I'm Sick Of It! Part III

The Biden White House has been caught in yet another lie.  They initially denied putting any pressure on social media companies (such as Meta/Facebook and Twitter, now X) to censor content that the Administration deemed objectionable.  However, as a result of court ordered discovery, we learn that the Biden White House did improperly pressure social media companies.

In a July 29-30, 2023 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal (by Philip Hamburger and Jenin Yonnes), we are told:  "In April 2021, Facebook (now Meta) executive Nick Clegg wrote to the company's leaders, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg:  'We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.'"  Pressure from the White House and the press, aka the Democrat Party-mainstream media complex.    

The authors continued:  "Mr. Clegg recounted a conversation he had with Andy Slavitt, then White House senior adviser for the Covid response.  Mr. Clegg wrote that Mr. Slavitt was 'outraged' that Facebook hadn't taken down a meme, which joked that 10 years from now trial-lawyer commercials would be soliciting the vaccinated to seek damages."  

No surprise, Facebook caved.  And the trial judge said this:  the actions by the administration were "arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history."  But not to worry.  We can talk about January 6 and Trump.  

We know the Democrats are beside themselves regarding the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The latest broadside attack on the Court comes from 10 of the 11 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  They sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts "demanding that he force Justice Alito to disqualify himself from specific cases based on the interview" (which Justice Alito gave to the WSJ).  

All 9 members of the Court disagree, having previously signed a "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices."  Among other things, the statement includes this:  "Justices have a duty to sit that precludes withdrawal  from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy."  It goes on to state that the individual Justices get to decide recusal issues.  But we know what those 10 senators care about - getting the "right" result in cases before the Court, regardless of the means used.  Once again, the Democrats have tipped their hand, revealing their complete disdain for the Constitution and the separation of powers.  

I want to end with a couple of thoughts that I believe are particularly apropos.  I may be repeating myself, but the best phone call I ever heard to any talk radio show was a woman caller to Dennis Prager.  She was Jewish, but this applies to everyone on the left.  She said her father always listened to Prager and always agreed with him.  Prager is a conservative.  Then Prager asked the caller how her father voted, and without hesitation she said he always voted for Democrats.  You see, notwithstanding the various issues that I have discussed in today's 3 posts, and notwithstanding any Democrat reader saying they completely agree with me, they will always vote Democrat.

For the most part, they suffer no cognitive dissonance.  They often lead conservative lives, and teach their children conservative values.  Doesn't matter.  I was the same way, until I wasn't.  Until I became disgusted by what the Democrat Party was selling.  But today's Democrats show no inclination to engage in that type of self-reflection.  You may tell them they think that the party they belong to is made up of liberal Democrats, but that it's not.  It's a leftist party, with much in common with earlier leftist/communist parties.  It won't matter.  Zero self-reflection.  

Final thought.  In January, 2021, I said that President Trump should be out of politics.  And I meant it.  But what if the 2024 election turns out to be a rematch between Biden and Trump?  I surely wouldn't vote for the corrupt destroyer of the country, Biden.  Would I vote for Trump?  I can't say.  After all, I would not want to risk being prosecuted for conspiracy, like Trump's attorneys.

I'm Sick Of It! Part II

The Democrat Party-mainstream media complex has been highly effective in indoctrinating the public.  After all, the left-wing Democrat Party-media complex is everywhere.  The mainstream media repeats whatever the Biden administration tells them.  The same messaging is in movies and on TV.  Think about who the people are writing the scripts.  And, of course, the colleges and universities are filled with left-wing professors.  But if you really want to control the hearts and minds of the citizenry, start when they are young.  Because, just like in communist countries, the left believes that children belong to the state.

As we know, the latest idea is that parents are not really parents.  The state has the role of parent.  The Governor of Washington State has signed into law a bill that permits minors to get sex reassignment surgery without their parents consent (although I should say, without the consent of the egg donor and the sperm donor).  This idea is part of a movement among the states run by Democrats.  The communists never viewed the family as anything but a threat to the state.  Sounds familiar.  

Here's a good one.  The California State Board of Education has issued new guidelines for the teaching of mathematics.  While they say the guidelines are "voluntary," there is little doubt that teachers and school administrators will feel pressure to follow them.  Here are some of the chapter titles.  "Teaching for Equity and Engagement," Structuring School Experiences for Equity and Engagement," and "Supporting Educators in Offering Equitable and Engaging Mathematics Instruction."  Does anyone seriously believe that the State Board of Education gives a damn about helping students excel in mathematics?    

