The Coronavirus 57 Weeks Later - There Is No Crisis At The Border, But There Is At The Supreme Court

President Biden has established a 36 member commission, dominated by people on the left, to "study" the role of the Supreme Court.  The commission will look into "the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court;  and the Court's case selection, rules and practices."  The President has given the commission six months to issue their report.  Why the need for a such a commission now?  Because President Trump was able to fill 3 vacancies on the Court.  But the Democrats in Congress are not waiting for the commission's report.  Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Representative Mondaire Jones (D-NY) already have a bill that will add 4 justices to the Court; which if passed and signed into law, conveniently allows Biden to appoint 4 new justices.

Markey and Jones had an Op-Ed up on CNN online, explaining the need for this court-packing.  First, they start their article justifying the need for their proposed legislation.  "For decades, the GOP has trafficked in dog-whistle, white grievance politics to hold onto power without popular support for it policies."  Clear tactic - attack the GOP, and lie.  It is a lie to say that Republican policies have no popular support; just as it would be a lie to say that some Democrat policies do not have popular support.  Although, I fail to see the relevance of "popular support" in judicial decision making.  It is the legislative branch that considers popular support.  

Second, the need to explain the imminent danger if they don't act.  "This Supreme Court has the ability to repeal our reproductive and marriage rights.  To institute racist immigration policies that dehumanize those searching for a new life in the United States.  To ensure that Black and Brown and disenfranchised voters never get the opportunity to make their voices heard at the ballot box."  There is so much wrong here that it would take an entire blog post to adequately comment.  Suffice it to say that the same charge was made about the Court overturning Roe v. Wade.  Hasn't happened.  But the goal is to scare enough people to make them support this court-packing scheme.  And, of course, to scare the sitting justices into thinking twice about voting down the left-wing agenda.  Some say that Chief Justice Roberts has already voted with that threat in mind.

Third, change definitions, something at which the left excels.  Court packing was always understood as adding justices to the Court, as FDR proposed in 1937.  Although he failed, the threat alone was enough to make the Court start upholding some of FDR's New Deal legislation.  Markey and Jones:  "Expanding to 13 justices would undo the Republican court packing of the last five years."  Court packing of the last five years?  Trump filled 3 vacancies on the Court.  That is not court packing.  I am well aware of the failure of the Senate to act on Obama's nominee Merrick Garland.  (See the 9/21/20 post for a further discussion on that.)  But the Democrats are saying all of Trump's appointees constitute court packing.  A big lie.

Fourth, the truth slips out.  Markey and Jones:  "It (the proposed legislation) would restore our right to choose the world we want to live in..."  There it is:  "our right."  The Democrats believe they have the right to control all aspects of society in order to create the world that they want.  

Before she died, liberal member Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that the current 9 members of the Court is a good number.  The Court has had 9 members since 1869.  Stephen Breyer, another liberal member of the Court, has also opposed the idea; and has expressed his concern that the Court would be viewed as being guided by politics rather than by legal principal.  Who else opposed court packing?  Joe Biden, as a US Senator.  As the Constitution does not designate the size of the Court, Biden acknowledged that FDR had the right to propose legislation expanding the Court.  But then Biden said this:  "But it was a bonehead idea.  It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make...it put in question...the most significant body, in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America."  

It is clear that Biden's position has shifted or else he would not have appointed the commission.  As to the justices length of service, that cannot be changed by simple legislation.  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides:  "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior."  That means that federal judges at all levels serve for life, unless they are impeached and convicted.  Or resign.  Therefore, a Constitutional amendment would be required to limit the terms of the justices.  But changing the size of the Court is definitely within the power of Congress. 

As I frequently say, let's look at the big picture.  Currently, the Democrats control the White House.  They control the Senate.  They control the House of Representatives.  And their allies (fellow left-wing Democrats) dominate the mainstream media, social media, academia and Hollywood.  But all that power is not enough.  They must control the Supreme Court as well.  They can not tolerate that conservatives dominate any institution in the country.  It is no wonder that also on their agenda is ending the filibuster, packing the Senate (with D.C. and Puerto Rico added as new states), and taking full control of all elections nationwide.  Maybe you think permanent one party rule is a good idea.  I do not.  A quote from John Dalberg-Acton best sums up the concern:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."    

The Coronavirus 55 Weeks Later - How Do You View The World?

