Maybe Brandi is a nice person, but right now, I don't like her much.

Let me take a break from my usual assault on fascism in our country and talk about a Supreme Court case that just came down. I haven't talked about a particular case in a while. This one is MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. B. L. It's a case about free speech in high school. BL was a minor when the action was brought and her real name is Brandi Levi. As usual when discussing cases, I'm not going all legally-schmegally, citing cases and the like. If you want to read the case - 20-255 Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. (06/23/2021) (supremecourt.gov).

So, essentially, here are the important facts. Brandi was a student at a Pennsylvania High School who at the end of her freshman year tried out for varsity cheerleading and right fielder on a private (not school) team. She was only offered a spot on the J.V. cheerleading team and she did not get the softball position she wanted. Let's agree, she wasn't a good sport about it. She went with a friend to a store and put on her own phone two snapchats (I heard of snapchat, but of course have no idea what it is - but now I know it's social media that lets you put up pictures and videos that fade away after some time). Anyone on her friend's group could see them for 24 hours. One photo showed her and her friend raising their middle fingers (you know what that means, right?) and the caption read "Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything." I'm violating my own no cursing policy because the Supreme Court used those words. The other photo had no picture but basically a complaint that someone got on the varsity team who wasn't a freshman and she had been was told that's why she couldn't be on it. Wah wah wah. Oh, and an upside down smiley face, which I personally feel are creepy, but no one else in the world agrees with me and it's not the issue here. The photograph is.

So, even adults never seem to learn - if you put things online, other people can see them. Some of her "friends" were on the team. One of her group took pictures of it and showed her mom, a coach on the team. See where this is going? Some of the cheerleaders were upset and spoke to coaches about it. Two of the coaches taught an algebra class and apparently there was a discussion about it. 

Brandi apologized for what she had done, after being suspended from cheerleading for a year, but it did not help. She and her parents sued, claiming her first amendment rights were violated (that is, she could say what she wanted).  

Let me say, I don't think what Brandi did was horrible. She was about 14, I'm guessing, and though it is impolite to say that, 14 year olds are often pretty stupid (also, it turns out, people of every age group - BECAUSE THEY NEVER SEEM TO LEARN NOT TO POST! - I'm sure including me). Even if a grown up did it, it isn't horrible. But, a grown up might get fired over it (and a lot less). 

The trial court (in federal court, called District Court) undid the suspension, gave Brandi a little bit of money ("nominal damages") and attorney's fees, which could be a lot of money. I don't know how much they got. 

So, basically, we all have some first amendment speech rights. It's not absolute. We all should know that. You know, you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, can't use fighting words to someone's face, that kind of thing. And, some people have more rights than others depending on the circumstances. You can't always say what you want at work or . . . in school. This is not the first case like this, but, usually, the school wins. Here, the middle court (Court of Appeals) agreed with the trial court and the Supreme Court agreed to. Here's why.

Public schools can regulate some speech on school premises because they have this mission to educate the children and also a duty to protect them from injury or the like while they have them. They can regulate speech on-campus if it "materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969). The school stands "in loco parentis" - that is, in the place of the parents. 

You might think, that's fine while they are in school, but not when they are out of school. Actually, they can regulate some "off-campus" speech by students, according to Tinker. 

Usually, it's dangerous or disruptive things like "serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning les[1sons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices."  So, if I threaten you (imagine we are kids) out of school, the school might suspend me because it might result in violence. Or, if I write your paper outside of school, maybe I'll get in trouble for that. 

But, in general, the courts are more skeptical of the regulations when it's off-campus speech. For one thing, because we pretend that schools are the "nurseries of  democracy" we want to protect their even unpopular speech.

The Supreme court decided because the photo was sent outside of school hours, off of school grounds, did not identify or target any particular person with vulgar/abusive language, sent the photo through her own smart phone to her "friends," and it really didn't disrupt school for more than a few minutes (the algebra class) and, the court believes it wouldn't disrupt unity on the team (really? - does anyone on the court know any teenage girls?), it wasn't sufficient to trigger the school's right to punish her.  