Here's what the guidelines instruct teachers.  "Be committed to social justice work."  "Equip students with a toolkit and mindset to identify and combat inequities with mathematics."  "Mathematics plays a role in the power structures and privileges that exist within our society."  The Board recommends that Algebra I no longer be taught in middle school.  That will interfere with students being able to take calculus in high school, as the usual track is Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Trigonometry.  You want our country to excel in areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)?  Then speak up!  Write letters to your papers and to the appropriate school authorities.  Because the idea is to dumb down the teaching, not raise everyone up.  Jaime Escalante must be turning over in his grave.  

The indoctrination occurs at all levels of the education system.  The California Community College system has 116 campuses with 1.8 million students.  But the latest rules for professors and staff within that system tells those employees they must adhere to the ideas of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA).  Here are some of the ideas.  "Develop and implement a pedagogy and/or curriculum that promotes a race-conscious and intersectional lens."  "Advocate for and advance DEI and anti-racist goals and initiatives."  Because we don't have enough division in this country.  Let's aim for a race war.  

Here is my favorite:  "Participate in a continuous cycle of self-assessment of one's growth and commitment to DEI and acknowledgement of any internalized personal biases and racial superiority or inferiority."  Someone please tell me how that is not IDENTICAL to the type of reprogramming that has occurred in communist societies.  One professor, with the help of the Institute for Free Speech, has sued, claiming the guidelines cannot be followed without "violating his conscience and surrendering his academic freedom."  

Here are some other gems from these guidelines.  Antiracists "understand that racism is pervasive and has been embedded into all societal structures."  "Persons are either anti-racist or racist."  "Merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality."  The ideology of Whiteness?  No wonder the military is having a difficult time with recruiting.  Who wants to fight for and defend such a horribly racist country.  Let's just turn the keys over to the Chinese, Russians and Iranians.  That'll be an improvement.    

You couldn't pay me enough money to send my kids to public schools and colleges today.   

I'm Sick Of It! Part I

This latest indictment out of Georgia puts the total counts against Trump at 91, with an overall potential prison sentence of 712 1/2 years.  Which I realize is still not enough for many of these sick Democrats.  What's the point of all these indictments?  Yes, they want to see Trump die in prison.  Yes, they want to interfere with his ability to campaign for 2024.  But I believe it is also intended to be a huge distraction from the way the Democrats are destroying this country, with the aid of the mainstream media.  At the very end of "A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part III," I said:  "I am far less concerned with the events of January 6, which is over and done with, than I am with the ongoing Democrat party-mainstream media complex."  Here's why.

Let's start with our southern border.  As of October, 2022, 5.5 million people entered the country illegally from the time Biden took office.  Here was Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, on 3/21/21:  "The border is secure.  The border is closed."  Of course, if you only watch MSNBC or CNN, you would not see what Fox viewers see - hundreds (thousands?) of people crossing illegally every day.  Here's lying Mayorkas again:  "The entire system was dismantled by the prior administration...torn down during the Trump administration."  Right.  Meanwhile, Biden is selling off pieces of the unused border wall that Trump wanted to complete.

And who's in bed with the human smugglers and drug cartels?  Joe Biden.  With the border not being secure, 19,663 pounds of fentanyl have been seized in fiscal year 2023 to date.  The question is, how much has slipped through, resulting in the deaths of tens (hundreds?) of thousands.  

How about crime generally?  For LA County, I took a look at the change over the last ten years, from 2013 to 2022.  According to the LA Almanac, violent crimes increased from 40,384 to 61,016.  Homicides?  From 543 to 739.  Rape?  From 1,752 to 3,869.  Aggravated assaults?  From 21,306 to 38,970.  Who gets the "credit?"  Defund the police Democrats.  Left-wing Democrat district attorneys.  Soft on crime policies, locally and statewide.  LAPD is down to 8,967 sworn officers, lowest in 20 years.  And a ridiculously low number for the second biggest city in the country.  And perhaps the crime statistics are even worse, if people see no reason to report crimes when nothing happens anyway.

