The Impact Of Public Opinion

Many parents of school children objected when they were called domestic terrorists because they had questions or disagreements with what their children were being taught in school. As parents began speaking out, other Americans became aware of the situation and also voiced their opinion. The actions of the parents and others have gotten results.

Today The Federalist reported the following:

The National School Boards Association has apologized for a letter that Attorney General Merrick Garland used to target parents as “domestic terrorists.”

“We regret and apologize for the letter,” the NSBA said in a memorandum sent to members on Friday. “To be clear, the safety of school board members, other public school officials and educators, and students is our top priority, and there remains important work to be done on this issue. However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.”

The original letter, publicly sent to Biden administration officials after the organization worked with the Biden administration to craft its language, asked the federal government to take action against parents and citizens who “threaten” or “intimidate” school board officials and education administrators. It said nothing of the reports of some school officials engaging in the same behavior against parents.

“NSBA believes immediate assistance is required to protect our students, school board members, and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety,” the original letter read. “… As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

As many as 20 state school boards have since distanced themselves from the NSBA in backlash against the letter: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming.

Fourteen state school boards, including Pennsylvania’s, said they were not alerted before the NSBA sent the letter. The Pennsylvania School Boards Association voted unanimously last week to exit the NSBA.

The article concludes:

House Republicans grilled Garland on his decision to mobilize the FBI against parents.

“It concerns us that [your letter] was issued just five days after the National School Board Association sent a letter to President Biden which referred to concerned parents as the equivalent of ‘domestic terrorists and perpetrators of hate crimes,’” Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson said. “Given the timing of all this, your memo appears to have been motivated by politics more than any pressing law enforcement need. This is concerning to us and it’s worthy of investigation.”

“A snitch line on parents, started five days after a left-wing political organization asked for it,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said. “If that’s not political, I don’t know what is.”

This incident shows the power of Americans when they choose to speak up. All of us need to be ready to stand up against over-intrusive searches and threats from our government. It seems as if our law enforcement agencies on the national level have been politicized. The best protection for all of us is to make sure we elect local officials who respect and abide by the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise we will find ourselves living in a surveillance state.

Rewriting History To Prevent A Second Trump Presidency

Today The Federalist posted an article about the media’s renewed interest in the Steele Dossier. What is happening right now with the Dossier is a shot across the bow in an effort to prevent President Trump from running for President in 2024.

The article lists four things the author learned from the Hulu documentary about the Steele Dossier.

These are the four things:

1. At Least the Media Came Out of the Shadows

2. Steele Selected Stephanopoulos For a Reason

3. Christopher Steele Stands By His Dossier

4. He’s Crazy Like a Fox

Please follow the link to read the entire article, but here are a few excerpts:

Raddatz (ABC reporter Martha Raddatz) was not the only ABC personality interviewed during the program, and in this respect the media’s penchant for becoming the story reached a pinnacle, so much so that Hulu followed Stephanopoulos from his New York apartment en route to the airport and then to England. Once there, Steele’s screen time paled in comparison to the time Stephanopoulos devoted to interviewing his colleagues.

…Of course, Steele couldn’t have really taken the lead in the story because he remains in legal jeopardy and subject to potential civil liability. Steele needed to thread a needle: saying enough to create sympathy and shore up a legal defense while ensuring he stayed silent on anything of substance. Stephanopoulos served his purpose.

President Clinton’s former White House communications director promised the publicity Steele needed and provided a surface of seriousness to sell the story as a true piece of journalism. And Stephanopoulos was willing to travel to England, most definitely a requirement for Steele to avoid the subpoena power of the John Durham special counsel’s office.

…While Stephanopoulos’ painting of Steele as a patriotic and sympathetic character did not quite descend to the Jane Mayer level of propaganda, the generous profile of Steele nonetheless laid the groundwork necessary to soften the more serious questions that would end the show. The Hulu special’s biographical focus also served to elevate Steele, suggesting a more substantial role in British intelligence than likely and bolstering his credibility by highlighting his connection to the FBI’s investigation into the World Cup soccer bribery scandal.

Against this backdrop, a viewer unacquainted with the depth of the Spygate scandal, such as Stephanopoulos and ABC’s regular audience, might find Steele’s assurances that his sources and their stories are credible, even against the backdrop of the U.S. inspector general’s “devastating” report that “eviscerated” Steele’s reporting, according to one of the few non-ABC figures interviewed, former New York Times reporter Barry Meier.

“With respect to your work,” Stephanopoulos noted, the IG report concluded that “certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, place and title information, much of which was publicly available.”

The article concludes:

Those well-versed in the entire Russia-collusion hoax likely watched Steele in disbelief, wondering how delusional he must be to sit calmly before a worldwide audience and defend the unbelievable. But the interview served a purpose, because the few times Stephanopoulos challenged Steele, it works to his own benefit as it provided the dossier author the opportunity to counter claims that he peddled knowingly false information to the FBI

While Steele professed in the interview that he had done nothing wrong and did not fear being charged and extradited to the United States, sometimes the best defense is an offense. What better way to counter a potential charge of making false statements to the FBI than to profess you believe the information passed on was true? Well, that, and the defense colloquially known as Orange Man Bad, which Steele seemed to also hide behind, speaking of Trump as a continuing threat to the United States and United Kingdom’s national security.

Steele may be right about one thing, though, when he said in the final minutes of the interview that he “think[s] this book is not finished by a longshot.” Hopefully, however, it will be Durham writing the final chapter.

The Hulu version of events is pure propaganda, but those who get their news via the mainstream media and watch the ‘documentary’ will  see it as truth. That is part of the reason for the divide in America, and the media bears much of the responsibility for that divide.

Harsh Words, But True

The Federalist posted an article today by Fred Fleitz, who is currently president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. He served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the National Security Council. Fleitz held national security jobs for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He believes that the only way back to some sort of credibility for America after the Afghanistan fiasco is to replace President Biden’s top national security advisers with experts who have the experience, principles, and gravitas to reverse the damage Biden is doing to our national security and will stand up to future unsound and dangerous decisions by this president.

The article reports:

In a perfect world, Biden would immediately resign, be impeached, or be removed from office under the 25th Amendment for this unprecedented incompetence and dereliction of duty.

To remove the president under the 25th Amendment, the vice president and the majority of the cabinet would need to determine that Biden is unfit for office. Congress would then need to approve that process by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. It is hard to see how a majority of Biden’s cabinet or two-thirds of the Democrat-controlled Congress would agree to such action.

Impeachment would require passage of articles of impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction and removal by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Democrats will not permit this now, but it might be possible in early 2023 if Republicans take control of Congress in the 2022 midterm elections.

