The Coronavirus 53 Weeks Later - A Tale of Two States

There are only three states with over 20 million people.  California is by far the biggest state with about 39 1/2 million people.  Texas is second with about 29 1/2 million people.  And Florida is third with nearly 22 million people.  An article out of the Associated Press told us this:  "Despite their differing approaches, California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates."  We are told both states have a rate of about 8,900 cases per 100,000 residents.  And death rates?  Florida ranked 27th with California at 28th.  Which leads to this question:  rather than shutting down states and destroying much of our economy, could we have achieved the same results with social distancing, the wearing of masks, and by encouraging people over 60 and other high-risk individuals to stay at home?  Did many of our Governors fail us? 

One online site shows the number of businesses that closed by metropolitan area.  In the top ten are 4 California metro areas.  The next ten (11-20) have 3 metro areas in California.  The next ten (21-30) has only one metro area in California.  So, California has 8 of the top 30.  Florida: 0, as in zero.  Another site shows California having permanently lost 14,050 businesses, with another 15,301 temporarily closed.  Florida shows 5,332 permanently closed and 3,331 temporarily closed.  So Florida has less than a third (29.5%) of the business closures that California has had, even though Florida's population is over half (55%) that of California's.     

The California State Board of Education just approved an amended course in Ethnic Studies.  It is a model curriculum; and while its use is not mandatory, the pressure to make it part of the new "equity" pedagogy will be tremendous.  The original Ethnic Studies program was so extreme, and so anti-Semitic, that it was even too much for Governor Newsom.  Although approved by the California legislature, Newsom vetoed it.  This past week, the Board approved the amended Ethnic Studies program, which the legislature will certainly pass.   

The Board of Education official site tells us this:  "The Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum is aimed at empowering students by illuminating the often untold struggles and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Latino/a/x Americans, and Asian Americans in California."  And we are told this:  "Today we made an important step toward confronting and ultimately transforming racism in our society and state...we are reminded daily that the racial injustice it reveals is not only a legacy of the past but a clear and present danger."  There it is - racism today is the same as it was 70 years ago.  And we are told by the Board:  "The fight for justice and human rights begins with education, and begins now."  

Right, there have not been any fights for justice and human rights before the Board came up with this nonsense.  We know how this subject matter will be taught.  America is bad.  America was founded on racism and slavery.  Nothing has changed for the better.  California is not teaching - they are indoctrinating young people with left-wing ideology.  One thing is for certain.  If my kids were of school age today, there is no way that I would agree to send them to public schools. 

Just to give you some idea of the left-wing slant of the drafters of this curriculum, the original draft looked favorably on the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic "Boycott, Divest and Sanction" movement - a movement that ultimately seeks the destruction of Israel.  The original draft also referred to Israel's War of Independence as the "Nakba," the Palestinian term for "catastrophe."  With much protest by Jewish groups, those offending provisions were removed.  But in a state with nearly 1.2 million Jews, the inclusion of those provisions in the original draft shows us that anti-Semitism is alive and well within the Democratic left.

An Op-Ed in the 3/17/21 Wall Street Journal makes the point that "a core tenet of ethnic studies is that a person's identity is determined first and foremost by group membership."  For those of you raised as I was, that we are to treat people as individuals, and never judge a person based on factors of race or ethnicity, you can forget that.  That idea is now considered racist.  The Journal:  "Ethnic studies wants to invert traditional American ideas of individual merit, opportunity and success."  To say that anyone who works hard can succeed in America is now racist also.  

I prefer the approach of Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis:  "Florida civics curriculum will incorporate foundational concepts with the best materials, and it will expressly exclude unsanctioned narratives like critical race theory..."  And DeSantis said that Florida has "...no room in our classrooms for things like critical race theory...teaching kids to hate their country and to hate each other is not worth one red cent of taxpayer money."  Of course, that is the goal of many of these programs, such as the "1619 Project," promulgated by the New York Times, teaching that the country was founded in 1619 when the first slaves were brought here.    

The path that California is on is one that will lead to greater animosity between races and ethnic groups.  The idea of "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) is passe.  The teaching of civics, government and a sense of patriotism?  Probably on the way out.  Why would young students feel any sense of patriotism towards a country they are being told is racist and evil?  And what feelings will they have for their fellow Americans, especially white Americans, who will be seen as their oppressors.  I think Ronald Reagan said it best:  "Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction."  It need not be lost by war.  It can be lost from within.     

The Coronavirus One Year Later - And Other Stories in the News

It is hard to believe, but it has been one year of the coronavirus.  In my first post on the topic, 3/15/20, called simply "The Coronavirus," I discussed the numbers.  As I have done in virtually every post or email announcement ever since.  On 3/15/20 I wrote that there were over 3000 cases and 61 deaths in the USA.  Now, we have had 30,042,814 cases and 546,556 deaths, with 22,107,924 recovered cases.  Los Angeles County has had 1,210,351 cases and 22,488 deaths.  New York City has had 775,226 cases and 30,164 deaths.  By state, the number of cases and deaths are as follows:  California, 3,623,088 and 55,781; Texas, 2,731,560 and 46,779; Florida, 1,978,353 and 32,334; and New York 1,780,211 and 49,189.  Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey have all had over 23,000 deaths.  

The number of new unemployment claims for the week ending March 6, fell to 712,000.  Still way too high compared to the year before the onset of the pandemic.  By 500,000.  On the good news front, states are starting to reopen.  Obviously, some businesses have been permanently lost.  Los Angeles County will be allowing indoor dining again as of this coming Monday, but only at 25% capacity.  In speaking with the owner's daughter at one of the restaurants I frequent, she said their capacity is 36 people, so 25% means they can only seat 9 people inside.  That will not make a difference for them, especially if they have to pay for clear plastic dividers between tables, and/or improve the restaurant's ventilation system.   

