Courting Iran

The New York Sun posted an article today about the recent efforts of the Biden administration to improve its record on human rights (after the President’s statements about China, Hong Kong, etc.) by going after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi. First of all it needs to be mentioned that Khashoggi had some fairly close connections to the Muslim Brotherhood (see article here). Secondly, it needs to be mentioned that any criticism of the Saudis and their government would be welcomed by Iran.

The article reports:

In releasing a three-year-old American intelligence report that blames the Crown Prince for the murder of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi, and then immediately saying he won’t penalize the Crown Prince, Mr. Biden has opened himself to relentless pressure from democrats on the left of his party to do something more to punish the Saudi Crown Prince.

The President’s petty insistence that he will speak only with King Salman, 85, and not his 35-year-old son, the primary power in the kingdom, can’t hold. So complete has Price Mohammed already taken control of the levers of power that Saudis call him “Mr. Everything.” The ailing King could die during the Biden presidency, making his son king.

Meantime, Mr. Biden has humiliated the Crown Prince, but at a price. The Crown Prince has demonstrated repeatedly in recent years that he believes the best defense is an aggressive offense. As a result, he sometimes acts and then confronts the often unpleasant consequences of his actions — whether the death of Khashoggi or the war in Yemen.

…For one thing, the Biden team is exposing its own hypocrisy. The President says his number one foreign policy goal is to talk to Iranian leaders to secure a new nuclear deal. The blood on the hands of Iranian leaders who imprison and execute critics doesn’t seem to bother the president. At least he hasn’t called them out.

By contrast, Saudi Arabia, is undergoing a “reassessment” of its relations with the United States. Already the president has blocked our arms sales for the war in Yemen. Ironically, he supported the Yemen war when it began during the Obama administration though he now calls it a human rights disaster.

Riyadh would love to get out of the war, which has cost it an estimated $100 billion already. The Houthis and their Iranian backers, though, want to bleed Saudi Arabia with an eye to destabilizing the kingdom. So President Biden’s envoy likely won’t succeed at ending the war.

President Biden is continuing his unbroken streak of being wrong on every foreign policy issue he has weighed in on since he joined Congress.

Rules For Thee But Not For Me

Just the News posted an article today that should give the parents of school children pause.

The article reports:

A California teachers union president who has opposed reopening public school over COVID health-safety concerns was recently seen on video dropping off daughter off at a private preschool.

The video was posted on Twitter by the group GuerillaMomz on Feb. 27. The video shows Matt Meyer, president of the Berkley Federation of Teachers, dropping off his daughter at the school.

“Meet Matt Meyer. A white man with dreads and president of the local teachers’ union. He’s been saying it is unsafe for *your kid* to be back at school, all the while dropping his kid off at private school,” the group writes on the post.

Mr. Meyer explained that there were no public options for children his daughter’s age. He failed to note that all the public schools were closed because the Teachers’ Union has refused to allow them to open. If preschool is safe for his daughter and her teachers, why isn’t kindergarten safe for other children and their teachers?

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Yesterday The American Thinker reported that the Biden administration has instituted a program that provides free free flights for illegal immigrants to their destination of choice. Paid for by the American taxpayer of course.

The article quotes a report from Hot Air:

Since January, according to the Washington Post, “the number of [illegal immigrant] minors in federal custody has more than tripled to 7,000” and that Health and Human Services has instructed ICE to “purchase airplane tickets and cover other transportation costs for minors whose relatives are already living in the United States.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is “getting ICE to help transport migrants northward so they can be processed and released.”

So what is this about? If Americans don’t see the number of illegal aliens massing at the border, they may not realize the enormity of the problem we are currently having with border security because of changes to the law that the Biden administration has made.

The article at Hot Air also notes:

I hope Mayorkas is at least negotiating a discount price on those airline tickets. The Trump administration purchased discounted tickets when it deported illegal migrants back to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The idea is to move them away from the border and further north, into other states for processing and release. Biden is moving a catch and release mandate outside of Texas as border towns are complaining of increased burdens of accomodating increasing numbers of illegal migrants, often just released into towns and cities without the ability to take care of themselves

Mexicans and Central Americans know that Joe Biden is not serious about border security. He is bending over backward to promote open borders. Human trafficking will flourish and coyotes will reap the financial rewards of exploiting desperate people. They’ve been told that unaccompanied minors will be taken care of and families often send them ahead, expecting them not to be turned away. By releasing them further into the country, just to ease crowding at the border, the possibility that they go to people with less than good intentions increases.

The current Biden administration policy on border security poses a risk to Americans. Unfortunately, it make take an act of terrorism or a gang attack on Americans for voters to realize that.

 

Our Educators Need To Realize That Different People Have Different Abilities

As far as I know, my children do not read this website regularly, so I am going to share some information about them. I raised three daughters. Each is successful in their own field. Each finished college and two have advanced degrees, but they all went in totally different directions. The oldest has an art degree with an associate degree in architecture. The middle child is an electrical engineer with a masters degree in marketing. The youngest child is a lawyer (having passed the bar in two states). Each child handled academics differently. Putting the lawyer in an advanced physics class would have been a disaster. The electrical engineer didn’t love English literature. The artist got all A’s in art classes and any math she could draw. They are different.

On Saturday The Daily Wire reported that the Boston Public Schools were suspending testing for enrollment in advanced classes.

The article reports:

New fifth and sixth graders will not be accepted into advanced classes in Boston for the next year, the entry test being suspended due to the pandemic, while at the same time the school district has raised concerns about racial “equity” problems, noting a vast majority of students in those classes are white or Asian.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe we need to do something to change the culture in the non-white and non-Asian communities to encourage the children in those communities to do better in school? I am sure there are many academically gifted children in these communities that are simply not encouraged to do well in school. The exceptions to this rule are people like Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson, and Justice Thomas. These are very intelligent men, and I am sure there are many more like them. We need mentor programs for children without fathers that encourage these children to do well in school and teach them what success in school can mean for their future.