The article notes that removing President Biden from office is probably not possible right now. When you talk about removing President Biden from office, you need to remember that he will be replaced by Vice-President Kamala Harris. At that point, the Democrats lose their 51st tie-breaking vote in the Senate. That fact may partially explain why Joe Biden has not already been removed.

The article reports:

It is pointless now for National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley to claim or leak to the press that they opposed Biden’s decision to rapidly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. They knew this decision was wrong and dangerous. They were duty-bound to resign and report Biden’s reckless decision to Congress.

Making this worse, most of Biden’s senior national security advisers are unqualified yes-men. Putting aside buffoonish Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan are third-stringers out of their league. And Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin apparently has so little influence with Biden that the president forgot his name at a press conference.

The article concludes:

Biden’s senseless Afghanistan policy and unmistakable signs of his mental decline strongly suggest he is not capable of serving as commander-in-chief. Democrats almost certainly will not agree to remove him, so their Republican colleagues must pressure them to pursue the next best option: surrounding Biden with highly qualified and principled national security experts who will not tolerate more irrational national security decisions.

To safeguard America’s national security and global leadership, we need bipartisan action now to compel President Biden to take this action.

Our country’s security is in danger as long as Joe Biden is President.

 

A New Level Of Insanity

It seems to me that I would expect the American Medical Association be be a leader in the desire to ‘follow the science.’ Sometimes science is pretty settled, like gravity, the need for people to breath oxygen, DNA, etc. Well, evidently that was a false expectation on my part.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday about a recent policy statement by the American Medical Association.

The article reports:

“Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization,” said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.

A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

Robert Jackson, MD, who’s with the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, told WebMD Health News he opposed the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

The article concludes:

By neglecting to specify sex on the hard copy of a birth certificate, medical professionals could improperly treat someone. But instead of recognizing medical truths, the AMA is rallying behind people who flat out deny biology.

The AMA supports health care for transgender children, noting that “it is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.” For an organization that blindly supports genital mutation on minors, it’s no surprise that they want to eliminate sex on a birth certificate.

The science of X and Y chromosomes is pretty well accepted. Also, the differences between boy and girl babies are generally pretty obvious at birth. This is a totally unscientific position for the American Medical Association to take. It makes me wonder if I can trust anything else they expect us to believe.

This Needs To Be Repeated Every Day Until It Ends

The Federalist posted an article today about the contrast between how the Justice Department is treating those arrested in Washington on January 6th and those arrested during the riots in America’s major cities last summer.

The article reports:

One would think a major report from a group representing America’s top law enforcement leaders analyzing the widespread riots of 2020 would have garnered significant media attention. One also would think such a report would garner widespread discussion after the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capital due to the parallels between it and the 2020 riots. Given our hyper-partisan environment, however, one would be woefully wrong.

Specifically, back in October 2020, the Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) released a comprehensive report full of data from dozens of cities that provides deep insights into the 2020 riots that plagued America after George Floyd’s death in Minnesota. The MCC’s “Report on the 2020 Protests and Civil Unrest” served as an excellent after-action report that cities, states, and the federal government could use to reform their practices and, equally importantly, to prepare for future riots.

The article notes the difference in the events of last summer and the events of January 6th:

Now here’s a prime example of dissimilar treatment for far worse actions. The January 6 riot involved no guns or fires among protesters, only makeshift weapons like flag poles, batons, and objects from the area.

In contrast, the 2020 riots involved guns, incendiary devices, lasers, paint bombs, and fireworks that were used to torch buildings and cars, hurt police officers, and destroy meaningful parts of many U.S. cities. Despite the far greater violence and destruction the 2020 rioters perpetrated, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) haven’t hunted those rioters down with anywhere near the vigor and vim used against what are in many cases at most trespassers.

…In stark contrast, the left and the media continue to falsely claim law enforcement officers were killed on January 6. While some law enforcement officers were certainly injured during that riot, the numbers and severity are far below the law enforcement injuries from the 2020 riots.

More than 2,000 law enforcement officers were injured during the 2020 riots, with numerous officers being shot and one, retired captain David Dorn, brutally murdered while protecting his friend’s shop from rioters. The 2020 rioters also shot other protestors.

In contrast, the only person violently killed on January 6 was the unarmed protester Ashli Babbitt, at the hands of a Capitol Police officer whose identity still remains unconfirmed by public officials.

The article notes:

Left-wing rioters wisely did their acts in cities controlled by Democrats and with Democrat district attorneys, who went soft on them despite their disproportionate violence. In contrast, those who rioted on January 6 had the great misfortune of being in a jurisdiction controlled by anti-Trump Democrats and zealously left-wing U.S. attorneys looking to impress their fellow leftists.

Most of the people involved in the civil unrest that took place last summer have had their charges dropped. Many of the people involved in the January 6th unrest have been refused bail. Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is a chilling commentary on what has happened to our justice system in recent years.

Why Economics Needs To Be Taught In School

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article about some comments recently made on mainstream media about inflation. The comments indicated that economics is not universally taught in our colleges.

The article notes:

Did CNBC get its understanding of economics from the back of a cereal box? The outlet is arguing that the silver lining to skyrocketing inflation is — “rising wages.”

The liberal outlet noted how “[a]s the economy picks up in the wake of the Covid pandemic, concerns about inflation are also gaining steam.” After conceding that prices of goods are rising, CNBC took a nosedive into ineptitude: “Companies facing a labor shortage are also paying more to get workers to walk in the door.” Did CNBC even consider that rising prices of goods are eating into American pay? Bloomberg News just reported that American pay boosts “are failing to keep pace with surging prices for everyday goods.” CNBC seemed to only figure that out after the story was originally published. Its original headline was “The upside to inflation: rising wages.” The headline has since been changed to alter the entire context of the story: “It’s not certain rising wages will be enough to outpace inflation.”

Rising wages are a good thing when they are part of a strong economy.

On November 2, 2020, The Federalist reported:

Many on the left refuse to admit President Trump’s populist policies have provided massive benefits to working-class Americans. Matthew Yglesias argued at Vox that Trump’s refusal to endorse a federal $15 per hour minimum wage proves Trump has abandoned populist ideals. Progressives claim the Trump economy helps billionaires, not workers, and snidely dismiss his outreach to minorities.

Yet, during the first three years of the Trump presidency, wage growth was off the charts, especially for low-income workers and African Americans. The third-quarter economic data released Thursday confirm once again that Trump is on the job for U.S. workers.

The Biden campaign has tried to tie COVID-linked economic devastation to Trump’s leadership. The new third-quarter economic data once again shows that’s wrong. The total number of U.S. wage earners increased more than 5 percent in that period, and the third-quarter rebound for African Americans occurred at a 17 percent faster rate than for wage earners as a whole.