Among my conservative friends, we have discussed on numerous occasions how our liberal friends and family seem unable to "connect the dots."  When we bring up some issue, we are told it is not that important, or it's just an isolated incident, and, of course, what about Trump and the Republicans.  Recently, a lifelong friend in New Jersey and I were exchanging political texts.  He has a self-described "center right" political viewpoint, although I tell him he is liberal.  This is what he thought of my telling him that he is unable to connect the dots:  "Poor, poor Pinhead.  He sees snakes under every rock, hears ghosts in every breeze, evil and danger lurking everywhere...provided of course that Democrats are (the) source.  Trump and the Republicans?  He sees no danger, only their wonderful 'values.'"  (As an aside, I take no offense from his comment.  It's a New Jersey thing.  Often, the language is far harsher.)

So who's right?  Am I not to make any connection between the Democratic push to defund the police with the rising crime rates across the country?  Should I not make any connection between the Democrats' open border policy, with the increase in human smuggling, and the huge surge in minors crossing our borders?  Should I not be concerned about the Democrats' belief that people should primarily be identified by the color of their skin, creating far more division than the hated President Trump did.  What about the Democrats push to take over all state election laws, in an effort to permanently ensure Democratic electoral victories?  Why do Democrats support socialism over capitalism, with their determination to spend unlimited amounts of money, and provide guaranteed incomes to people?  And, of course, we have the Democrats appeasement of terrorists, such as with Iran and the Palestinians.  Then, we have the "cancel culture," one of the biggest evils perpetrated by the Democratic left.  With Democratic policies, danger is always lurking.   

So how are the Democrats policies doing?  It was reported that the Los Angeles County District Attorney has decided to downsize his office's hardcore gang unit.  Why not?  Murders are up 28% in Los Angeles.  Violent crime overall is up 93% when compared with the same period in 2020.  Are other big cities run by Democrats doing well?  New York City's murder rate is up 12% and its violent crime rate is up 42%.  In Atlanta violent crime is up 43% and in Philadelphia it is up 49%.  In Minneapolis the murder rate is up 46%.  

Speaking of legal issues, remember when crossing the border illegally used to actually be illegal?  The Democrats tell us that no one is an "illegal."  We are all people.  That seems to mean that borders are illegal.  Having a sovereign country is just wrong.  Let the whole world in and let the whole world vote.  We were told that Trump had "kids in cages."  Now, we're told that the surge in kids coming is either a natural occurrence during wintertime (a Biden lie) or Trump's fault.  As of February 21, 2021, 9,457 unaccompanied minors were encountered at the border.  That was up 61% from January, 2021, and up 171% from February, 2020.  Biden invited people to come here illegally - and they came.  And they are continuing to come - in droves.  Only recently were United States Senators permitted access to border facilities.  One Senator said that a facility built for 80 people had 709 people.  And he said this:  "literally wall to wall in every one of the little plexiglass cells that they have, and people flooding out into the hallway."  This, in the era of Covid.

And, in the interest of fairness, allow me to point out that the evil way of viewing people through a racial lens, has even infected some Republicans.  Phil Scott is the Governor of Vermont.  And a Republican; although I will point out that the New England Republicans often lean quite left.  In any event, the Governor issued this declaration:  "If you or anyone in your household identifies as Black, Indigenous, or a person of color (BIPOC), including anyone with Abenaki or other First Nations heritage, all household members who are 16 years or older can sign up to get a vaccine."  That is racist, and undoubtedly unconstitutional.  It is extremely divisive.  And evil.  But this Governor has apparently accepted the left-wing concept of "equity"over "equality."  

What about Georgia's new election law?  If you only read, or listen to, the mainstream media, then you know only the lies told by Biden.  Biden said the law is "sick," and "un-American."  And he said the law is "Jim Crow on steroids."  All lies.  Here's Kamala Harris:  "It's all voter suppression by any other name."  Another liar.  How about the lie that voting is going to end at 5pm when people are just getting off of work?  Anyone in line by 7pm gets to vote.  The law actually provides an extra Saturday for voting, between 9am and 5pm, although the local county may extend the voting that day from 7am to 7pm.  But voters in line are not allowed to be given water or food?  Outrageous!  No, just another lie.  Georgia law already prohibited electioneering within a certain distance of the polling location.  This law makes sure that politically affiliated groups will not be showing up with free handouts to voters.  There is nothing to prevent people from bringing their own water bottles, or from having election officials provide a self-service dispenser.  

After Biden said he would support Major League Baseball moving their All Star game this year from Atlanta to another location because of Georgia's voting law, the MLB complied.  Much of Big Business fell in line.  (Does anyone still believe the lie that business is conservative.  Big Businesses are often run by cowards, afraid to stand up to the left-wing mob.)  Delta Airlines CEO said the law "is unacceptable and does not match Delta's values."  Of course, having flights to China is no problem for Delta, given China's stellar human rights record.  Other companies criticizing Georgia include Coca-Cola, American Express and Cisco.  Here's Cisco's CEO:  "Governments should be working to make it easier to vote, not harder."  But that's what Georgia did, while still trying to have some semblance of voter integrity.  

