it's so bizarre."  Poor Sarah.  Of course she does not get it, because notwithstanding her occasional support for Israel, she is a leftist.  

Silverman:  "It just seems to prove the point that I didn't think existed which is, um, people only really like Jews if they're suffering.  Dead Jews get a lot of honor."  Welcome to the party, Sarah.  Welcome to the party.  

The Vice President Stays Silent In The Face Of Lies About Israel

Recently, Vice President Kamala Harris was at George Mason University in Virginia.  Here is what one student said to the VP:  "I see that over the summer there have been, like, protests, and demonstrations in astronomical numbers (in support of the Palestinians)...just a few days ago there were funds allocated to continue backing Israel, which hurts my heart because it's ethnic genocide and displacement of people, the same happened in America, and I'm sure you're aware of this."  

The student continued:  "I bring this up because Americans are struggling because of lack of healthcare, public healthcare, lack of affordable housing and all this money ends up going to inflame Israel..."

So let's take a look at these comments.  Recall that the Squad and other "progressives" put a hold on the bill funding the replenishment of the Iron Dome missile defense batteries, used by Israel to protect civilians against the thousands of rockets and missiles launched by Hamas earlier this year.  Ultimately, the House overwhelmingly voted to approve the funding by a vote of  420 to 9.  It hurts this student's heart - not that Hamas targets Israeli civilians (keeping in mind that there are Jews, Muslims, Christians and others in Israel) - but that Israel may be able to save the lives of civilians (non-combatants).  I can only conclude that this student wants to see more dead Israelis; and I suspect that she thinks/hopes they are all Jews. 

"Ethnic genocide" says the student.  A complete lie.  Not only are there no reports of any genocide from any credible news outlet, but it does make me wonder if the student understands "genocide."  When 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, that was genocide.  When over one million Armenians were killed, that was a genocide.  When Communist China killed tens of millions of Chinese, that was a genocide.  So I would ask this student a question.  After 6 million Jews were killed, the world lost a third of the Jewish population.  How come in the last 3 decades the Palestinian population has actually grown by about 2.5 million people.  How does that happen during a genocide?

"Displacement of people" says the student.  I am not sure if she is alleging in so-called Israel proper (within the 1967 borders) or in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria).  I am not sure if she is referring to the area in Jerusalem where properties were legally obtained by Jews.  If there is displacement it is minimal; and certainly does not compare to the Palestinians' proposal to evict (displace) 500,000 Jews from their homes in the West Bank.  The student also says the money will "inflame Israel."  No.  Hamas starts a war by launching rockets and missiles into Israel, and Israel protects its civilians with Iron Dome.  And another reminder, most of the money "given" to Israel is spent right here in the USA for military hardware.  In this case, it is for Iron Dome.    

The student, who clearly has no fondness for either Israel or America, says the $1 billion should go to Americans for healthcare and housing.  For those who argue against all foreign aid to any country, even allies, I can understand.  I strongly disagree, but I can understand.  Here, we are supposed to believe that this $1 billion will make all the difference to Americans.  Given the $5 trillion on the table for both the infrastructure and Biden's Build Back Better bills, I don't believe the student really means that .0002% of the $5 trillion is what keeps her up at night.  If that $1 billion was going to the Palestinians, I would bet she would be asking for more, not complaining about Americans' healthcare and housing.   

As indicated above, this student's remarks were directed at our Vice President, who surely corrected her.  Right?  Wrong.  Instead, the VP said this:  "Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard, right?  A democracy is at its strongest when everyone participates."  The Vice President of the United States failed to push back against the lies of an Israel hating student.  I am always amused whenever I hear anyone say "your truth" or "my truth."  If they mean "THE truth is I'm gay," for example and they have never openly acknowledged that before, then at least there is some sense to it.  Bit the student addressing the VP was not a Palestinian.  How is what she said "her truth?"  It is nonsense.  There is truth, there are lies, and there are legitimate factual disputes.  

As written in an Op-Ed in the 9/27/21 Wall Street Journal (by Lance Morrow):  "...the 21st century has lost its appetite for objective proof.  Feelings are enough.  If you feel that something or someone is evil, why then it is so.  What you feel (the mirage of your emotions) acquires the status of reality.  You must, after all, 'speak your truth.'"  I must say, that sounds a lot like my expression, used often in the blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."

As for the Vice President:  Shame on her!  The statement subsequently released by her office that she "strongly disagrees" with that student was too little and too late.  She failed to react in the forum where it would have done the most good.  She stayed silent, presumably in order to not offend the Jew-hating, Israel-hating, left-wing base.