During the Trump administration, inflation remained at about 2 percent.

On May 18, 2021, The Post Millennial reported:

It’s not just anecdotal evidence, the Consumer Price Index released last week shows that prices are up across the board by .8 percent for April. That’s after a .3 increase for January, .4 increase for February, and a .6 increase for March. In contrast, the last few months of the Trump administration had increases as well, albeit much lower. October showed a .1 percent increase, while November and December both showed increases of .2 percent.

Newsbusters also notes:

CNBC’s “Key Points” section also contradicted itself by admitting that prices of goods were increasing while lauding how pay was increasing at the same time. Newsflash, CNBC: rising costs of living takes away from the benefit of a pay increase.

    • “Although consumers may be paying more for everyday items, it’s not all bad news.”
    • “As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.”

CNBC must have realized this contradiction and changed its “Key Points” section to reflect new points entirely:

    • “As inflation takes hold, wages may increase, too.”
    • “The question is, will it be enough to outpace the rise in prices.”

CNBC couldn’t stop contradicting its points. It even warned that economists were saying rapid increase in wages could in fact cause inflation, further undercutting the entire story:

And still, some economists fear a too-rapid increase in wages could prompt companies to raise prices and create the very phenomenon of inflation, causing more harm than good.

No kidding. Elections have consequences, but at least President Biden doesn’t do mean tweets.

Quick Action Is Needed

President Biden has announced that he will withdraw all American military troops from Afghanistan on September 11th. Although I question his choice of that particular date, I think it is the right move. However, it is necessary in withdrawing those troops to protect those Afghani civilians and military who have helped America in its efforts. To leave those people behind is to insure their capture, torture and death.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday detailing some of the current situation.

The article reports:

During our nearly 20-year presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. military and countless government personnel have been aided by Afghan interpreters. These brave men and women bridged the gap between Americans and Afghans, often patrolling, and sometimes even fighting, alongside our forces.

Because of their selfless service to American personnel, the Taliban consider interpreters arch traitors. According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, “at least thousands” of Afghan interpreters have been killed in retaliation by the Taliban and other criminal elements.

The United States created the Special Immigrant Visa program in 2006 to grant threatened interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan refugee status and ultimately citizenship. The SIV program has failed to deliver the safety it promised, however, as evidenced by the host of critical gaps identified in recent reports from Brown University, the Truman Center, and the Department of State’s Office of the Inspector General.

Currently, a backlog of 18,800 applications of Afghan translators awaits processing. Rather than the nine-month processing period promised, applications have taken an average of 658 days to process, putting translators and their families at unnecessary, continued risk. The Washington Post estimates that around 1,000 Iraqi and Afghan interpreters have been killed while awaiting their visas.

Numerous interpreters whose lives are imperiled have been unable to apply for — or were rejected from — the SIV program. Many are unable to locate their employers to supply the necessary proof of employment. Others have been denied because the application makes untenable demands on Afghans who live under wartime constraints.

On Feb. 4, President Biden signed an executive order mandating a 180-day review of the SIV program. While such a review is long overdue, lawmakers believe the effort is inadequate.

The article concludes:

Maj. Thomas Schueman is among other veterans and service members making sincere appeals for their former interpreters. Schueman’s interpreter “Zack,” is unable to apply to the SIV program because his former contracting agency cannot be reached to provide proof of employment.

Zack has previously been identified by the Taliban for his work with the Marines. He says the local Taliban “are threatening [him] all the time.” Schueman considers assisting Zack a way of honoring his “lifelong contract” of “service to [his] troops.”

Miervaldis reports that No One Left Behind has recently received thousands of e-mails and Facebook messages regarding interpreters concerned about their SIV status. As the Taliban step up violent attacks on government forces, the targeting of interpreters will likely increase.

Rather than allowing our allies to stand by in peril as we address decades of failures in our SIV program, we must grant our interpreters asylum with haste. Neglecting to protect those who assisted us would be a moral failure, as well as a stinging blow to those who fought alongside our Afghan allies. It could also have resounding national security implications should we look to forge local alliances in future conflicts.

We need to make sure that all of the interpreters get out of Afghanistan before our troops leave. To leave them behind would be a stain on America forever.

Taxes For Thee But Not For Me

As I have stated before, any tax increase on ‘the rich’ wind up impacting the middle class rather than the rich. Those creating tax policy seem to forget that ‘the rich’ have tax accountants that help them avoid paying the tax increases. That is not illegal, but it is particularly annoying when those avoiding the taxes are the same people who are increasing the taxes on everyone else.

On Wednesday The Federalist posted an article about the Biden’s income tax returns.

The article reports:

On Monday, the delayed due date for filing federal taxes for the last calendar year, the White House made a theatrical show of releasing President Biden’s 2020 tax returns. In so doing, the new administration wanted to show a contrast with Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who did not release his tax returns.

But while the White House emphasized the release of Biden’s returns, it does not want reporters to scrutinize the content of those returns, because doing so would highlight a pattern of hypocritical behavior by the current president and his family. To wit: For the fourth year running, the First Family used a questionable tax loophole to avoid paying more than $500,000 in Medicare and Obamacare taxes — a loophole that the Biden administration now claims it wants to close.

The article includes the following information:

But Jill Biden continued to use this loophole in 2020 on earnings from her corporation. As the chart below shows, the Bidens avoided a total of $516,992 in taxes over the past four years:

2017 Return 2018 Return 2019 Return 2020 Return
Total Wages Paid $245,833 $500,000 $308,932 $200,000
Total Corporate Profits $10,048,739 $3,236,764 $228,703 $90,854
Medicare Taxes Avoided (2.9% of Corporate Profits) $291,413 $93,866 $6,632 $2,635
Obamacare Taxes Avoided (0.9% of Corporate Profits) $90,439 $29,131 $2,058 $818
Total Taxes Avoided $381,852 $122,997 $8,691 $3,452

The article concludes:

The president’s tax plan also includes provisions to “increase investment in the IRS, while ensuring that the additional resources go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes.” If Joe Biden believes in this provision so much, he should start by asking the IRS to audit his 2017 through 2020 tax returns, given that tax experts have called his use of the “corporate profits” loophole so aggressive as to potentially violate federal guidelines.

The current febrile atmosphere of cynicism and contempt toward Washington stems in large part from politicians who say one thing and do another. For Joe Biden — who preaches “tax fairness,” yet uses loopholes he wants to eliminate for others — to understand this phenomenon should not take much effort. He only need to look in the mirror.

In the Biden administration, the rules only apply to the little people.