Crime is so bad in San Francisco, that the federal government told those working in the federal building there to not come in, to work remotely.  That's nice.  The federal government conceding control of the city to the criminals.  Homeless encampments on the streets of many California cities.  People shooting up or smoking dope, and urinating and defecating on the public streets.  Flash mobs entering retail outlets, grabbing tens of thousands of dollars of merchandise, and running out to waiting cars.  One of the perpetrators involved in the Nordstrom mob looting was caught.  So what?  He was immediately released with no bail.  

Plenty of people and businesses have been moving out of California.  After the 2020 census, California even lost a seat in the House of Representatives for the first time.  But look on the bright side.  The Dems are trying to make the rest of the country look like California.

Recently, some 7-11 employees stopped a shoplifter, with one employee being seen on store video beating the perpetrator with some kind of stick.  Good for those store employees.  They should get some type of reward.  Ah, but this is California.  So along comes a state senator with a proposed state law that would criminalize stopping the shoplifters.  So while the shoplifters are ever more brazen, engaging in their criminal enterprise in broad daylight, the proposal is "let's punish the law-abiding citizens fighting the criminals."  The state senator believes it is a police matter.  How moronic.  Can the police be everywhere all the time?  How about every retail establishment posting a sign "Looters shall be shot on sight."  (For any law enforcement personnel who may be reading this, I'm just kidding.)  

The New York Times' Continued Hatred of Netanyahu and Israel

On page 4 of the July 31, 2023 edition of the Times was a full page story (with pictures) with this headline:  "Democracy May Hang On Israeli Court's Move."  The subheadline is this:  "Parliamentary Challenge to Judiciary Creates Dilemma Familiar in More Autocratic States."  There you have it.  Any change in the judiciary results in Israel becoming an autocratic state.  It's nonsense.

The article then goes on to suggest that with the elimination of the Israeli High Court's ability to review government actions based on the "reasonableness" standard, Israel will become an autocracy.  Like Hungary under Viktor Orban.  (See the March 28 and March 30, 2023 posts for a full discussion of the "reasonableness" standard and other proposed judicial changes in Israel.)  

In our country, Democrats regularly attack the Supreme Court.  Many of us were stunned when Obama openly criticized the Court during his State of the Union speech in 2010, with some of the Justices sitting right in front of him.  Obama:  "With all due deference to the separation of powers (the Citizens United decision) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."  Obama had no respect for the separation of powers - see "A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part I.")  Funny how it was never a concern when unions spent unlimited money in support of Democrat candidates. 

Recall Senator Schumer (D-NY) standing outside the Supreme Court building and threatening the Court regarding the abortion issue:  "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."  Quite astounding to see a US Senator threaten Justices of the Court.  

How about the brief filed by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Richard Durbin (D-Ill) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).  In their brief, these Democrats said the Court was "not well."  They went on to threaten that the Court might be "restructured" if it did not "heal itself."  The Democrats wanted the Court to dismiss a case involving a New York City gun law.  Why wasn't the Court well?  Because now it had a conservative majority.  

Not surprisingly, the Republican senators were united in their pushback against the threat to the Court.  But Whitehouse stood firm, and replied as follows:  "The response to our brief from Republicans and the partisan donor interests driving the Court's polarization shows exactly why it's time to speak out...They want us to shut up about their capture of the Court, we will not."

There you have it.  This brief by the Democrats was filed in a case after the Court had a conservative majority.  Whitehouse and the others were never concerned when the the Democrats/liberals "captured" the Court.  Partisan donor interests?  Is that because no left-leaning partisan donors ever bring cases to the Court?  Please.  Whether it's Israel or the United States, the left is unable to tolerate the Court having a conservative majority.  One of the proposed judicial reform changes in Israel would end the practice of sitting justices (mostly left-wing) having a veto power over who would replace them.  Instead, the Knesset, Israel's elected parliament, would be able to select justices.  

What's the problem with politicians selecting the justices, just as we have in the US?  The problem is that the current government in Israel is a conservative government.  Therefore, the government might be in a position to select conservative justices.  The left, such as the New York Times, can no more tolerate that in Israel than they can here.  

It may shock you to see this from a Harvard law professor (Mark Tushnet) and San Francisco State political science professor (Aaron Belkin).  But here is their letter to President Biden.  "We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution...the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations."  

That is pretty clear - if you don't like the Court's ruling, ignore it.  In all of these cases cited above, the left shows time after time that they have no respect for the Court, and no respect for one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy - the separation of powers.  Biden has already adhered to these professors' advice, by finding a 'workaround" to the Court's decision denying him the power to forgive student loan debt.

