Elsewhere in the News

Donny Deutsch has been a television commentator and advertising executive.  This is what he said on MSNBC after the mass shooting in Buffalo:  "Brand every Republican"...as the party of "racist, violent replacement theory."  Just despicable.  How about we brand every Democrat as a liar, willing to say anything, and engage in any demagoguery, in order to make a political point.

Although, I wonder if our President is that far from siding with Deutsch.  Here is Biden:  "This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in recent American history."  Hmm.  Occupy Wall Street.  Black Lives Matter.  Antifa.  

In Kiel, Wisconsin, some Middle School kids (age 13 years) are being accused of Title IX sexual harassment.  No, not rape, not improper touching, not even calling the "victim" a nasty word.  Their offense?  Not using the desired pronoun.  The "victim" wished to be referred to as "they" and "them."  I do not know if the offenders mocked the individual in question, or repeatedly bullied the other child in some way.  I do know that these school administrators are prone to act too hastily in dealing with these situations, when perhaps a sit down with the involved parties might solve the matter.  But calm reflection and counseling seems to be the road less traveled.   

Robin Abcarian is a columnist at the LA Times.  In today's paper was an Op-Ed by her decrying the overturning of a 2018 California Law mandating that publicly held corporations have a certain number of female directors on their boards.  An LA County Superior Court Judge declared the law to be an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection clause under the state constitution.  Some of you may wonder why it's the government's business to dictate a corporate board's makeup.  So do I.  Are women always to be victims, unable to accomplish on their own?

I am proud to say that one of my daughters works for an organization called "Chief."  Chief bills itself as a women's empowerment group.  Here are a few lines from their website.  "Chief is the only private membership network focused on connecting and supporting women executive leaders."  "Chief drives women to the top and keeps them there."  "Chief is changing the face of leadership."  How about that?  Changing the face of leadership without government involvement.  

I recently had an email exchange with a fellow Jewish colleague who happens to be on the left.  He assured me that any anti-Israel sentiment in the Democrat Party is on the fringe only.  Let's see.  Recently, President Biden appointed Karine Jean-Pierre to replace Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary.  Jean-Pierre has criticized AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group) as having "severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric."  She also accused AIPAC of using "anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric."  (Full disclosure.  I have donated to AIPAC, as well as to ZOA, the Zionist Organization of America.)  

First, I do not think anyone who has the position of White House press secretary can be said to be on the fringe.  Unless, we also agree that the President being served by that press secretary is also on the fringe.  Second, it is well known that AIPAC is nonpartisan.  It supports both Republican and Democratic candidates for congress.  AIPAC has only one goal - support for the continued existence of the State of Israel.  Democratic leaders and elected officials regularly attended the yearly AIPAC conventions in the past.  It has only been since the party has become increasingly anti-Israel that attendance by Democratic officials has declined.  

Recently, the CUNY (City University of New York) School of Law faculty voted to support a student resolution supporting the anti-Israel BDS movement.  (BDS stands for Boycott, Divest and Sanction.)  The resolution accused Israel of war crimes; and said that the exchange programs with Haifa University and Tel Aviv University were a "form of propaganda," meant to "normalize settler colonial and apartheid rule."  The purpose of this post is not to prove the absurd lies behind those allegations.

However, if anyone thinks CUNY is on the "fringe," think about this.  CUNY consists of 25 colleges, with campuses in all five boroughs of NYC.  A whopping 275,000 students are enrolled.  If an institution of this size and magnitude, in the largest city in the country, is considered "fringe," then I am at a loss to understand the definition of the word "fringe."

Abortion Revisited - What Others Have To Say (A Critical Look)

(This is a follow up to the two 5/15/22 posts on abortion, which followed the leaked Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs case.)

Here is Jackie Calmes (columnist and author) in the 5/4/22 Los Angeles Times:  "Congress' Republican leaders likewise (along with Chief Justice John Roberts) decried the leak, not the trashing of a longtime constitutional right...The court's integrity has been undermined, all right, but not by the leaker."  This is rather typical of leftist thinking.  It is only the outcome that matters.  If decisions go their way, that is all that the left cares about.  Not the process.  Not the violation of professional obligations.

