"We are at war!"

So said Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu to the people of Israel, after a surprise attack on the Israeli homeland by the terrorist organization Hamas.  The attack came by land, sea and even air (apparently with paragliders).  The attack came on the 50th anniversary (plus one day) of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when Israel was also caught off guard.  Then, President Nixon made it clear that Russian interference would not be tolerated when he supplied necessary war materiel to insure Israel's survival.  The attack today came on the Jewish sabbath, Shabbat, and at the end of Sukkot (the festival of the booths) and on Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah (a celebration of the completion of the reading of the Torah in synagogues worldwide, and immediately beginning anew from the beginning of Genesis).

Make no mistake, Hamas targeted civilians.  They murdered them in their homes.  They took some as hostages.  Yes, they were also able to infiltrate an Israeli military base.  The last estimates that I saw (these numbers are all rapidly changing) was that over 250 Israelis were killed, and over 1000 were injured.  Hundreds of Hamas terrorists infiltrated Israel, even taking over some small towns and villages and kibbutzim.  This was a massive failure of the vaunted Israeli intelligence community, as well as of the defense establishment.  Hundreds of Palestinian terrorists were able to breech the barrier fence between Israel and Gaza.  

Here was President Biden:  "The United States unequivocally condemns this appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, and I made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that we stand ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel.  Terrorism is never justified.  Israel has a right to defend itself and its people.  The United States warns against any other party hostile to Israel seeking advantage in this situation.  My Administration's support for Israel's security is rock solid and unwavering."  While I appreciate the President's words of support, I have a question:  "appropriate means of support" according to whom?

Here is what Biden's U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs Tweeted (or X'd):  "We unequivocally condemn the attack of Hamas terrorists and the loss of life that has incurred.  We urge all sides to refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks.  Terror and violence solve nothing."  What a moron!  Clearly a leftwing moron.  The attack "of" Hamas terrorists, or "by" Hamas terrorists?  Refrain from retaliatory attacks?  So Israel should just let their people be annihilated?  Violence solves nothing?  Really?  Did Hitler stop WWII and the Holocaust because Roosevelt said "pretty please" to him?  

Here is the reply by Senator Ted Cruz to the above Tweet:  "This is disgraceful and every single person involved in drafting and approving this tweet should be immediately expelled from the U.S. government."  Much better.  Compare Senator Tom Cotton's comment with that of President Biden.  Cotton:  "This war is a transparent attempt by Iran to derail the peace talks between and Israel and Saudi Arabia.  The United States should provide Israel the military and diplomatic support it needs to destroy Hamas.  And the Biden administration should cease all engagement with Iran."

Cotton says supply Israel with what Israel needs, not what the US deems appropriate.  Yes.  Cotton says supply diplomatic support.  Yes, as the UN and others will shortly be condemning Israel for their alleged "aggression."  Cotton says cease all engagement with Iran.  Yes.  And Cotton states the obvious, for those missing the point.  Iran and the Palestinians have no interest in seeing any kind of peace deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia.  And this war has undoubtedly delayed any such deal.  

You think that Hamas gives a damn about the people of Gaza?  They don't.  They have one goal - the destruction of Israel.  Here was the military chief of Hamas:  "This is your day to make the enemy understand that his time has ended.  Everyone who has a gun should take it out.  The time has come."  If Hamas really cared about the people of Gaza, they would not be spending money on armaments, but on bolstering their economy.  Supporting businesses.  Helping to create jobs.  Building infrastructure.  And not risking it all with yet another war.  Yet, 75 years later, 75 years after the establishment of modern day Israel, the sole focus of Hamas remains on the destruction of Israel.  