The City of the Angels thought it was a good idea to require grocery stores and pharmacies to pay "hero pay," of an additional five dollars an hour.  That prompted Kroger (which operates Ralph's and Food 4 Less), to announce the closure of 3 stores.  The company says they already pay $18 per hour, which comes to an effective rate of $24 per hour when health care and pension benefits are factored in.  They also say they have encouraged their employees to get vaccinated, offering a $100 incentive to do so.  But the government always knows better than private businesses. 

Speaking of the government knowing what's best, some Democrat legislators in California have proposed legislation that would ban certain toy stores and clothing stores from having separate sections for "boys" and "girls."  It would also apply to online sales; and there would be a $1000 fine for violations.  When I wrote the post called "My Ex-Wife" (posted on July 20,2014), I said this:  "...regardless of which side of the gay marriage debate you are on, nobody is thinking through to where this may ultimately lead."  But now we do know, as the party that claims to "follow the science" does not believe that there are two sexes.

Apparently, the Democrats in Congress are concerned that all the other nonsense they are doing in order to solidify their permanent control of the government is insufficient.  Things such as permitting an unlimited number of people (future Democrats) to enter the country illegally.  The latest proposal, pushed by Squad member Ayanna Pressley, would have lowered the voting age to 16.  Before you tell me that is just an extreme member of Congress pushing that - wrong!  When it came to a vote (as an Amendment to H.R. 1) the measure did fail 125 to 302.  However, the Democratic caucus voted 125 to 93 in favor of the Amendment.  That is a significant majority (over 57%) of the Democratic caucus.  Pressley:  "A sixteen year-old in 2021 possesses a wisdom and maturity that comes from 2021 challenges, 2021 hardships and 2021 threats."  What hardships did 16 year-olds face during the two Great Wars?  And wisdom?  That comes with age, hopefully.  Clearly, Pressley is not of sufficient age to have obtained that wisdom.  But here's a question - if her polling showed that the vast majority of 16 year-olds intended to become Republicans, would she still believe that they possessed "wisdom and maturity?" 

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and his wife both lack wisdom.  Notwithstanding the fact that shootings are up 75% in February, 2021 compared to February, 2020, de Blasio and his wife have pushed to defund the police.  But his wife has the perfect solution.  "...we're asking New Yorkers to show up for their neighbors and intervene when witnessing hateful violence or harassment."  I am curious - are unarmed citizens being asked to challenge very likely armed perpetrators?  Is Mrs. de Blasio saying she prefers vigilantism over a police force?  And is she prepared to personally confront violence as well?  

There was an interesting Op-Ed piece in the 3/8/21 Wall Street Journal by a parent of a student at the private Riverdale Country School in The Bronx, New York.  The writer tells us that at the first assembly of the school year, the school took a pass on performing their usual customs of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and singing America the Beautiful.  Instead, the head of the school announced a new theme for the year - "allyship."  For those not sufficiently "woke," allyship is a means of practicing "social justice" on behalf of oppressed and marginalized groups.  It is aligned with "anti-racist."  The head of the school advised that "it is essential that parents/caregivers and educators acknowledge racial differences (as opposed to a 'colorblind' stance)."  Is Martin Luther King turning in his grave yet?  Recommended reading includes Robin DiAngelo's "White Fragility."  While, admittedly, I have not read the book, Ms. DiAngelo apparently divides the world into white people and everybody else.  Personally, I'm with Dennis Prager, who, quoting Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, says there are only two groups of people in the world - the decent and the indecent.  As kids we said good guys and bad guys.  But then again, back then our parents and teachers taught us well.  

In the same Op-Ed we are told that students ages 5 through 11 were instructed to "check each other's words and actions."  The writer's wife spent the first five years of her life in the former Soviet Union.  As a child, she too was taught "to keep tabs on friends and family."  At one point, his now wife turned in her own father for alleged "crimes against the state."  All of it is, quite frankly, scary.  And sick.  I am inclined to agree with two friends who refer to the Democratic Party as evil.  It is evil to teach children that skin color is more important than character and behavior.  It is evil to tell children to report on fellow students who may not use the accepted "woke" vernacular.  The writer also tells us of an article in the City Journal discussing a public school in Cupertino, California.  In that school, children in the third grade were told to "rank themselves according to their 'power and privilege.'"  Sick.  

As a Jew I understand all too well how group identification has been used throughout history to persecute us and even slaughter us.  I am a proud Jew.  But I still want others to judge me for me.  For who I am.  But I know that is not always going to happen.  And, as a Republican and a conservative, I know that I am not judged for me.  My affiliation with the Republican Party has, as I discussed in prior posts, has cost me decades long friendships.  Others stopped being friends with me because it was guilt by association.  My individual traits and character were of no significance to them.  I was no different from all the negative ideas they held about Donald Trump and Republicans; just as I am no different from whatever negative views neo-Nazis hold about Jews.  

Higher up in academia is news of a study done by Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at the University of London.  In an Op-Ed in the 3/1/2021 Wall Street Journal, he discusses the attitudes at universities in the US, Canada and Britain.  Kaufmann reports that in the US and Canada left-wing academics outnumber those on the right "by a ratio of 14 to 1."  He also reports that "Some 75% of American and British conservative academics in social sciences and humanities say their departments offer a hostile climate for their beliefs."  And 40% of American academics "indicated in a survey this (past) summer that they would not hire a known Trump supporter for a job."  If 40% are willing to actually admit to that bias, I cannot help but wonder how many more are too afraid to openly admit to it.  

Concluding with an additional article on education, there was yet another Op-Ed in the 3/2/21 Journal authored by 6 former Secretaries of Education.  They wrote:  "Following years of polarization and the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the world's oldest constitutional democracy is in grave danger.  We stand at a crossroads, called to protect this democracy and to work toward unity."  They continue:  "A key part of our task is to reinvigorate teaching and learning of American history and civics in our nation's schools."  I know that when I was in high school I was able to name the President, Vice-President, and all the major cabinet secretaries (if not all the cabinet secretaries).  I could easily name the 3 branches of government, and discuss how proposed legislation came to be laws.  Yet, in a Pew Research poll from 2010, 41% of Americans were unable to name the Vice President.  And in a 2016 poll, a mere 25% of Americans were able to name all 3 branches of government.    

