Another Misnamed Bill

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill. Just as the Covid Relief Bill was not about Covid relief, the infrastructure bill is not about infrastructure.

The article quotes The Wall Street Journals description of the bill:

Most Americans think of infrastructure as roads, highways, bridges and other traditional public works. That’s why it polls well, and every President has supported more of it.

Yet this accounts for a mere $115 billion of Mr. Biden’s proposal. There’s another $25 billion for airports and $17 billion for ports and waterways that also fill a public purpose. The rest of the $620 billion earmarked for “transportation” are subsidies for green energy and payouts to unions for the jobs his climate regulation will kill. This is really a plan to build government back bigger than it has ever been.

The magnitude of spending is something to behold. There’s $85 billion for mass transit plus $80 billion for Amtrak, which is on top of the $70 billion that Congress appropriated for mass transit in three Covid spending bills. The money is essentially a bailout for unions, whose generous pay and benefits have captured funds meant for subway and rail repairs. …

Note the political irony of all this. Mr. Biden says “public investment” has fallen as a share of the economy since the 1960s, and he has a point. But the main reason is that government spending on social welfare, entitlements and public unions have squeezed out public works. Now he’s redefining social welfare as public works to drive more social-welfare spending, which will further crowd out money for public works and government R&D to compete against China.

Essentially the bill is a place to park all of the legislation the Democrats want passed, but know won’t pass if correctly named.

The article concludes:

That’s not an accident. That’s by design. Rather than stick to real infrastructure needs, Biden wants to use this bait-and-switch to aggrandize power within the Beltway and make everyone more dependent on grants from lawmakers. It is precisely on the same curve as Biden’s entire political career, including his record on honesty and transparency.

Never read the titles of bills–they never tell the truth!

Fighting Back

Yesterday Trending Politics reported that 13 states are suing the Biden administration because of the clause in the Covid Relief Bill that prevents states from lowering taxes if they receive aid.

The article quotes The Daily Caller:

The Daily Caller reports: “The 13-state coalition argued that the provision included in the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package preventing states from cutting taxes if they accept relief from the federal government is unconstitutional. The coalition, led by Republican West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday evening in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.”

In a statement released on Wednesday, Morrisey said, “Never before has the federal government attempted such a complete takeover of state finances. We cannot stand for such overreach.”

…The lawsuit explains that the tax provision is “one of the most egregious power grabs” in U.S. history, adding that the Tenth Amendment doesn’t allow the federal government to stretch their authority like the Biden Administration is doing.

The lawsuit is needed. The provision in the bill is definitely government overreach.

Insanity Reigns

Om Wednesday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of the benefits given to those who cross our border illegally.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is granting thousands of illegal border crossers one-year renewable permits to stay in the United States to apply for asylum, a process that can take years.

What’s more, according to a new report, they are allowed to receive Social Security cards, paving the way to government benefits and jobs.

Immigration expert Todd Bensman, who has been embedded in the process for the Center for Immigration Studies, said in a new report that an estimated 34,000 recent border crossers have already been distributed around the country with the documents.

He said that if the migrant qualifies to stay, and most do under the Biden rules, they are given a COVID test then documents to stay before being guided to a privately run service that buses them around the country.

I guess this is one way to bankrupt Social Security–how many illegal immigrants will be claiming benefits without having put much into the system?

The article concludes:

Before Biden took office, nearly all asylum-seekers and potential border crossers stayed in Mexico while their papers were processed. Many turned around and went home. Former President Donald Trump, with Mexico’s help, instituted that process because a majority of those who had entered the country during prior administrations never appeared for their court hearings on their application.

Now the older system is back in operation, said Bensman, and migrants are being sent to cities in Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky.

“On the bank of the Rio Grande in Del Rio recently,” Bensman wrote, he “happened across a family of four who had just crossed and turned themselves in to a Border Patrol agent. They were seated on the ground next to his agency truck. Asked where they were from and where they expected to go next, the parents answered that they were from Venezuela and were on their way to join relatives in Florida.”

“They should be there inside of a week.”

We are giving away our country while neglecting the needs of America’s veterans and America’s poor.