Remind me again about who the threat to our democracy really is.    

A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part III

Here is what Michelle Goldberg, one of the leading columnists at The New York Times, thinks about all of the controversy surrounding Joe Biden.  Her Op-Ed in the paper's July 30, 2023 edition, had this headline:  "The Coming Biden Impeachment Farce."  Farce?  She concedes that Hunter is "a deeply compromised figure."  That's easy.  She also concedes that "Hunter Biden almost certainly owed his Burisma gig to his family name..."  Also should be an easy concession.

Maybe she had not yet heard that Devon Archer testified that Joe Biden called into Hunter's dinners and meetings about twenty times.  Because it was necessary to sell "the brand."  But at least one writer at The Times noted:  "It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son's business partners." 

Congressman Daniel Goldman (D-NY) opined that Joe Biden only spoke about "the weather or whatever" with Hunter's business associates.  If you choose to believe that, no matter how ridiculous, fine.  So let's go with that for a minute.  Here's Hunter either on the phone or at a dinner with his business associates, and when Joe arrives, or gets on the phone, now everyone is just talking about the weather?  Okay, I'll stick with that a bit longer.

As Vice President, Joe takes Hunter on a trip to China.  What is Hunter going to talk to everyone about? The weather in China?  And let's not bother to concern ourselves with why Hunter was on that plane.  As this writer previously noted, perhaps it was take your 40 year old son to work day.  Here's a text message from 2017, by Hunter to Chinese businessman Henry Zhao:  "I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled...(and after saying he is waiting for a call back) I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my directions."  What directions might that be - you need to wear a raincoat?  Because, you know, it's all about the weather. 

And wasn't Joe put in charge of Ukraine policy by his then boss, President Obama?  Yes he was.  But Joe did not give a second's thought about how and why his son managed to get on the Board of Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma?  

I, for one, am comforted by the fact that Biden touted his decades of foreign policy experience.  Because he would certainly know if his son was engaging in influence peddling with various foreign actors, some of whom are citizens of enemy countries.  Do you want to argue he was unaware/ignorant, or that he had such poor judgment he did not think it was a big deal.  Even after officials in the Obama administration warned him about Hunter's involvement with Burisma.    

But again, giving every conceivable benefit of the doubt to Joe Biden, and assuming Hunter set up all those shell corporations just for fun, and assuming millions of dollars were paid to Hunter because he is such a nice guy, I still have a few questions.

Was Joe really unaware of the appearance of a conflict of interest, of an appearance of impropriety?  Did he just not care?  And why is the mainstream media rushing to make excuses for this apparent influence peddling, instead of engaging in some investigative journalism?  What would the reaction be if we switched the names Joe Biden and Hunter Biden for Donald Trump and Don Jr?  

I am far less concerned with the events of January 6, which is over and done with, than I am with the ongoing Democrat party-mainstream media complex.

      

A Tale of Two Presidents, Part II

Here was the August 3, 2023 headline atop the New York Times' editorial that day:  "A PRESIDENT ACCUSED OF BETRAYING HIS COUNTRY."   Yes, it was all caps.  And, as an aside, I think it is rather ironic/comical that the Times feels they need to explain that the Editorial Board is "A group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values."  A little defensive, are they?

The Times tells us that the prosecutor, Jack Smith, was "a veteran prosecutor on the International Criminal Court who has prosecuted far more brutal and popular leaders than Mr. Trump..."  Brutal?  Are there allegations that Trump had people tortured or killed?  But let's talk about about Jack Smith for a minute.

As head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, he pursued, unsuccessfully, a case against John Edwards.  Recall that Edwards was the former Senator who ran for president in 2008.  Thereafter, Smith prosecuted Edwards, alleging violations of campaign finance laws.  What exactly?  Using campaign funds to hide his extra-marital affair.  Sound familiar?

Smith also prosecuted former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for violations of the federal bribery statute.  In that case, Smith was successful at the trial level.  But the US Supreme Court felt differently about this prosecution, and reversed the conviction.  And they did so unanimously, in an 8 to 0 vote.  Yes, it can be said that McDonnell should not have accepted certain gifts, especially given his prior interactions with some of the donors.  

But, as the Court said:  "Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.  The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns - whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm."

The Court explained:  "The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their annual outing to a ballgame.  Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse."  