My father's high school diploma was quite detailed.  It actually listed each subject he took, and the number of units completed by my Dad.  Included in the list were the subjects of "Civics" and "Government."  Imagine that.  If there is any hope of holding this country together, we need to go back to teaching the basics, instead of all the nonsense (left-wing propaganda) being taught today.      

          

The Coronavirus 49 1/2 Weeks Later - Say What? (Better Say Nothing)

I cannot recall any time during my days on earth when the threat to free speech has been so widespread and chilling.  The calls for shutting down conservative speech are coming from sources that should be supporting the First Amendment's most important right.  Nicholas Kristof is one of the foremost Op-Ed writers at the foremost paper in the country, the New York Times.  Yet, he seems to have accepted the description of Fox News given by Media Matters for America:  "It's not a news channel.  It's a propaganda operation mixed with political smut."  Of course, we have heard this before; but that was from Obama and top officials in his Administration.  Not a surprise that Obama and his people would attempt to denigrate the one news source that actually challenged them.  But this attack is from another media outlet.  They should know better; but their left-wing agenda has supplanted their belief in a free press.

Here are the sins committed by Fox.  "Covid misinformation." "They fomented racial animus and promoted white supremacy as a response to the Black Lives Matter demonstrations."  They "laid the ground work for the attack on the Capitol by challenging election results."  Kristof shies away from demanding that the government take Fox off the air.  But he calls for advertisers to not promote their products on Fox, and for cable companies to drop Fox altogether.  

It is beyond disappointing that so many of my fellow Americans on the left actually believe whatever they read in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream paper.  Talk about misinformation.  I am pretty sure that no mainstream paper has apologized for the Russian collusion story which they thrust on the public, even though Robert Mueller found no evidence of that collusion.  But the mainstream media is filled with misinformation.  It is why 44% of Americans who identify as liberal believe that the number of unarmed blacks killed by the police in 2019 was greater than 1000, when it was actually 27.  They also believe that most people killed by the police are black, when it was about 25%.   

Here is Margaret Sullivan, formerly one of the Public Editors at the New York Times, and now a columnist at the Washington Post:  "The mob that stormed and desecrated the Capitol on Wednesday (January 6) could not have existed in a country that hadn't been radicalized by the likes of Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham (all Fox News hosts with their own shows) and swayed by biased news coverage."  As someone who regularly watches Fox, I have never heard a single one of them advocate anything they are being accused of advocating.  And if questioning election results now subjects people to various sanctions, then what do we say when Pelosi and Clinton and Stacey Abrams challenged, and continue to challenge, election results.  Should we lock them up or worse, such as when election results are challenged in dictatorial countries?  But using Sullivan's logic, does that mean that CNN, MSNBC, and the mainstream papers were responsible for this past summer's riots across the country?  After all, the media was repeatedly referring to the riots as "peaceful," which only encouraged them to continue.  And Kamala Harris, the Vice President, said these "demonstrations" should not stop.  That is a direct incitement.  What should happen to her?   

If you are on the Left, do not be too quick in thinking "well, that's only Fox."  Who cares.  The Wall Street Journal reports that "a petition now urges publishing houses to reject book proposals from anyone who worked in the Trump Administration."  That petition does not just target individuals - it targets history.  If there are no insiders able to write the history of the Trump years - good, bad and otherwise - then it's as if the Trump presidency never happened.  I thought that the erasing of history only occurred in totalitarian societies, such as the USSR.  Or in George Orwell's 1984.  

Here is yet another writer in the New York Times:  "Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden Administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a 'reality czar.'"  During the Trump years, the Washington Post adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness."  I have always thought of our First Amendment right to speech as the foundation of our democracy.  How would that work if a "reality czar" gets to decide what speech is permissible, and what speech is "disinformation?"  Would this blog fall into the category of "disinformation?"  If I still have readers on the Left, I ask you if you would approve of that designation for this blog.  

Here is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  "We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation."  Rein in our media environment?  Is she familiar with "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."  I am sure she is familiar with the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  But, as with many on the Left, she has no use for the Constitution.  Here is a government official all-in with the mainstream media on how they are going to censor speech, which will obviously be conservative speech.  

Here is Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer:  "Congress needs to create a Truth and Reconciliation process - a commission, perhaps, or even just an open forum - that will allow some or hopefully most to acknowledge Biden's victory, state for the record that there was no election fraud in 2020, and maybe even apologize for saying otherwise."  Apologize?  What happens to someone if they do not apologize?  And, just to be clear, Pelosi needs not apologize for saying the 2016 election was hijacked.  Clinton needs not apologize for saying the the 2016 election was not legitimate.  Stacey Abrams needs not apologize for continuing to claim victory in the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia.  We all understand that these attacks on speech are aimed at conservatives and conservative media outlets only. 

The Democrats have a cozy relationship with the mainstream media.  White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, had been at CNN.  Jon Meacham, formerly at MSNBC wrote speeches for Biden.  Also leaving MSNBC for helping the Biden Administration are Barbara McQuade, Richard Stengel and Dr Ezekiel Emanuel.  We have a risk of the media and the Democratic controlled White House and Congress all working together to limit speech, conservative speech.     

We need to ask: what is going on?  How is it possible that in the United States of America we are hearing calls for essentially shutting down Fox News, for preventing insiders in the Trump Administration from writing history, for a "reality czar," for "reining in" the media, for a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission.  Of course, it is all under the guise of preventing "misinformation" and "disinformation."  But long time readers of this blog may recall the various posts over the years discussing the lies of omission and commission written by the mainstream media.  Will the New York Times have to apologize for over two years of daily reporting on the unsubstantiated "Russian collusion" hoax?  But as Jim Rutenberg wrote in the New York Times, during the 2016 presidential race, "if you view a Trump presidency as something that is potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that."  As Martin Gurri wrote in the City Journal, describing the attitude of the editors at the Times: "Trump could not safely be covered; he had to be opposed."  And oppose Trump the Times did, during the two elections and during Trump's 4 years in office.  And much of the mainstream media followed the lead of the preeminent mainstream paper.  

