Pelosi Gives Biden A Win

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans Bounce Back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

The Biden Administration and Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Speech Really Free?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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