That's it in a nutshell, and though I was much shorter than the court, I didn't leave much out.

Usually, I am very pro-first amendment, believe we should have it as much as possible, but I disagreed here with 8 of the judges. The only one who dissented (voted against) was Judge Thomas. More and more I find in a case I agree with either him or Alito, but not always. Justice Thomas and I also agree with the Biden Administration, which is only ironic in that both us probably disagree a lot with it. 

Just to give you the skinny on Thomas' opinion - he felt the court ignored the history and cases which gave schools more authority than they suggested off campus when the speech affected the school environment (I'm paraphrasing). He reminds them of a Vermont case, as an example, where a kid at home said in front of a teacher and some other students that the teacher was "old" (apparently said disrespectfully. The principle of the case was that if that the speech had “a direct and immediate tendency to injure the school, to sub[1vert the master’s authority, and to beget disorder and insubordination” and therefore found the kid could be disciplined. It would not have been allowed if the speech was “in no ways connected with or affecting the school” or had “merely a remote and indirect tendency to injure.” 

Although I think the case he cited had too little of an insult ("old") for me to conclude it would have usurped the teacher's authority, it was at least borderline. Last of all, Thomas points out that what off-campus means now isn't what it used to mean. 

So, this is what I think. The first amendment free speech rights are super important. I don't want the content of anyone's speech to go unsaid even if I hate it. I want Brandi to always be able to say her opinion. But, I do think the school should be able to discipline kids' speech in some areas because they do have to be able to run a school, and frankly, we have dropped the ball so much in education that we can't afford to let discipline in school get worse than it is. 

Let's be honest. Yes, her opinion obviously is that the school, cheerleaders, etc., sucks. Okay. But, using the phrase "Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" is more than just an opinion just like saying, I think you should die, is more than an opinion. It's a well known expression of disgust, hate or contempt. And people take it very personally. Don't tell me that racial slurs can be out of bounds if "fuck" isn't, because we all know it pisses people off something fierce. Unless someone knows they are joking (like if we say it to an acquaintance where the context is obvious), saying "Fuck X," is always personal, negative and meant to gather attention. Just because she has an opinion doesn't mean she gets any special privilege than someone who just said it without an opinion attached.  

Why shouldn't the cheerleading coaches (who did discuss it with the administration first) get to say, we don't want her on the team this year, and reasonably so. If you found out some Brandi-like kid said "Fuck you," about you and say, your swimming pool, would you want your kid to invite her over to go swimming? Of course, school is different than our private lives, but the teachers and coaches are people, and so are the kids on the team who were upset. And was it really that big of a punishment. No. It was mild. She wasn't suspended from school. She didn't even get attention. It pretty much was, okay, you hate us, don't be with us - and for just the one year. Limited in time, limited in scope. As I said, Brandi didn't do anything horrible to begin with. But, obviously, it would tend to upset people and make being on a team difficult.  Her opinion is her own (I had no problem with the other post) to have. Even if she is in school, she should not be deprived of stating an opinion (short of ones in school that might put people in fear - like screaming "fire" in a crowded lunchroom). 

Now, about that off-campus thing. What does it matter anymore. Who has more power, by a factor of a million perhaps. Me, going on campus and whispering something in someone's ear, or, someone sitting at home on facebook with a thousand (or 50,000 or a million) "friends." Even the court seems to recognize that the impact of the behavior has to count even when off-campus. Social media is so powerful because it has become the actual village commons. A student who makes mischief in class is comparing a pea-shooter to a howitzer. Social media can reach so many people, and the idea that it was just her friends doesn't make any difference when some of them were cheerleaders themselves, or the daughter of a coach, or even because any of them can print it out or take a picture of it. 