Is there any hope?  The University of Chicago is a beacon of free speech.  The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2016, the University advised all incoming freshmen that "we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own."  Imagine that - a university adhering to policies that were once considered standard at all universities.  Before college students started being treated as if they were children.  And when administrators had a backbone.  

Now, the Journal reports, there is a new group of students on campus, conservatives and libertarians who have an online journal called "Chicago Thinker."  Here is what these students have to say:  "We demand not to be coddled.  Embracing the experience of unfettered inquiry and free expression is precisely the point of these years of intense study: to rigorously confront and challenge our most deeply-held beliefs - and to emerge as more thoughtful, informed human beings."  Now imagine if the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media actually believed these things, if they actually believed that speech is to be challenged by more speech - not by shutting it down.  

"Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition - this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression.  The Supreme Court has written that his freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom."  That, my friends, is from the ACLU.              

The Coronavirus 48 Weeks Later - Trump Impeachment 2.0

Actually, the title of this post should perhaps be "The Never-Ending Impeachment of Donald Trump."  The talk of impeachment began before Trump was even the Republican nominee in 2016.  It continued throughout his presidency, and continued after he left office.  Here is Politico from April 17, 2016:  "Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet.  But his incendiary rhetoric has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race.  'Impeachment' is already on the lips of pundits, newspapers editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress." 

At a pro-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court building, while the Court was hearing an abortion rights case, this was Chuck Schumer riling up the crowd:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch.  I want to tell you Kavanaugh.  You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.  You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."  So a Democrat is allowed to directly threaten two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name, with no consequence whatsoever.  Schumer's incendiary rhetoric, attacking a co-equal and independent branch of government, the independent judiciary, warranted this rare rebuke by the Chief Justice:  "...threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous."  

So, for Schumer's incendiary rhetoric, his incitement, was there an impeachment?  No.  Was there a censure even?  No.  Here is an important lesson from a recent guest on the Dennis Prager radio show.  A young woman, I believe 20 years of age, was raised by her left-wing mother, as her parents divorced when she was young.  The young girl got involved in her mother's left-wing political organization.  However, in her teenage years she became a conservative, and worked for conservative causes.  Her mother, while expressing her support for her daughter, added that she would have preferred that her daughter was working for good instead of evil.  There you have it.  That is why Schumer was not to be punished.  If you are a Democrat/left-wing, you are by definition good.  If you are a Republican/conservative, you are by definition evil.  The "good" can do no wrong; the "evil" can do no good. 

The current Article of Impeachment is for "incitement to insurrection."  Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6, was where he allegedly incited an insurrection.  I am not going to get into whether or not what we saw was an insurrection or a riot or a protest run amok.  I will say there was not $2 billion worth of damage, as there was in the riots across the country last summer.  In any event, did Trump intend a violent assault on the Capitol, or did he intend to have his supporters show their support for the members of Congress contesting electoral college votes?

Here is what Trump said:  "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy...we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them...We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated...I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  You decide what Trump intended.  I only see support for those in Congress contesting the electoral college vote.  But Schumer's words can only be interpreted as threatening two sitting Supreme Court Justices:  "you will pay the price...you won't know what hit you." 

The lead House Manager, Jamie Raskin (D-Md), was incensed that the Republicans in the Senate brought a motion that the impeachment of a civilian no longer in office was unconstitutional, which would have ended the proceedings before any arguments on the merits of the issue of 'incitement' were made.  Raskin:  "They (Republicans) want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced."  I nearly choked on the hypocrisy.  Evidence?  He wanted evidence?  Did he, as a member of the House, seek to have the matter referred to the House Judiciary Committee first before the entire House voted?  No.  Did he insist on the same due process and evidence gathering that he said he wanted the Senate to do?   No.  The same due process and evidence gathering by the House Judiciary Committee given to Nixon, Clinton and Trump in his first impeachment proceeding.  No, Raskin was happy to have a rushed, emotional vote with zero evidence gathering.  

Raskin, as a House member, objected to the counting of the electoral college votes from Florida in 2016.  He used this expression, which when said by Trump was incitement:  "fight like hell."  Remember, as a Democrat, Raskin is by definition good.  Therefore when he said what Trump said, it does not count.  

The Democrats believed they would win by appealing to the emotions of the Senators when they played a lengthy video of the protesters breaking into the Capitol.  Here is writer Peter Baker:  "Some current and former Senators struggled to regain their composure after watching, which was exactly the reaction that the Managers were trying to generate."  Which is why I would have objected to the showing of the video, as any probative value was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact on the jurors/Senators.  (California Evidence Code Section 352, Federal Rule of Evidence 403.)  

However, the playing of the video did allow Trump's attorneys to play numerous videos of Democrats using inciting and incendiary language.  Virtually all politicians say they are going to "fight" or "fight like hell."  Then, there was Schumer's threat made to the two Supreme Court Justices.  

I have previously discussed how disturbing the images were of the US Capitol under attack.  I have already written in earlier posts that after the lawsuits failed and the electoral college voted, Trump should have conceded.  He didn't.  But he is not alone.  Here is Nancy Pelosi in May, 2017:  "Our election (in 2016) was hijacked.  There is no question."  And here is Hillary Clinton in October, 2020, 4 years after the election she lost to Trump:  "There was a widespread understanding that this election (2016) was not on the level."  But remember, challenging the integrity of an election is only a threat to democracy if a Republican does it.  If a Democrat does it, nothing to see...just move along.   

After hearing the arguments from both sides, it appeared that the Senate was set to vote.  But then the House Managers said they wanted witnesses.  Trump's attorneys said fine, we would like to call Pelosi and Kamala Harris.  Suddenly, there was an agreement that there would be no witnesses.  If I had to guess, lead House Manager Raskin likely received a call or text from Pelosi to this effect:  "The hell I'm going to testify.  End it!"  Just a guess.  The Senate then voted.  The vote was 57 to 43.  Seven Republicans voted with all 50 Democrats to convict.  But it takes two-thirds (67) to convict, so Trump was acquitted.  