The article notes that one Boston-area school system changed it’s advanced class qualification to a random lottery. That makes no sense at all.

The article quotes a GBH report:

“The program was open to all students in the Boston Public Schools who took a test known as Terra Nova in the third grade and received a high score. Those students were placed in a lottery conducted by the central administration office, and lottery winners received letters inviting them to apply to the program. Last fall, 453 students received invitations, 143 students applied and 116 enrolled this year, officials said.

Students in the program have the opportunity to study subjects in greater depth and are offered more schoolwork than the traditional curriculum requires.”

GBH added that “District officials have launched a working group to determine the long-term future of the program and are expected to make a recommendation in May.”

The suspension of the program comes as schools across the country have begun teaching radical critical race theory, creating more classes insisting white supremacy can be found everywhere and denouncing merit-based systems as racist. In San Francisco, for example, the competitive Lowell High School will no longer include a merit-based admissions program, opting instead for a random lottery.

A random lottery will result in a greater failure rate within the program and will accomplish nothing without extensive tutoring and mentoring. If that tutoring and mentoring is provided, it might work.

Fighting The First Amendment

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about Congressional Democrats putting pressure on cable networks to stop carrying conservative news sources.

The article reports:

The attempt by several House Democrats to pressure television carriers to deplatform certain news organizations could trigger a lawsuit, law professor Alan Dershowitz said Saturday.

“When the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it’s been interpreted to mean, take no action, it doesn’t have to be law. The First Amendment applies to presidents to governors to mayors to anybody who can abridge the freedom of speech. And I think these letters abridge the freedom of speech,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on Newsmax TV.

Reps. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) and Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.) sent a dozen letters to 12 different carriers this week urging them to deplatform or otherwise take action against Fox News, Newsmax, and One America News for allegedly spreading misleading information about the Jan. 6 Capitol breach and the COVID-19 pandemic.

They pointedly asked the carriers if they were planning on carrying the networks “both now and beyond any contract renewal date.”

…They sent letters to AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter Communications, Dish Network, Cox Communications, Altice USA, Google’s parent company Alphabet, and Hulu.

The letters were sent in advance of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing titled “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media.”

Eshoo told the hearing that the First Amendment “prohibits Congress from enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech, and I’m an ardent supporter of it.

“It does not, however, stop us from examining the public health and democratic implications of misinformation,” she added.

The article concludes:

Lawmakers heard from Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Media at Columbia University, who claimed that Newsmax and One America News “showed themselves willing to continue to repeat false narratives about the legitimacy of the election result.”

They also listened to Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, who called the deplatforming push similar to the “Red Scare” seen during the Cold War, when anyone suspected of being communist sympathizers were targeted.

Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) criticized the letters as an attack on the First Amendment.

“Anyone who values free speech and a free press should be alarmed by these actions today,” she said. “It’s an attack on the First Amendment when public officials use their power to coerce private companies to censor and silence viewpoints they don’t agree with.”

This is frightening. The First Amendment protects free speech. There is no scenario that gives Congress the right to control what the American people are able to hear.

One Way To Limit The White House Press Corps

President Biden has not spent a lot of time talking to the press. Jen Psaki meets with the White House press frequently and often has a problem communicating the policies of the Biden administration. Transparency is not the first item on the agenda of the Biden administration.

Yesterday The U.K. Mail reported the following:

The White House will start charging members of the press $170 to have a COVID-19 test before they can enter the grounds, according to a report, in a move that could financially cripple news organizations and limit coverage of the Biden administration altogether. 

The White House press office will from Monday bill journalists for their own coronavirus tests, which are mandatory for anyone entering the White House complex. 

Under the Trump administration, COVID-19 testing for the media was only available to members of the press pool who were coming into close contact with Donald Trump or to people exposed to a positive case via a White House event.

These tests were paid for by the White House however testing was not available to journalists attending press conferences in the briefing room or entering the grounds for other White House events.   

Several members of the media were exposed to the virus during Trump’s tenure, including at least three journalists who tested positive in the wake of the Rose Garden ‘superspreader’ event after which then-president Trump was admitted to hospital with the virus. 

As soon as Joe Biden took office in January, his administration introduced mandatory COVID-19 rapid testing for all journalists each morning before they can enter the White House campus, as well as a requirement to wear surgical face masks and practice social distancing.  

The White House has been footing the bill for the testing since it was made mandatory in January but it now plans to charge the media $170 per test starting March 1, according to the Washington Post.

It has also agreed to accept proof of a negative test taken outside the grounds following backlash over the initial plan to only permit on-site testing. 

However it is not clear what outside tests will be permitted with some private tests also costing up to around $200 a go. 

The article notes that no other federal agency is charging journalists for testing. I wonder if even the liberal journalists are wishing for a return to the Trump administration where at least they generally had access to the Press Briefing Room without paying $170.

The Censors At Amazon Are Censoring Any Books They Deem Offensive

There is a whole lot of offensive material out in our society that no one is censoring, so why has Amazon taken it upon themselves to censor anything that they find offensive? First of all, who defines offensive? Well, that seems to be the problem.

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about Amazon’s censorship. Amazon has some interesting ideas about what needs to be censored.

The article reports:

For example, a popular documentary on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was banned from their streaming service this past week. Before that move, the company deplatformed conservative Ryan Anderson’s book critical of gender theory, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement.”

When Just the News reached out to Amazon over the ban on Anderson’s book, the outlet said the company directed them to a page outlining their “Content Guidelines for Books.” Under a section labeled “Offensive Content,” Amazon states that they “don’t sell certain content including content that we determine is hate speech, promotes the abuse or sexual exploitation of children, contains pornography, glorifies rape or pedophilia, advocates terrorism, or other material we deem inappropriate or offensive.”