The Unmasking Of America

The Federalist posted an article today about the new mask guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The article lists five things wrong with President Biden’s new policy on mask wearing.

The article notes:

1. Biden Has Been Vaccinated For Months and Still Wears a Mask

2. His Tone Is Maddeningly Paternalist

3. His Simplistic Ultimatum Is Impossible to Enforce

4. Does This Mean Kids Too?

5. On The Bright Side, Does This Mean Masks Exempt You From Vaccine Passports?

It is becoming very obvious that once the government seizes any sort of power they are very reluctant to let go of that power. I would like to mention that the vaccine has not actually been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is approved under emergency use authorization.

The article also notes:

Back in March, the Biden White House was already working with corporations to develop a “vaccine passport” system.

Don’t let the president’s tweet fool you into thinking even a mask will save you from soon having to show proof of vaccination to fly, attend mass gatherings, and more. If your freedoms as an American citizen aren’t enough to protect from this kind of government micromanagement, a flimsy paper mask won’t do much.

At some point, Americans are going to have to reclaim their rights if they choose to remain a free country. My hope is that the reclaiming will be done through the election process.

 

Making American Students Less Competitive

The Federalist is reporting today that the Commonwealth of Virginia is revamping its school curriculum to improve equity in education. Notice the word ‘equity’ instead of ‘equality.’

The article reports:

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) is eliminating accelerated math courses before 11th grade to “[i]mprove equity in mathematics learning opportunities.”

Loudoun County school board member Ian Serotkin announced Tuesday that the “Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative (VMPI),” is a “a sweeping initiative by the Virginia Department of Education to revamp the K-12 math curriculum statewide over the next few years” by “eliminat[ing] ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade.”

“That is not an exaggeration, nor does there appear to be any discretion in how local districts implement this” Serotkin wrote. “All 6th graders will take Foundational Concepts 6. All 7th graders will take Foundational Concepts 7. All 10th graders will take Essential Concepts 10. Only in 11th and 12th grade is there any opportunity for choice in higher math courses.” 

The VDOE website says that in addition to improving equity, the change will “[e]mpower students to be active participants in a quantitative world.” 

However, a Loudon parent told Fox News Thursday that the initiative would actually “lower standards for all students in the name of equity.”

“These changes will have a profound impact on students who excel in STEM-related curriculum, weakening our country’s ability to compete in a global marketplace for years to come,” the parent said.

VDOE spokesperson Charles Pyle told Fox News the VMPI would “support increased differentiated learning opportunities within a heterogeneous learning environment.” 

Delegate candidate for Virginia’s 50th House District, Mike Allers, told The Federalist that VDOE “didn’t level the playing field —they destroyed it.” 

It’s time to remember that all children are not academically equal and denying accelerated classes to students who can handle them will not make slower students smarter. It will simply make smarter students frustrated and possibly cause them to lose interest. This is a really bad idea.

As the mother of three very different students (obviously all grown-up now), I am really upset by this thinking. One of my children has an art degree, one is an electrical engineer, and one is a lawyer. The electrical engineer took accelerated math and science throughout high school. Without those courses, she would have been bored to tears. If you had put the lawyer in any one of those accelerated math or science courses, she would have been thoroughly discouraged. The daughter with the art degree always got “A’s” in art courses and any math she could draw. They were three totally different kinds of students. Holding one back would not have helped the others. Putting a child in an accelerated class in a subject that is not his strength is also not helpful. One size does not fit all, and the Commonwealth of Virginia is making a serious mistake here if it wants its students to be competitive with students in other areas of the nation.

Getting It Done

Yesterday The Federalist reported that North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson has launched a task force to root out the indoctrination that is currently taking place in our schools.

The article reports:

The “F.A.C.T.S. Task Force: Fairness and Accountability in the Classroom for Teachers and Students” features a tip line where parents, students, and educators may submit examples of discrimination and unequal treatment related to an individual’s faith, ethnicity, worldview, or political beliefs.

“This is not an indictment on education,” Robinson emphasized at a March press conference. He said the new task force was inspired by complaints received from people who lamented that the schools had been taken over by left-wing activists who had effectively criminalized dissent. “We found ourselves besieged by folks who are complaining about things that their students and their children were having to learn in public school, that were contrary to their own beliefs.”

The task force seeks to empower those people with an avenue to air their grievances free of blowback.

“The primary goal of this task force is to allow the voices of concerned citizens to be heard regarding public K-12 education in North Carolina,” the website reads, emphasis included, “to provide a safe and secure setting where education professionals can transmit concerns regarding their school without fear of retaliation.”

The article concludes:

Parents who have been able to speak out against the progressive developments in their schools have begun to organize in other parts of the country. A new national nonpartisan group launched in March, Parents Defending Education, aims to connect parents and teachers in a grassroots effort while taking aggressive legal measures to resist indoctrination infecting the next generation.

“Through network and coalition building, investigative reporting, litigation, and engagement on local, state, and national policies, we are fighting indoctrination in the classroom — and for the restoration of a healthy, non-political education for our kids,” the group’s website reads.

Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children’s education. If they are not willing and unafraid to speak up, no one will.

What Has Happened To Our Supreme Court?

As I am sure you remember, the Democrats have threatened to pack the Supreme Court if it rules against their agenda items (many of which are unconstitutional). That may explain why Chief Justice Roberts has made some very questionable rulings lately.

On March 8, The Federalist posted an article about a recent dissent by Chief Justice Roberts.

The article reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.

The article includes the following Tweet:

When have eight of the Supreme Court Justices agreed on anything?

The article at The Federalist summarizes the case:

Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages.

The students’ attempts to sue the school, however, were shot down by both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after Georgia Gwinnett College changed its “Freedom of Expression” policy to remove barriers on when and where students could speak on campus and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court took up the case after Uzuegbunam and Bradford noted that their rights were still violated no matter what the university modified its policy to reflect and still required a ruling on nominal damages.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.

The student’s First Amendment rights were violated. What other recourse did he have but to sue the school?

The End To Honest Elections

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have passed HR1. There were no Republican votes for the bill. That is the bill that will fundamentally change American elections to the point where honest elections will become a thing of the past.

The Federalist posted an article yesterday listing fifteen of the major problems with the bill.