But there is an important point here.  Every time I heard a discussion on TV or the radio, every single commentator said that 17 Republican votes were needed to convict Trump.  Why?  Why did everyone assume/know that all 50 Democratic Senators would vote as a block?  Why did they think not a single Democrat might look at the impeachment of a civilian as unconstitutional?  Why did these commentators not think that a few Democrats might see Trump's words as no worse than, and possibly not even as bad, as Schumer's and others?  

AOL reported that well over 100 former Republican officials (clearly, all "never Trumpers") were talking about starting a third party.  These are people from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump administrations.  The new party would be a center/right party, and would endorse center/right candidates whether Republican or Democrat or Independent.  I cannot imagine a more foolish endeavor.  The end result would be dividing the Republican party, ensuring Democratic victory in elections for years to come.  And they are living in a dream world if they believe so-called center/right Democrats will not vote with their party.  They have repeatedly proved they will.  Witness today's impeachment vote, when everyone knew how every Democrat would vote.         

The Coronavirus 46 1/2 Weeks Later - Forget Biden's Call For Unity

The second Trump impeachment.  We are about to have a sham impeachment trial of a President who has already been removed from office through the election.  The purpose, as in everything the Democrats are doing, is to destroy the Republican Party.  But no, they say.  Look what happened.  "Thousands of protesters rushed to the...Capitol Wednesday night, forcing their way through doors, crawling through windows and jamming corridors."  Right?  Wrong!  That quote is from 10 years ago when left-wing union members engaged in their own "insurrection" in Madison, Wisconsin.  They opposed proposed legislation by then Governor Scott Walker that would put limits on public employees collective bargaining, among other things. 

For his troubles, Governor Walker received death threats.  The insurrectionists threatened to "gut" his wife "like a deer."  They carried signs that read:  "Don't retreat.  Reload."  And:  "The only good Republican is a dead Republican."  Nancy Pelosi was, of course, outraged, right?  Wrong again!  Pelosi described it as an "impressive show of democracy in action."  And she told us that she stood "in solidarity" with the protesters/insurrectionists.  The message is clear - Democrat insurrectionists are good, Republican bad.   

Marjorie Taylor Greene.  She is a member of Congress from Georgia who was just elected to the House.  And, to be kind, she has adhered to some rather bizarre beliefs.  To be not so kind, she is a wackadoo.  But she is only one of 435 House members, with no power or influence at this point.  Nevertheless, in what may have been an unprecedented move, the Democrat controlled House voted to remove her from her committee assignments, which were Education and Labor, and Budget.  Generally, the leadership of each party assigns members in their respective caucuses to various committees.  But, in what is arguably an abuse of their power as the majority party, the Democrats canceled Greene.   

The Democrats are using the issues surrounding Congresswoman Greene to discredit and destroy the Republican Party.  In case anyone doubts that, listen to Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern (Mass.):  "The party of Lincoln is becoming the party of violent conspiracy theories."  See?  Now every single Republican adheres to the same beliefs previously espoused by Greene.  It is a lie, of course.  But a lie in the service of the cause is of no consequence to Democrats who seek one party rule.  McGovern:  "And apparently, the leaders of the Republican Party in the House today aren't going to do a damn thing about it."

That makes me wonder...what did the Democrats do about the anti-Semites in their midst?  Not a damn thing?  Not exactly.  Ilhan Omar was rewarded with seats on the Budget committee and the influential Foreign Affairs committee.  Rashida Tlaib was rewarded with a seat on the important Oversight and Investigations committee, among other committee assignments.  You see, the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy has become the party of anti-Semites, Mr. McGovern.  And you have not done a damn thing about it.  I take that back.  You have celebrated and rewarded the anti-Semites.  

The Palestinians.  President Biden has seen fit to restore relations with, and financial aid to, the Palestinians, notwithstanding their their penchant for killing Jews.  On Holocaust Remembrance Day, Fatah (part of the governing Palestinian Authority, with Mahmoud Abbas as the head of both) released a video in remembrance of the Black September terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.  They referred to the attack on the Israelis as a "quality operation."  There's a unifying thought.  My original thought about the Biden presidency was it was going to be the third term of Obama.  I believe I was wrong.  He is going to be worse than Obama.  

Immigration.  We heard from Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, that "immigration we consider as part of racial equity..."  This idea of "equity" is a big deal.  We are hearing that the policies of all federal agencies will follow "equity."  So here is the difference between "equality" and "equity," as explained on one progressive site:  "Although both (equality and equity) promote fairness, equality achieves this through treating everyone the same regardless of need, while equity achieves this through treating people differently dependent on need."  In other words, instead of ensuring a level playing field, the government will now determine outcomes.  Not opportunities.  Outcomes.

And what exactly is immigration equity?  It appears to mean putting foreigners ahead of Americans.  Putting those who wish to enter this country illegally ahead of Americans.  The border wall?  Biden put a stop to it.  Did he bother to speak with a single border patrol agent first?  Did he try to find out if the wall is, in fact, protecting Americans?  No, that would not be "equitable."  Although, given his opposition to walls, I do wonder why he allowed what was essentially a wall (a very high fence) to be erected around the Capitol for his inauguration ceremonies.  Biden also directed Homeland Security to temporarily halt all deportations, although apparently a court blocked that.  Still, Biden's order was an open invitation to come here - legally or not.

But why deport future Democrats?  According to a report by Tucker Carlson on Fox:  "in a typical 100 day period last year, for example, ICE agents removed 46,800 immigrants with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges."  Although ICE reported removing 185,884 people in 2020, a number lower than prior years because of the pandemic.  A senior fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies interviewed people coming up through Juarez.  He reported that all of them were excited to come to the US without having to fear deportation.  Recently, Border Patrol agents in Arizona arrested 11 Iranians after they sneaked into the US.  Were they fleeing the oppressive Iranian regime?  Or were they potential terrorists?  We don't know.  And clearly Biden does not care.  