A few closing comments by me.  Will the Arab citizens of Israel take up the call of Hamas' military chief?  Will they pick up guns and attack their fellow Israelis?  It has happened before.  Will Hezbollah, in Lebanon, on Israel's northern border, get involved?  Hezbollah is said to have a stockpile of 150,000 missiles, capable of reaching every square inch of Israel.  What would Israel's response have to be if that happened?  And what about Iran.  Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah.  Iran has, on multiple occasions, called for the destruction of Israel.  I have no doubt that Iran has been supplying the funds necessary for Hamas to carry out this attack.  

What about the US?  The US has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.  The US has sought to destroy other overseas terrorist organizations.  Think Al Qaeda and ISIS.  Why not send the Sixth Fleet directly to the border of Gaza?  Why not even target various Hamas strongholds and weapons factories?  Israel never asks for the direct military involvement of foreign forces.  But Biden could order it.  And think about the message it would send to Hezbollah and Iran.  You try to destroy our ally Israel and you just picked a battle with the US.  

A final comment.  According to Fox, the Israeli military issued this statement:  "The Israeli Defence Forces will defend Israeli civilians and the Hamas terrorist organization will pay (a) heavy price for its action."  Really?  Bull crap!  Stop with the "paying a heavy price."  Stop with the the tit for tat, back and forth.  It is past time for Israel to obliterate Hamas.  They are a terrorist organization.  They cause needless wars.  They do little for the people of Gaza.  Get rid of them already!  And I'll say this to President Biden:  do not tell Israel to stop their attacks after two weeks or a month.  There should be no time limit on eradicating Hamas.  And, as noted above, a little help from the Sixth Fleet wouldn't hurt.  

(Postscript.  The latest numbers are over 300 Israelis dead and over 1500 wounded.)

The Biden Impeachment Inquiry

 (Note.  The House has opened up an impeachment "inquiry" into President Joe Biden.  In the 9/3/23 post, "Meanwhile, Back at the Bidens..." I discussed some of the facts that should warrant further inquiry - even by the D-MSM.  Things like Hunter flying to China with his father multiple times, Hunter setting up numerous shell corporations, Joe having multiple anonymous email accounts, Hunter collecting millions of dollars from foreign countries while his father was VP.  And what may have continued even after Joe Biden was elected president.  Although, I just heard today from someone on the left with no interest in any of those matters.  So let's see what the conservative media thinks.)

"...even if he (Joe Biden) never received a nickel from his son's businesses, his cooperation in Hunter's selling of the Biden brand was corrupt.  Ditto for President Biden's Justice Department, which repeatedly sabotaged the federal investigation into Hunter."  And:  "It's disingenuous to argue there's no evidence while you are working overtime to thwart any attempt to find evidence."  (From an Op-Ed by William McGurn in the 9/12/23 Wall Street Journal.)   

McGurn goes on to discuss evidence uncovered by the House committees investigating Biden.  "This includes learning that Joe Biden lied during the 2020 debates when he categorically denied Hunter was paid millions from China and said the laptop was Russian disinformation.  And that the then-vice president had dinners with his son's business partners, and spoke to them on speaker-phone when Hunter called."  I understand that an argument can be made that a president may not be impeached over acts done prior to assuming office.  I question whether that should apply to lies covering up possible corruption while campaigning for that office.  

 After noting that House Oversight Chairman, James Comer, was a banker, Kimberley Strassel told us that "His team started by going through the U.S. Treasury's 'suspicious activity reports' related to the Biden family (including Hunter and his uncle James) or Biden associates."  According to Strassel, these reports are generated "when they see a transaction fishy enough to suggest possible illegal activity."  While acknowledging that banks may over-report such transactions, she asks how many such reports the average American, even top business people, might generate.  "Hunter and his pals racked up 170."  (From Strassel's Op-Ed in the 9/15/23 WSJ.)

Strassel:  bank records allowed Comer's committee "to nail down the many shady sources of some $20 million in foreign payments - Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, a Chinese entity, Russian oligarchs, Kazakh and Romanian businessmen.  It also allowed them to document how money flowed first to Hunter associates, then on to Hunter via more shell companies."  If these allegations are proven to be true, it would seem to me that what we are talking about might be the largest case of government corruption in US history.  Bigger than Teapot Dome.  