“A review of those policies suggests that sometime in the last few months Amazon made a major change to the ways in which it moderates book content on its servers, imposing a much stricter standard on books than it had previously done,” the report said. It appears the company recently added so-called “hate speech” to their guidelines on book platforming and is amping up their censorship of the “offensive.”

The article notes an observation by Daily Wire podcast host and conservative author Matt Walsh that if Amazon bans conservative books (which is the direction they are going), publishers won’t publish them due to the lack of marketing outlets. This will abolish half of the political debate in America.

The article notes:

“When a company controls over 83% of the market for books, it begins the process of deleting ideas from a society,” the author argued. “A bookseller can sell whatever it wants. If ‘Marxist Books’ wants to only sell books that conform to its ideology, OK; that has integrity.”

“But this is the ‘world’s largest bookseller.’ Amazon can basically make books disappear for *all readers* — and does so on a blatantly dishonest basis. Under guise of removing ‘inappropriate’ content, they will really be removing ideas they disfavor,” she added.

Amazon has not banned books that speak favorably about transgender teenagers. This is not about objectionable material–it is about promoting a particular point of view–politically and socially.

Not Dr. Seuss!

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported that Loudoun County Public School Board in Virginia has concluded that Dr. Suess’s children’s books contain “racial undertones” that are not suitable for “culturally responsive” learning.

The article reports the announcement made by the Board:

“Realizing that many schools continue to celebrate ‘Read Across America Day’ in partial recognition of Dr. Seuss’ birthday, it is important for us to be cognizant of research that may challenge our practice in this regard,” the announcement reads. “As we become more culturally responsive and racially conscious, all building leaders should know that in recent years there has been research revealing radical undertones in the books written and the illustrations drawn by Dr. Seuss.” 

Learning for Justice was formerly known as “Teaching Tolerance,” which has promoted radical views on teaching “social justice” and “racial justice” to students as young as five-years-old. Learning for Justice is the education arm of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). 

In a magazine article titled, “It’s Time to Talk About Dr. Seuss,” Learning for Justice cites a study from St. Catherine University that claims Dr. Seuss’s children’s literature is rife with “orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy.”  

The researchers surveyed 50 Dr. Seuss books and concluded that there is not enough diversity in the children’s books, many of which were written in the 1950s. 

In case your missed it, Learning for Justice is the education arm of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). That explains a lot.

The researchers identified what they considered the problem:

“Of the 2,240 (identified) human characters, there are 45 of color representing two percent of the total number of human characters,” the study reads. Of the 45 characters of color, 43 “exhibited behaviors and appearances that align with harmful and stereotypical Orientalist tropes.” 

Learning for Justice alleges that many of the non-white characters in Dr. Seuss’s books were men and were “subservient” to the white characters in his book.

The article concludes:

Learning for Justice claims that anyone who defends Dr. Seuss’s problematic work is a racial “apologist” and is making excuses for why “bigotry doesn’t matter.” 

The education group also tells teachers to directly discuss Dr. Seuss’s “racist” past with older students, though “older students” remains an undefined category. Teachers were asked to explain to students how racism shows up in places and people they may least expect. 

“You can address these arguments directly, discussing the degree to which cultural norms excuse biased language or actions, how harmful stereotypical representation can be and whether — and how — a person can make up for hurtful mistakes.” 

This is getting ridiculous!

Lying About The Numbers

Townhall posted an article today about the number of people who are in America illegally. The mainstream media frequently states that there are 11 million people in America illegally. That is the number being used when amnesty for everyone here illegally is discussed. But it is interesting to consider that 11 million was the number given during the 1990’s when the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX) held her commission on immigration reform back. Are we to assume that the number has not increased since then? Somehow I doubt that.

In January, Breitbart reported the following:

Roughly 14.5 million illegal aliens live across the United States, costing American taxpayers about $134 billion every year, a new study reveals.

An annual study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that the illegal alien population in the U.S. has grown by at least 200,000 since 2019 and has cost taxpayers an additional $2 billion since last year.

That is probably a low estimate of the number of people here illegally and the cost of having them here. To put the number of illegal aliens in perspective, the population of New York City is approximately 8 million. The population of America is approximately 328 million. What impact would granting citizenship to 11 million people who may not understand the government or the responsibilities of citizenship in America have on our country?

Townhall reports that the Tucker Carlson show on the Fox News reported the following:

The “U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021,” unveiled by Democrats earlier this month, would provide a pathway to citizenship for what many have said to be “11 million” currently illegal immigrants.

After pointing out studies from Yale and MIT suggesting the number is much higher, Carlson spent several minutes explaining how the bank Bear Stearns used bank transfers, remittances, and other data points to estimate the immigrant population “to be as high as 20 million” 16 years ago, in 2005.

“That was all 16 years ago,” Carlson said. “And now, in 2021, the party in charge is still assuring us that the number of illegal immigrants in this country has somehow declined by up to 10 million people. Could that be true?”

“How insulting is that, even to float that idea?” he continued. “Consider everything that has happened since 2006. Amnesty for the so-called dreamers, the promises of mass amnesty, the endless caravans. So the 11 million number is above all, a lie. The 11 million number is one of the more obvious lies ever told. We’re a TV show. We are not social scientists, and it took about an hour to find this out. It’s a ridiculous lie.”

I am in favor of changing our immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally. However, we are currently in the middle of a pandemic and the economic consequences of that pandemic. I would strongly suggest that we work to get Americans back to work and on their feet before we open the gates wide to allow more people to come to America.

 

Further Dividing Americans With The Covid Relief Bill

Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about some of the items in the Covid Relief Bill.

The article reports:

Polls show most Americans support the federal COVID-19 relief bill. But if they knew what’s in it, they might feel differently. The bill is an affront to the American ideal of equal treatment under law — and a slap in the face for people who want everyone helped fairly.   

Section 1005 of the bill offers “socially disadvantaged” farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of no-strings dollars per farmer. But white men needn’t apply. The bill’s definition of “socially disadvantaged,” drawn from elsewhere in federal law, limits aid to racial groups who faced historic discrimination.