 

The Absurdity Is Temporarily Suspended

Yesterday The Epoch Times reported that Iowa Democrat Rita Hart has conceded the Iowa 2nd Congressional District election to Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks. Representative Miller-Meeks had won the election by six votes. The results were recounted and certified by the State of Iowa. Ms. Hart decided to bypass the state procedure for contesting the results and went to the U.S. House of Representatives instead. Speaker Pelosi gladly took up her cause. Thankfully, there were a few Democrats who realized the dangerous precedent overturning a certified election would create and were not willing to go along with the plan to unseat Representative Miller-Meeks. I suspect that when Speaker Pelosi realized that she did not have the support of her party, she quietly asked Ms. Hart to withdraw the challenge.

The article reports:

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate also sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and called on her “to reject any attempts to overturn the will of Iowa voters.”

Pate said that the “Hart campaign signed off on the recount procedures and results in all 24 counties” and said that “the bipartisan State Canvassing Board unanimously accepted the results and officially certified the election,” noting that Miller-Meeks defeated her opponent by six votes.

“Ms. Hart has stated that her reason for failing to give Iowans a voice in this process is that Iowa law does not allow for sufficient time to review her claims,” Pate wrote.

“That assertion is in stark contrast to the fact that Iowa’s Judicial Branch has always gone above and beyond to issue expeditious rulings in cases concerning election law. The Hart campaign should have exhausted all state avenues before asking a federal chamber controlled by her party to make the final determination. Iowans should have the final say in all Iowa elections, not Washington, D.C., politicians.”

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders earlier this month said that the House has the capacity to overturn contested elections. Under the Constitution, the House does have the power to make the final call in certain cases, and Hart appealed to the lower congressional body to review the results of her razor-thin race against Miller-Meeks.

Not all of the Democrats were on board with this effort.

The article notes:

But some moderate Democrats rejected efforts to overturn Miller-Meeks’s win.

“I want to see what compelling reasons there are for the feds to get involved in this,” Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) told CNN earlier this month. “I think these are issues that right now are probably best left at the state level.”

There may be hope for our nation yet.

Dogs Are Amazing

Yesterday Sara Carter reported that Border Control canines found $60k worth of fentanyl pills hidden inside burritos.

The article reports:

A Yuma Sector Border Patrol canine uncovered almost $60,000 worth of the drugs in the backpack of a man crossing a checkpoint near Arizona, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a press release Tuesday.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated the following in their press release:

A canine handler referred the male driver of a Chevrolet Tahoe to the checkpoint’s secondary inspection area at approximately 3 p.m., after his canine partner alerted to the vehicle. While in secondary, the canine alerted to a black backpack that was located inside the vehicle. Agents searched the backpack and discovered several small packages containing fentanyl pills that were stuffed inside breakfast burritos.

The packages of fentanyl had a combined weight of just over five pounds with an estimated street value of nearly $60,000.

A 37-year-old Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident was arrested and the fentanyl was seized and processed per CBP guidelines.

Smugglers are under the false assumption that they can disguise drugs within food to throw off canines and their handlers. On the contrary, canines have the ability to detect a target odor among a myriad of other odors.

Our local sheriff one commented that a person might walk into a house and notice that there was beef stew cooking. A dog’s sense of smell is so acute that he would be thinking ‘you left out the carrots.’ Thank God for our men at the border and the dogs that work alongside them.

The Media Is Telling You What To Believe

On Monday, Newsbusters posted an article about the media reporting after a tragedy involving a gun.

The article reports:

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Boulder, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows sinisterly depicted Republicans, conservatives and gun owners as a “wall of opposition” and “resistance” to “common sense” gun control measures that would save lives. 

In just four days (March 23 through March 26) of coverage, the networks filled their morning show and evening programs with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ratio of roughly 14 to 1.

It’s become commonplace for the networks to quickly seize on a mass shooting to champion the Left’s longstanding anti-gun agenda. After the December 2012 killings in a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school, NewsBusters found the networks slanted their coverage 8-to-1 in favor of the gun control agenda.

In the wake of the 2016 mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub, the spin was an equally-lopsided 8-to-1. TV coverage of the killings in Las Vegas in 2017 was slanted five-to-one against gun rights, while in the wake of the February 2018 shootings at Parkland High School the networks tilted 11-to-1 in favor of anti-gun activists.