This is the list. Please read the entire article for details:

1. Openly Breaks the Constitution

2. Set Up Star Chambers to Intimidate Judges

3. Mandate Mail-in Ballots, 10-Day Delay in Results

4. Eliminate Voter ID Election Security

5. Register Millions Of Criminally Present Foreign Citizens to Vote

6. Explode Opportunities for Election Cheating

7. Prevent Cleaning Up Voter Rolls

8. Unleash Mobs on Political Donors

9. Gerrymander Districts to Favor Democrats

10. Make Vote Hacking Easier

11. Let Former Felons Vote Before They’ve Completed Their Sentences

12. Help 16- and 17-Year-Olds Vote Illegally

13. Bans Keeping the Records Necessary for an Election Audit or Recount

14. Mandates Ballot Drop Boxes

15. Giving U.S. Territories Extra Democrat Seats in Congress and the Electoral College

I honestly don’t know if the Republicans can stop this disaster from passing in the Senate. If it becomes law (and survives the court challenges that will follow because it is unconstitutional–states control their own elections), we will have lost our republic.

Learning From Statistics

The two-week lockdown of the economy to flatten the curve of the coronavirus has now lasted almost a year. In some cases when the lockdown was lifted, the cases spiked, and the lockdown was reinstated. However, in other cases, when the lockdown ended quickly, there was no spike in the number of cases.

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about the success of Florida in dealing with the coronavirus crisis. The article contains a number of graphs, so I strongly suggest you follow the link to read the entire article.

Here are a few highlights from the article:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis started lifting lockdown restrictions back in May, allowing stores and restaurants to begin reopening in all but three counties in South Florida. The stay-at-home order also ended at the beginning of May. Unlike New York and California, Florida never tried to bar people from going to religious services.

At the end of September, DeSantis lifted all remaining statewide COVID-19 restrictions. Traveling back and forth from COVID-conscientious Northern Virginia to Florida, I could notice a difference. In Florida, kids were going to school, wedding parties were throwing receptions, young people were studying at coffee shops, and families were taking Christmas pictures downtown on the square.

…Since April, Florida’s unemployment rate has remained better than New York’s and California’s.

Schools in Florida are open too, and have been since August. My brother goes to one of them. I’ve seen kids playing at recess.

Amid all this, Florida ranks 33rd in pediatric cases per capita, better than California, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The state of New York has not released its numbers on pediatric cases.

…Not only is Florida’s economy enduring the effects of COVID-19 much better than locked-down states, its death rates are below the national average. At the beginning of February, the Heritage Foundation reported that Florida’s death rate was 123.3 per 100,000 residents — a tragic number, but below the national average of 132 people per 100,000.

Florida’s experience is consistent with epidemiological experience and research, as the infectious disease experts who authored the Great Barrington Declaration pointed out last October: “Basic epidemiological theory indicates that lockdowns do not reduce the total number of cases in the long run and have never in history led to the eradication of a disease.  At best, lockdowns delay the increase of cases for a finite period and at great cost. ”

This is also consistent with recent, peer-reviewed research done on COVID spread in different countries that finds lockdowns and their severity have no ultimate effect. Numerous other recent studies make this conclusion.

Florida was also below the national average rise in total deaths per capita, which would include deaths caused by lockdowns in other states. As early as July, CDC Director Robert Redfield said of young people: “We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than we are deaths from COVID.”

Nationally, there was a 16.9 percent increase in total deaths, regardless of cause. Florida’s increase was lower at 14.8 percent. Meanwhile, New York saw a 30.1 percent spike and California’s deaths increased by 18.6 percent.

If the states are considered laboratories to experiment with programs to see if they are successful, the rest of the nation should be following the example of Florida. That would be ‘following the science’ or at least ‘following the statistics.’

This Shouldn’t Have Surprised Anyone Who Was Paying Attention

There is a uni-party in Washington. It allows people who choose to be part of the uni-party to arrive in Washington as Middle Class Americans and become millionaires very quickly without actually building a business or selling a product. I don’t know if we will ever be able to end its reign. Sometimes it is even difficult to figure out which politicians are members of the uni-party. Eventually, however, they reveal themselves. Usually those in the uni-party are consistent is supporting the uni-party rather than the American people.

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his long-time relationship with the uni-party.

The article notes:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “got a load off his chest” with his speech closing out Friday’s second failed impeachment attempt against former President Donald Trump. “Unfortunately,” however, “he [also] put a load on the back of Republicans. That speech you will see in 2022 campaigns.”

Who’s responsible for that quote? It might surprise some it wasn’t Donald Trump Jr. or Rep. Matt Gaetz — it was Sen. Lindsey Graham, a moderate, hawkish Republican not up for re-election for six whole years.

So why would Mitch McConnell do something that would hurt Republicans? Because his power does not change whether Republicans are in the majority or the minority.

The article continues:

…So what’s all behind this? After four years of yelling “MAGA!” while pushing his own classic, corporate Republican policies, McConnell had hoped to rid himself and his conference of the conservative populist nationalism the former president had championed and go back to the way things were. He wants a return to promising to tackle illegal immigration before winking at corporate America that nothing will change. He wants to raise money on fighting the abortion of our infants while comfortably lifting nary a finger. He wants to shrug and change the subject when asked about men dominating women’s sports and using women’s bathrooms. He wants fewer taxes and more wars. Hell, he wants someone to blame for the Republican losses in the Georgia special election, and with them the loss of his seat at the head of the Senate.

Instead, his push to impeach ended with rebuke from his own conference. Angry and embarrassed, he blamed his own colleagues as well as the former president, performing a 20-minute attack ad for the left to use on Republicans for the next election cycle and beyond.

The article concludes:

…The second impeachment trial was the final act in years of Democrats trying to usurp the former president and isolate and ostracize his supporters. After January’s shocking $8.3 million post-election fundraising haul — driven largely by small gifts averaging $32 a person — the decline of corporate and PAC influence in favor of base voters’ influence is starkly visible. Corporate politicians like McConnell don’t like this shift because it makes them responsible to that base, so this year, instead of trying to lead a changing party, he stamped his approval on Democrats’ attacks on it.

Far from over, as so many in power would prefer, the lines of the populist conservative fight for the Republican Party and the country are more clearly and publicly drawn than ever before. When they eventually take back the Senate as the pendulum of voter anger inevitably swings back against the current Washington rulers, Senate Republicans would do well to remember the opening months of 2021 — and remember Mitch McConnell.

Until the American voters remove the uni-party from Washington, we will not see immigration reform, lower taxes, less spending, or government that is responsive to the American people. We are responsible for the government we have.

The Title Sounds So Innocent

The Biden administration has declared war on domestic terror. That sounds good. We really don’t need domestic terrorists roaming around the country. But what do they mean? The Federalist posted an article today that might provide some insight into the coming war on domestic terror.

The article reports:

The Biden administration is planning to use the full force of the federal government in pursuit of a new war. Its target? American citizens.

This countering “domestic violent extremism” effort, declared in the wake of the latest Capitol riot, represents the real-world counterpart to the corporate media rhetoric about the need to “deprogram,” “de-ba’athify,” and drone the Deplorables.