It's not like I'm saying something new either. We've had things long-arm jurisdiction for example for the longest time so that a person can sue in a state where they are injured when it was caused by someone who did something in another state and it was foreseeable that whatever it was would cause the problem elsewhere. Just as an example, if I sell a product, say a car, in Florida that is defective and it blows up in New York, I can be sued in NY. Technology often lets us stretch our natural capacities. When they wrote the constitution there were no telephones. Now, I can make a threat in California on the line with you in Maine. Or if I put in online, everyone can know. Something like "Fuck school . . ." is exactly the type of thing that is likely to go flying around school every bit as much as when Esther challenges Jane to a fight in the playground after school with two friends present. Soon everyone knows. Nowadays, the challenge would probably be made on social media. Think about it. If it counts against someone when they make a threat online and are not on school grounds - they feel an online off-campus threat has an effect on people on-campus (even if not there at the moment). Why would it be any different if it's a curse out. It can reach them the same way.

I probably would have a different opinion if she was suspended from school for cursing it out. But, school is a necessity, required by law, and important for her too. And I would take into consideration that she wasn't shouting it at the people in person. But, this is cheerleading, and that is not required, it is not the law, and it is a privilege to be on a team. Very different, and no one took that into consideration, or that her presence would effect the coaches and other cheerleaders. We have a problem in this country in making the bullies the good guys and the victims the bad guys. This is one example. That doesn't mean she shouldn't have free speech, but this has nothing to do with that. It has to do with cursing out your coach and team.

So, maybe Brandi is an awesome kid and this is the one thing she did wrong in her life (and once more, it wasn't that terrible). That's something the school and her teachers might take into consideration. But, I think her parents did the wrong thing here. They should have said, Brandi, time you learned the danger of social media, and time you learned your actions have consequences. Don't go putting "Fuck" anyone on social media if you don't want them to read it. I wish everyone would learn that lesson. Again, this was a mild punishment. People lose their jobs and don't get to cry to a court over much smaller things, including just having an opinion. 

The shame is, because it's a civil rights case, the school has to pay Brandi's parents legal fees. That just isn't right either, in my book, because if anything, at the very least - this was a close call and she was obnoxious. The school wasn't out to stifle her rights. There was no racism or anti-Brandi feeling. She cursed the school  and team out because she is a sore loser and they did what any responsible parent or school standing in the parents' shoes would do - they mildly punished her so she'd learn a lesson. The court did not have to grant attorney's fees. Schools are already terrified of litigation, avoid normal activities to avoid it. This might have a terrible impact on schools (that are already cowardly and fear litigation), make them even more afraid to discipline children even if it's on-campus or more brazenly online. Organizations and their lawyers bend over backwards to avoid trouble. The court should not grant those fees. 

Last point. The snapchat happened in 2017. She was 14, I guess now 18. 4 years is not a long time by Supreme Court standards (a case they decided a few days ago started 16 years ago). I wonder how Brandi's life at school turned out and if she ever went back on the team. Just curious. Maybe it's on social media, but I'm not. 

Stop apologizing to fascists - but on the lighter side. . .

Someone suggested to me recently that I try a different tact on my blog, sort of lightening up on the topics, because, you catch more flies with honey . . .  I would actually love to do more of what I used to do, history, trivia, music, art, etc. But, the Blog's sub-title is "what I'm thinking" (something like that - I actually forget exactly) and it is hard for me to write about anything other than what I'm thinking. And, these days I am often thinking of the growing fascism. Despite the fact that it is much more fun, relaxing and less stressful to think of pretty much anything else, it's too important to take lightly. And not that it is too important, because I have to be my own guide about what I want to write about, my general audience, always and still small (generally around 2000 hits a month lately) has multiplied at least a few times over since I started largely writing about fascism. 

Nevertheless, to break the tension today, I'll write a little on modern fascism (to make it even easier for me, and then will alternate with something a little lighter. Why not? Who could it hurt?

*

Marjorie Taylor Greene has apologized for comparing mask wearing to the holocaust. Why? Of course, it's a silly comparison. But, her statements are not offensive. It was just a very bad analogy, not not just because of the quality of it, but because of the dimensions of it. The holocaust was obviously a million times, actually many millions of times worse than the mask mandates. As she said, she was just trying to say that they were forcing people to do things like the badge Jews had to wear. To some extent I agree, though I wasn't against masks for a period of time, although they weren't very effective.