So Georgia has the same voting hours on election day as many other states.  And some blue states (New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware - Biden's state) do not even allow early in-person voting as does Georgia.  Georgia allows no-excuse required for getting a mail-in ballot.  New York State does not.  Are they going to stop playing games in Yankee Stadium?  Growing up in New Jersey I became a New York Yankees fan.  And I have remained so - until now.  Unless Major League Baseball reverses course, I am done with them.  There is only so much abuse that I can tolerate from the left-wing tyrannical mob.  

But we are still left the question - why are Biden and Harris and other Democrats lying in order to make such a big issue of the Georgia voting law?  A couple of reasons.  Lying about the law in a Republican state gives the Democrats and the mainstream media yet another opportunity to claim how terrible the Republican Party is - racist, white-supremacist, supporters of voter suppression, and all the other "deplorable" characteristics one can apply to them.  But there is another reason.  And that is HR1, which passed in the House along a party line vote (one Democrat voted no) of 220 to 210.  Now, the bill is labeled SB1 in the Senate.  The filibuster may block the Democrats ability to get it passed in the Senate.  But, if they call the Republicans racists and white supremacists who want to suppress minority voting rights, then they can argue that all Democrats need to stand strong and united in order to abolish the filibuster and pass this bill. 

What about HR1 and SB1?  It makes federal law supersede state election laws.  Elections have historically been run by the states.  Why the need to change now?  Voter suppression!  Really?  Following an election in which more people voted than ever before?  Biden was the first candidate to get over 80 million votes (81,281,502).  Trump got 74,222,593 votes, more than any prior Republican candidate.  Exactly whose votes were being suppressed?  So why is this federal takeover of every state's election laws needed?  First, the Democrats always believe that the federal government should control all laws, and all aspects of our society.  The idea that the USA is a republic of 50 sovereign states does not sit well with them.  More importantly, HR1 and SB1 will mandate permanent mail-in ballots, lessen voter integrity, and indirectly have the effect of having people here illegally be able to vote, and have 16 year olds be able to vote.  

I'll end on this note.  We had another attack at the Capitol, with one police officer being killed by the driver, who intentionally ran into him and one other officer.  MSNBC originally reported that the driver was a "white male."  And why not?  The same was done with regards to the recent shooter in Boulder, Colorado.  Here was Kamala Harris' niece after the Boulder shooting:  "Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country."  Others gave similar statements.  Except the shooter in Boulder was from Syria.  And the driver killing the police officer at the Capitol was black, and an adherent of the Nation of Islam, led by anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.  But the left-wing narrative is that white men are bad.  But just imagine if a prominent white man said this:  "Violent Black men are the greatest criminal threat to our country."  That person would not get a pass from the mainstream media and the Democrats.                 

The Coronavirus 53 Weeks Later - What Are Biden and the Democrats Up To?

The 3/5/21 Wall Street Journal told us that 115 House Democrats sent a letter to Miguel Cardona, the new Secretary of the Department of Education, seeking a reversal of a policy involving sexual misconduct on college campuses put into place by Betsy DeVos, Trump's Education Secretary.  As described by the Journal, the DeVos policy said that "Title IX can't be used to abridge constitutionally-protected speech; that colleges need to give notice of allegations; that accusers and accused have the right to an advocate and to appeal findings; that they have a right to a hearing on a reasonable timeline; and that witnesses can be cross-examined."  Sounds fair as it is.  Sounds like the way our justice system works.  But that is not how it was before Trump came into office.  Of course women should be heard.  But those accused of acts that may impact their entire lives should have the same due process rights that our criminal justice system provides.  Except, over one-half of House Democrats think otherwise.

How are we doing on immigration.  We know that Biden will not build any more of the border wall.  We know that during the campaign Biden said that the US could easily fit in another 2 million.  Is that the way our immigration system should work?  As long as the country has room for more people we should have open borders?  The Department of Homeland Security earlier this month reported on the number of "land border enforcement encounters" in the southwest US.  In fiscal year 2020, 33,239 unaccompanied alien children crossed the border.  The projection for fiscal year 2021: 117,000.  We now have children in cages, or very cramped quarters.  If Trump was still in the White House the mainstream media would be reporting about a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions.  They would be talking about the cartels and human smuggling.  But not with Biden.  The Biden White House refuses to even call it a crisis, calling it instead a "challenge."   