And after the 2019 shootings in El Paso, Texas, the networks tilted an even more lopsided 17-to-1 to the Left.

The article summarizes the numbers:

MRC analysts reviewed all statements that took a position on overall gun policy by anchors, reporters, guests and soundbites, beginning with the morning of March 23 (the morning after the Boulder shooting) through the morning of March 26, and found time spent arguing in favor of more gun control (36 minutes, 11 seconds) overwhelmed time devoted to supporting gun rights (2 minutes and 31 seconds.)  

How are Americans supposed to get a fair picture of any issue when our media is so lopsided? This is ridiculous.

None of the laws currently proposed by Democrats in Congress to ‘save lives’ would have been relevant in most of the shootings that have occurred in America in recent years. Limiting the rights of law-abiding gun owners does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and using them. Has it occurred to anyone in Congress that criminals do not follow laws?

Tax And Spend From The Biden Administration

Breitbart posted an article today about President Biden’s plan to raise taxes on Americans to pay for an infrastructure plan.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden plans to propose a tax on American businesses at a higher corporate tax rate than Communist China charges American businesses.

Biden will travel to Pittsburgh Wednesday to present a 2.25 trillion dollar package that would, if passed into law, increase the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, outdoing Communist China’s corporate tax rate of 25 percent, just after former President Trump lowered the tax from 35 percent to the current 21 percent.

The lesson that the President should have learned from the Trump administration’s corporate tax cuts is that when you cut the corporate tax rate, businesses come back to America. Increasing the corporate tax rate will drive American businesses overseas and will result in more unemployment for Americans.

The article concludes:

The top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), also condemned the plan due to the United States remaining in an economic crisis. “No president has ever raised business taxes to recover from an economic crisis. This couldn’t come at a worse time,” he said.

Ann Wagner (R-MO) agreed. “Why, as this country begins to reopen and recover economically, would the Biden administration be proposing tax policy which would, in the end, hurt the American family and millions of struggling small businesses?”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on March 16 that Republicans would not support tax increases to pay for infrastructure. “I don’t think there’s going to be any enthusiasm on our side for a tax increase,” he said.
Breitbart News reported the bill also “includes $300 billion for housing, $400 billion for elderly and disabled care, and $300 billion to revive manufacturing in the United States.” Additional expenditures incorporate high-speed broadband internet upgrades, electric grid modifications, and water systems maintenance. The proposal will also involve “nearly $400 billion in ‘clean-energy credits’ to promote ‘green’ energy such as wind and solar.”

If you were really interested in reviving manufacturing in America, you wouldn’t raise the corporate tax and end energy independence. This bill is not about what it says it is about.

The Lunacy Continues

Remember high school biology. We were taught that females inherit an X chromosome from the father for a XX genotype, while males inherit a Y chromosome from the father for a XY genotype. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Well, evidently times have changed.

The Daily Signal is reporting the following today:

A Tuesday CNN news story stated as fact that “there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth” without attribution.

The CNN story, written by breaking news reporter Devan Cole, was about Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s battle with state lawmakers over HB 1217, a bill that seeks to ban biological males from women’s sports.

“?It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth,” Cole wrote, without attribution.

He did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

…The story further noted that “biological sex” is a “disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students’ original birth certificates” as CNN reported Noem’s two executive orders, one to “protect fairness in K-12 athletics” and another to “do so in college athletics.”

Cole wrote that the executive orders “do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they ?reference the supposed harms of the participation of ‘males’ in women’s athletics—an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women.”

The idea that you can’t identify the sex of a baby at birth is ridiculous. Does that mean the phone calls from the excited father will say, “It’s a baby!”? It is very strange that the people who keep saying “follow the science” have chosen to ignore X and Y chromosomes.

This Is A Really Bad Idea

Yesterday Townhall posted an article that featured Jen Psaki explaining the role the federal government will play in producing a ‘vaccine passport.’