But, we are facing fascism in ways I have been trying to describe for a long time now, since 2016. One thing that is at least incipient fascism is that everyone must apologize for some opinion, some real or imagined mistake or, goodness gracious, some slight to the narrative of the left or be canceled. I've always hated these phony apologies for unintended gaffes or plain mistakes. Worse, just because someone decides there feeling were hurt. Now, of course, the apologies seem to have to be made only by those on the right or just not on the left.
Come on – AOC said that they should archive the names of Trump supporters and thought about what sure sounds like the end of free speech and re-education. Did she apologize? I hear that and I suspect this is someone who would line people up and have them shot if she could. Ted Yoho apologized to AOC for calling her a "f***ing Bitch."  Normally, it wouldn't be nice, but, if someone said Himmler was a dirt bag, no one would likely be looking for an apology? This is AOC we are talking about - the woman who defended her "sis" Rashida Tlaib for calling Trump a "motherf***er." How does that person deserve an apology? She has complained that she is someone's daughter too, but she 

Maxine Waters literally encouraged a gathers in a city where rioting had caused 150 fires and uncountable damage, to riot again. Did she apologize? Sen. Hirono said she wouldn't sit though any more rhetorical speeches by Ted Crus and that she was leaving. She did. Hirono packed up her things and was silent when Cruz gave her yet another chance to condemn Antifa (mouthing the words out of a committee meeting when Ted Cruz (who I used to dislike - now I think he's terrific) castigated the Ds for not condemning Antifa. Here's part of their exchange:

"Sometimes I don't think you listen. So, how many times have I had to say that we all should be denouncing violent extremists of every stripe." 

"Does that include Antifa?" asked Cruz.

"I have the time." she responded. No, she wasn't going to put down the fascist group. Maybe she is afraid that they will show up at her door. Hirono, who is an out and out racist in my belief, said "I hope this is the end of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and that we don't have to listen to any more of your rhetorical speeches. Thank you very much. I'm leaving."

Still, after a little sarcasm about her comments, he gave her one more chance. "Well, I appreciate the always kind and uplifting remarks of Senator Hirono. And I would also note that throughout her remarks she still did not say a negative word about Antifa nor has any Democrat here. "You're welcome to say something negative about Antifa right now."

It is reported that she said off the record that she said "I think that I've covered the subject quite well," but I also heard she cursed. I don't know. Couldn't hear on the tape.

Cruz said, "Okay, she declined to speak, so that is the position of the Democratic Party." 

Why won't she say condemn Antifa? Does she approve of it? She has before said she understood why people were becoming violent (implying, it seemed to me, that if Trump is president people had a right to be violent, but whatever the reason, that sure isn't saying she will condemn all violence). She also won't apologize for not attacking a fascist group that has made Portland (and other places) a hellhole for so many, a group that has literally tried to burn cops alive and and has been implicated in murder. She won't apologize for calling Trump a bully or for when she falsely accused Justice Amy Coney Barrett at her confirmation hearing of using a term that was supposedly offensive to the LBGTQ - "sexual preference." I cringed when Justice Barrett apologized, saying she would not intentionally use a term offensive to them. I'm sure she wouldn't. But, it came from Hirono's mouth, so chances were very good it was a lie. And it was. She shouldn't have apologized. Of course, of course, of course, there is nothing offensive about the term whether sexual orientation is innate or developed and, of course, of course, of course, it turned out that many Ds have used the term like Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden and even Barrett's sainted predecessor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Any apology from Hirono or the other drones who repeated it? Of course not.