But, as Strassel opines:  "The White House (and the media) keep changing the definition of what counts as Joe Biden's culpability in aiding his son's influence peddling, and have now settled on the line that there is no evidence 'directly linking' Hunter's business dealings with his dad."  Sadly, there is no reason to expect better from the D-MSM.  There is no reason to expect the type of investigative journalism that would likely occur if the people involved had the last name Trump.    

In their lead editorial in the 9/13/23 edition of the paper, the WSJ made it clear that they were not fans of endless impeachments.  But they did tell us this:  "Some $20 million has already been found to have gone to Biden family members and associates via shell companies.  Shell companies are what you use when you don't want anyone to know what you are doing."  Indeed.

The Democratic Party - Mainstream Media Complex

(Note.  Over the course of this blog, I have done many posts, in whole or in part, discussing the "bias" of the mainstream media.  But that was not entirely accurate, because it far more significant than bias.  At the beginning of the 8/20/23 post "I'm Sick Of It!  Part II," I begin with a discussion of the Democratic Party - Mainstream Media Complex (hereafter, referred to as the D-MSM).  If anyone still has doubt that this is real, read further.  And, if you do not believe that the D-MSM is a threat to our democracy, then I would like to hear from you.)

I, for one, would like to know how it became the business of the White House Counsel's Office to instruct the media about what they should investigate and write about.  But here is what Ian Sams of that office wrote in a letter to executives at various news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS and other news outlets:

"It's time for the media to ramp up its scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies."  Sams thought it was appropriate to write this the day after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an impeachment inquiry to President Biden.  Anybody else curious as to whether the letter was sent on Biden's instructions?  And no, all this information is not from Fox.  It is from CNN.  Is this Biden attempting to stay above the fray, and having his attack dogs in the D-MSM do the fighting for him?  Thank you, Mr. Sams, for letting us know that all the allegations against President Biden are lies.  

Here is more from Sams:  "Covering impeachment as a process story - Republicans say X, but the White House says Y - is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable."  Sams is telling the D-MSM not only to fight for the WH, but how to do it.  And it is clear that he does not want to see or hear any allegations against Biden put forth in the D-MSM.  Because that would be a disservice to the American people to actually print both sides.  For Mr. Sams, printing both sides is not something an "independent press" should do.  Oh.  On the other hand, I do recall prior to the 2020 election, the New York Times Sunday Opinion section printed 10 pages of Op-Eds against Trump, but could not find the space for one pro-Trump article. 

Sams:  "And in the modern media environment, where every day liars and hucksters peddle disinformation and lies everywhere from Facebook to Fox, process stories that fail to unpack the illegitimacy of the claims on which House Republicans are basing their actions only serve to generate confusion, put false premises in people's feeds, and obscure the truth."  Let's see.  Fox is disinformation.  If it were not for Fox, we would not be able to see the thousands of people illegally entering our southern border every week.  Although, squad member Ayanna Pressley (not the first Dem to do so) just told us that the border is secure.  You going to believe her, or your lying eyes?  I wonder where she thinks all those "migrants" flooding our cities came from.  

Sams is also telling the D-MSM that the claims of the House Republicans are "illegitimate."  In case the D-MSM had any doubt about what the WH expected of them.  Think about that, as it bears repeating.  The White House (that's Joe Biden) is telling the D-MSM what to do and what to think.  That should disturb everyone.  As if on cue, the writer of this CNN article ended with this:  "The Republican House-led investigations into Biden have yet to provide any direct evidence that the president financially benefitted from Hunter Biden's career overseas." 

I don't think the White House needs to worry.  It is clear that the D-MSM has no interest in asking any questions about Biden's relationship with Hunter's business pals.  No curiosity whatsoever.  Thankfully, the conservative media is willing to ask those questions - see the next post.       