Newly elected Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who proposed the measure, says it will make up for years of discrimination. Sorry, senator, but this is discrimination.

Discrimination likewise mars the bill’s aid to restaurants. It grants restaurant owners up to $5 million per facility to offset losses caused by lockdowns. That’s a lifeline for restaurants barely hanging on.

Here’s the hitch: Only women, veterans and owners of “socially and economically disadvantaged” concerns (again, defined racially elsewhere in federal law) may apply during the program’s first three weeks. Most white males go to the back of the line, even if their needs are more pressing.  

These items in the bill need to be challenged in court–our Constitution states that we are equal under the law (a principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). This bill creates a situation where some people are more equal than others.

The article continues:

The bill looks more like reparations than COVID relief. It says farm aid is “for the purposes of addressing the longstanding and widespread discrimination against socially disadvantaged farmers.” Truth is, farmers have been struggling for a decade, and more than half lose money year after year. Minority-owned farms are generally less indebted than those owned by whites, though diminished access to credit may be part of the reason. White and minority farmers alike need debt relief.

Sen. Chuck Schumer crisscrossed the Empire State last weekend, bragging about his role in the relief bill and claiming credit for the $25 billion in aid to restaurants. He warned that 54 percent of New York restaurant owners won’t be able to survive the next six months without help. “They’re needed, because they’re one of the biggest employers in every community in New York, whether it’s urban, suburban . . . or rural.”

That’s the point, Senator. Instead of dwelling on racial or gender equity, the relief bill should focus on ensuring economic survival. All will benefit.

The article concludes:

As Congress debates the relief bill, Republicans should protest the racist giveaways. They’ve hardly been mentioned, and the public is unaware. More are on the way: Warnock and four other Democrats, including New York’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, introduced a bill on Feb. 5 to give 32 million acres of farmland to black farmers over the next 10 years. None to whites. Reparations without the label. What’s next?

Racism won’t cure past racism. And it won’t unite the nation.

Voters need to wake up before the 2022 elections and remove the people who support this sort of legal inequality. This bill and those like it will only divide America.

 

 

After Four Years Without Starting A War…

Yesterday Red State posted an article about the Biden administration’s recent military attack on Syria. If you remember, during the Trump administration, President Trump used economic leverage to encourage hostile regimes to behave. Unfortunately the Biden administration is not that subtle. The Washington swamp creatures who profit in war are back in control of our government.

There is some irony in this situation–the article at Red State shares a past Tweet from Jen Psaki:

This is what President Biden Tweeted when President Trump took out Qasem Soleimani in 2019:

Never put your double standard in writing–it will come back and bite you someday.

The article at Red State concludes:

Of course, there’s a more serious question here, which is whether Psaki was actually right back in 2017. Let’s put aside the fact that Trump and Biden have both launched strikes. Should they have? I think as retaliatory strikes, the single operations are defensible. At the same time, our broader encroachment into Syria, which Trump tried his hardest to shut down but Biden has rejuvenated, is simply not.

As I’ve said in my recent critiques of Liz Cheney, it’s long past time for the uniparty that is our foreign policy complex to answer for many of the mistakes that have been made the last two decades. Rand Paul is correct when he says it’s time to force new authorization for any new military actions in the Middle East. This thing where every new president just does whatever they want is no how things are supposed to work, never mind the moral issues at play.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who profit in war. We need to make sure they have very little influence in our government.

 

 

A Serious Flaw In The Covid Relief Bill

Yesterday The Washington Times posted an article about an item that is included in the Covid Relief Bill that simply should not be there. We have learned in recent years how deep and wide the swamp  in Washington is, but this item reaches a new level.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s coronavirus stimulus package outlines a one-time $1,400 check to families financially affected by the virus.

Yet the fine print in the House stimulus bill sneaks in this fascinating nugget: If you’re a federal employee, you can receive $1,400 a week in paid time off for 15 weeks if you decide to stay at home and virtually school your child.

As first reported by Forbes, the carve-out is included in the bill’s $570 million “Emergency Federal Employee Leave fund,” which is exclusively reserved for federal employees.

Among those eligible are those who are “unable to work” because they are caring for school-aged children not physically in school full time “due to COVID-19 precautions[.]”

The new fund allows a federal employee “caring for a son or daughter” to qualify for the paid leave, specifically “if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, if the school of such son or daughter requires or makes optional a virtual learning instruction model or requires or makes optional a hybrid of in-person and virtual learning instruction models, or the childcare provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions.”

The article continues:

Meanwhile, millions of families are trying to balance work with virtual learning and child care — with only a lousy one-time $1,400 check to help compensate them for their efforts. Yet federal government employees will be paid weekly not to work. The entire thing is insane, and another example of how the swamp takes care of its own.

As Forbes notes, the drafting of the federal employee leave fund is intentionally sloppy. It doesn’t include age requirements for the children (meaning federal employees could apply for this leave even if their children are attending college), and it also would allow for government employees to receive the benefit even if their child could be in school five days a week, but the employee chooses a virtual option instead.

The entire House stimulus bill includes no financial reimbursement for working families who have decided to place their children in private schools because their school districts are virtual, even as they continue to pay school taxes. They continue to pay for a service not being rendered — with no exact timeline of when it will be.

This is a disgrace. The small businesses that have been forced to close receive a fraction of what employees of our bloated federal government receive. That is simply wrong.

A Seriously Misnamed Bill

Today the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act. The Act is would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect people from being discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and other services as well as access to public accommodations such as restaurants. That sounds very innocent until you look closer to see what it actually means. There is nothing equal about the Equality Act.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article explaining exactly what the Act will do.

The article reports:

If this bill is adopted, the fact that we are male or female is in danger of being replaced with the subjective concept of gender identity. The ramifications of this change, at the center of our universe of knowledge about human beings, would be profound. Making gender identity a protected class in the 1964 Civil Rights Act would discredit the idea that sex is binary, that men and women are different, and that recognition of these differences can be helpful to achieving justice and fairness in a variety of circumstances.