A Postscript To The 9/22/21 Post "The U.S. Immigration Policy"

President Biden has finally found his voice with regards to the ongoing immigration crisis at our southern border.  But, as with his Vice President, it was not to express concern about the human smuggling, drug smuggling or the cartels behind it.  It was not to express concern about people entering our country with Covid or other diseases, or about people who may be criminals or gang members or terrorists.  No, none of that was of concern.  After all, Biden invited all of these people to come.  No, our President's concern was about the lie being told about the mounted Border Police.  Nothing new about this - the Democrats and the Left have been scapegoating the police since last summer's riots.  

Recall that the initial lie was that a mounted Border Patrol agent used a whip on a Haitian migrant.  Or, as the mainstream media and the Left told us - a black Haitian migrant.  When it was shown that the mounted officers have no whips, the story was that the agent used the horse's reins as a whip.  Except, no one was hit.  That did not deter Biden from saying this:  "To see people treated like they did, horses barely running over...people being strapped - it's outrageous."  And Biden went further:  "I promise, those people will pay.  There will be an investigation underway now and there will be consequences.  There will be consequences."  

As with his former boss, Biden is not terribly big on "due process."  What people will pay?  Who will suffer consequences, and for what?  Why is there even going to be any investigation if the decision has already been made - regardless of the facts.  I, for one, have zero confidence of there being a fair investigation at this point.  Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas did nothing to assure us of a fair investigation when he said:  "We are addressing this with tremendous speed and tremendous force...it (the investigation) will be completed in days not weeks."  

The mainstream media was, of course, outraged, and was unable to refrain from adding the racial component.  Here was the 9/22/21 USA Today editorial:  "Think about that: An agent, carrying with him the authority of the U.S. government, riding down a defenseless, frightened black man."  Jeff Self is a retired Border Patrol agent and deputy sector chief, who also worked the mounted patrol for part of his 33 year career.  Self explained that these mounted agents are trained to not not allow those they are pursuing to get too close to the horse, lest they pull the reins in a manner causing injury or death to the horse, the agent, and even the migrant.  Self:  "Everything I see on this is appropriate."   

For now, at least, there will be no more mounted Border Patrol agents.  But here is my question:  why have any Border Patrol agents?  Why not defund them?  Biden and the Democrats clearly want an open border.  Biden invited these people to come during the campaign, and it is estimated that by year's end at least 2 million of these "migrants" will have entered the U.S. in 2021.  All during Biden's first year in office.  It is no coincidence.  It is Biden's policy.  

According to Secretary Mayorkas, of the 15,000 migrants that were recently at the Del Rio, Texas border crossing, about 12,000 were already released into the country.  Mayorkas assured us that these people are monitored in order to "ensure their appearance in court."  Right.  Even Chris Wallace pushed back on that assertion, pointing out for one period 44% failed their required court appearance.  Mayorkas said that a claim for "humanitarian relief" is "one of our proudest traditions."  First, preliminary research reflects that humanitarian relief is most often granted for visiting a sick family member, attending a funeral and seeking needed medical attention.  But second, I am astounded that Mayorkas thinks is the way to determine anyone's need for humanitarian relief.  To say that his and Biden's system is not an orderly process that might engender support, is a huge understatement.  

 

A Postscript To The 9/22/21 Post "The U.S. and Israel"

As he promised, House Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made sure proposed legislation to restore financing for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense batteries was brought to a vote this past week, after an earlier move by the "progressives" in the House prevented a vote on it.  The measure passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with a vote of 420 to 9, with 2 members voting present.  Recall that Israel had to use many of those defensive missiles during the May war with Hamas, when thousands of rockets and missiles were fired into Israel.

Those voting against passage of the bill were Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), Ayana Presley (D-Mass), Cori Bush (D-MO), Marie Newman (D-Ill), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Andre Carson (D-IND), Jesus Garcia (D-Ill) and Thomas Massie (R-KY).

Tlaib, a Palestinian-American, said in explaining her vote:  "We cannot be talking only about Israelis need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system and are dying from what Human Rights Watch has said are war crimes..."  Tlaib, as usual, is full of misinformation, if not outright lies.  She refers to Israelis as if all Israelis are Jews.  As of 2019 there were approximately 1,890,000 Arab Israelis.  Many are Muslim, some are Christian, Druze and Bedouin.  Those Arab Israelis are also protected by Iron Dome.  Clearly, Tlaib does not care about them.  

Israel is not run as a "violent apartheid system."  It is a democracy, with Arabs serving in the Knesset (the legislature) and in the current government led by Naftali Bennett.  And, once again, I need to point out that the "Palestinians" are responsible for their own fate, having turned down peace offer after peace offer, that would have established a separate state for them.  In fact, they could have had their own state since 1947, but even then they rejected the UN vote of partition, dividing the British Mandate into a Jewish State and an Arab State.  Instead, they chose war, in their first effort to wipe the new State of Israel off the map.  I am disgusted that Tlaib is considered a valuable member of the House Democrats caucus.  As for Human Rights Watch, they have a well known history of anti-Israel bias, focusing on what Israel does to protect itself, and not on the Palestinians offensive actions.