Kudos! to Daniel Elder, a 34 year old award winning composer from Tennessee who was blackballed by his own publishers and local choirs (they won't even let him sing) because he refused to apologize (his publisher wrote out a fawning apology) for saying something horrible. What did he say? Ready? He criticized ARSON (I know, you are thinking I'm exaggerating - go read - A Composer Condemned Arson. Now No One Will Hire Him. – Reason.com, 

This is the state of the world we are in. Sickened at seeing broken windows, graffiti, police cars attacked and the courthouse set on fire, not to mention his own friends support of mob violence, he wrote as a last post on the Instagram account he was cancelling - "Enjoy burning it all down, you well-intentioned, blind people. I'm done." He even called them well-intentioned (by the way, the arsonist was white - but the narrative is what matters to the left). 

Despite all the hate, he stood up for his values and refused to apologize, despite it torpedoing his career. To the contrary, I was vexed and disappointed by the couple from Missouri, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who, fearing for their lives and property by BLM "protesters" who they said were going to burn them out and take their house - stood in front of their property with their legal guns (she pointed it at the "marchers"). Of course, they were terrified, and why wouldn't they be? So, naturally, like Kyle Rittenhouse, who defended his own life, they were prosecuted. After saying they will never back down - they pled guilty.  I'm sure that their attorney convinced them to take the no-jail, small fine misdemeanor plea. I know it's easy for me to say, as I wasn't facing jail, but I wish they didn't. It was like apologizing even though afterwards he said he'd do the same again (though, they took away their guns). And the governor had said he'd pardon them. I don't know if he will now.  

Stop apologizing! The psychiatrist (who should be mentally examined) who said at Yale that she fantasizes about killing white people, hasn't apologized. Has Donald Moss, who teaches at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, apologized for his "On Having Whiteness," which calls being  white a "malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility”? Has the American Psychoanalytic Association apologized for publishing it in its journal? 

Judy Munro-Leighton, a left wing activist who admitted making up her claim that Kavanaugh raped her, didn't apologize (nor was prosecuted). Julie Swetnick claims were so laughable even many Ds who had drank the Dr. Ford Kool-aid had trouble believing it (among her claims, she voluntarily went to multiple parties where there were gang-rapes (her idiot lawyer, once a MSNBC darling, has since been convicted of fraud and extortion).Have any of them apologized, even the team of D Senators who acted together to try to derail the hearing by interruption until they were outed for planning it)?

Did Nancy Pelosi, who tried to usurp the president's powers and absolutely slandered him by interfering with the chain of command for nukes (with zero reason) apologize and say, sorry, I over reacted? Did Chuck Schumer, who threatened Supreme Court members if they didn't vote the way he wanted, apologize?

When politicians or other celebrities apologize, it rarely seems sincere, anyway. For crying out loud, stop apologizing for things you aren't responsible for or are leftist lies! I don't care if you "fake (or pseudo)-apologize" that you are sorry if someone is offended (though I can believe few claims of it anymore). At least that is genuine.

By the way, the left is absolutely following the path of fascism, controlling the police and army, propaganda, including proselytizing minors, arresting people for defending themselves against them, and so on, even if its not the same scale yet. You think Ashli Babbett wasn’t murdered and nothing done about it? You think thousands of people aren’t dead thanks to under-policing, a direct result of this fascism? You think the entire BLM theme of victimization isn’t what Hitler did with Germany and using an ethnic scapegoat isn’t what Hitler did?

*

(Babbett's husband can't get cop's name who shot her). I am not even saying he should be guilty of a crime, because we can't know edge:/the facts. Maybe he was listening to some CRT proponent and felt like he was exterminating a parasite. Maybe he hates women. Maybe he panicked. 

All I know is that when George Floyd died we knew Derek Chauvin's name right away and he was arrested and charged with everything they could throw at him and then some (3d degree murder, which doesn't even make sense). When Daunte Wright was shot we knew Kim Potters' name right away and she was charged with murder though everyone knows she thought she was firing her taser.  

Was there a difference. Even some experts for the prosecution recognized that there was at least some resistance by Floyd (I consider what happened to him an easily preventable tragedy and believe Chauvin should have been found guilty of manslaughter) and Wright. But, both were black, and BLM is energetic and doesn't care even if someone is responsible for his own death so long as he/she is black. Ashli Babbett was white though and in today's world, though the great majority of people, almost everyone, realizes that black lives matter too (b/c all lives matter); we've come full circle and now many people think justice for black slaves in America or victims of Jim Crow can only be made right by unfair killing or prosecution of whites. 