 

And elsewhere in the News...

I did watch a lot of the first Republican debate.  It seemed to me that the only ones with any chance were DeSantis, Haley, Pence and Ramaswamy.  The first three are serious people.  But they each had their issues.  DeSantis looked around at the others in order to see if they raised their hands, when asked who would vote for Trump if he was the party's nominee.  Haley played the female/identity politics card, even if she intended it only in jest.  Pence was too wrapped up in his religious beliefs, which I respect, but we are a secular country.  And Ramaswamy, filled with youthful exuberance, is completely naive with regards to world affairs.

 On the plus side, DeSantis has a mostly good record in Florida.  Pence has a history of being a strong conservative, even though many objected to his comments about Trump and his attorneys.  Haley gave the Republican Party a needed voice on how to address the abortion issue.  And as US Ambassador to the UN, she demonstrated her toughness, and was not intimidated by the world's bad actors and bullies.  And Ramaswamy is strong on domestic issues, but has much to learn about foreign policy.

The Jerusalem Post reported that 2023 has been a very bad year with regards to terrorist attacks.  Apparently, the worst since the second intifada.  As of 8/31/23, they reported that 34 people had been murdered in terrorist attacks.  That's more than all of last year, with four months still left in the year.  A big thank you to Joe Biden for reinstating the funding to the terrorist supporting Palestinian Authority.  Funding that Trump had ceased until the PA agreed they would not use that money to support the killing of Jews.  

The numbers are staggering!  It was simply too much for the Los Angeles City Council to tolerate.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott has caused 435,000 people to be bused to the City of Angels.  Just kidding.  4,350 people.  No again.  435 people.  Yep, that's it.  To a city of 4 million people.  The second largest city in the country.  Los Angeles is a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state.  But it was just too much.  So the city council voted - unanimously - "to pursue a lawsuit and criminal probe against Texas over its migrant busing program..."  

Meanwhile, the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, has his sites set on another group of dastardly people.  He announced he is suing the Chino Valley Unified School District.  What did the school Board do to incur his wrath?  They passed a measure that requires schools to advise parents if their children change their gender or pronouns.  But in the People's Republic of California, as in all communist societies, the government does not believe in the primacy of the family unit.  Rather, the state knows best, always, and therefore is in the best position to know what is in the best interests of every child.

This week's Jewish Journal of Los Angeles had a very interesting article about Marissa Streit, the CEO of Prager U.  Prager U is the brainchild of author and radio host, Dennis Prager and his producer, Allen Estrin.  They air 5 minute (more or less) videos on numerous topics.  Prager used to say "we teach what isn't taught."  Now he says "we teach what should be taught."  They claim to have had 8 billion ("b" as in billion) views so far.  One can only hope.  Because they push back against all the left-wing, politically correct, woke crap that passes for education these days.  

Streit recalls a story when, as a young child of 13, she toured Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust museum.  She tells of asking the docent why people did not fight back.  She asked, "did they not understand what could happen (to them) if they didn't fight?"  She said the docent's reply is etched in her memory:  "Well young lady, most people don't fight until it's too late and most people rely on others to do the fighting for them."  I'm certainly not Prager or Hannity or any of the other conservative voices, who reach millions of viewers.  But if you ask me why I take hours every other weekend to write this blog, it is to fight back - for Israel, for America, and for fundamental Judeo-Christian values.    

Meanwhile, Back at the Bidens...

We know that Biden took Hunter on many trips to foreign countries (at least 15 times according to Fox), because that's what VPs do - take their little boys with them on government business.  We know that Hunter set up at least 20 shell companies, not to hide and transfer money.  No, just to see if he could do it.  We know the talentless Hunter collected millions of dollars from foreign countries, with some going to the "Big Guy."  We know Biden participated in some of these phone calls and business meetings.  But just to talk about the weather, of course.