A legal change of this magnitude, based on subjective and transient feelings, is unprecedented. But gender identity is riding on a powerful wave of identity politics that seeks to upend a perceived “power structure” that “privileges” those who are comfortable with their bodies. “Cisgender normativity” might be an easy concept to dismiss along with erasure of mother and father,” and the introduction of “chestfeeding.” But to think of the gender identity revolution as merely another chapter in “woke” wonderland would be to miss the import of the linguistic, cultural, and political revolution for the integrity of education, medicine, and science.

Like the heliocentric model, the sex binary was once consistently taught in every academic discipline and at all levels. Sex differences inform everything from our treatment of disease, to the benefits of single-sex education, to our understanding of parenting and leadership styles. But postmodernism, the sexual revolution, and critical gender and queer theory have firmly placed feelings at the center of academia, displacing empirical knowledge. Every discipline has been transformed, not just literature and history, but even the hard sciences. The Medical College Admissions Test now asks about the gender identity of patients. The American Association of Medical Colleges is the major accrediting body for medical schools. Its inclusion of this question signals to aspiring doctors that they must show not just knowledge and skills but ideological conformity.

The article concludes:

Perhaps most alarming are the stories of regret from a growing number of “detransitioners.” Their bodies are scarred, their voices broken, and their fertility lost — casualties of hormones and surgeries that failed to deliver peace. Those who have tried to sound the alarm, such as feminist icon J.K. Rowling, tennis pioneer Martina Navratilova, and leading medical experts Dr. Paul McHugh, are bulldozed. Name, shame, cancel, repeat.

If the Equality Act passes the House this week, it won’t be the result of new scientific discoveries about the sexes or the result of a thoughtful, open political debate. It will be the denial of all that previous generations around the world have learned and observed about sex differences over centuries. It will be the triumph of cancel culture over facts, reason, and empirical knowledge. And if the sex binary can be canceled, who knows what’s next?

Gender isn’t fluid–it’s contained in your DNA. To encourage children of any age to take drastic medical steps to become something they are not is simply child abuse. Unfortunately this bill enshrines that behavior. We are in a very sad place as a society.

Federal Spending Is Out Of Control

The Independent Women’s Forum posted an article today about the $1.9 trillion dollar “stimulus package.” The article includes the graph below:

This is how the system works–no Washington swamp creature would dare vote against Covid relief, so the bill gets passed. The American dollar loses more of its value because of the increased debt and increased printing of money. People in the lower middle class and lower class struggle to pay their bills because their dollars are worth less. Politicians in Washington feather the nests of their friends and lobbyists, and most Americans wonder why they are broke.

The article includes a list of some of the spending in this bill:

  • 60,000,000 for NASA 
  • $75,000,000 for the Endowment for the Arts—because we’ve been able to enjoy so many artistic expressions during the pandemic. 
  • $75,000,000 for the National Endowment for the Humanities 
  • $25,000,000 for “Salaries and Expenses” for the House of Representatives 
  • $324,000,000 for State Department Diplomatic Programs 
  • $95,000,000 for “Operating Expenses” for the Agency of International Development 

Ask yourself, “Would these things pass a stand-alone items? Not likely. So they put them in a bill that no one will dare vote against. As a result of this, the Covid Relief bill simply funds Democrat pet projects and leaves the American people further in debt.

The article concludes:

The list goes on and on. Yes, the CARES Act did provide some important relief for Americans. But it also included an enormous amount of funding for other groups and organizations that could not possibly be connected to the coronavirus pandemic.

Unfortunately, this new bill being pushed by the Democrats and the Biden administration takes a similar, if not even worse, approach.

Pandemic stimulus and funding should be targeted, temporary, and flexible. Clearly many people continue to struggle, particularly small businesses as seen by the wild success of the Barstool Sports Fund. Congress should focus on helping those who need it most, not bailing out their allies and enforcing their wish list upon Americans who will have to foot the bill in the end.

Citizens Have Voices Too!

Yesterday a group of people connected to the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers’ Association (CCTA) went up to Raleigh to talk to our legislators. Below is a picture we took with Senator Lazzara.

We visited a number of Representatives and Senators from eastern North Carolina. We also sat in the gallery and watched a session of the House of Representatives. The two main issues we asked our legislators about were election integrity and education. There are a number of simple steps that can be taken in North Carolina to protect the integrity of our elections. These were discussed with our lawmakers. It is also time to bring our children back into the classroom. Remote learning has failed too many children and left them depressed and behind their grade levels. One of the bills passed in the House of Representative yesterday would establish an optional six-week summer program that would give students a chance to make up for some of the time missed. Eastern North Carolina students have lost a lot of school in the past three years not only because of the Covid virus, but also because of Hurricane Florence. We need to do everything we can to help them redeem that time.

I just want to remind everyone that anyone can visit our state legislators when they are in session. They are constantly visited by lobbyists, and we the people need to make sure our voices are also heard. CCTA visits Raleigh periodically and invites all interested citizens to come along. If you think you might be interested in coming with us in the future, please send an email to Raynor@cctaxpayers.com. We would love to have you along.

That Was Then, This Is Now

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about how the Biden administration is handing the illegal aliens crossing our southern border.

The article reports:

A remarkable contrast in manipulative media narrative engineering. President Trump built a migrant facility for unaccompanied alien children in 2019 and was lambasted by mainstream media for it. Today the Joe Biden administration activates the exact same facility and the media are swooning over the compassionate care facility.

The article includes an excerpt from The Washington Post:

CARRIZO SPRINGS, Tex. — Dozens of migrant teens boarded vans Monday for the trip down a dusty road to a former man camp for oil field workers here, the first migrant child facility opened under the Biden administration.