When I say almost everyone knows black lives matter too, I'd exclude two groups. 1) Nazis, Klan and the like. 2) BLM, which has, through its systematic attack on police (of any color), they've indirectly killed off more blacks to gang violence at a far faster rate than the Klan ever did, using NAACP numbers of lynchings. They also probably caused more damage to property of innocent people around Minneapolis environs than the Klan ever did anywhere, though I'm not sure of that. In any event, they are the biggest, most well funded gang in our history.

Be pro-civil rights, pro-justice. Be against fake civil rights and social justice - which means no justice except by virtue of skin color.

*

On a lighter note - 

I read recently that the 19th century writer, Robert Louis Stevenson (Mutiny on the Bounty, Kidnapped, etc.) was buried on a hillside overlooking the water in Samoa. His tombstone bears a poem he wrote that spoke to me, whatever that means:

Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie.
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me;
"Here he lies where he longed to be,
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill."

Really nice. It started me remembering that some years ago, I was speaking with my 25 to life sentence about a guy we knew who felt he was good to the women in his life and would have appreciated it if once in a while they told him he was wonderful. I said to P, “I know you don’t think I’m wonderful.”
And my evalovin’ gf responded, sincerely, “Well, you’re not horrible.”
“Wow.” I said. “That’s my epitaph. ‘He wasn’t horrible.’”
Almost as good as Stevenson’s, right?

*

I do believe Floyd was negligently deprived of life (the murder convictions were outrageous and it was not a fair trial) and I do think the police could have handled it much better. I watch that video and like everyone I know, left or right, cringe. Floyd didn't even really resist. He said "thank you," when they put him on the ground. Though he was a big man and imposing, he seemed more like a big baby than a vicious brute.

That said, he was one person who sadly died and for the gang known as BLM, it was the best thing that ever happened to them. No wonder they are celebrating on his anniversary. This was there excuse to riot and loot hundreds of times across the country in a matter of months. Before they had to rely on made up murders like with George Zimmerman (rightfully acquitted) or Darren Wilson (rightfully never charged), both whose lives have been terribly impacted by BLM lies. But, Floyd was something most people could agree on. 

But, what justification is there for the rioting, the arson, the murder everywhere across the country where the idiots who are in power gave in to radicals demanding some kind of "justice," against the police - you know, the ones who save lives every day, the ones who can stop crimes just by patrolling (at least formerly)? Even as racist a person as self-loathing Joe Biden (who thinks - possibly pretends he thinks - that only whites can be racist), says that rioting and looting is not protesting and should stop (though like Obama, encourages them in other ways). They have turned parts of cities inhabitable or disgusting places. The police, subject to scorn by fascist pols like De Blasio, stopped policing in many places and the gangs took over. When will this country wake up? Taking over the police, education, the media, the big lie, etc., all part of the Nazis' playbook and now BLM/Antifa etc. They actually hurt minorities and it's a crying shame, because as Obama - yes, that Obama, said in 2016 repeatedly, this was the best time and place ever to be a minority. 

We are not a perfect country. None is. But, we were a great country with liberty and order. I have said many times (many many) up to a few years ago, that we were not just the luckiest people on earth, but the luckiest people in the history of earth. Are we anymore? The fascists, and they are nothing less, are trying to take that away. And, it's working, especially in big cities. I will say it to anyone - if you are for BLM, CRT, Antifa, CRT, etc., then you are for fascists. If you voted for Biden, you are at least supporting those who support those groups. And, remember, they usually eat their own at some point.

*

On a lighter note - 

Some opera music is just exquisite (some of it people don't even realize is opera because they just hear the music alone in a movie or tv commercial), but most opera singing is just unbearable to me with some exceptions. The exceptions, like with the instrumental parts, are often songs that usually end up in tv commercials or in the movies. Just a few examples with links to Spotify and Youtube.

