Archive for the 'Politics' Category

See featured article Analysis Of The Covid-19 Pandemic.  There have been updates.

Reason.

I regret to inform you that we have always lived in a country in which political officials can order private businesses closed.

[ … ]

This general background of police powers underwrites myriad routine restrictions that state and local governments put on social life. It is what allows local governments to authorize health inspectors to examine the kitchens of restaurants and order them to close if they discover problems. It is what allows fire marshals to limit the number of people who can occupy a public venue. It is what allows police officers to arrest people for urinating in the street. It is what allows government officials to prevent you from just accumulating mounds of garbage in the backyard of your suburban home. It is what allows government officials to tell you that you cannot keep a Bengal tiger as a pet in your house.

This case is extremely unconvincing.  Public laws against urinating in the streets or letting trash build up IS NOT THE SAME THING as a public curfew.  Nor is it the same thing as shutting down businesses.

Via Tamara Keel.

Handwaving Freakoutery@Freakoutery

Yea, these have been my thoughts lately.  Actually, there is more.

So before we begin let’s get the obvious out of the way.  Regular readers know that I haven’t jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon by saying that this was all planned.  I do believe (based on what evidence is available to me) that this virus is weaponized.  I also believe that it was most likely an accidental release from the Chinese bio-weapons facility.

But that doesn’t mean the FedGov (and all other levels of government, from city to state) hasn’t glommed on to see just how far this can be pushed.  And you can rest assured that the JTTF Fusion Centers are watching very carefully.

Roger Kimball notes this.

It also, it is worth noting, plays right into the hands of power-hungry politicians who like nothing better than to forbid whatever it is they have neglected to make mandatory. These are the folks who stand to benefit by the ill wind of the Wuhan virus. Anyone who doubts this should ponder the case of Champaign, Illinois, whose city council just voted itself emergency powers to deal with the crisis, or “crisis.”

My friend David Horowitz likes to say “scratch a liberal and you’ll discover a totalitarian screaming to get out.” The evolution of the reaction and overreaction to the Wuhan flu is a textbook case illustrating the truth of that observation.

The Feds have shot their wad at the coming potential recession, and have no more ammunition.  The mayor of Champaign, Illinois has declared a town emergency over the Wuhan coronavirus that includes a potential ban on the sale of firearms and ammunition.  The mayor of Austin, Texas, has forbade gatherings of more than 100 people, placing in jeopardy the livelihoods of people who make their living doing just such things, like wedding planning, musicians, and so on.  New Jersey communities have imposed mandatory curfews (so did the British Army in colonial America, one of the complaints by the colonists, of course ending with American independence after a long and bloody war).

Of course, this is all unconstitutional.  The constitution doesn’t recognize “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and right to freedom of association (recognized by the courts) .. except … uh oh, when the .gov declares it null and void because they are concerned about you or others you might happen to affect and can get a doctor to sign on to their plans.  It doesn’t work that way.

Unless it does and the American people let them get away with it.  I’m not suggesting of course that there aren’t benefits to remote work.  I have worked remotely for the last seven months and have done just fine with it, being even more productive than I would have been driving to work and sitting in a stale office.  I’m suggesting that no governor, no mayor, no president, and no legislator, has the authority to tell congregants that they are not to worship on Sunday or any other day.  No one has the authority to tell free men when they will be outside their homes.  And no mayor has the authority to tell gun owners that they can’t purchase more guns or ammunition.

David Codrea.

“Why are ‘Conservatives’ Throwing Michelle Malkin Under the Bus?” a cautionary analysis by Jose Nino on Big League Politics asks. “Second Amendment Activists Would be Wise to Not Dismiss Michelle Malkin’s Immigration Discussions.”

Apparently, advocating America should place its interests ahead of any other country’s, including Israel’s, was enough for Gun Owners of America’s Director of Outreach to brag on Twitter about having Malkin excluded from speaking to a Republican group.

“Bethany Mandel, editor of the conservative website Ricochet, penned an article titled ‘The Fall of Michelle Malkin’, which questioned Malkin’s recent controversial statements on immigration and why U.S. taxpayers subsidize Israel to the tune of billions,” the article explains. Except, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends upon what the meaning of the word “conservative” is.

Read the rest of it.

Let me tell you something about Michelle Malkin.  When I was first starting out as a blogger, Michelle knew my son was deployed in Iraq.  I don’t think she wanted us to be there any more than I did, but she was truly compassionate for my plight (the turmoil military parents go through).

She gave me copious links, as well as actually exchanged email with me.  I have no regard or respect for folks who won’t exchange email with you.

Michelle Malkin is a decent and good woman, and a smart analyst.

Communism always fails.

The Democrat Party By Definition.

Just remember these words: “Biden’s blonde leg hair.”

The most amazing thing about this, though, is the reaction from David Frum.  This is no joke.  I initially thought this was some sort of parody, but it’s not.

“Kind of amazing that anybody thinks this video makes Biden look anything other than terrific. He shushes the aide who wants to lead him away – and then engages a hostile critic face to face, fact to fact. Impressive.”

Hey David, when did you sell your soul to the devil?

Ammoland.

A few years back while living in New Mexico I attended a Homeland Security Combating Terrorism Conference. The days were spent watching videos of bombings, explosions, and all manner of terrorist attacks on both American and foreign soil.

However, the briefing that got my attention the most, was a short forty-five minute, New Mexico, state, public health presentation about potential large-scale medical emergencies on the US – Mexican border. The majority of the people attending the conference were from New Mexico and Texas. The big topic on everyone’s mind was weapons of mass destruction.