If this is a dangerous political witch hunt masquerading as a national security imperative, it should disturb every American. Half of the country could potentially be ensnared as would-be if not actual terrorists.

In a little-discussed Jan. 22 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki asserted “[the] assault on the Capitol … underscored what we have long known: The rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat.” Consequently, the administration plans a three-part response:

    • Developing a comprehensive threat assessment, coordinated with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on domestic violent extremism.
    • Building “National Security Council capability to focus on countering domestic violent extremism,” including conducting “a policy review effort to determine how the government can share information better about this threat, support efforts to prevent radicalization, disrupt violent extremist networks, and more.”
    • Coordinating “relevant parts of the federal government to enhance and accelerate efforts to address DVE … an NSC-convened process will focus on addressing evolving threats, radicalization, the role of social media, opportunities to improve information sharing, operational responses, and more.”

In short, the Biden administration plans to turn the institutions and tools used to pursue foreign adversaries on “wrong-thinking” Americans. There are several reasons this is so troubling.

The article concludes:

It’s also worth noting who is leading this effort, and his political and policy predilections. As Psaki revealed, Joshua Geltzer will be responsible for the “scoping effort.”

During a September 2019 hearing before the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittees on National Security and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the former Obama administration National Security Council official and prolific Trump critic called for adopting a “transnational” approach to countering “violent white supremacy.” This included increased terror organization designations, use of the intelligence capabilities of the “international terrorism”-focused National Counterterrorism Center, and tech companies “policing their platforms to remove not just incitement to violence, but also, the ideological foundations that spawn such violence.”

Geltzer was careful to caveat that creating a “domestic analog to the foreign terrorist organization designation regime” might be unconstitutional and that efforts to counter violent white supremacy “must not be used as an excuse for interfering with the lawful expression of political advocacy.” But it is hard to square these seemingly conflicting statements.

In this charged and hysterical political environment, we should be all the more so concerned about the threats to our liberties, particularly of a national security regime with vastly expanded domestic powers. The first role of government is to protect our lives and liberties. The heavy burden is on our leaders to justify infringements on the latter in service of the former.

Stay tuned.

How Politics Can Negatively Impact The Health Of Americans

The Federalist is reporting today that Amazon has offered the Biden administration Covid vaccine distribution assistance. That’s very nice, but notice that the offer was not made to the Trump administration. That is disgraceful. That is putting politics above the health of Americans. Whether you are planning to get the vaccine or not, the availability of the vaccine is critical.

The article reports:

Amazon offered the Biden administration vaccine distribution assistance with its vast trove of nationwide resources moments after President Joe Biden was sworn into office on Wednesday. Amazon, the company said, was “ready to assist” with the new president’s goal to vaccinate 100 million Americans in the first 100 days of the new administration.

“We are prepared to leverage our operations, information technology, and communications capabilities and expertise to assist your administration’s vaccination efforts,” Amazon’s CEO for worldwide consumer business Dave Clark wrote. “Our scale allows us to make a meaningful impact immediately in the fight against COVID-19.”

The article notes the difference the timing of the offer makes:

The five-to-six-week delay in offering resources when such assistance was available, as vaccination implementation struggled at the state level, likely came at a cost of thousands of lives as viral cases reached new heights in the new year, all while lockdowns enriched the coffers of the corporate tech giants profiting handsomely from the pandemic. The optics of the delay, without any substantive explanation for it, make it appear guided by animus toward Trump and is reminiscent of the Pfizer announcement of its vaccine efficacy days after the November election. Biden was informed of the vaccine’s effectiveness before officials in the Trump administration, who learned of it through the media.

The Trump administration devoted its resources primarily to vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed, successfully landing two reliable vaccines by the year’s end. Vaccination, however, has been left up to the states, a decision that now-President Biden has declared a mistake. He is moving to federalize vaccination efforts, aiming to give 100 million Americans immunity by the end of his first 100 days in office, which comes at the end of April.

Finally, the article notes:

Amazon’s decision to provide access to its vast nationwide resources, however, provides a point of optimism that Biden’s aspirational goals might be possible with the private-sector help not afforded from the same company to his Republican predecessor.

I don’t even have the words to say how angry this makes me. We are watching an all out war on anything President Trump accomplished, the demonetization of conservative thought (and conservatives), and a political party that defines unity as the crushing of any opposing ideas. This is not healthy for our country.

Don’t Expect The Restoration Of Unity

The Federalist posted an article today with the title, “Why Joe Biden Can’t Restore Unity.”

The article explains:

Biden, however, will not oversee the restoration of national unity—whatever that actually means—because our culture now operates on a bloated definition of bigotry that unjustly implicates decent people in the evils of racism, sexism, violence, and hatred. Biden and his administration accept this definition and will consequently fan the flames.

They already have. On Wednesday, Biden set out to sign an executive order that would prohibit the federal government from “discriminat[ing] on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” His list of Day One executive orders also included several measures on “diversity” and “equity.” This innocuous language masks intensely charged policies built to enforce the left’s standards by rendering dissent hateful.

Biden deliberately delivered an inaugural address that steered clear of “deplorable” language, but enforcing a definition of “gender identity” that requires people to accept of cultural leftism or face charges of violence and hatred basically has the same effect. Decent people disagree on this matter and on others, but the left’s current progressive-or-bigot binary formulation reflexively defines many decent people as bigots.

The article concudes:

Bigotry is, of course, still alive in this country. But it dwells not in the hearts of the vast majority of conservatives and centrists and even authentic leftists who happen to disagree on particular questions of race and sex. Biden and The New York Times don’t need to agree with the conservative agenda to foster some sense of unity. They merely need to dispense with the notion that dissenters from cultural leftism are necessarily bigots.

Hyperbole is obviously an immutable feature of political rhetoric. That sense of unity Biden wishes to recapture, however, will elude us until the cultural left abandons its bloated definitions of bigotry. It’ll require more than a letter in Harper’s or a Boomer president who waxes poetic about serving “all Americans.”

This is about our institutions purging their dominant cultural ethos and cleaning up the pipeline. At best, it will take many years and a lot more than presidential platitudes.

It is naive to expect the country to unified when there is fundamental disagreement on moral issues. Many Americans, myself included, believe that abortion is murder. We believe that homosexuality is in conflict with Biblical Christianity. We don’t want to hurt those who have had abortions or those who are homosexual, but we just cannot support their choice. We want the freedom to live with our beliefs while extending them the freedom to live with their beliefs. Until both sides of the spectrum stop calling names, unity is impossible.

Hiding The Truth

Yesterday The Federalist reported that YouTube will ban all videos dealing with election fraud.