The emergency facility — a vestige of the Trump administration that was open for only a month in summer 2019 — is being reactivated to hold up to 700 children ages 13 to 17.

Government officials say the camp is needed because facilities for migrant children have had to cut capacity by nearly half because of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has been inching up, with January reporting the highest total — more than 5,700 apprehensions — for that month in recent years. 

The article also includes the classic picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez crying over an empty parking lot. Good grief.

The media has not been helpful to our republic for quite some time. It would be nice if there were at least some semblance of unbiased reporting. Right now it really does take effort to be an informed voter, and Democrats are working hard to take down conservative or unbiased news sources. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.

This Is Troubling, But Not Surprising

Yesterday PJ Media posted the following headline, “REPORT: Former Obama Staff Colluded With Iran to Undermine Trump.” This is not really a surprise. There were a lot of Democrats and Republican who sought to undermine Trump. We heard a lot of talk about a ‘peaceful transition of power’ when Joe Biden was elected, but we need to understand that there was no ‘peaceful transition of power’ when President Trump was elected. President Obama remained in Washington, D.C., and from his command center threw every obstacle he could into the path of President Trump with full compliance from the media. The antics of the Democrats, some swamp-dwelling Republicans, and the media from 2015 until 2020 are a disgrace to our republic.

The article reports:

Former Obama administration officials, including former Secretary of State John Kerry, went behind President Donald Trump’s back in backchannels with Iran, sources told The Washington Times. Some of the architects of the Iran nuclear deal met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after Trump withdrew from the deal.

A slew of former Obama officials, including Kerry, Obama’s Middle East advisor Robert Malley, and Obama-era Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, met with Zarif during the Trump years. Kerry, Malley, and Moniz led negotiations in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in which the U.S. provided sanctions relief and access to tens of billions of dollars in frozen bank accounts in exchange for Iran’s promises to limit nuclear enrichment.

Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018, citing the need for a tougher agreement that also addressed Iran’s support for terrorist groups and its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East. Yet a former senior U.S. official told The Washington Times that Zarif met with Democrats like Kerry multiple times in 2017, 2018, and 2019, before the Trump administration halted his visa in 2020.

The former official told the Times that Zarif’s meetings aimed “to devise a political strategy to undermine the Trump administration” and to build support for a new version of the Iran deal in case a Democrat returned to the White House in 2021.

Kerry acknowledged meeting with Zarif at least twice in the early years of the Trump administration. He told radio host Hugh Hewitt that there was nothing secret about his meetings with the Iranian minister. Kerry said he intended to find out “what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better.”

Kerry was a private citizen at that time; he had no authority to represent America in any way or to meet with foreign leaders in any capacity.

The article concludes:

“Former administration officials can play a very helpful role in close coordination with a sitting administration to open and support sensitive diplomatic channels,” Mark Dubowitz, chief executive at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Times. “But it is not good practice for senior officials who served at the highest levels of a former administration, Democratic or Republican, to be trying to undermine the policy of a sitting administration by engaging actively with a known enemy of the United States.”

Indeed, Malley was reportedly engaging in this “shadow diplomacy” while Iran-backed militias targeted U.S. troops in Iraq, leading up to the assassination of Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.

Sources also told The Washington Times that Zarif wields tremendous influence over the Iran lobby in the U.S. They described a “web” of activity linked to think tanks across the U.S. as well as lobbying efforts that reached into the Obama White House.

Many members of Congress, including Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), have hired current or former staffers with the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), an organization with links to Iran’s regime and which Iran state media has described as “Iran’s lobby” in the U.S.

Did the Obama administration architects of the Iran deal carry out a “shadow diplomacy” with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism in order to undermine President Trump, hoping that a Democrat would win in 2020 and return them to power? Did they work with the Iran lobby behind the scenes? This explosive report suggests the answers to those questions are “yes,” but the details are yet to be forthcoming.

Where is the Logan Act when you actually need it?

Some Of The Nominees For Positions In The Biden Administration Are Troubling

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article today about Merrick Garland, President Biden’s pick to lead the Justice Department.

The article notes:

I don’t consider Merrick Garland a moderate liberal, and I don’t think he came across as one during his confirmation hearing yesterday. He couldn’t even bring himself to say that illegally entering the U.S. should be a crime.

I consider Garland a front man for the radicalization and politicization of the Department of Justice. As Julie Kelly puts it, “he’ll be a figurehead [like Robert Mueller] and Weismann-type prosecutors will run the show.”

Two of those who, if confirmed, will run the show are Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. Gupta is Joe Biden’s nominee for Associate Attorney General. Clarke is his nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Yesterday, Sen. Mike Lee asked Garland about these two. Garland dutifully vouched for them on the basis of having “gotten to know them.” The question is: What else could he say? Also: Whom should we believe, Merrick Garland or our lying eyes?

Please follow the link above to read the responses by Merrick Garland when asked specific questions about Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke.

The article concludes:

It’s important to note that Garland did not select either Gupta or Clarke for the positions in question. He got to “know” them only after they had been picked by Team Biden. And clearly, he had no choice but to vouch for them at his confirmation hearing.

But even if Garland was giving his honest opinions of the two based on his conversations with them, these opinions count for next to nothing.

Garland may be a decent guy and a competent court of appeals judge, but he’s not a seer. Gupta and Clarke weren’t going to confess to him their raw hatred of Republicans, their most extreme political views, or any strands of anti-Semitism and Black supremacy in their thinking.

But Gupta’s intemperate comments about her political opponents, which approach those of Neera Tanden in their venom, are there, in writing, for all to see. So is Clarke’s history of advocating Black supremacy and promoting anti-Semitism. So is her unwavering support for racial discrimination against Whites.

The Senate should confirm Merrick Garland. He’s the nominee for Attorney General one would expect in a Democratic administration — nothing better, nothing worse.

The Senate should not confirm Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. The public record, from which Sen. Lee’s questions were drawn, shows them to be nasty extremists committed to key elements of the radical BLM agenda — whatever Garland’s true impression of them might be.