The article reports:

“We are going to provide guidance, just as we have through the CDC. There’s currently an interagency process that is looking at many of the questions around vaccine verification, and that issue will touch many agencies as verification is an issue that will potentially touch many sectors of society,” Psaki said. “A determination or development of a vaccine passport or whatever you want to call it will be driven by the private sector. Ours will more be focused on guidelines that can be used as a basis.”

“There are a couple of key principles that we are working from. One is that there will be no centralized, universal federal vaccinations database and no federal mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential. Second, we want to encourage an open marketplace with a variety of private sector companies and non-profit coalitions developing solutions,” Psaki continued. “And third, we want to drive the market toward meeting public interest goals. So we’ll leverage our resources to ensure that all vaccination credential systems meet key standards, whether that’s universal accessibility, affordability, availability, both digitally and on paper.”

These are the same people who oppose voter ID laws. This really does sound like the ‘social credits’ system that Communist China uses. Vaccine passports will be the end of freedom in America as we know it.

 

Correcting Misinformation

On March 25th, I posted an article about an upcoming documentary to be aired on the Public Broadcasting Corporation stations yesterday. The article contained information I had received in my email from The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).

Today I received the following email from CAMERA:

On Friday March 26, PBS notified CAMERA senior staff that the network would be postponing its broadcast of ‘Til Kingdom Come to enable an independent review of the work. We welcome this important action. As reported last week, we had alerted PBS to the issue of a falsified presidential quote in the film, and the network corrected it.
 
Given the filmmakers’ flagrant doctoring of that quote to reverse the meaning of a proposal regarding Middle East peace and disposition of the West Bank – a manipulation evidently intended to promote an inflammatory message about Christian Zionist support for Israel – we had urged a thorough vetting of the entire documentary by the network.
 
We commend PBS for its commitment to editorial integrity in choosing to review the rest of the film and look forward to learning of the results of the analysis.
 
Thank you to all who contacted PBS to protest the broadcast. We will update you as we learn of any developments.

Obviously, I have no idea if or how the correction will be made, but I am posting this to show you that every person can make a difference. When a media outlet distorts information, your letters or emails matter. The news media in America is owned by five major corporations that are in business to make money. When they hear from news consumers and realize that their ratings are dropping, they will eventually take action. Notice that CNN is no longer in airports. I have no idea what their current viewership is, but I suspect it has dropped significantly. When cable contracts come up for renewal, viewing numbers matter. Even if it doesn’t seem like it, you have a voice. Your letters and emails matter.

In Raleigh Today

My husband and I drove up to Raleigh today to attend a meeting of the House Rules Committee. The Committee was considering House Bill 264. In order for the Bill to be voted on by the entire House of Representatives, it has to be voted out of the Rules Committee. The Bill was voted out of the Committee on a majority voice vote.

The Bill is titled, “An Act to Clarify the Expiration of a State of Emergency and the Exercise of Certain Powers Under a State of Emergency and to Clarify the Abatement of Statewide Imminent Hazards.”

Basically the Bill simply requires the Governor (regardless of who the Governor is) to concur with the Council of State (the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Labor, Commissioner of Insurance, or any interim office or acting officer appointed in accordance with Section 7 of Article III of the State Constitution) in taking emergency actions. The Governor is required to keep documentation of the contact and response of each member of the Council of State.

Essentially this allows for more input from elected leaders in a time of emergency. It is similar to what would happen in a corporation if a major decision had to be made–the directors would work together toward a positive outcome.

The emergency management laws in North Carolina (and in most other states) were designed for a short-term emergency such as a flood, hurricane, forest fire, tornado, etc. The laws were not designed for an emergency like Covid-19, which has lasted for a year. This Bill simply makes sure that all of our elected leaders have a place at the table when solutions are being discussed.

The Bill will be heard on the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday. It is my hope that it will pass. It is a good Bill for North Carolina.

Why Border Security Matters

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about what is happening at our southern border.

The article reports:

A Border Patrol section chief reported that in recent days, more than 861 criminals have been encountered at the border, including 92 sex offenders and 63 gang members.

“Within the copious amounts of groups being encountered in” the Rio Grande Valley sector in Texas, “a Salvadoran man with a prior conviction for murder was discovered” along with 862 criminal aliens, Chief Patrol Agent Brian Hastings wrote on Twitter Saturday.