The article notes:

“As we shared previously, we do not allow content that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” YouTube’s statement read. “This policy applies to videos uploaded on or after December 9.”

You mean the videos of the vote counters blocking the windows so that the observers couldn’t observe? You mean the videos of the vote counters pulling out suitcases of ballots after sending everyone home? You mean the videos of the vote counters scanning the same ballots multiple times? Those videos?

The article concludes:

“Now that the election results have been certified, and due to the extraordinary events that transpired yesterday, videos uploaded on or after today (January 7) that violate this policy will both be removed and a strike will be applied to the channel,” the statement said. “As strikes can impact a channel’s standing, including the ability to upload … we recommend that you be familiar with the policy when publishing relevant content on YouTube.”

This decision follows several moves by other big tech companies to censor President Donald Trump after a destructive mob breached the Capitol on Wednesday. Facebook and Instagram recently announced they are banning the president from their platforms indefinitely, citing concerns that he is inciting violence.

Twitter also took action against Trump, locking his account on Wednesday for reportedly violating its Civic Integrity policies. Snapchat locked Trump’s account on its platform shortly after rioters began their descent on the Capitol building.

And so it begins. Even before the Democrats take power, they are limiting free speech and the free flow of information. I suspect this is only going to get worse.

Down Memory Lane

Yesterday in Washington was horrible. It was horrible because the Capitol was breached and people killed, but the other casualties of the day were honest, transparent elections and any hope of consistency from our media and elected officials.

Yesterday The Scoop posted an article about an event people may have forgotten.

The article notes:

When far-left radical communists protesting against the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court took over the Hart Senate Office Building atrium on Capitol Hill on October 4, 2018, leftists on Twitter PRAISED them.

The article includes the following screenshot:

That was then, this is now.

Now let’s take another trip down memory lane to July 2, 2020. The Federalist reported the following:

Thursday afternoon, Democrats killed a resolution aimed at curbing mob violence. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the bill after a man in Utah was mobbed then shot by a group of rioters. The non-binding resolution offered a statement of support for peaceful protesters and law enforcement who do their job well, while condemning violence and the desecration of monuments across the country.

“A non-binding resolution is the tiniest first step of a response,” Lee read as he introduced it. “We need to do much, much more… but in this divided political moment,… showing that Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats are able to speak with one voice against woke mob violence and in defense of equal justice and civic peace would be a welcome step.”

The resolutions itself states that the country was “founded on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality.” It also acknowledged that “throughout our nation’s history, Americans have struggled to realize those ideals … but nonetheless made greater progress toward them than any nation on earth.”

The resolution was immediately attacked. The article reports:

The intended bipartisan resolution swiftly ran into problems. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) spoke directly after Lee to kill the bill. “The resolution reeks of supremacism. Reeks of supremacist views. And it seeks to mischaracterize overwhelmingly peaceful protests across the nation.”

Menendez then offered to support the resolution on one condition: if it condemned President Trump. He stated that if a sentence was added condemning “politicians who incite violence, especially President Trump,” the resolution would be acceptable. He then attacked the president for retweeting a video of two homeowners pointing firearms at a mob that stormed the gates to their private neighborhood.

What happened yesterday was tragic, but those in Congress and in the media need to look in the mirror before blaming others.

Changing The Rules

The Federalist posted an article today about some of the rules that are being put in place in the House of Representatives. These rules will damage America. They will also result in major Democrat losses in the House of Representatives in 2022. The question is how much damage can the Democrats do in two years.

The article reports:

House Democrats blocked a Republican measure Monday to cut a provision in the Democrats’ rules package for the 117th Congress exempting favored legislation from PAYGO requirements such as the socialist Green New Deal.

PAYGO requirements stipulate that any legislation spending money must include a “payfor” component that could come in the form of additional legislation analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) offering members insight into the true cost of any new spending bill. Under the proposed Democratic rules, however, proposals such as the Green New Deal are exempt from the requirement, protecting its supporters from having to answer how to cover its initial estimated $93 trillion price tag.

Are there any fiscally responsible Democrats that could have stopped this?

The article continues:

“On only day two of the 117th Congress, House Democrats are already attempting to strip Americans of the transparency they deserve in order to push through an expensive progressive wish-list,” House Budget Committee Republican Ranking Member Jason Smith of Missouri admonished lawmakers. “This exemption is irresponsible since arguably it could apply to any radical, progressive, out-of-touch legislation dreamed up next by House Democrats.”

Democrats blocked the Republicans’ Motion to Commit, striking the exemption by a margin of 217 to the GOP’s 203 voting in favor. The radical proposals Smith prophesied are certainly in the pipeline.

The article concludes:

With few votes to spare on major legislation, Pelosi will need to keep her caucus’s farthest-left members on board. The final check on two years of Democrats passing every item on their wish list with an incoming Democratic president then falls to the Senate, control of which will be decided in the Georgia Senate runoffs Tuesday.

Hang on to your wallets. This is going to get very ugly and very expensive.

Standing Up For Those Who Helped In A Crisis

When the nightmare of lockdowns, masks, and hand sanitizer began in February, some of the small breweries stepped up and stopped making alcohol to drink and made hand sanitizer instead. Unfortunately, those who wrote the stimulus bill for Congress were ungrateful.

Today The Federalist is reporting the following:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is overriding the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made a surprise announcement Tuesday that any distillery that switched to producing hand sanitizer this year during the pandemic will owe thousands of dollars in fees and could be charged twice if they do not cease production immediately.

HHS Chief of Staff Brian Harrison announced Thursday: “Small businesses who stepped up to fight COVID-19 should be applauded by their government, not taxed for doing so. I’m pleased to announce we have directed FDA to cease enforcement of these arbitrary, surprise user fees. Happy New Year, distilleries, and cheers to you for helping keep us safe!”

The article explains the history of the fees:

The early and uncertain days of the pandemic created a high demand for hand sanitizer. Many craft-brewing distilleries, which found their regular operations at a standstill due to COVID shutdowns, pivoted to making sanitizer to stay financially afloat and help with the sudden shortage. More than 800 distilleries shifted from spirits to sanitizer, offering it for sale and even donating it to their communities.

How were the distilleries rewarded for their swift, resourceful, and admirable actions? The FDA slapped them with a notice that they owed an unexpected fee to the government of more than $14,000. Any facility described as an “over-the-counter drug monograph” facility would be subject to a $14,060 Monograph Drug Facility Fee.

The CARES Act, passed into law earlier this year as an initial round of COVID-19 spending defined all distilleries producing hand sanitizer as such facilities. Under the now-voided rule, distilleries would have been forced to shut down production of hand sanitizer and notify the federal government of their change in status in order to avoid having to pay the same fee in 2022.

