What Happens When The Power of the State Enforces Left-Wing Ideology

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our country.  The only question is whether it is too late to reverse course.  I recently heard a very disturbing story from another attorney.  He reported that another attorney he knows was investigated by the State Bar of California. This attorney's offense?  Apparently she posted on social media last year about a proposed abortion bill, saying that Democrats are pushing a bill that would allow abortion up to the due date.  I did a little research and looked at California's Proposition 1 and a proposed US House bill.  

Both measures allowed abortions up to the date of fetal viability.  But both measures also allowed abortion up to the due date in order to protect the health and life of the mother.  (I am not arguing the merits of these measures.  I have extensively discussed abortion in earlier posts.)  Here was an attorney making a point.  Technically, these measures do allow abortions up to the due date, at least under certain circumstances.  

Here are my questions.  Who reported this attorney to the State Bar, and why?  Was it a left-wing troll who supports abortion on demand?  Here is another question?  Why would the State Bar even investigate such a complaint?  Are there no longer any First Amendment protections?  Is there no right to express opinions that are contrary to the prevailing left-wing ideology?  I was told that this matter was dismissed by the State Bar, but without prejudice, and with a warning to the "offender" not to post videos.  Why not?  Why would this attorney lose her First Amendment rights?

In my March 5, 2023 post ("I'm Back After a Two Month Hiatus"), in the fifth paragraph, I discuss the State Bar pursuing charges against attorney John Eastman for advice he gave to Donald Trump in connection with the 2020 election.  I called it a "dangerous incursion by the Bar into politics."  And, I said "...it would appear to be the Left targeting yet another conservative."   

In a story out of Missouri that I read on Fox, it was reported that two teachers sued their school districts regarding mandatory diversity training.  Apparently, the "training" pushed the idea that America is systemically racist.  And, if you believe America is "color blind," that is a white supremacist idea.  The teachers were not seeking a monetary judgment; rather, they sought a ruling on the constitutionality of them having to agree with the "training."

The teachers lost.  Fox reported that the Obama appointed judge awarded the district $313,000 in attorney's fees.  Here are my questions.  How, on a teacher's salary, would these teachers be expected to be able to pay those fees?  Doesn't such an award act to deter others from seeking legal redress when left-wing ideology is being pushed on them?  And, isn't true diversity in an educational setting a diversity of ideas?    

It was not that long ago that I wrote about the letter sent by the left-wing National School Boards Association to the Biden Administration, complaining about parents showing up at local school board meetings.  These parents were complaining about some of the garbage being taught to their children.  But, in a nod to this left-wing organization, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States, issued a memorandum to the Director of the FBI, the Director of the US Attorneys, and to the assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department.  The memo alleged that there was a "disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers and staff..."  (See the 10/17/21 post "The True Threat To Our Democracy - The Tyranny Of The Democrats, Part I (Biden Goes After Parents), for a further discussion of this issue.)

Here are my questions.  Was this such a national problem that the Attorney General needed to engage the full weight of the federal government to investigate protesting parents at local school board meetings?  Were the local authorities unable to deal with any unruly parents?  Again, what kind of chilling effect did this have on the willingness of parents to speak up for their children, and for the values they want instilled in them?  Was this just another example of state action on behalf of a left-wing organization?  

AG Garland:  "Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation's core values."  That might be more believable coming from Garland if he pursued charges against Senator Schumer for threatening Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  It might be more believable if he put an end to the illegal protesting by pro-abortion protesters outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  But, then again, those protesters and Schumer are people on the Left.  What would be the result if they were conservatives?

I understand that earlier administrations improperly used the FBI.  But we are seeing a trend now.  When Obama was in office, the IRS was caught investigating conservative 501(c)(3) organizations and conservative individuals.  Let's not forget Obama's targeting of reporters as well.  This is the issue:  as the Left has increasingly taken over elected offices and government agencies, are they using their powers in a blatantly political way, on behalf of left-wing causes?  Is the government and its various agencies at all levels now targeting you if you are a conservative?  Will my blog be targeted next?  

   

The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Others), Part II

The indictment of "former president Donald Trump is a sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive."  (WSJ 3/31/23 editorial)  As I said in Part I, none of that is a concern for Democrats.