Hastings wrote that recently, agents encountered five large groups of illegal immigrant families, unaccompanied minors, and some adults—totalling 539.

The article concludes:

“The administration is doing the right thing because the law requires that we process unaccompanied minors,” Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) said in a statement on March 24. “However, we are in the middle of a pandemic and our systems are being overwhelmed.”

Vela, citing Border Patrol data, said that 13 percent of unaccompanied minors encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border are under the age of 12, while the majority are aged 13 or older.

“One logical approach to this situation would be to return the older teenagers to their home country and provide funding for an effort supervised by the United Nations to properly care for those teenagers upon their return,” Vela said. “Then, once the pandemic is under control you could phase the program back in so that there would be some semblance of control over the process. I think that this would help relieve the current burden.”

At the same time, the White House has faced pushback from members of the media, who have decried a lack of transparency surrounding facilities being used to hold children and other illegal migrants.

People are dying because they believe they can get into America. Americans are locked down while our southern border is allowing people who may have the coronavirus to come into our country. This is an extreme form of cruelty and insanity.

Spygate

This is a long video, but it is worth watching. The civil rights violations of the Obama administration have so far remained unpunished. That is a serious problem for our Republic. Until justice is done, we have a two-tiered justice system that is more appropriate for a banana republic than a free country.

 

Great News–But It Was Not An Easy Trip

Yesterday The U.K. Daily Mail reported that the Amish community in New Holland Borough, Pennsylvania, has achieved herd immunity to the coronavirus.

The article reports:

The administrator of a medical center in the heart of the Amish community in New Holland Borough estimates as many as 90 per cent of Plain families have since had at least one family member infected, and that this religious enclave achieved what no other community in the country has: herd immunity. 

‘So, you would think if COVID was as contagious as they say, it would go through like a tsunami; and it did,’ said Allen Hoover, an Old Order Mennonite and administrator of the Parochial Medical Center, a clinic that primarily serves the Plain community.

The article also notes:

By late April, when Pennsylvania was still under stay-at-home orders, the Plain community had resumed worship services, where they shared communion cups and holy kisses, a church greeting among believers.

Infections quickly followed.

‘It was bad here in the spring; one patient right after another,’ said Pam Cooper, a physician’s assistant at the Parochial Medical Center.

Just how deep into the community the infections spread is impossible to know. Hoover speculated that among those displaying symptoms, fewer than 10% consented to be tested.

In late April and early May, when Hoover said the virus ran unimpeded through the Plain community, the county’s positivity rate — the percent of positive tests — exceeded 20%, its highest of the pandemic, according to Covid Act Now, a nonprofit that provides local disease data. (Last year, the World Health Organization recommended governments use a rate of 5% or lower for two weeks as the threshold for reopening.)

If Hoover’s assessment is accurate, and if more Plain patients had been tested, the positivity rate could very well have been higher.

While so few were tested, many exhibited all the symptoms that have become so emblematic of the disease.

Cooper estimated the medical center saw — on average — nearly a dozen infections a day, or roughly 15% of the patients it serves daily.

The disease, as has been true in the wider community, knew no boundaries. Hoover became infected in November; at least one of his children was infected twice.

‘It really went through pretty quick, in a few weeks,’ Cooper said.

The number of patients ebbed in the summer before picking up again in the fall, although not at nearly the rate as was seen in the spring.

Cases now are rare. Hoover said Tuesday that the center hasn’t had a patient present with COVID-19 symptoms in roughly six weeks.

Please note how reluctant the medical types in the article are to admit that this community might actually be done with the coronavirus. The article also fails to note how many people died from the coronavirus during the time it was going through the community.

Would You Be Comfortable Living Next Door To These Two Boys?

Our criminal justice system is supposed to keep people who are a danger to society away from people they might harm. Theoretically it is also supposed to help criminals become law-abiding citizens by punishing them for their crimes and showing them the error of their ways. Well, evidently California has lost that concept.

Yesterday The American Thinker posted an article about a recent court case in California that resulted in a very questionable sentence for the defendants.

The article reports:

In a case that’s drawing a lot of attention based on the insane level of leniency shown, two 14-year-olds who bullied, murdered, danced on the body of, and filmed a helpless 13-year-old, have been let off with the mother-of-all-slaps-on-the-wrist by a Riverside County Superior Court Justice. 