 

La Donna è mobile from Rigoletto (Verdi). 

https://open.spotify.com/track/1nRkprKas1lFz6Mu3Qh05X?si=bce6004bcf0b4eed

(14) Andrea Bocelli - La donna e' mobile - Live From Piazza Dei Cavalieri, Italy / 1997 - YouTube

The Queen of the Night aria, Hell's vengeance boils in my heart, from The Magic Flute (Mozart).

https://open.spotify.com/track/2IRMCtPrxmJwpyfCF8WcJA?si=19ac251f73fc4dfe

(14) The Magic Flute – Queen of the Night aria (Mozart; Diana Damrau, The Royal Opera) - YouTube

The Habanera from Carmen (Bizet), 

https://open.spotify.com/track/3pzBD8BVdrv7VJ7glRYshl?si=f756d80359b4418a

(14) Carmen - Habanera - Lyrics (Angela Gheorghiu) - YouTube

The Flower Duet from Lakmé (Delibes),

https://open.spotify.com/track/5Zhpw0qZya9rrklFvSkc2s?si=bd51617000834577

(14) The Flower Duet Charlotte Church - YouTube

You probably all know these songs even if you think you don't.

Finally, here's a rock n' roll star's version of the tune to Nessun Dorma from Turandot (Puccini). Jeff Beck did this pretty late in his career, 2010. No singing. I find it hauntingly beautiful.

https://open.spotify.com/track/6a08bsmQBcmsjmn2AzTu5F?si=2657dca933ee4a72

(14) Nessun Dorma - YouTube

*

In California v. Texas (poor Texas, can't win a thing), the Court, for the third time, saved the ACA. How, this time the case was dismissed on standing grounds. In short, I will say that standing still means to me that the court just ignores the cases it doesn't want to decide by claiming it's not a real case and controversy (as required by the Constitution for them to review). In other words, it found neither the individual or state plaintiffs had suffered an injury related to the statute that they claimed. Justice Alito does a great job of showing the lengths the court has been willing to go to shelter this act. The standing issues in the case are kind of in the tangles of legal mumbo-jumbo and would take a long time to summarize here, so read the opinions if you want to understand better. 

Alito ends his sharply worded dissent this way:

"No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats. A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation’s history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again."

Though obviously Thomas is, with Alito, the main defender of the Constitution on the court, the bottom line is, despite Trump's having put three judges on the Court, it really is, generally, still a left of center court in the cases regular people care about. 

The interesting thing lately with the Court is the fact that despite being now - supposedly - 6 conservatives to 3 liberals, doesn't much seem that way in those sexy cases that people really care about. At least 2 if not more conservative judges seem to flip to the minority side, giving them the majority. In this case, even Thomas, supposedly the most right wing guy on the Court, hated by liberals, joined them along with two of Trump's picks, and, not surprisingly, Roberts. I read Thomas' concurrence, of course, and I see that he said he agreed with Alito about the previous two cases and might have on standing, but felt that there was because these were not raised below, they were forfeited. I am surprised he did, because it seems to me Alito made mincemeat of his arguments (Dissent, ps. 20-22, if you care). Right now, in most important cases though, it seems more like a 7-2 or 6-3 liberal favor than the reverse.    

*

On the lighter side - 

Since the woke tried to bury him, I'm finally paying more attention to Woody Allen after a hiatus of maybe 30-35 years or so. When I was young, I and friends found him hysterical - a genius. I still have my copy of his Without Feathers, one of the funniest books I've ever read. But, of course, it was his early movies that killed us. Take the Money and Run, Play it Again, Sam (for me the greatest of them all), Sleeper, Love and Death, Annie Hall, and others. As he got older he sort of lost interest in being funny and his movies became less uproariously silly. Some were serious. Anyway, I stopped watching them a long time ago (I think Manhattan was the last one that interested me). Maybe I was unfair. Some are critically acclaimed, but I rather disagree with a lot of critics. If the NY Times' movie critic hates a movie, there's a good chance I will love it. I'm just giving you some scenes I find hysterical from the distant past:

This one's from Take the Money and Run. It's ridiculous, I know, but so funny. Poor Woody (there is, of course, a character name, but I'll just call him Woody here), is a career criminal who always loses. Here he muffs a bank robbery. (14) Woody Allen - Take The Money And Run - Bank Scene - YouTube.