One of the two members voting "present" was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She was seen crying on the House floor after her vote.  No doubt she was distressed.  I am sure she wanted to vote "No."  But she is a politician, and a politician with larger ambitions.  One theory behind her vote of "present," is that there will likely be a redrawing of her district, after the latest census.  The redrawing may include a community with a large Jewish population.  The other theory is that she plans to run against Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) for his seat in the Democratic primary in 2022.  She is well aware that New York State has a large Jewish population.  Now the question is, will her failure to take a stand one way or the other hurt her political future.  Given her considerable fund raising capabilities, I tend to think it will not.

So now the bill goes to the Senate, where the aforementioned Chuck Schumer runs things.  But Patrick Leahy is the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and he has suggested that there may not be any urgency in considering this bill.  As for Schumer, all he would say is "Iron Dome is very important and it'll get done.  That's all I'm going to say."  I imagine that Schumer, a once vocal supporter of Israel, has also been looking into his political future, and may be concerned about next year's election.  After all, last time around Eliot Engel (D-NY, and another longtime Israel supporter) lost his seat to "progressive" candidate Jamaal Bowman.  Schumer and Engel both hail from New York and both are Jewish.  

But at least one Democratic Jewish member of Congress, Ted Deutch (D-Fla), did not hesitate to speak up.  In response to Tlaib, Deutch said:  "To advocate for the dismantling of the one Jewish state in the world, when there's no place on the map for one Jewish state, that's antisemitism and I reject it."  Sadly, each new election seems to bring additional Israel haters to the Congress.  And it would be telling if Senate Majority Leader Schumer should lose his seat to AOC or another Israel-bashing "progressive."     

Never Assume Anything

1.  Women cannot achieve the way men can.  According to a 9/6/21 piece in the Wall Street Journal, women comprised 59.5% of college students, compared to 40.5% for men, at the end of the 2020-2021 academic year.  And, in a rather astonishing fact, women obtained 13 million more academic degrees at all levels than men, during the period 1982 to the present.

While some will cheer this data, it should at least give us pause.  What are the implications for society if women delay/reject marriage and family?  (No nasty emails please.  I have two daughters who are very accomplished, with advanced degrees as well.)  And why are so many fewer men applying to colleges than are women (2.8 million men vs 3.8 million women) for the 2021-2022 academic year.  I think that there are many questions to be asked.

2.  Structural racism is real.  According to a 9/7/21 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn, there is a serious racial problem in our schools.  According to McGurn, "Of the 27 U.S. urban school districts that reported their results for 2019 (in the National Assessment of Education Progress report) - from Boston and Chicago to Fort Worth, Texas and Los Angeles - not a single one can say a majority of the black eighth graders in their care are proficient in either math or reading.  It isn't even close."

And McGurn discusses that it is not for lack of money.  But, instead, the Democrats and the left object to what may actually aid black students: vouchers.  Vouchers that can be used for private schools or parochial schools.  As long as the teachers unions continue to contribute large sums to Democrat campaigns, do not expect those elected politicians to vote in favor of anything that will negatively impact those teachers.   

3.  Joe Biden is a nice guy.  Does anyone seriously still believe this?  After he and his staff repeatedly said that they had no authority to issue a vaccine mandate, Biden then issued a vaccine mandate.  Biden:  "  We've been patient.  But our patience is wearing thin.  And your refusal has cost all of us."  (Full disclosure.  I previously reported in this blog that I received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.  And that I believe in vaccines.  Since then, I have had a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine.)

My beef with Biden is not that he wanted to encourage people to get vaccinated.  Rather, it was the threatening manner in which he did it.  Threatening people is not the way to get them on your side.   

4.  Joe Biden supports women.  In a 9/22/21 editorial, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Taliban would not be allowing girls to return to school.  Also, no women were named as part of their new government.  We have seen the way that women protesters have been beaten by the Taliban.  Said the Journal:  "No single act by an American President has done more harm to more women than Mr. Biden's willy-nilly withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Noble but feckless exhortations at Turtle Bay (where the UN is located in New York City and where Biden spoke yesterday) can't make up for that reality."    

The U.S. and Israel

Traditionally, our two countries have been close allies, notwithstanding at times serious policy differences along the way.  But with the growth of the left within the Democrat party, and the likely near retirement of some of the old guard who stood by Israel (think Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Chuck Schumer), it is clear that the times they are a changing.

When the House needed to pass a continuing budget resolution in order to keep the government open and functioning, members of the left-wing "progressive" segment of the party were able to eliminate a very specific item from the resolution.  That item would have have provided $1 billion in aid for Israel to replenish their Iron Dome missile defense batteries.  Many of those missiles were used in the recent May war with Hamas.  Recall that the Iron Dome missile defense system was developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel.   