The New York Times has a habit of letting Op-Ed writers speak for their editorial board.  Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen, wrote an Op-Ed in the 4/5/23 edition of the paper.  After laying out why they believe the case against Trump is "strong," they ended with this:  "...one thing is clear:  Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution.  He is being treated as any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him."  Any other New Yorker?  What other New Yorker is a former president of the United States?  I think they call that "ignoring the elephant in the room."

"The largest criminal investigation in history isn't to find those responsible for 100,000 deaths a year from fentanyl but to track down every single person who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, regardless of whether they committed any violence.  The message:  if you are on the political side of those in power, you get released; if you are a dissident you get prosecuted."  (Op-Ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein in the 4/6/23 WSJ)  Let me clear.  I never did anything but condemn the events of January 6.  But the dual system of justice in our country is something that greatly bothers me. 

In the 4/5/23 Los Angeles Times, an Op-Ed by LZ Granderson said this:  "The allegation is that Trump and his company falsely reported the hush money as a payment for legal services, rather than as reimbursement to the lawyer who paid Daniels.  Specificially, 11 counts are related to invoices from the lawyer, 11 related to checks from Trump and 12 related to ledger entries."  So much to say about this.  Trump paid that money as part of a civil settlement.  In no way was it a campaign expenditure.  Even it is considered to be such, he should merely be fined, as was Hillary Clinton for her misreporting.  (See Part I)

Additionally, 34 counts?  Really?  I have always found this type of overreach by the government to be heavy handed.  All these counts basically arise out of a single act.  But we know why they overcharge.  The idea is to be able to threaten the defendant with a million years in prison.  Slight exaggeration, Trump would "only" face 136 years in prison if convicted on all counts.  Even an innocent defendant can be frightened into taking a plea for a shorter sentence.   

Here are a couple of excerpts from letters to the editor, in the 4/3/23 WSJ.  "If Mr. Trump broke laws - no matter how petty - he must be subject to prosecution and public recriminations for doing so."  Maybe we can also get Trump for jaywalking.  I wonder how many excuses the writer made for the Clintons and the Bidens.  Here's another:  "Maybe prosecute the people who avoid paying taxes or those who ripped off their fellow Americans with fraudulent Covid claims.  Or, here's a novel idea, do something about illegal immigration and school violence.  Indicting Mr. Trump is the least of this country's problems and smacks of "gotcha" politics."  But what fun is prosecuting real criminals when they can go after Trump, a man they hate more than they do Putin, Xi and the Ayatollah combined.

The editorial in the 4/5/23 WSJ ended with this (as will I):  "The question that keeps smacking us upside the head is whether this case would have been brought against any defendant not named Donald Trump.  It's hard to avoid answering no."  That pretty much says it all.  Anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous at best.     

 

The Unprecedented Indictment of a Former President (A Few Comments By Me), Part I

I'll start with this.  President Trump has been hounded from the day he announced his candidacy for president.  No other president has been treated the way he has.  Remember the idea of a "honeymoon" for a president's first 100 days in office?  Take a look at the March 12, 2017 post ("The Deposing of an American President"), and you will see the various ways the Democrats were suggesting to remove Trump from office, including violent actions and military involvement.  This was less than two months into the Trump presidency.  

When those ideas (as set forth in that post) never came to fruition, the Dems came up with the Russian collusion hoax, the first BS impeachment, the second BS impeachment, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, and now the indictment.  I have zero doubt that the Democrats coordinated all these attacks on Trump.  

The fact that this is an unprecedented indictment of a former president is of no concern for the Democrats.  The Democrats do not care about precedent.  They do no care if their actions are good for the country.  The Democrats act by one "rule" only - the ends justify the means.  Recall when then Majority Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said on the Senate floor when Mitt Romney was running for president, that he knew Romney did not pay taxes.  It was a complete lie, of course.  When asked years later if he wanted to apologize to Romney, because it was shown that Romney did pay taxes, Reid replied to this effect:  "he didn't win, did he?"  That was all that mattered.  Helping to defeat Romney and reelect Obama.  The truth be damned, because the ends justify the means for Democrats. 

Democrats never have a problem with taking unprecedented actions.  Obama criticized Supreme Court Justices who attended his State of the Union address, because he disagreed with their decision in the Citizens United case.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if they dared to rule on the Dobbs abortion case contrary to the way Schumer wanted.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi also did not care about precedent when she denied the minority party the right to select members of their choice to be on the January 6 committee.  Speaker Pelosi did not care about precedent when she rushed the second impeachment vote against Trump without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first.  Actual evidentiary hearings where the accused gets to present evidence in their defense.  So many unprecedented actions by the "ends justify the means" Democrats.