But here is Professor Jonathan Turley in the 5/4/22 USA Today:  "It was an inviolate rule that members and clerks do not leak either the deliberations or decisions of the court...This was clearly a politically calculated act by someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause."  But when the ends justify the means, as for so many on the left, this violation is completely irrelevant.

An article in the 5/12/22 USA Today discusses the failure of the Senate to pass proposed legislation that they say "would have made Roe v. Wade the law of the land."  But Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was opposed, saying the bill was not a "codification" of Roe, but rather an "expansion."  Yet the authors of the article seemed intent on blaming the 60 vote filibuster rule, when, without Manchin's support, the measure failed by a 49-51 vote.  After acknowledging that the measure did not get even a simple majority, later in the article they still asserted that "...Democrats lacked the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster."  Always better to blame the Republicans and the filibuster.

A 5/9/22 editorial in the Wall Street Journal made this interesting point:  "The notable feature of abortion in Europe is that each country has tailored its laws to local mores after political debate."  Political debate is exactly what the leaked draft decision had in mind - a political debate within each of the 50 states.  "European voters by and large have chosen to permit it (abortion) in a way that would disappoint American pro-lifers.  But even liberal and largely secular Europeans impose the sort of limitations on abortion that America's pro-choice left claims to find intolerable."  And the editorial makes this assertion:  "Keeping abortion politics in the democratic sphere rather than the courts has prevented it from becoming a destructive front in the culture war."

Here is Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank:  "Roe's impending reversal is a 9/11 attack on America's social fabric."  The left seems to revel in making comparisons to truly horrific events when things do not go their way.  Often, it is a reference to the Holocaust.  This was a highly inappropriate reference to 9/11.  Shame on Milbank.

As readers of the blog know, I often read letters to the editor in various papers.  Here are excerpts from a few, without commentary by me, for your consideration.  These are from the 5/5/22 New York Times.  

"I am a proud pro-life Democrat who has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade...A child is a blessing and life is precious.  Ours is a civilized society, and we should be protecting life, not wantonly stamping it out on demand."

"They can make any law they want to make, but they can't make any woman have a baby she doesn't want to have," wrote an 80 year old mother and grandmother, who had an abortion at age 20.  The abortion was performed by a veterinarian, but after hemorrhaging she ended up in the ER.  "I was lucky.  I survived."

And a 22 year old wrote this:  "As I watch the world around me change and convulse in the face of climate change, Trumpism, a global pandemic and everything else that seems to be going downhill, I need to be able to control my body.  I can't imagine choosing to bring a child into this world, and am appalled by the idea of being forced to carry and raise a child that I didn't plan for and have no idea how to raise.  I am scared."

   

 

Abortion Revisited - My Take (Justice Alito's Draft Decision)

(The preliminary decision that was leaked dealt with the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  See the December 8, 2021 post for a further discussion of the oral arguments, and my incorrect prediction.) 

In Dobbs, the issue was the 15 week limit put on the right to get an abortion by the State of Mississippi.  That was the limited issue before the Supreme Court.  Of course, the Supreme Court is not limited to a review of the technical issue before them.  And if Justice Alito's decision becomes final, the Court will have reversed the 1973, 7 to 2 decision, in Roe vs. Wade.  

In listening to the oral arguments, it was clear to me that Justice Roberts saw the push to overturn Roe.  He kept trying to focus everyone's attention on the 15 week rule.  As I wrote in December, had Roberts been in the majority, I believe he would have assigned the writing of the opinion to himself.  I believe he would have held that the 15 week limit was not an "undue burden" per Casey, but would have also maintained the Constitutional right to an abortion under Roe.  The three liberal justices would have gone gone along in order to avoid an overturning of Roe, but likely would have written their own concurring opinions objecting to any restrictions on Roe.

I would have sided with Roberts.  Here is why.  First, Roe is nearly a 50 year old precedent.  I cannot help but wonder if any of the five Justices signing on to the preliminary draft decision, did not see any benefit to a gradual change in the law regarding abortion.  Yes, abortion has been one of the most contentious issues in our country since Roe was decided.  But did none of those Justices see a benefit to judicial economy?  In deciding cases based on the facts before them - in Dobbs it was the 15 week rule.