Hoyer (D-MD), pledged to get a separate vote on the funding by the end of this week.  But we have seen how the growing left-wing of the party has no affinity for Israel, and an increasing impact on legislation.

Recently, newly elected Israeli Prime Minister was at the White House.  Here is the Executive Director of CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations):  "President Joe Biden is hosting the leader of the Israeli Taliban."  CAIR, the leading Islamic organization in the country, equates the democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister with the Taliban.  

Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) recently Tweeted about a Palestinian mother (Rashid is a Palestinian American) "fighting to be able to bury her daughter and begin her dealing."  Tlaib told us that this "loving daughter and successful PhD student was killed by the Israeli government... (and) Israel won't release her body to her family."  

Sounds awful.  Unless you know what Tlaib left out.  Which was this "loving daughter" committed a terrorist attack.  She was not killed by the Israeli government, but by the security forces she targeted.  And Israel does have a policy of not returning the bodies of terrorists to their families.  Why?  Because the Palestinians will celebrate yet another martyr, and in the process encourage more terrorist attacks.  Keep that in mind as you contemplate the fact that Tlaib is a respected member of the Democratic House caucus.  

And The Algemeiner (an online Jewish paper) reported on a recent poll of Jewish college students.  They noted that "a poll released Monday found that half of 'openly Jewish' college students have at times attempted to conceal their religious identity on campus, and that they are more likely to do so the longer they're enrolled."  They go on to state that "more than half have hidden their support of Israel."  And, quite disturbingly, 30% who hid their Jewish identity did so because they feared their professors would give them lower grades if they knew the students were Jewish.

We are living in an era when open support for Israel can cause people to be ostracized.  And, as we know, the attacks are overwhelmingly coming from the left wing of the Democrat Party.    

 

The California Recall Election

There were two issues on the ballot in California:  1) Should Gavin Newsom be recalled?  and 2) If he is recalled, who should replace him?  The most prominent person running to replace Newsom was author and radio talk show host Larry Elder.  Elder is a Republican/Libertarian.  And he is black.

It was no surprise that in heavily democratic California Newsom beat back the recall by a large margin.  When I last checked the numbers a few days ago, voting against the recall were over 6.7 million people, or  63.5%.  Voting for the recall were over 3.8 million people, or 36.5%.  Newsom only needed 50% plus one vote to remain in office.  

But here is an interesting statistic.  Of the (I think) 56 people running to replace Newsom, Larry Elder, a black Republican, received the overwhelming number of votes, with over 2.7 million, or 47.3% of those other candidates receiving votes.  The next highest vote getter was Kevin Paffrath, with only 585,000 votes, or 9.9%.  What?  All those "racist" Republicans voted for the black man?  

But is Larry Elder really black?  Can I believe my lying eyes?  In a column by Erika Smith, run by the Los Angeles Times before the election, Smith asserted:  "Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.  You've been warned."  Here was a major newspaper, in the year 2021, essentially endorsing an accusation against Larry Elder that he is an "Uncle Tom."  It is beyond outrageous.   On the other hand, I am long past the point in time where I expect Democrats to debate based on facts, logic and reason.  No, name calling will do just fine.

Here is Melina Abdullah of Black Lives Matter:  "...everything that he's pushing, everything that he stands for, he is advancing white supremacy."  And:  "Few things infuriate me more than watching a Black person use willful blindness and cherry-picked facts to make overly simplistic arguments that whitewash the complex problems that come along with being Black in America."  

And in a New York Times Op-Ed, Farhad Manjoo wrote this:  "In the year 2001, (Elder said that) racism is not our major problem.  Personal responsibility is."  And, Manjoo told us that Elder called Blacks "victocrats."  Actually, Elder has called many on the left "victocrats."  

So, a black man who thinks for himself (i.e. does not adhere to the left-wing party line) is called the black face of white supremacy.  A black man who talks about personal responsibility is obviously abhorrent.  

On the bright side, we did get to keep Gavin Newsom as Governor.  Crime is rampant.  Homelessness is out of control, with tent cities everywhere.  Gas prices are no doubt the highest in the nation.  We are teaching critical race theory and antisemitism in our schools.  The quality of life has so deteriorated that many people and businesses have fled the state.  According to the latest census, California will actually be losing a House seat for the first time, as a result of the exodus.  

And if Larry Elder is the black face face of white supremacy, then Gavin Newsom is the white face of white privilege.  After all, Newsom's kids get to go to private schools.  And he sides with the teachers unions against giving that right to low income and minority kids.  And given his political connections, Newsom was able to raise $70 million for the recall fight, compared to Elder's $13 million. 

Someone said to me that Newsom screwed up San Francisco when he was Mayor.  So he got promoted to Governor.  After screwing up California, next stop...the White House.  You've been warned.