Energy.  No surprise.  Biden halted work on the Keystone XL pipeline.  Did he consult with our ally, Canada, first?  No.  Did he care about the jobs lost?  (The estimates range from over 3000 to 11,000, with the more progressive sites suggesting the much lower number.)  Not at all.  Biden banned oil and gas leasing on federal land and offshore for at least 60 days, with one site claiming up to a year.  The Western Energy Alliance estimated that 58,700 jobs would be lost in eight Western states.  But no fear, the energy czar, John Kerry, will have them all building solar panels.  And, of course, Biden is rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, which, in combination with the reduction in oil and gas production, will have the added benefit of aiding our adversaries in Russia and China.  

What about the girls?  In his executive order on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation, Biden wrote that "children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports."  Certainly sounds good on paper.  But what happens when biological girls compete against trans girls, girls who are biologically boys.  The biological girls lose.  Boys are generally larger, and with more muscle mass.  Female student athletes in Connecticut have already been facing this problem, as trans girls have been allowed to participate in girls sports.  I understand the arguments.  And I am sympathetic to anyone who does not feel like they belong in the body into which they were born.  But I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why the far larger number of biologically female athletes must compete against the far smaller number of trans girls athletes, who have an inherent, biological advantage. 

The Coronavirus 44 1/2 Weeks Later - New Year Reflections, Part III (Where Do We Go From Here?)

Today, Joe Biden was sworn in as the nation's 46th President.  He focused a number of times on "unity" in his inaugural speech.  "...My whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, unifying our nation.  And I ask every American to join me in this cause."  "We can see each other, not as adversaries, but as neighbors.  We can treat each other with dignity and respect."  "We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.  We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts."  "...disagreement must not lead to disunion."  

For those of us who still believe in America as one nation, under G-d, indivisible, the sentiments are fitting.  Clearly, we have significant policy differences between left and right.  Those will not go away; and to the extent the left-wing of the Democratic Party gains influence and control, the differences will be exacerbated.  I have previously questioned whether we can return to having a "loyal opposition."  A bigger problem, perhaps, is that Biden's fellow Democrats in Congress, as well as his Democratic followers in the media and Hollywood, seem to have little interest in Biden's call for unity.

As I mentioned in the last post, I was hoping that Biden would display some of that unity by calling on Pelosi not to pursue impeachment a second time.  But the Democrats could not help themselves.  As I watched the House hearing it occurred to me - there are not going to be any Judiciary Committee hearings first.  It is going to be a rushed, emotional vote with absolutely no fact finding, no evidence, no opportunity for anyone to fairly present the arguments on the other side.  It was unprecedented in my lifetime, as Nixon, Clinton and Trump 1.0 all had Judiciary Committee hearings.  Instead, members voted out of fear and anger, with a rush to judgment.  Pelosi argued that immediate impeachment was required for the good of the country, as Trump presented a "clear and present danger."  But that was a lie, as she knew the Senate could not proceed to a trial until after Biden was inaugurated and Trump would be out anyway.  

It turns out that there was evidence that those who illegally forced their way into the Capitol may have planned their attack in advance through social media.  In advance of Trump's speech that day.  Now, maybe, Trump would have been impeached anyway, just based on the words he said.  Maybe.  But maybe not.  What was clear was that through the impeachment there was an intent to harm not just Trump, but the Republican Party.  Not to mention the obvious attack on the 74 million people who voted for Trump.  Now we are headed for a Senate trial to remove a man from office who is already out of office.  I am not seeing a desire by Biden's fellow Democrats to treat those with whom they disagree with "dignity and respect."  I am seeing a desire to harm those with whom they disagree.

Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-Mo) is a new member of "The Squad."  She has introduced a resolution calling for the removal from office of all those Republican House members who objected to the electoral college vote of any state.  She equated their objections to an "insurrection," even though federal law allows for exactly that process - for Congress members making objections to electoral college votes.  Bush also claimed that the objections were based on a "racial animus," given the minority population in the states having their electoral votes challenged.  

The Lincoln Project (apparently started by Republican Trump haters, with at least one founder having switched party affiliation to Democrat) Tweeted this:  "we are constructing a database of Trump officials and staff that will detail their roles in the Trump administration and track where they are now...no personal info, only professional.  But they will be held accountable and not allowed to pretend they were not involved."  Yes, let us return to the days of yore - to McCarthyism.  "Are you know, or have you ever been, a Trump supporter?"  These people are sick bastards.  Definitely not unifying, and completely un-American.  I guess it will not matter if the Trump administration officials worked to bring about the best unemployment rate in 50 years, or helped pass criminal justice reform, or helped bring about new peace agreements in the Middle East.  They will all have to pay!

Forbes magazine's chief content officer wrote an Op-Ed expressing this:  "let it be known to the business world.  Hire any of the fabulists (Kayleigh McEnany, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and presumably others) above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie."  Anybody still believe that big business supports the Republican Party?  Hallmark wants Senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall to return campaign contributions received from the company's employees - because they dared to follow the legal procedure for challenging electoral college votes.  Kansas City Commerce Bank said they were suspending campaign contributions to those who challenged the votes.  The list of big companies  rushing to punish Republicans includes American Express, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Marriott, Dow, AT&T, Airbnb, Coca-Cola along with others.  "My Pillow" will no longer be carried by Kohl's, Bed Bath and Beyond, Wayfair and others.  How could they?  The owner supported Trump.     