Now we find out that Biden, as VP, had several anonymous email accounts.  robinware456@gmail.com, JRB-Ware@gmail.com, and Robert.L.Peters@gmail.com.  I can't wait to see how the Dem - MSM complex explains that away.  After all, they almost all agreed that the NY Post was wrong when they broke the Hunter laptop story.  They said it was Russian disinformation.  Until even the NY Times had to admit that it was legit.  Imagine if the MSM treated that story seriously before the 2020 election  Then, the scandal may have cost Biden the election, and Trump might have been reelected.  Oh, that's why they didn't want to report it.  

Here's a question:  why did Biden advise Hunter in advance of a call that he (VP Biden) would be making to then Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko?  Coincidental that Hunter was on the Board of the Ukrainian oil company Burisma at the time?  Will the MSM demand that Biden release all of the emails sent under his various pseudonyms when he was VP?  If not, why won't they?  Or, will they continue to make excuses for Biden, the way they did when Clinton wiped 33,000 emails from her private email server, and destroyed various electronic devices she had used.  But let's just talk about Trump.   

Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, had an opinion piece on Fox online.  Bozell:  "Between the evening of August 1 and the morning of August 8, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted more than five hours to Donald Trump's third indictment on morning and evening newscasts as well as their Sunday morning political talk shows," citing an analysis by NewsBusters.  Bozell:  "In contrast, the same programs spent a mere four minutes and 50 seconds on matters related to the Biden family's many scandals."  Anybody want to claim there is no Democrat Party-mainstream media complex?  Is the MSM that much different from the Soviet News Agency, Tass?  

House oversight Committee Chairman, James Comer, released information showing $20 million going from Russian and Kazakhstani oligarchs to Hunter and his business associates.  Comer:  "It appears no real services were provided other than access to the Biden network, including Joe Biden himself."  Does anybody seriously want to claim that Hunter Biden was not engaged in influence peddling?  And that he did so with, at a minimum, the tacit consent of his father, the Vice President of the United States?  Some have asked:  but what did Biden actually do in exchange for the money?  

Really?  First, it does NOT matter.  The mere payment of millions of dollars to the Biden family from foreign countries is bad enough.  The mere suggestion that if millions are paid to his family they will have access to the Vice President, is even worse.  Millions that were paid because Joe and Hunter are such nice guys?  Second, we do know about the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor at Biden's insistence.  Third, if Biden would release his emails - under all the names that he used - we might know a lot more.  

We know that AG, Merrick Garland, followed his boss's orders and saw to it that Trump was prosecuted.  When the sweetheart deal negotiated by the Delaware US Attorney, David Weiss, fell through, what did Garland do?  He appointed Weiss as a special counsel to investigate Hunter.  WHAT?  Let me get this straight.  The prosecutor who gave Hunter such a sweetheart deal that the judge rejected it, the prosecutor who let the statute of limitations pass on some of the more serious allegations against Hunter, the prosecutor who is accused by IRS whistleblowers of obstructing their investigation, is now the special counsel?  Is he going to investigate his own involvement in possible obstruction?  I don't know who is more corrupt - Merrick Garland for appointing Weiss, or Weiss for not resigning. 

Meanwhile, Trump... 

  

Objection, Your Honor!

I guess I should not have been surprised when the Judge in the January 6 case against Trump set a trial date of March 4, 2024 - the day before Super Tuesday, when 15 states hold their primary election.  So what do we know about Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will be presiding over the trial?  She was appointed by President Obama.  Newsweek reported that she contributed $1500. to the Obama campaign in 2008/2009.  And a site called World Wire said this:  "According to the Washington Post, she has been the harshest sentencing judge in those instances (presiding over more than 30 January 6 trials), imposing at least some jail or prison time in every case and occasionally going more than the term recommended by prosecutors."    