Even in a Democratic administration, we should expect, and demand, better.

There are words to describe the cabinet the Biden administration is putting together, but I can’t use them in a G-rated blog.

 

 

Does This Concern Anyone?

Yesterday The National Pulse posted an article about Dr. Rachel Levine, President Joe Biden’s pick for Assistant Secretary of Health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On Thursday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a nomination hearing for Dr. Rachel Levine. Dr. Levine was formerly the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Pennsylvania was one of the states that sent Covid patients into nursing homes. At the same time Covid patients were sent into nursing homes, Dr. Levine quietly moved one of her parents out of a nursing home to a safer location. Rules for thee, but not for me. However, that is the least of the problems with this nominee.

The article reports:

Most alarmingly, Dr. Levine has advocated for sex changes for pre-pubertal people, otherwise known as “children.”

A professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine, Levine has given lectures in various settings since at least 2012 on how to perform sex changes and gender conversion therapy on children.

According to Levine, children ought to be given the latitude to choose their own gender. Levine has advised adults to “try not to force them one way or other [sic]” and instead to follow the child’s lead.

“For prepubertal children,” Levine said in a 2017 speech at Franklin & Marshall College, “they might present in different ways. They might present at school in the gender they were identified at birth, or they might present as the other gender, or they might be more gender-fluid.” Levine has described children as young as five or six as “knowing” which gender they wanted to be.

Once, however, the child reaches the “young adolescent” stage, Dr. Levine recommends puberty blockers, a practice which Dr. Levine apparently followed at Penn State Hershey Medical Center as Chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders. In speeches, Levine describes prescribing puberty blockers and cross-gender hormone injections to children who expressed anxiety about the natural process of puberty.

Additionally, Levine has expressed doubts about the “controversial” requirement in some standards of medical ethics that patients receive psychological evaluations before undergoing such drastic medical regimens.

The current protocols for gender-dysphoric youth, Levine stated in a 2017 speech, outline a two-step process: the prescription of puberty-blockers during the first stages of puberty, and then, after continued counselling, the introduction of cross-gender hormones between the ages of 14 and 16. Then, around age 18, the patient may undergo surgery. But, as Levine noted, there are sometimes exceptions. In certain instances, Levine has said, surgical procedures may be performed on patients under the age of 18.

Dr. Levine is transgender. I guess she just wants to share her experience with children. This person should not be allowed to assume any leadership position in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under any circumstances.

Unfortunately Sometimes Bullying Is Effective

Yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear the case dealing with the Pennsylvania election challenge. The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the decision and the possible reason for it. This is not good news for America.

The article reports:

In a 6-3 ruling today the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant writ to hear the Pennsylvania election challenge cases [pdf here – begin page 25].  While the majority of media will likely celebrate this decision; and while the court has refused to hear the case(s) based on their position the issues are “moot”; there appears to be an underlying motive  not being discussed.

It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case and grant a writ of certiorari.  In October 2020 the issues with the Pennsylvania court overruling the Pennsylvania legislature was of such importance four justices agreed to block the lower court order. However, four months later the majority claim the arguments within the case are “moot”;  & the election is over.

In essence the Roberts Court is saying they will allow any/all methods and manipulations of election law within states, and only look to the state outcome.  This is very troublesome.

The article continues:

Why would Justice Kavanaugh reverse his position?  In October the state action to supersede the Pennsylvania legislature was a hazard.  In February it is moot.

While it is never a good idea to look into the background of the court for motives, one cannot easily dismiss that Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett may have voted against the writ because they were concerned such a decision would cause the senate to start a process of “packing the court.”   Retaining the current number of justices within the court is more likely if the justices avoid triggering the consequences from the previous threat.

Justices’ Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch remained consistent with their earlier decisions to hear the cases and settle the disputes.  Barrett never weighed in on the October injunction, but Kavanaugh has completely reversed his position with his denial of the writ.

The article includes Justice Thomas’ statement:

Isn’t it interesting that when laws were broken and voting was questionable, no court in America has actually been willing to examine the evidence. Unfortunately, I suspect that this is only one of many bad decisions to come.

Never Believe The Title Of A Congressional Bill

On Sunday, The New York Post posted an article about the Equality Act, which will be voted on by the House of Representatives this week.

The article reports:

President Biden has promised to unify the nation. But candidate Joe Biden also made campaign promises to the radical wing of his party that would widen our social divides. Guess which promises are being honored.

Witness the so-called Equality Act, which candidate Biden vowed to make a priority and which is set to be voted on by the House this week. What’s the Equality Act? And who could be against equality? Don’t let the name fool you.

The act “updates” the law Congress passed primarily to combat ­racism, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and adds sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes akin to race. So if you have any reservations about gender ideology — as even many progressives do; just ask J.K. Rowling — you’d now be the legal equivalent of Bull Connor.

Rather than finding common-sense, narrowly tailored ways to shield LGBT-identifying Americans from truly unjust discrimination, the bill would act as a sword — to persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies. It would vitiate a sex binary that is quite literally written into our genetic code and is fundamental to many of our laws, not least laws protecting the equality, safety and privacy of women.

The bill goes out of its way to protect the rights of men who are transgender while infringing on the basic rights of women. The bill gives the men the right to spend the night in battered-women’s shelters, access to women’s locker rooms, and the ability to participate in women’s athletics even at the elementary and high school level. It is a pretty safe bet that this bill, if passed, will not only destroy women’s sports, it will end the opportunity for many women to obtain athletic scholarships.

The article continues:

The act would also massively expand the government’s regulatory reach. The Civil Rights Act, it seems, is too narrow for today’s Democrats. The Equality Act would coerce “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting or legal services,” along with any organization that receives any federal funding.

That’s more or less everyone and everything.