According to local radio station KTLA:

Two 14-year-old Southern California boys who beat a fellow student in 2019, causing his death, won’t go to jail but must undergo anger management therapy, a judge ruled.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger A. Luebs imposed the therapy as a probation condition before releasing the teenagers to their parents on Thursday, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported Friday.

On Sept. 16, 2019, the teenagers were videotaped attacking 13-year-old Diego Stolz outside classrooms at Landmark Middle School in Moreno Valley, east of Los Angeles. One boy struck the teenager in the head from behind and he fell, hitting his head against a pillar. The boys then continued punching the boy, who died nine days later from a brain injury.

Would you feel comfortable with these children living in your neighborhood?

The article also notes:

Parts of his (Riverside County Superior Court Judge Roger A. Luebs) sentencing were obnoxious, too:

Luebs directed that each offender enroll in character development and anger management classes, as well as perform 150 hours community service, not play violent video games, avoid social media and write letters of apology to the Stolz family. They were additionally ordered to permanently steer clear of one another.

Luebs warned the pair that any probation violation could land them in deep trouble, possibly resulting in time behind bars.

Why, exactly, are they getting ‘one last warning’ to behave themselves, when they’ve already done the worst they could possibly do?  These killers should have had their one-last-warning before they moved up to killing people. This didn’t happen out of the blue — one of these plagues-on-society was already on probation when he tried his hand at killing. How seriously are they going to take this latest ‘one-last-warning’? The message they’ve gotten so far is that if they get caught violating probation, all they will get is another one-last-warning. But remember, one more chance.

The article goes on to mention that California has been moving in the direction of reducing its youth prison population in past years. I guess its pretty easy to reduce your prison population if you don’t hold murderers accountable for their crimes.

Regaining Our Right To The Free Exercise Of Religion

Yesterday Just the News reported that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that three University of Iowa officials can be held personally liable for derecognizing a Christian student club over its leadership requirements.

The article reports:

The law is “clearly established” that government officials cannot practice viewpoint discrimination, as administrators did by enforcing a “human rights” policy against Business Leaders in Christ but not other student groups, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined.

It’s exceedingly rare for courts to deny “qualified immunity” to public actors for violating constitutional rights. Litigants must point to court precedents that officials should have known were binding on their specific behavior, making it unlawful.

Yet the University of Iowa is likely to suffer a second loss on qualified immunity in a closely related case involving a different Christian club, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Oral arguments for each case were four months apart, and both went badly for the university.

The three-judge panel upheld two constitutional claims by Business Leaders in Christ but divided on the third claim, on whether administrators should have known they were violating the club’s free exercise rights.

In a concurrence and dissent, Judge Jonathan Kobes said all three claims should have been upheld.

“The law is clear: state organizations may not target religious groups for differential treatment or withhold an otherwise available benefit solely because they are religious,” he wrote. “The individual defendants may pick their poison: they are either plainly incompetent or they knowingly violated the Constitution.”

I suspect this may not be the end of these lawsuits.

Bad Ideas On Gun Control

On March 1st, The Heritage Foundation posted an article about the debate on gun control. The article lists four faulty ideas currently being discussed. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The four ideas:

1) Banning ‘Assault Weapons’

2) Banning ‘High-Capacity Magazines’

3) Background Checks On All Gun Sales

4) Eliminating Immunity for Gun Manufacturers

Even if they were to pass constitutional muster, none of these are good ideas.

In 2004, the Updated Assessment of the Federal AssaultWeapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 was released. The purpose of this report was to study the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban that Congress had passed in 1994.

The article at Heritage notes the conclusions of that study:

Even assuming that every criminal turned in his or her “assault weapon” and never obtained a different type of firearm to commit the same crimes in the future, there would be likely be no noticeable drop in gun-related crime as a result of this policy.

That is, in fact, exactly what the official study of the original federal assault-weapons ban found in 2004.