There is no doubt that we have two separate systems of justice in this country.  Can anyone seriously doubt that?  What happened to Hillary Clinton with regards to her misreporting the money she spent on "research" for the phony Steele dossier, which was used to target Trump for 2 1/2 years?  The Federal Election Commission fined her and the DNC $113,000.  Was she prosecuted by anyone?  Of course not.  Was her home raided?  Of course not.  Why isn't Bragg prosecuting her for her falsifying records, just like he is doing to Trump?  Was she prosecuted for having a private and unsecured email server in her home while she was Secretary of State, with (I imagine) a Top Secret security clearance?  Of course not.  Was she prosecuted over her destruction of possible evidence by destroying various electronic devices and deleting 33,000 emails?  Of course not.  Was the Clinton Foundation prosecuted for possible influence peddling when many donations were made while Hillary was Secretary of State - including from foreign powers?  Of course not.

How about Hunter Biden getting that cushy, high paying job at Burisma, for which he had zero experience?  His only "experience" was that his father was Vice President of the United States at the time.  Influence peddling?  Now, Hunter is a world class and world famous artist, with his paintings going for $500,000.  Who knew?  My guess...it is a money laundering scheme to buy influence with the president...from unknown buyers.  Funny how Hunter will not reveal the names of the buyers.  And, let's not forget Hunter's trip to China with his father, then the Vice President.  As I've said before, was it take your forty something year old to work day?  The laptop?  What about it?  Still awaiting a prosecution of Hunter and "the big guy." 

When Trump, and those at his rallies, would yell "lock her up" with regards to Clinton, I was greatly opposed.  I said what a bad idea it is to have our country start locking up political opponents...even though I believed Clinton was guilty of numerous crimes.  She was running for president against Trump, and Trump had no business saying "lock her up."  Now, we have a Democrat District Attorney indicting the leading Republican candidate for president against the sitting president of this DA's party.  Additionally, DA Bragg wants the trial to begin next January, just before the start of primary season.  An unprecedented indictment against your opposing party's possible candidate for president.  I am more than a little dismayed and disappointed by all those who favor this indictment and do not see the obvious political nature of it.  

I have now changed my position on indicting political opponents.  I want to see the Clintons indicted now.  I want to see the Bidens indicted now.  James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, says he has been contacted by two District Attorneys (one in Tennessee and one in Kentucky) who want information to assist them in the prosecution of Biden.  If Comer and the Republicans do not do so, then shame on them.  The result will be more Trump family members being indicted and more people affiliated with President Trump being indicted.  The Republicans need to make it clear that they will not sit idly by while the Democrats seek to destroy the Republican Party.

A final thought.  Biden ran as the great unifier.  Once in office, he has been anything but a unifier, with his nonstop attacks on Republicans and MAGA Republicans (who number in the tens of millions).  So we know that Biden is a liar.  However, he can redeem himself by pardoning Trump.  He would not only put an end to this divisive indictment, but he would show the American people that he believes they should be the ones who determine the next president.  He would demonstrate his belief in democracy, something he always claims to champion.

Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part II

Here are some highlights of the proposed changes.  1.  Appointment of justices.  Currently, there is a selection committee made up of 9 people.  Three are High Court justices, two are members of the bar, two are Knesset members and two are ministers.  For lower court judges, only a majority vote is required.  For High Court justices, an affirmative vote of 7 of the 9 is required.  Given that the High Court justices tend to be left wing, they alone can prevent a conservative government from being able to get their choices appointed to the High Court.

The proposed change is for a committee of 11 members, consisting of the Minister of Justice, 2 other ministers appointed by the government in power, the chair of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, the chair of the Knesset State Control Committee, the chair of the Knesset Committee, the President of the Supreme Court, 2 other judges from the High Court and 2 public representatives chosen by the Minister of Justice, with at least one being an attorney.  

Seven votes would be needed to select a justice to the High Court.  With the government being able to select 8 of the committee members, the 3 left wing justices would not be able to block a conservative government from appointing conservative judges to the High Court.  And therein lies the rub.  The overwhelming majority of those protesting are no doubt leftists.  They are disturbed that elected officials (members of the Knesset) will be able to appoint justices.  That is supposed to be the end of democracy in Israel.  If they're interested, elected officials in the US are the ones who appoint and approve federal judges, including for the Supreme Court.  And the Left here acted as if it was the end of democracy when the Republican Trump was able to nominate 3 justices to SCOTUS.  That is why they came up with all kinds of allegations against the Trump nominees.  