For the blindsided distilleries, the unexpected fee would have been devastating in an already financially difficult year.

This is another example of things hidden in bills passed by Congress that hurt American businesses. It is time we limit Congressional bills to five pages and require that they deal with one subject only. Right now the lobbyists are writing the bills and hiding things in them that hurt Americans. It’s time to make some changes in the way Congress operates.

 

The Coming Threat To Religious Liberty

The Federalist posted an article today contrasting the Trump administration’s handling of religious liberty in America with the plans the Biden administration has for religious liberty. Joe Biden has already stated that he intends to sue the Little Sisters of the Poor again because they refuse to follow the contraception guidelines of Obamacare. Doesn’t the government have better things to do than sue a charitable organization that is doing good work?

The White House issued a proclamation yesterday marking the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket.

The proclamation declared:

We pray for religious believers everywhere who suffer persecution for their faith. We especially pray for their brave and inspiring shepherds—like Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong and Pastor Wang Yi of Chengdu—who are tireless witnesses to hope.

To honor Thomas Becket’s memory, the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected. The tyranny and murder that shocked the conscience of the Middle Ages must never be allowed to happen again. As long as America stands, we will always defend religious liberty.

A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith cannot endure—because justice, goodness, and peace cannot prevail without the grace of God.

The article contrasts that statement with statements made and policies supported by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris:

Although he professes to be Catholic, Biden has already indicated he will once again target religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, as the Obama administration did, in an attempt to force such religious orders to participate in state-funded abortion.

And Biden’s soon-to-be vice president, Kamala Harris, is an open anti-Catholic bigot. She infamously imposed an unconstitutional religious test on a nominee for the federal bench in 2018. When Brian Buescher was nominated as a District Court judge, Harris inveighed against him for being a member of the Knights of Columbus, asking, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”

Of course, the Knights of Columbus (of which, full disclosure, I’m a member) has no special position or focus on abortion. The charitable organization simply adheres to the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, marriage, and everything else. Harris’s obvious implication was that adhering to orthodox Catholic moral teaching somehow renders a person unfit for positions of public trust, such as the federal judiciary.

Aside from this appalling incident, Harris has a long record of going after organizations whose positions are in line with Catholic moral teaching, especially on abortion. As California attorney general, she authorized a raid on the home of David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, which had exposed the illegal trafficking of organs from aborted children by Planned Parenthood.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Things are not looking good for religious freedom in America during the next four years.

 

Don’t You Usually Get Arrested For Breaking The Law?

The Federalist is reporting today that despite the fact that more than 1,700 Georgians were singled out for illegally casting two ballots in 2020 elections – including last month’s presidential race–no one has been prosecuted.

The article reports:

The majority of double voters were Democrats who cast an absentee ballot either by mail or drop box and also voted in person on Election Day, officials said, which is a felony under state law.

The highest share of offenders were from Fulton County, which includes Atlanta – many of whom were allowed to cast a second ballot by poll workers, officials said.

Hundreds of workers assigned to county poll sites were recruited and trained by the Democrat-run Georgia chapter of the ACLU and by Happy Faces Personnel Group, a minority-owned temp agency run by Democrat donors, according to documents obtained by RealClearInvestigations. 

The ACLU chapter is now signing up poll workers for the Jan. 5 runoff races. And the temp agency remains under contract with the county to supply workers for that critical election, despite complaints from poll managers and poll watchers that its recruits were “poorly trained” and “highly partisan.” The Georgia runoffs will determine control of the U.S. Senate.

Though the number of suspected double-voting felons is the largest in state history, RealClearInvestigations has learned that no cases have been referred to the state attorney general for criminal investigation.

The article also notes:

An investigation by Raffensperger’s office revealed that at least 1,042 people knowingly voted twice in the June primary, with 60 percent of them using Democratic Party ballots. Hundreds more broke the law again on Nov. 3. Voting twice is a felony punishable by one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Yet none of the total 1,736 confirmed cases of double-voting has been referred for prosecution, even though some cheaters were overheard bragging about violating the law.

In a guide for Georgia poll workers, the ACLU came close to encouraging double-voting: “Voters can cast a regular in-person ballot even if they requested an absentee ballot.” The chapter also facilitated absentee voting by listing the locations of all the drop boxes in the state, including some 36 drop boxes installed in Fulton County.

At some point, we are going to have to get tighter controls on absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. Double voting is not acceptable.

A Broken Promise

Historically, Britain leased Hong Kong from China. However, in 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang negotiated the underlying plan for the lease to end, such that Hong Kong would remain a semi-autonomous region for a 50-year period after the lease ended. According to that agreement, Hong Kong would remain free and semi-autonomous until 2034. Unfortunately that is not what is happening.

Yesterday The Federalist reported that Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow were arrested and sent to prison on Wednesday following their involvement in a series of protests created in resistance to the Chinese Communist Party’s tightening control of the territory.

The article reports:

Joshua Wong received the heaviest sentence with 13 and a half months in prison, Agnes Chow was sentenced to 10 months, and Ivan Lam received seven months. While Wong has been charged in other cases, Chow is still facing potential charges of inciting secession and all of the activists are subject to further scrutiny from the Chinese government.

…Wong, Chow, and Lam were all part of a pro-democracy political party Demosisto, which disbanded shortly before the communist National People’s Congress passed a new “security” law in July that criminalizes regular protest activity as “terrorism” for disrupting traffic, “subversion” for disrupting any government agents, and “secession” for groups speaking of potential independence. Any attempt by protest groups to work with the members of the international community was also made a criminal offense.

Violators of the new legislation were subjected to harsh punishments including potential life in prison.

The activists previously pleaded guilty for participating in what was deemed an “unauthorized assembly” in front of police headquarters in June of last year when the pro-democracy protest movement first began to gain international attention.

As noted by the New York Times, both Wong and Lam, eventually joined by Chow, were influential in organizing and lifting Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement off of the ground. Nearly 10 years ago, the activists recognized the influence the Chinese Communist Party was having on their generation and began to coordinate protests against a “national education curriculum in Hong Kong schools, which they considered ‘brainwashing.’”

The young activists also helped organize the Umbrella Movement, a series of campaigns and protests against “limits on direct elections in 2014.”

When urgency and awareness picked up about the Hong Kongers’ fight for freedom in 2019 following protests over China’s intention to extradite criminal offenders to be tried in mainland China, they rose into the international spotlight as leaders of the movement.

This doesn’t sound as if China is living up to its part of the bargain. The really sad part is that no country in the world will stand up to China on this matter. In that case, we can expect a total end to freedom in Hong Kong.