Religious institutions are very much included. Under the Equality Act, religious schools, adoption agencies and other charities would face federal sanction for upholding the teachings of mainstream biology and the Bible, modern ­genetics and Genesis, when it comes to sex and marriage.

They’ll be at risk, because the Equality Act takes our laws on ­racial equality and adds highly ­ideological concepts about sex and gender. But most laws on racism included no religious-liberty protections — unlike, for example Title IX, which includes robust protections for faith-based schools.

Outrageously, the Equality Act explicitly exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pope Francis would be treated as the legal equivalent of a Jim Crow segregationist.

The only thing equal about the Equality Act is that it makes some people in America more equal than others.

Hopefully There Are Some People In Congress With Common Sense

Just the News is reporting that West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Republican Senator Susan Collins have both stated that they will vote against the confirmation of President Biden’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget – Neera Tanden. I need to say here that generally I believe an elected President is entitled to his picks for his cabinet, but some of President Biden’s picks are well outside the political mainstream.

The article reports:

Tanden is president of the liberal public policy research and advocacy group Center for American Progress, founded by former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.

Her statement also echoed Manchin’s concerns: “Neera Tanden has neither the experience nor the temperament to lead this critical agency. Her past actions have demonstrated exactly the kind of animosity that President Biden has pledged to transcend.”

Collins also pointed out that Taden’ decision to delete more than a thousand tweets in the days before her nomination was announced “raises concerns about her commitment to transparency.”

Said Manchin: “I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, I cannot support her nomination.”

Manchin’s “no” vote means Senate Democrats need at least one Republican to vote in favor of Tanden to get her nomination through the chamber.

Unfortunately there may actually be a least one squishy Republican who will vote for her confirmation.

The Dangers Of Moving To Green Energy Before The Technology Is Perfected

On February 10th, The John Locke Foundation posted an article about the proposed energy policies of North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper.

The article reports:

  • Last summer California suffered two days of rolling blackouts
  • California’s Utility Commission recently published their findings of what happened to cause the massive loss in power
  • Years of misguided policies led to a shortage of dispatchable energy — the same policies Gov. Roy Cooper is advocating for North Carolina

Last summer California suffered two days of rolling blackouts because the customers’ needs for electricity exceeded the California power system’s ability to generate electricity. Such a thing should never happen. The California Utilities Commission recently published a report explaining what happened and why.

North Carolinians should know that many of the energy policies Gov. Roy Cooper has advocated for here in North Carolina follow the mistakes identified as the cause of California’s blackouts. As in California, these missteps will leave North Carolina unprepared for our energy future and will ultimately lead to blackouts here. North Carolina should not repeat California’s mistakes.

The job of providing stable electricity to the consumer can be complicated, but this much is pretty simple: enough electricity must always be generated to meet the demand. The United States has developed one of the world’s finest electricity systems. Its costs are among the lowest, and its reliability is among the highest. What happened to California? What bad energy decisions were made over the years in California resulting in rolling blackouts?

According to the “Root Cause Analysis” published by California Independent System Operator, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Energy Commission, here are the factors that led to the outages:

  1. Climate change–induced extreme weather caused the demand to exceed the generating capability of the California system.
  2. In transitioning to “clean” energy, the State’s dispatchable generating capacity had “not kept pace” with the state’s needs.
  3. The State’s “Resource Adequacy” program failed to predict the needs of the heat wave.

The article concludes:

Cooper is steering North Carolina in the same direction. He opposes building new natural gas pipelines while pushing for more solar plants, which need natural gas backup. Is this where we want North Carolina to go? Do we want more poverty? Do we want the poorest having to pay more of their monthly income for electricity? Do we want rolling blackouts?

Shouldn’t we learn from California’s mistakes instead and keep natural gas plants supplied with gas while we build more nuclear power?

There are a few things those promoting green energy (including electric cars) fail to mention when promoting their agenda. The disposal of the blades on windmills and the disposal of solar panels are creating an environmental hazard. The mining of lithium for electric car batteries involves the use of slave labor in Africa. (articles here, here, here, and here). Rolling blackouts are not acceptable in a country as prosperous as America. We have cut our carbon footprint significantly with the use of natural gas. It is folly to believe we can run a successful economy without the careful use of fossil fuel to keep the economy going. Spain learned that lesson in the early 2000’s (article here).

Hopefully the legislature can put Governor Cooper on the right track.

 

When The Government Decides What Businesses Are Good

There are those in Congress who are supposed to represent us that believe that the government should be able to decide whether a business should be allowed to operate or not. We have seen a lot of this during the coronavirus outbreak, but unfortunately that may only be a preview of things to come.

Yesterday Townhall reported the following:

Millions of Americans are out of work due to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Thousands more are unemployed because of President Joe Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite the tough times, progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) believes “now is the right time” for Congress to press forward with a $15-an-hour minimum wage, something they tied to the latest COVID relief package.

According to Khanna, Amazon and Target made a decision to raise their minimum wage to $15-an-hour across the nation. As a result, Khanna says, the companies have produced more jobs (yet he doesn’t take into account that more people are shopping online due to lockdown restrictions and the pandemic).

The Representative evidently does not see the value of every small business:

“Businesses like Amazon and McDonald’s, for example, can and perhaps should, pay more, but I’m wondering, what is your plan for smaller businesses?” CNN’s Abby Phillip asked. “How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?”

“Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages,” Khanna replied. “We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

According to the congressman, if workers were paid for their productivity, they would be making $23-an-hour.

“I love small businesses. I’m all for it but I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees,” he said. “It’s fair for people to make what they’re producing and I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

I have posted numerous articles about the job losses that will result from raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The ideas of this Representative would not only limit the access to the workplace for young people seeking jobs, it would also cause the mom and pop restaurants and small shops either to close or to cause the owners to have to work 70-hour weeks because they can’t afford to pay anyone the minimum wage.

This Congressmen has not studied economics. He also needs a serious less on being compassionate to those who are struggling to keep a small business going.