2.  Judicial Review.  Ever since the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established for itself the right of judicial review - the right to declare statutes and administrative actions to be unconstitutional.  The Constitution did not expressly afford that right to the Supreme Court.  There was a similar case in Israel giving their High Court the same right of judicial review.  The current proposal would not allow the High Court to declare any of Israel's Basic Laws to be invalid.  

That makes sense to me.  It would be as if the Supreme Court here could declare a constitutional provision to be invalid.  However, the proposed change does go one step further.  If the Knesset passes a law that might be contrary to a Basic Law, it would require a full quorum of the High Court (not just a panel) to consider the validity of such a statute.  And it could only be declared invalid with a vote of 80% of the court.  I can see why people might object to that provision.

3.The end of the "unreasonableness" standard.  The High Court justices have taken it upon themselves to declare certain government actions to be "unreasonable" and therefore invalid.  They can do that if they believe the government has failed to consider fundamental values and human rights.  That is far too broad a standard.  It essentially allows the High Court to weigh the wisdom of government actions.  The people elect members of the Knesset, and those elected officials decide what is good for the country.  Absent a clear violation of the Basic Laws, the courts should not be making those decisions.  (Yes, there are exceptions in the US, especially where certain government actions do not meet the "strict scrutiny" standard as applied to discrimination.  However, the "unreasonableness" standard is simply too broad.)

4.  The override provision.  Arguably, this is the most controversial of all the proposals.  Just as SCOTUS interprets our Constitution, the High Court in Israel interprets their Basic Laws.  The proposed change would allow the Knesset to reject the court's interpretation, and also to allow the Knesset to overturn a High Court decision declaring a law invalid.  The procedure is somewhat complicated.  In certain instances, the Knesset may override the court decision by a majority vote (61 members).  In other instances an override could only occur if 2 Knessets agree on the override.  

In other words, just as we are now in the 118th Congress, which is for two years, there would have to be an intervening election, with a new Knesset, also agreeing on the override.  

(Most of the information above from an analysis on Wikipedia.)

Israel's Proposed Judicial Reform - Would It Really Be The End Of Democracy In Israel? Part I

Some of you may have been following the street protests in Israel over the Netanyahu government's proposed reforms to their judicial system.  People have been out in the streets in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands.  Before doing my research on this issue, I admittedly had a viewpoint.  First, the Israeli High Court has a reputation for being one of the most leftwing in the Western world.  Second, who is doing the objecting?  It is overwhelmingly the Left - in Israel, in the Biden Administration and in other Western countries, our mainstream media and Leftwing Jewish organizations in the USA.  Why?  Because the conservatives are in control of the government.  Sound familiar? 

Third, as I have said before, the Left is the same everywhere.  They use the same language.  When Donald Trump was able to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court, the Left went crazy.  Because of the "threat to democracy," the system needed to be changed according to many on the Left.  Term limits for the justices.  Increasing the size of the Court so that Biden could appoint a sufficient number of new justices to restore control of the Court to the Left.  The Left believes they should have the sole right to control the Courts.   

Some background.  Israel does not have a formal written constitution.  It has a series of "Basic Laws" that form the equivalent of their constitution.  These laws cover everything from the organization and powers of the government, to individual human rights.  

There are Basic Laws describing the function of the Knesset, Israel's parliament; as well as describing the role of the president.  (In the US, the president is both the head of the executive branch and the head of state.  In Israel, the prime minister is the head of the government and the president is the head of state.)  

The Basic Laws give the government the power to print currency, make payments and establish a comptroller.  The Israeli Defense Forces are deemed to be the sole legitimate military force for the country, and is under civilian control.  (Without getting into the details, during the British control of Mandatory Palestine, there were various Jewish militia groups fighting to protect the Jewish people of Palestine.  During the war for independence, P.M. Ben Gurion ordered an attack against a ship controlled by the Irgun, one of those militia groups.  Therefore, designating the IDF as the sole legitimate military force was of some significance.) 