And who can forget the IRS and Lois Lerner allegedly targeting conservative 501(c)(3) groups, auditing them for improper political participation, and seeking to end their tax exempt status.  Many will recall that Lerner later apologized for targeting Tea Party groups.  But Jack Smith saw things differently.  Said Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH):  "Jack Smith was looking for ways to prosecute the innocent Americans that Lois Lerner targeted during the IRS scandal."

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problems with a zealous prosecutor targeting organized crime, terrorists and the like.  But I have a serious concern with a prosecutor like Smith, who seems to look for ways to extend the law in a manner that should make all of us wary.  As one of the attorneys involved in the Watergate scandal famously said:  "If the government wants to get you, they can find a way to get you," or words to that effect.

But is that what we should want in prosecutors?  Seeking to extend the law to reach as many Americans as possible, in order to send them to prison.  Do we even want that with regards to politicians who, most would agree, are notorious for, to be kind, stretching the truth.  As Kimberly Strassel wrote in her Op-Ed, regarding the Trump prosecution:  "Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims?  There aren't enough prisons to hold them all."   

A Tale Of Two Presidents, Part I

Not a big surprise.  As requested by the January 6 Committee, and even by Joe Biden (yes, the New York Times reported that highly inappropriate comment by the sitting president, saying the former president should be indicted, and the DOJ got the message), former President Trump has been indicted yet again.  This time, the indictment obtained by federal prosecutor Jack Smith, alleges obstruction of an official proceeding, and 3 conspiracy counts - conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights (in this case, voting rights).  All the counts involve the activities that occurred on January 6.  

No, he is not charged with "insurrection."  No, he is not charged with conspiracy involving the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers.  The conspiracy counts involve taking legal advice from his attorneys.  (You attorneys out there better be careful in what you advise your clients.)  This indictment is yet another "unprecedented" action taken against the former president.  With the 34 counts involving payment of "hush money," another 40 involving the documents at Mar-a-Lago, these 4 bring the total to 78.

With more indictments likely to follow, it is quite clear that the Democrats want to see Trump rot away in prison for the remainder of his life.  Has anyone else been the subject of so much persecution (that's right I said it - persecution) in our country's history?  Keep in mind that it all started when Trump took that escalator ride down inside Trump Tower in 2015, announcing his candidacy for president.  

Does Trump have any defenses to these latest charges?  Yes, he does.  He has the defense of the First Amendment, with even the prosecutor conceding that Trump was allowed to assert, rightly or wrongly, that he won the election.  But it goes beyond that.  As explained by attorneys David Rivkin, Jr. and Lee Casey, in an August 3, 2023, Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, presidents have absolute immunity from both civil and criminal liability for "actions taken in the execution of the office."  

Rivkin and Casey explain that the prosecutor's focus on whether Trump honestly believed the election was stolen from him, is misplaced.  "The proper question is whether the actions he allegedly took after the 2020 election fall objectively within 'the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.'"  Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald (1982), Rivkin and Casey tell us that "the determination of whether a president was acting in his official capacity couldn't be based on either motivation or the legality of his actions, as that would 'subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose.'" 

In case anyone has any doubt about this, Kimberly Strassel in her August 4, 2023 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, explains it this way.  Did Joe Biden have an honest belief that he could single-handedly wipe out nearly a half a trillion dollars in student loan debt?  Biden told us he didn't:  "I don't think I have the authority to do it by signing with with a pen."  Then Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Biden he didn't have that power:  "People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness.  He does not."  But he did it anyway.  

And when Congress asserted their Constitutional authority over the power of the purse (denying student loan forgiveness), Biden vetoed the measure.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court told Biden he did not have that kind of authority.  Anybody seriously expect Biden to be prosecuted for his illegal action, either now or when he is out of office?  How about when Obama decided that he had the power to decide when the Senate was in recess, so that he could make appointments without the "advice and consent" of the Senate.  The Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling he had no such power.  Was he prosecuted?  Of course not.  

The difference is that Biden and Obama are Democrats.  But, some say, Trump's actions were a threat to democracy.  (We'll leave aside Biden's and Obama's blatant disregard for the "separation of powers," one of the cornerstones of our democracy.)  As Rivkin and Casey point out, the Constitution requires that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  Why is it not a defense for Trump to say that he was doing just that, as it appeared to him, and others, that the voting laws were not being followed.