The other reason that I would have sided with Roberts is my disagreement with some of the state laws that have recently been passed.  I would allow abortion to protect the life of the mother.  I would allow abortion to protect the health of the mother.  I would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.  And there are simply too many instances of situations where, at least within the first 15 weeks proscribed by Dobbs, the government should stay out of it.  

  

Abortion Revisited - My Take (The Leak)

Let me start with this.  I am outraged by the leak of a preliminary draft (written in February) of a Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe vs. Wade.  I cannot imagine that any of the Justices would be the source of the leak.  That would leave the clerks of the Justices, and other Court employees.  The clerks are generally new attorneys.  If one of them is responsible for the leak that person should lose their license to practice law.  

The draft decision was authored by Justice Alito, with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett joining.  Between February and June, when a final decision will issue, Justices may change their vote, and the reasoning of the decision may be altered.  I completely agree with a Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting that all nine Justices issue a joint statement deploring the leak.

I question how long our society can last with these non-stop assaults on our basic institutions.  Just in the last few years.  A cop knelt on the neck of George Floyd, and much of the country decided that all police were no good.  Are there bad police?  Of course.  But there are bad members of every profession.  Who is in favor of ending the medical profession because there are some bad doctors?  We have seen the result of undermining the police, with the defund movement, with the lack of political support, and with district attorneys who refuse to prosecute.  It should surprise no one that crime is up everywhere.

No one on the left needs to write to me about January 6.  I said that I was appalled by what I saw.  I said that I immediately accepted that Joe Biden won, and that Trump should have done the same after the Electoral College vote.  And no one on the right needs to tell me about some new evidence of voter fraud.  At this late date the 2020 election results are not going to be reversed.  

Let's not forget the actions of the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Chuck Schumer, threatening (yes, threatening!) sitting Justices of the Supreme Court, telling them they will "pay the price" if they do not decide how Schumer wanted them to decide.  Now, as with the Capitol building, we have a fence around the Supreme Court building.  We even have protesters outside the homes of some of the Justices.

Schumer, proving once again how little he knows, said it comes with the territory, because he has had protesters in front of his house.  He is a politician, and people have a right to seek a redress of grievances from their elected officials.  Although I do not favor politicians even being harassed in front of their homes either.  

But the Courts are different.  We should not want Courts being pressured to decide cases a certain way.  Cases should be decided on the facts and the law.  If anyone disagrees, tell me this.  If you were a criminal defendant, and a mob outside the courthouse was shouting "hang him (or her)" would you want the jury to find you guilty in order to appease the mob?  Or, would you like the jury to decide based on the facts and the law? 

I am not naive.  I understand that the Justices are human, that they have a view of how the world should be.  And while those personal beliefs do, at times, guide their decisions, there are many times when the results are not so predictable.  

I know that when I attended public school, the teachers instilled a sense of patriotism, a love of country, a respect for the flag.  We were taught about our founding documents, about how the Founding Fathers created the greatest system of government in the history of the world.  (Again, no need to tell me about slavery, and women's lack of rights.)  Our original governing documents created the bases for the freedoms and rights later given to blacks and women.  How much people want to keep America will be up to later generations.  

A Clarification

In my November 28, 2021 post, I explained why I was opposed to capital punishment.  That needs to be clarified.  Yesterday, there was a horrific mass shooting in a market in Buffalo, New York.  Today, there was one inside a church in Orange County, California.  In both of these instances, there is no doubt as to the identity of the shooter.  

In the cases discussed in last November's post, there were no eyewitnesses.  No one was caught in the act of killing.  In Buffalo and in Orange County, the perpetrators were caught in the act.  There were multiple eyewitnesses.  There is no concern about proving the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt - because there is no doubt whatsoever.    

The only question left for these shooters, is the type of capital punishment and the place it is to be carried out.  These shooters do not deserve a needle in the arm, away from public view.  I think serious consideration needs to be given to a return of public executions - whether by hanging or firing squad.  Yes, you bet I am plenty angry as I write this.  And I have no doubt that some will be horrified by my suggestion.  But I am horrified by evil.  

We need to restore a sense of respect for others.  We cannot do that when so many continue to focus on our differences, such as the color of our skin.  We need to restore a sense of respect for human life.  We need to inculcate a sense of decency in our youth.  And we need to again bring back a sense of shame for wrongdoing.  How we might be able to do all that is the tricky part.  I think a study of the Ten Commandments would be a good start.        