The article notes the current liability laws regarding gun manufacturers:

It’s important first to understand what the law currently is with respect to gun manufacturers and immunity.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers (as well as sellers and distributors) are still liable for selling defective products, for failing to abide by numerous federal regulations regarding safety, sales, and records, for false advertising, and for a wide array of other widely recognized tort claims.

The law only protects them from lawsuits claiming that they are liable whenever a third party criminally misuses a firearm that the company manufactured and sold in compliance with the law.

To hold a manufacturer liable for the misuse of their product is ridiculous. Are the manufacturers protected if they put a warning label on their guns that says “Not intended to be used to shoot people”?

The Founding Fathers put The Second Amendment in The Bill of Rights for a reason. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of government. The Second Amendment is part of that limitation–it is intended to limit the power of government–not the power of the people. Losing our Second Amendment rights would be a huge step toward government tyranny.

.

It’s Getting Harder To Hold Honest Elections

On Friday, The Epoch Times posted an article about Georgia’s new election law.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is looking at options to reverse or counter a newly enacted voting law in Georgia that brings in a sweeping number of election reforms to the state.

President Joe Biden told reporters on Friday that the Justice Department and his administration are “taking a look” at the legislation, which he claims is an “attack on the right to vote” in the Peach State.

“We’re working on that right now. We don’t know quite exactly what we can do at this point. The Justice Department’s taking a look as well,” Biden said.

In a separate statement on Friday, Biden characterized the state’s move to protect the sanctity of the ballot box as “a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience.” He also labeled the law as the “Jim Crow in the 21st Century,” referring to Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation in the south.

The 95-page law adds a slew of changes to the way Georgians vote, including requiring photo or state-approved identification to vote absentee by mail. The law also mandates that secure drop boxes be placed inside early voting locations, with constant surveillance, and expand early voting across the state.

The law also shortens the election cycle from nine weeks to four weeks and requires a minimum of one week of early voting before election day. People who wish to vote absentee are faced with new requirements as well.

All of these changes would increase election integrity. Requiring photo identification is not a racial issue–people of all races need photo identification to cash a check, open a bank account, receive healthcare, purchase certain items, travel by air, etc. Limiting early voting does not restrict voter rights–we used to be able to hold elections on one day without early voting. The arguments against this law are not valid. The Biden administration supports HR1, which would declare open season on election fraud. That is the reason they are threatening to take action against the Georgia legislation. Hopefully when lawsuits follow, the courts will follow the Constitution.

I Know The Time Of This Is Just An Incredible Coincidence

The majority that the Democrats hold in Washington, D.C., is not large. Particularly in the Senate, the Democrats are forced to attempt to get at least one Republican Senator to go along with their ideas. So far the filibuster has prevented some very bad laws from passing the Senate. That is the reason the Democrats are trying to make the filibuster go away. In order to do that, they would need every Democrat to vote for removal of the filibuster. The two suspected holdouts in the vote would probably be Senator Sinema of Arizona and Senator Manchin of West Virginia. Both have expressed negative opinions on ending the filibuster in the past. But Washington is a place where deals are made and things are traded.

Yesterday Fox News reported the following:

President Biden has picked the wife of an extremely influential U.S. senator for a federal commission post, the White House announced Friday. 

Biden nominated Gayle Conelly Manchin to co-chair the Appalachian Regional Commission, an economic development partnership with 13 states designed to boost investment in the Appalachian Region.

Manchin is an educator, past president of West Virginia’s State Board of Education and the former first lady of West Virginia.

The article notes:

With Democrats holding the slimmest of majorities with a 50-50 split and Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote, Manchin’s influence in the Senate has grown tremendously.

As a moderate from a red state, Manchin has openly pushed back on some of the Democrats’ boldest ideas, including the $15 minimum wage, eliminating the filibuster and far-reaching gun control legislation. His resistance has forced concessions.

It will be interesting to see if Senator Manchin continues to support keeping the filibuster in place.

The Control Tightens

Hot Air posted an article today about something called the “Excelsior Pass” which will be making its debut in New York shortly.