The New York Times reported that Judge Chutkan said this:  "Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule...there is a societal interest to a speedy trial."  Objection, Your Honor!  Mr. Trump is decidedly not like any defendant, as this is the first time in American history that a former President has been indicted.  Furthermore, this trial does not just involve Mr. Trump, it involves the public's right to choose their president.  

Currently, Mr. Trump is the leading Republican candidate for president.  And the case is being prosecuted by the administration of his opponent.  The entire thing smacks of election interference by Mr. Biden, Your Honor.  I would respectfully submit that the defense request for a trial date after the election should have been honored, in light of the obvious appearance of a conflict on the part of the government.  As for the "societal interest to a speedy trial," the Sixth Amendment says it is the defendant's right to a speedy trial.  Clearly he was willing to waive that.  The Constitution does not give "society" the right to a speedy trial.  Imagine all the perils if that were the case, especially in emotional and controversial cases.  

The Daily Mail reported that, in setting the March 4 trial date, the judge said to imagine that the defendant was a professional athlete.  The judge then indicated that it would be "inappropriate for me to schedule a trial date to accommodate her schedule.  The same is true here."  I was not in the courtroom.  But if the Daily Mail is accurately quoting the Judge, then Objection, Your Honor!  I do not see how a professional athlete missing some games equates to tying the hands of the leading Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States.  

The prosecution sought a protective order regarding what Mr. Trump might be allowed to say pre-trial.  Judge Chutkan:  "What the effects of my order are on a political campaign are not going to influence my decision.  This is a criminal trial...The defendant's desire to conduct a campaign, to respond to political opponents, has to yield."  Objection, Your Honor!  Your Honor has set a March 4 trial date.  The Manhattan case (alleged hush money) has a March 25 trial date.  And the Florida documents case is set for May 20.  These cases combined clearly interfere with Mr. Trump's ability to campaign, to spend time on the campaign trail.  And, such a protective order arguably denies him the right to reply to Mr. Biden's attacks on him.  Your Honor, there are multiple reasons to delay this trial until after the election.

The defense has indicated that they intend to file numerous motions.  This means that while preparing for this historic trial, they need to spend time researching the law in support of their motions.  These motions include issues of executive immunity, the First Amendment right to speech, challenging some of the subpoenas that have been issued, and whether Mr. Trump, as President, could be charged with obstruction.   

The defense argued that they needed more time to prepare for trial, with a case involving nearly 13 million pages of documents.  Besides, the prosecutor waited for 2 1/2 years after January 6 to bring their case against Trump.  Judge Chutkan:  "Discovery in 2023 is not sitting in a warehouse with boxes of paper looking at every single page," indicating that the defense could use keyword searches in databases.  

Objection, Your Honor!  I have tried hundreds of cases in my career.  Admittedly, they have all been workers compensation cases, no criminal cases.  But the idea is the same.  It is by finding all the details in the multitude of records that allows me to prove my case, and pick apart my opponent's case.  Admittedly, Your Honor, I may be a little obsessive-compulsive about this.  Okay, a lot.  But it has worked for me, and I believe the defense should, in fact, have the opportunity to review all the documents, and not just have to look at a database.   

In closing, Your Honor, I would remind the Court that Mr. Trump's 2016 opponent, Ms. Clinton, never accepted that she lost.  She repeatedly called Mr. Trump an illegitimate president, who only won because of Russian collusion.  In fact, Your Honor, Mr. Biden's party impeached Mr. Trump over the phony Russian collusion story.  And many Democrats have continued to deny that Mr. Trump won, even after Mr. Mueller issued his report.  

Yet, in 2020, with virtually every state using mail-in ballots because of the pandemic, with mail-in ballots obviously being less secure than people having to show up in person, Mr. Trump was not allowed to challenge those election results?  Your Honor, the American people deserve to have a campaign run equally by both candidates, not with one candidate having both hands tied behind his back, and with his lips sealed - especially when his opponent is the one doing the tying.  Thank you, Your Honor.      

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.