The Basic Laws also declared Jerusalem to be the capital city of Israel, and gave all religions rights.  The Basic Laws also affirmed everyone's right to pursue the occupation of their choice.  Certain human rights were also enunciated, including the rights to travel, to speech, and to be free from unlawful searches.  

The judiciary was also established, including procedures for appointing judges.  

The most controversial Basic Law was a relatively recent one from 2018.  Of course, the protests came from the Left and their allies in the Western world.  This Basic Law declared Israel to be the nation state of the Jewish people.  (People who protested were apparently not offended by the 56 Muslim countries, at least 26 of which have Islam as their official religion.)  This 2018 Basic Law made Hebrew the official language of Israel.  However, Arabic has a special status, and is on all currency along with Hebrew.  (Who believes a future Palestinian state would put Hebrew on their currency?)  Finally, this Basic Law established the official national holidays and national symbols. 

Antisemitism Continues Its Rise

Recently, the Chicago PD warned that some neo-Nazi groups were planning a "Day of Hate" for Saturday, February 25, Saturday being the Jewish Sabbath.  CPD explained that the threat was a nationwide threat, with the goal of targeting Jewish institutions.  This was no idle threat.  The local channel 4 news in L.A. reported a few months ago that religious hate crimes were up 29%, with 74% of the attacks targeting Jews.  

And, very recently on two consecutive days, February 15 and 16, two Jewish men were shot after leaving two different synagogues in the Pico-Robertson area of West L.A.  That area has a large Jewish population.  The L.A. Times reported that the alleged shooter had been a dental student, who, in 2022, sent threatening, antisemitic messages to a fellow student.  One message said:  "I want you dead, Jew."  The Times said that the alleged shooter had been on the FBI's "radar" prior to the shootings, for all the good that did.  Thankfully, the two victims survived their attacks.  

On Friday, a friend who also reads the blog, sent me a link to an article by Resume Builder.  The article reported that 26% of hiring managers "say they are less likely to move forward with Jewish applicants."  The main reason given was that Jews have too much power and control, tied with the idea that Jews claim to be the chosen people.  (This idea of being the chosen people has nothing to do with thinking that Jews, as a people, are somehow better than other people.  The idea is that Jews were chosen to be G-d's ambassadors to the world.  Jews often joke, "G-d, couldn't you have picked some other group for this honor?"  After all, being the chosen people has not exactly protected Jews from countless efforts to annihilate them.)  Anyway, the article acknowledges it is not a scientific poll that is necessarily representative of the general population.

However, an actual scientific poll done by NORC at the University of Chicago along with the One8 Foundation, was conducted on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  Some of the beliefs held by much of the general population are rather disturbing.  39% said Jews were more loyal to Israel than to America.  26% said Jews have too much power in the business world.  And 20% said Jews have too much power in the US.  85% believe at least one anti-Jewish trope (I would say stereotype), with that number being "only" 61% in 2019.  

It is clear from at least two of the findings, how unwarranted criticisms of Israel end up affecting attitudes here.  The study found that young adults have significantly greater anti-Israel attitudes than older adults.  This is not surprising, given the widespread anti-Israel messaging we see on college campuses and in the mainstream media.  And 40% agree at least somewhat that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.  40%!  I must have missed the concentration camps.  

Sadly, some of these anti-Israel attitudes are held by left-wing American Jews.  One Jewish attorney that I often hear from, would not agree that Trump did one single thing for Israel or the Jewish people.  Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital city, acknowledging that every country has the right to declare their own capital.  Trump acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the strategic Golan Heights.  Trump refused to continue funding of the Palestinian Authority (PA) until such time as they they stopped using those funds to support terrorism and the killing of Jews.  On the other hand, Biden has reinstated funding to the PA, having given them nearly $1 billion in his two years in office.  Not only would this Jewish attorney not denounce Biden for funding Jew killers, he acknowledged that he will vote for Biden again in 2024.

This same individual said he would vote for Obama a third time if he could.  I said that Obama hated Israel.  He said that was a bunch of crap.  I then replied that I would not tell him all the ways, by his words and deeds, that Obama demonstrated his dislike of Israel.  I suggested he do a little research on his own.  But I did remind him of Obama refusing to veto the completely anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution of December, 2016.  (See the 12/24/16 post, "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.")  Now, Biden, following Obama's lead, had his UN Ambassador vote for another one-sided anti-Israel resolution.  "The Security Council reiterates that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines..."  Of course, it's never the Palestinians repeated refusal to accept a state of their own, as long as Israel still exists, that is the problem.  Nor the repeated rocket/missile attacks and terror attacks on Israeli civilians, that is the problem.  