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media had no interest in unity.  Here is Don Lemon of CNN:  "If you voted for Trump, you voted for the person who the Klan supported.  You voted for the person who Nazis support.  You voted for the person who the alt-right supports.  You voted for the person who incited a crowd to go into the Capitol and potentially take the lives of lawmakers."  You know what?  I agree.  It would be nice if every fellow conservative and Republican all held my values, or at least decent values.  But you know what, Don Lemon.  You voted with the people who caused 2 billion dollars worth of damage to mostly small businesses this past summer.  Businesses that were often minority owned because those doing the damage did not care.  They were violent thugs - the people you voted with, Don Lemon.  You also vote with anti-Semites, a growing number of which inhabit your party.  Are you an anti-Semite, Don Lemon?  Maybe you supported Bernie Sanders.  But the deranged man who shot up the Republican baseball game and nearly killed Congressman Steve Scalise, was a Sanders supporter.  Do you support murder of your political opponents, Don Lemon?  It is truly difficult to believe that a man with such little capability in analytical reasoning has such a prominent position with CNN.  

And then there is this from Mr. Lemon:  "No one has ever, ever gone this far in terms of saying an election was illegitimate."  So, a liar too.  No one?  How about you and your cronies at CNN for the last four years claiming that Trump was an illegitimate President, claiming the Russians stole the election for Trump.  Just like the 2016 loser Hillary Clinton has continued to do.  Just like Madame Speaker Pelosi has claimed.  Just like a number of Congress members did.  Just like much of the mainstream media has done for four years.  All claimed that Trump's 2016 win was illegitimate.

Treat others with dignity and respect?  Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, said this:  "there are millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans who somehow need to be deprogrammed."  Here is what a now fired PBS attorney thought:  "Even if Biden wins, we go for all the Republican voters and Homeland Security will take away their children.  And we'll put them in reeducation camps."  They can watch PBS all day.  Here is Katie Couric, referring to some Republican members of Congress:  "...the question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump."

Deprogram?  Reeducation?  Communist Russia come to mind?  Let's think about this.  Just who is more likely to suffer the effects of being propagandized?  Conservatives have Fox News.  And probably a small number read the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages.  Democrats, however, have the same message drilled into them minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day...you get the point.  By whom?  Just about everybody - NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, and on and on.  Almost every TV show my wife and I watch have left-wing talking points written into the scripts.  And, of course, the left-wing viewpoint is the only accepted and acceptable viewpoint in academia.  So, maybe, for the tens of millions of Americans who have grown up only hearing left-wing talking points, maybe they are the ones in need of deprogramming and reeducation.  

So this is Joe Biden's America.  Harm your political opponents.  Prevent them from working.  Kick them out of Congress.  Deprogram and reeducate them.  I would humbly suggest, if he is sincere, that he needs to do an extensive amount of work to bring his followers in line with his goal of people being respectful of others.  Biden responding to all of the above would be a good start.     

The Coronavirus Forty-Three Weeks Later - New Year Reflections, Part II (The Trump Era Ends Badly)

The President's actions.  I was working at home Wednesday morning when I received a text message from a friend telling me to turn on the TV.  I texted back "why?"  He replied "put it on."  I was shocked and appalled by what I saw.  I saw what appeared to be hundreds of people storming the Capitol building of the United States.  The Capitol police were clearly outnumbered, but thankfully, no Representative and no Senator and no staff were injured.  Sadly, a Capitol police officer was killed, as was a female Army veteran taking part in the occupation of the Capitol building.  The condemnation of those breaking into the Capitol building has been nearly universal, from both sides of the aisle.  I add my voice to condemn what I saw.   

When the President spoke to the crowd assembled near the White House (estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands) he said they should march over to the Capitol Building to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  That was not the problem.  The problem was that he also said we would be "stuck with a President who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years.  We're just not going to let that happen."  And Trump said this:  "we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we're not going to stand for that."  Trump expected Mike Pence to change the votes of the electoral college.  

In my first post after the election, I wrote that I had accepted that Biden won on election night.  (See the 11/15/20 post.)  Trump and his team decided to file numerous lawsuits challenging the results in several states.  I neither advocated for nor against it, although I recognized that he had the right to do so.  And I had my own concerns about election integrity, given the overwhelming number of mail-in ballots, some without signature verification, and some apparently received after the state mandated deadline - but counted anyway.  Still, as an attorney, I thought let the cases play out until the electoral college votes in mid-December.  Trump did not succeed in his court cases.  On December 14, the electoral college confirmed that Joe Biden had won.  That should have been the end of it.

From that point forward Trump's focus should have been on the transition, and on helping the two Republican Senators in Georgia win reelection.  Instead, we learn that on January 2, Trump called the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to find more votes.  I previously wrote that I wanted Trump to be at Biden's inauguration.  (See the 12/20/20 post.)  That would have meant, of course, that he would have conceded the election and congratulated Biden.  That's what should have happened after the electoral college vote.  When none of it happened, and especially after that January 2 phone call, it was clear that Trump should be out of politics.  I said to my wife that I would like to see Nikki Haley run in four years.  I would not vote for Trump again.  That was before Wednesday.  Trump actually undermined the two Republican Senate candidates in Georgia by belatedly advocating for a $2000 Covid relief payout, after his own Administration negotiated a $600 payout with Congress.  

On Wednesday, Congress was meeting in joint session for the formality of counting and approving the vote of the electoral college.  Trump expected the Vice President, who presides at this joint session of Congress, to single handedly overturn the electoral college vote.  Of course, the Vice President has no such authority, nor should he.  The law does allow challenges to a state's electoral college vote, as long as at least one Representative and One Senator object.  That did happen, and when it does each house of Congress meets separately to vote on the objections.  With the House of Representatives under Democratic control, there was no chance of any objection passing there.  Even in the Republican controlled Senate there was virtually no chance of success.   

Now, the reactions to Wednesday.  What about the objections to the electoral college vote?  Some Democrats want to see those Representatives and Senators who objected to the electoral college vote kicked out of Congress.  Aside from the fact that such objections are allowed by law, we see yet again the hypocrisy of the Democratic left.  In 2005, 31 Democrats in the House and one Senator (former California Senator Barbara Boxer) objected to the electoral college vote of Ohio.  Recall that George W. Bush beat John Kerry.  Those Democrats who objected, said they had concerns about how the election was run and were simply pointing out the need for election reform.  Oh, so just like the Republican objectors on Wednesday.  But we know when the Republicans do it, it is because they are evil. 