We continued each day of the conference learning how to train, equip, and prepare to deploy, first responder assets. What if, there was a large bombing incident in downtown Dallas that kills a thousand-plus people? Or, what if there is a radiological disaster in Albuquerque (more nukes in that town than anywhere else in the US) that contaminates a large part of the city? The major problem I discovered was no one was prepared or politically able to discuss the “Border Situation.”

Lots of discussion about how to meet a projected crisis, but for the most part it was all done as if the US-Mexico border did not exist on the south end of four of our states. The most powerful “first world” country on this planet is sitting right next door to one of the neediest “third world” countries, with only a partial fence between them.

Another what-if question, what if a new strain of swine flu or smallpox or today (March 2020) the CONVID 19 coronavirus, either naturally or, worse yet, man-manufactured, breaks out in Juarez City, Mexico?

The perception that there is anything that resembles a public health system in the Mexican State of Chihuahua that could deal with the above medical crisis is incorrect.

Oh, I think that’s the wrong question.  I don’t really think they want to be prepared, if being prepared means closing the border.

You are aware, aren’t you, that while the country is at a point of crisis over health concerns, the Senate is pushing hard for a bipartisan green social engineering bill?

There is certainly a serious threat, but you are aware that while the country reels from Covid-19, Trump met with Lindsey Graham to talk about immigration issues?  From the NumbersUSA newsletter.

A number of Republican Senators, including Gang of 8 alum Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and immigration-expansionist Thom Tillis of North Carolina met with Pres. Trump on Thursday to discuss an election year push to pass an amnesty for illegal aliens.

Sens. Graham and Tillis have been in the news as of late trying to convince their colleagues to get behind an agricultural amnesty bill that was passed by the House in December.

According to reports, the meeting was more of a session to discuss strategy should the Supreme Court strike down former Pres. Obama’s executive DACA amnesty. The Senate attempted to pass a permanent DACA amnesty in February of 2018, but three competing proposals failed to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for the proposals to come to the Senate floor for debate.

Ahead of the Thursday meeting, Sen. Graham told Fox News, “Just to see, you know, where we are in terms of the DACA Supreme Court case, [there’s a] pretty good chance that the president will win, being able to set aside the Obama-era DACA regulations and what’s the play after that.”

We know that Sen. Graham would like nothing more than to pass an amnesty for DACA recipients, and he likely doesn’t want to stop there. He’s the lead sponsor of the Dream Act, S. 874, that would add to DACA’s 800,000 recipients by granting amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. The farm amnesty that he’s currently pushing would add another 1 million-plus to that number.

It’s almost as if during the fixation on Covid-19 in the news, the men behind the curtain are busy redistributing wealth, terraforming America, and moving colossal sums of money around, with corporations and big Pharma getting rich. Like this was all planned or something.

If I didn’t know any better.  Perhaps it’s just not letting a crisis go to waste on the vicissitudes of the idiot American public who cannot be trusted with their own rule and need the elitists to govern them.

Two different readers have now confirmed to me that they know of connecting flights in America where foreign nationals were allowed to connect in America with final destinations outside of America.

Let that sink in.  That means the protocols in place for foreign nationals entering the U.S., or outright prohibitions thereto, aren’t in place for connecting flights.

Foreign nationals could be traipsing through airports on their way from one flight to another, and there is absolutely no control or protocol to monitor that or ensure the health and safety of the public.

It’s almost as if the American controllers aren’t taking this seriously.  It’s almost as if the combination of the FedGov and media has caused a panic to overcrowd medical care facilities and over-stress the staff, with little to no planning or foresight, with inadequate hospital beds, medical staff, training, equipment or protocols.

It’s almost as if the only real winners in all of this when it’s all said and done will be big Pharma and some corporations.

If I didn’t know better.

Readers feel free to drop URLs to news reports, studies and analyses of Covid-19 in comments.  This is a rare time I ask for this.

From a reader, with certain things deleted.

I talked to my daughter earlier. She is a —– ——— for ——— flying out of ———. She also happens to be a ER RN with experience in a level one trauma center. She is very alarmed. She ——- ——– ——- flight from Tokyo two weeks ago. She noted about half of the passengers were Chinese. They simply made a connection in Tokyo (same for Korea) and continued on to the US. The only checks were a infrared temp check as they walk past. She thought it seems like TPTB don’t care if the virus comes here. She noted they stopped direct flights and promoted it in the news, but then allow people to make connection flights. Just does not make sense.

Until we lock down the borders, isolate and contain, this will continue to spread until it becomes a catastrophe.  Maybe that’s what the FedGov wants.

CNN.

Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives banned bump stock devices — attachments that essentially allow shooters to fire semiautomatic rifles continuously with one pull of the trigger.

A group of bump stock owners and Second Amendment groups sought to challenge how the administration went about banning the devices.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed to the court by Trump, wrote a statement saying he agrees the current case should not be heard and that the court was correct not to intervene, but he was concerned with how the lower court handled the issue.

“Justice Gorsuch’s separate opinion isn’t about the merits of the bump stocks rule, but rather whether the lower court applied the correct standard of review in considering those merits. The court’s denial here suggests that the justices are willing to let lower court litigation over the controversial Trump administration rule run its course before deciding if — and how — to intervene,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Here is what Gorsuch wrote.

The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administrations. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guess again whether the agency’s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “reasonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.

His was the dissenting opinion, the only “justice” who expressed any problems with it all.  And if the Supreme Court had heard the case and assigned it to Gorsuch to write the opinion, he could have spent less time declaring the whole thing unconstitutional.

Thus, the Supreme Court has no balls.