And here is a case in point of how young adults are exposed to anti-Israel ideas.  Princeton University is one of the elite universities in the country.  Recently, the English Department at Princeton hosted someone described as a "pro-Palestinian activist and journalist."  Here are some of the things this individual has allegedly said.  He has allegedly said "Zionists harvest organs of the martyred (Palestinians) and feed their warriors our own." He has allegedly compared Israelis to Nazis, and has allegedly supported "killing every m.....f...... Zionist."  (As reported by Fox.)  This is what passes for an intellectual exchange of ideas when it comes to Israel.    

I'm Back After a Two Month Hiatus

It's time to catch up on some news.  So much has happened in the last two months, it would be impossible to address everything.  So here are some highlights.  Let's start with President Biden's state of the union address.  No surprises, as he touted how great his administration is.  That is to be expected.  But, demonstrating how the Left believes there can never be too much government, he discussed making sure airlines had no hidden charges, reducing what banks may charge for overdraft fees, reducing credit card late fees, eliminating surprise "resort fees" at hotels, and putting a cap on service fees for tickets to concerts and sporting events.  Sure, the public will like that.  But where does government interference in business end?

Apparently, government involvement should never end for some on the Left.  Here is Rep. Cori Bush, Squad member (Dem. - Mo.):  "These social media companies have shown themselves unfit to maintain the digital public square with almost universal usage and vast power."  "...we need to make sure that they operate for the public good and not the private interests."  Conservatives would agree that the censoring of conservatives on social media has been a problem.  But who would decide what constitutes the "public good?"  Cori Bush?  No, thank you.  

What is Rep. Bush's solution?  "We need to invest in better alternatives to big tech.  And we need to establish public ownership and control to ensure these platforms serve everyone fairly."  There it is - public/government ownership.  

Nikole Hannah-Jones, of the "1619 Project" fame, was having an exchange of ideas with a Xi Van Fleet, a woman who survived Mao's China.  Xi was trying to convince Hannah-Jones of American exceptionalism, which is imbued with the idea of natural rights.  Xi argued that that idea allowed the US to abolish slavery, end Jim Crow, and establish a society where people like Xi and Hannah-Jones were able to succeed.  Being no great fan of America, Hannah-Jones said:  "I'm afraid your vision of America does not match the reality."  Not surprising from a Leftist; yet ironic from a woman whose "1619 Project" has been widely debunked.

The State Bar of California has brought charges against attorney, and former Trump adviser, John Eastman.  The Bar is seeking Eastman's disbarment.  The Bar asserts that Eastman assisted Trump in "executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states."  I don't like it.  But let me be clear.  I accepted that Biden won on election night.  And I'm confident that I would disagree with much of the advice given by Eastman to Trump.  But this is a dangerous incursion by the Bar into politics.  And to many, such as myself, it would appear to be the Left targeting yet another conservative.    

Here is yet more Leftist thinking, this time out of northern California.  This is from the Acalanes Union High School District, which is just to the east of Berkeley and Oakland.  There was an event being held for employees who are people of color.  The Director of Student Support Equity and Inclusion had this to say:  "Be reminded that we have avoided inviting people that are not of color as there remains feelings of uneasiness and mistrust and we need this to be a safe space for our people of color."  I'm old enough to remember the Civil Rights movement.  The idea was to oppose segregation and seek integration.  Clearly, those days are over.  

On the good news front, the City of Chicago held a mayoral election on February 28, and voted out the incompetent incumbent, Lori Lightfoot.  As none of the other candidates received enough votes to win outright, the top two vote getters will be in a runoff election on April 4.  Finishing with 33.5% of the votes was Paul Vallas, a white man who had been the head of the Chicago public schools.  In second place was Brandon Johnson, a black man and Cook County commissioner.  Vallas pledged to get tough on crime.  Johnson, apparently, is not a fan of traditional policing.  Both of these men are Democrats, hardly surprising for the City of Chicago.  Lightfoot received only 17% of the vote.  The real test will be how those 17% vote in the runoff.  I am always amazed when people will vote for more crime, often for the simple reason that they will automatically vote for the person with a "D" after their name.  (Although, as noted, both candidates in this race have that "D.")