The article reports:

We were warned at the beginning of the month that New York State was working to implement a system of immunity passports for people who wish to reenter most “normal” aspects of society. The state had clearly made up its mind already and had people working on the project because the “Excelsior Pass” is already in production and will be required for many social activities starting on April 2nd. Large venues in New York City are already using it, but most other “arts, entertainment and event venues” will require the pass shortly thereafter. People who have either been vaccinated or have received a negative COVID test in the previous few days will be able to obtain the pass, which can either be printed out on paper or displayed via an app on your phone. (New York Post)

The article also notes:

The first thing to point out here is that New York State has thus far vaccinated roughly half of its eligible citizens. That means that the other half of the state will now be shut out of nearly all nonessential activities unless they can find someplace to be tested and “verified” every few days. And if you think this only applies to things like basketball games, guess again. The state has specifically listed wedding receptions as events that will require a scanner at the door and an immunity passport to gain entrance. As of this morning, CNN is saying that 14.7 percent of adults in the United States are fully vaccinated at this point, so the disparity is vastly greater if a plan like this shows up at the national level.

While it won’t be part of the initial rollout, large retail chains and even grocery stores are reportedly studying how this system could be put into effect at their establishments. You can’t be barred from shopping for food and other essentials entirely, but some stores are considering setting up separate entrances for those with and without the passport or having some shopping hours restricted for only those who pass muster.

I’ve gone through the Post’s “explainer” of how the system operates and I don’t see any exceptions listed for people with comorbidities or other underlying conditions that could lead their doctors to recommend that they avoid the vaccine. So if you either choose not to be vaccinated or are medically disqualified from receiving it, at least in New York, you will officially be a second-class citizen on April 2nd. Without the pass, you will be part of a new class of pariahs who are barred from mingling with the new, upper class of people with immunity, or those who purchase a few days of “normalcy” by showing a negative COVID test result.

How long before this insanity begins in every state?

Since November The Democrats’ Overreach Is Astounding

The latest overreach by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is to unseat Representative  Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won election in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. Representative Miller-Meeks won a close election which was certified, and she was sworn in and seated in the House of Representatives. Even some Democrats believe that the efforts to unseat her are wrong,

The Epoch Times posted an article yesterday about the controversy.

The article reports:

“I’m sorry, I cannot support overturning an election, especially given everything that’s gone on,” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a swing district Democrat, told the “Skullduggery” podcast. “I can’t turn around and vote to decertify something that’s been stamped and approved in Iowa.”

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) defeated Hart by six votes during the Nov. 3, 2020, election. Hart asked the House Administration Committee, led by longtime Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to investigate the election.

Other Democrat members of the House have expressed concern over the move.

Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) said March 22 that the “election result was certified by the State of Iowa, and Rep. Miller-Meeks was sworn in nearly three months ago … it’s time to move on.”

“I have said before, in connection with the 2020 presidential election, legislators should be heeding states’ certifications of their elections. Unless there is rampant error and substantial evidence thereof, I do not believe it is the role of House members to dictate the outcome of elections,” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) told reporters this week.

And Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) said Democratic leaders in the House need to abandon their pursuit of investigating and potentially overturning the Iowa congressional result.

“Losing a House election by six votes is painful for Democrats,” Phillips wrote on Twitter. “But overturning it in the House would be even more painful for America.

“Just because a majority can, does not mean a majority should.”

It seems as if Speaker Pelosi might be getting out over her skis. She has taken the House of Representatives farther to the left than most Americans are comfortable with. I believe that most of the Democrats in the House are starting to wonder about their chances of being reelected. That shouldn’t be their main concern, but I suspect that right now it might be.

An Unconstitutional Poverty Program

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported that Oakland, California, is beginning a program to provide $500/month with no strings attached for up to 600 families. The goal is to bridge the income gap between rich and poor. But they have forgotten a few things. First of all, the participation strictly limited to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities. That is unconstitutional. Actually, this is the beginning of reparations. Secondly, providing a monthly income to someone without requiring any work from that person does not motivate that person to get a job or progress further in the job that they have.

According to the Cornell Law website:

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The most prominent civil rights legislation since Reconstruction is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. Discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing with employment discrimination

The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights, as a single Supreme Court ruling can alter the recognition of a right throughout the nation. The federal courts have been crucial in mandating and supervising school desegregation programs and other programs established to rectify state or local discrimination.

Because the program is privately funded, they may be able to avoid compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.