Speech, Part IV (No, Florida's Parental Rights in Education Is Not Anti-Speech)

Let me be clear.  There is a huge difference between censoring speech that adults may hear, and protecting children, especially the youngest children, from speech that is entirely inappropriate.  The Florida Parental Rights in Education law has been dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" law by the Left, even though the word "gay" is not in the law.  But nothing stops the Left from advancing their agenda, no matter the number of lies needed.

Florida's law says this:  "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."  Protecting children from being sexualized is not anti-speech.  It is protecting children.  

But here is a proposed New Jersey Gender Identity lesson plan.  "You might feel like you're a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'boy' parts."  What?  I assume the reference is to a penis.  Now, only "some people" believe that a penis is a boy part.  This is the insanity of the Left.  You can forget about "following the science."  No, for the Left we now have "birthing people," because everyone knows both men and women are capable of getting pregnant and giving birth.  

And, of course, the proposed NJ lesson plan tells girls:  "You might feel like you're a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are 'girl' parts."  Because a vagina is no more a girl's part than a penis is a boy's part.  These are very sick people - and Florida is trying to protect children from them.

Of course, the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, disagrees with Florida's Governor DeSantis.  Here's Newsom:  "Hurting children isn't just un-American, it's monstrous."  I agree.  Sadly, however, Newsom and the rest of the Left do not understand what truly is monstrous.  Here's President Biden:  "Our LGBTQI+ youth deserve to be affirmed and accepted just as they are."  I agree with Biden also - but again, not the way he might think.  I'm not sure what all the latest add-ons are.  

Nevertheless, every right thinking person would agree that all people should be treated with respect.  And that kids, and adults, should not be bullied.  The question is - what is appropriate to teach the youngest children.  I prefer to stick with reading, writing and arithmetic.  And, if it is determined that it is the teacher's role to discuss sexual orientation to the youngest children (why?) then there are multiple other ways that the teachers can make themselves available, besides making the subject matter part of classroom instruction.  

Here is a description of another bill signed into law by Governor DeSantis, per CNN.  "Students and employees can't be told they must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin."  Imagine that.

If I had school age children there is no way I would send them to today's public schools - unless we lived in Florida.  

   

Speech, Part III (I Am Not Making This Up)

First, we had former President Obama's speech at Stanford on "disinformation."  Obama:  "I'm pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist...that said, the First Amendment is a check on the powers of the state."  Obama then explained how the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times and Fox.  

Then, Obama said this:  "...tech companies need to be more transparent about how they operate.  So much of the conversation around disinformation is focused on what people post.  The bigger issue is what content these platforms promote."  And this:  "In a democracy, we can rightly expect companies to subject the design of their products and services to some level of scrutiny."  

I have my own issues with these social media tech companies frequently suspending or banning conservative speech.  But, Obama should not be claiming to be "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist," when he asserts a need for "scrutiny," and apparently for regulation.  I also have an issue with the content promoted by the platforms of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media.    

Although, I am curious about Obama claiming in 2013, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it."  Politifact called that the "lie of the year."  And that was just one of many lies told by Obama.  Yet, I do not recall Obama facing any consequences for his spreading disinformation. 

But now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter, the Biden Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, have announced the creation of the "Disinformation Governance Board."  If you think that sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel, you are not alone.  But, as I said, I am not making this up.  Although I wish I was.  The person heading up this Ministry of Truth will be Nina Jankowicz, described as a "Russian disinformation specialist."

After NPR asserted that "women face disproportionate attacks online," Ms. Jankowicz Tweeted:  "I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities...which are already shouldering...disproportionate amounts of this abuse."  Ms. Jankowicz also referred to the Hunter Biden laptop as a "Trump campaign product."  Wait...did the head of the Disinformation Governance Board spread disinformation?  Hmmm.  

The Daily Mail reported that the Board would fight disinformation before the November midterms, especially in Hispanic communities.  Not to be suspicious, or anything, but I wonder if the focus on Hispanic communities might be because, thanks to Trump, Hispanics have been increasingly gravitating towards the Republican party and away from the Democrats.  But no fear, the Biden Administration will be spending money to combat that disinformation.  

I cannot help but wonder if the money will be spent on "public service announcements" that, coincidentally, mimic Democrat talking points.