What about impeachment?  I am not having the same reaction as the Democrats first impeachment, which to this writer was nothing other than a coup attempt, an effort to reverse the results of the 2016 election - results that the Democrats have never accepted.  With Trump being out of office in 10 days anyway, it hardly matters.  So, why do it?  The purpose, it seems to me, would be to tarnish his legacy.  Because, notwithstanding the Democrats allegation of Trump being an "incompetent" President. the reality is that he accomplished quite a bit.  (See the 1/2/21 post.)  Joe Biden has repeatedly called for "unity."  How would another impeachment of a man that 74 million Americans voted for bring about that unity?  If Biden has not at least privately told Pelosi not to do it, then his call for unity is just a big lie.  We will see tomorrow if the House moves forward, as they are promising to do.  

What about the "protesters?"  Was it a mob?  An insurrection?  A coup attempt?  While I did not see the size of the crowd listening to Trump's speech, at least one source said there were hundreds of thousands there.  But let's assume it was only tens of thousands.  I saw most of that crowd that marched to the Capitol peacefully standing outside the building, many holding American flags, and letting their presence be known.  The mainstream media (aka the Democratic, left-wing media) used harsh words to describe those who broke into the Capitol building.  But this past summer, when rioting, looting and burning took place across the country (in Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Kenosha and Los Angeles, to name a few cities that saw violence) and caused approximately $2 billion worth of damage to mostly small businesses, but also to a federal courthouse, police station, and so on, we were told that it was "mostly peaceful protesters," and that a few bad apples managed to infiltrate those peaceful protests and cause all the damage.  And we heard precious little from Democratic leaders actually condemning the violent "protesters."  When a statue of Christopher Columbus was torn down by "peaceful protesters" in Baltimore, a city where Nancy Pelosi's father and brother were Mayors, she was asked what she thought about it.  Pelosi:  "People will do what they do."  No condemnation.  

This time, when it wasn't Black Lives Matter and Antifa, but rather Republicans misbehaving, there was no differentiating between the many who remained peaceful outside the Capitol and those who broke in - they were all just "Trump supporters."  The implication is clear, Trump supporters are all evil.  After all, if you voted for Trump, you caused Wednesday to happen.  You knew or should have known that it would happen.  Really?  Trump must have had dozens of rallies during his first run in 2016, and continuing to the present.  Often, tens of thousands of people attended.  I watched a number of those rallies.  None that I saw resulted in violence.  The only time that I saw violence was when left-wing thugs showed up to intimidate and harass and assault the Trump supporters.  I should add that, as a conservative, I believe that people are responsible for their own behavior.  No, I'm not excusing Trump's involvement.  

What about the anti-Semitism?  I assume many of us saw some of the shirts being worn by those who occupied the Capitol.  One said "Camp Auschwitz" and another said "6MWE" (standing for 6 million wasn't enough).  Disgusting!  I've said it before - whether anti-Semitism comes from the left, the right, radical Islam or anywhere else, it needs to be condemned by everyone.  But it's not.  The left protects their own, even if they're anti-Semites.  The "peaceful" protests in Los Angeles last summer by Black Lives Matter caused damage to Jewish shops and at least one synagogue in the Fairfax area, a heavily Jewish area.  On one synagogue was spray painted "Free Palestine" and "Fuck Israel."  Said the city council member who represented the Fairfax area:  "As we watched the fires and looting, what we didn't get covered were the anti-Semitic hate crimes and incidents.  Under the guise of protests, some advanced their anti-Semitic agenda."  The mainstream media's interest in anti-Semitism begins and ends with the anti-Semitism from the right.  

What about the anti-Semitism of Democratic Representatives?  After Ilhan Omar made repeated anti-Semitic comments, Nancy Pelosi excused her, appointed her to the important House Foreign Affairs Committee, and called her a "valuable" member of the Democratic caucus.  How about Rashida Tlaib getting a "calming feeling...when I think of the Holocaust."

What about the racism?  Here is Joe Biden:  "No one can tell me, that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, that they wouldn't have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol."  Thereafter, Harris said the same thing, and the mainstream media dutifully joined in.  Odd that the one person shot and killed was a white woman.  While I watched on TV, I saw four white security people inside either the House or Senate chamber, with guns drawn and aimed at the door that they had barricaded from within.  Those guys looked ready to shoot to kill whomever may have broken through the door to the chamber.  And it appeared that most of those inside the Capitol were white people.  It's not always about race, Joe.  

What about the big three?  Pence and McConnell had no hesitation in doing the right thing.  McConnell called it his most consequential vote in the decades he has served in Congress, making it clear that Biden had to be declared the winner of the electoral college vote.  Pence did his job, counting the votes and declaring Biden to be the winner.  Pelosi?  She took it upon herself to call Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike."  In doing so, she abused her own power and attempted to assume the office of President.  We have a chain of command, and the Speaker is not part of it.  The Defense Secretary and the President are.  She not only made the call, she posted what was discussed on her website.  Highly inappropriate, especially if an enemy of the US tries to act against us in the next ten days.  

What about social media?  Twitter has permanently suspended (banned) President Trump from their platform.  If you approve, I would ask why it is okay for the Ayatollah to be on Twitter, after threatening the United States, and threatening to wipe Israel off the map?  Why is it okay for the leading anti-Semite in the country, Louis Farrakhan, to remain on Twitter?  And why is it okay for the Chinese Communist party to remain on Twitter?  If you do not see the bias against conservatives (such as some Prager University videos being banned from YouTube) then you need to look again.

A word to my conservative friends and readers.  If you supported what you saw on Wednesday in the Capitol, because you believe that the election was conducted in an unfair manner, then you may need to rethink your criticisms of last year's riots.  After all, Black Lives Matter told us that the judicial system was unfair.  If the perception of "unfairness," justified or not, warrants rioting, looting and ransacking the Capitol, then we can expect violence on a regular basis.  Ultimately, we need to let the system play out.  We can work to improve it.  But we need to let it play out, with the understanding that no system is perfect.