This is good:  House Democrats actually blocked a measure that would have required illegal immigrants being released into the US to have a negative COVID-19 test.  As of March 8, 185 of those illegal immigrants tested positive.  If you tested COVID positive, however, you better self-quarantine. 

The Democratic controlled House passed H.R. 1, also known as the "For The People Act of 2021."  Its proper name should be "For The Democratic Party Act," as the Democrats seek to maintain permanent control of the Federal government through legislation.  The legislation federalizes state election laws.  Election laws are currently set by each state, with counties running the elections.  H.R. 1 would, among other things, void state I.D. requirements in order to be able to vote.  Mail-in voting would become permanent.  Young people age 16 and above would automatically be registered as long as their name is in any government database.  Such as the Department of Motor Vehicles.  

The bill requires all organizations participating in political activity to disclose the names of donors giving $10,000 or more.  The purpose of such a provision is NOT transparency.  It is to provide an opportunity for left-wing groups to harass and try to ruin the lives of big donors to the Republican Party.  It is not something that conservatives try to do to big Democrat donors, so the House Democrats have no concern about such a measure.  The bill provides for public financing of campaigns for Congress.  Raise $200 and receive 6 times that amount from the taxpayers.  Congressional districts would be drawn by an "independent" commission; although I cannot imagine any such commission being any more "independent" of political influence than the current system of state legislatures drawing the districts. 

In the area of foreign policy and the Middle East, Biden has restored diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority, something Trump halted until such time as the Palestinians agreed to halt their attacks on Israel.  Biden also restored hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinians.  As did Obama, Biden believes the road to peace lies solely with the Palestinians.  Trump realized that the path to peace lies with the wider Arab world, and successfully negotiated the Abraham accords, resulting in the normalization of relations between Israel and four Arab Sunni countries.  

Biden recently signed the COVID relief bill passed by the Congress.  It passed in the Senate, 50-49, on a straight party vote.  Senator Dan Sullivan (Rep., Alaska) had to return home because of a family emergency.  Had he been present, the vote would have been 50-50, but VP Kamala Harris would have broken the tie and the bill would have passed anyway.  The House also voted along party lines, 220-211; although one Democrat voted against the bill.  Which brings me to another, albeit unrelated point.

I have a running disagreement with a reader who is also a life-long friend.  His approach to voting is to vote for the better candidate, regardless of party affiliation.  My approach is to vote straight party line.  I explained that nearly all rank and file members will vote how their party leadership wants them to vote.  Therefore, if you favor the progressive-left agenda you should vote Democrat, and if you favor a conservative agenda you should vote Republican.  Just look at the votes in the House and Senate on the COVID relief bill.  Virtually a straight party line vote.  Senator Joe Manchin (Dem., W.V.) is considered to be one of the most conservative Democratic Senators.  He said he would not vote in favor of the bill absent bipartisan support.  There was none.  He voted in favor anyway.  His excuse was that he got a few token changes to the bill that Republicans wanted.  Yet, there were not any significant changes such that a single Republican was willing to vote in favor.  So much for being a "conservative" Democrat.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the COVID relief bill the "most progressive bill in American history."  Republicans call it a Democratic wish-list.  In a rather interesting provision, $350 billion is is directed as federal aid to States and localities.  But here's the twist:  "A state or territory shall not use the funds to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue."  In other words, the States are told they may not lower their taxes.  That provision is likely unconstitutional, not that the Democrats ever care about the Constitution.  As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in striking down Obama's mandatory Medicaid expansion, Congress may give fiscal incentives to States, but cannot use "economic dragooning that leaves the states with no real option but to acquiesce."  (As reported in the 3/19/21 Wall Street Journal.)

One part of the Covid bill provides for $86 billion to aid states that are, shall we say, short on funds for paying public employee pensions.  The Democratic states promise pension benefits to public employee unions, which return the favor with substantial campaign contributions to those Democrats.  Now the Federal government (we the taxpayers) are helping to bail out those states who are under-funded.  What a system.  

Allow me to end on this unrelated note.  The new Navy pledge/oath is perplexing, to say the least.  It reads as follows:  "I pledge to advocate for and acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every sailor in the Navy.  I pledge to engage in ongoing self-reflection, education and knowledge sharing to better myself and my communities."  Sorry, but this is a bunch of woke psychobabble nonsense.  How about training to be the best sailor you can be, as we have some very real and dangerous enemies in the world.  Otherwise, treat all your fellow sailors with respect, because you're all on the same team.  

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.