This one's from Play it Again, Sam, where the hapless Woody is fixed up on a double date and is a little nervous. (14) Play It Again Sam Blind Date Scene - YouTube.

This one from Annie Hall. This movie was a little more serious than the previous. Here he explains the difference between the horrible and the miserable. (14) Annie Hall - "the horrible and the miserable" - YouTube.

I know some women didn't like his movies when we were young, because they hated slapstick (I don't know if there is a poll somewhere, but it seems many women in my age group hate slapstick) and also because his nebbishness was too much for them (like with George in Seinfeld), but it still cracks up me and a lot of my older friends. 

*

There is nothing dumber than woke arguments and if it wasn't so dangerous some would just be hysterical. Lately they are debating (seriously, they really debate this stuff) since "black" must now be capitalized to (I guess) bolster the self esteem of black people or maybe exalt their escape from slavery (I know, whatever it is, it's just ridiculous), whether "white" should also get a capital W. What's the issue? How could it not. Well, it seems that some woke people feel that giving white a capital letter will be a nod to white supremacy. No, this isn't a Woody Allen movie. It's real.

Every intelligent person knows that the blacks were horribly, murderously, oppressed for centuries. But, every intelligent person also knows that that was then and this is now. Obama himself said in 2016 in speeches (years after BLM started) that it was the best time ever for minorities in America. And, it was. It actually got even better during Trump’s terms with very low unemployment.
I will not give the “woke” the dignity of arguing the merits about whether it should be “B” and “w” or “B” and “W.” It's like the arguments that Baby, it's cold outside is promoting date rape, when it was really written as a duet for the composer and his wife, who would sing it together at parties for Xmas. It nonsense, and in case of "W/w", also racist and even fascist, because they cancel people over stuff like this and even intimidate them into agreeing with them. Sadly, the fascists have been winning, canceling people, prosecuting people who are defending themselves and the like. We have a lot of mayors and pols who believe in black supremacy. We don’t have anything even remotely like white supremacy in this country (many laws actually favor non-whites), or systemic racism (there will always be racism, and despite the woke’s mantra – anyone of any skin hue can be racist). I understand the Sharpton/BLM/Antifa mentality. Facts don’t matter, justice doesn’t matter, fairness doesn’t matter – only skin color. We must all reject this as more and more institutions crumble.

*

On the lighter side - 

My life often slides into the ridiculous, and you wouldn't be the first person to say (if you said), your life should be a sitcom or your life should be a movie. They really mean, Are you an idiot? I may have told these stories on previous occasions here, but don't think so.

- I think I was roughly 21 and going somewhere out of state my friend, Peter when I had to use the rest room at the McDs we were eating in. I walked into the restroom, kind of sort of maybe picked up at the edges of my consciousness that the guys at the mirror turned to look at me, and then went into a stall. I came out, left the restroom and immediately got applause. Naturally, I had walked into the ladies room and somehow, in my usual stupor, failed to notice not only the sign, but that everyone else was a female and also that there were no urinals. It was a memorable occasion, but to tell the truth, I've done it a number of times in my life and just caught myself even more than that.  

 - Many years ago I was hiking along a trail in Sedona, Colo., the prettiest place I've ever been that I had never heard of before I went. My evalovin' gf was in the lead and our three girls, probably ages 8-11 at the time, were following single-file and I brought up the rear. I was looking down at them, feeling good and then WHACK, I was flat on my back. They, the tallest being P's 5' 4", walked under the tree branch extending across the path without bending. I did not. Right in the forehead. Stung like a bastard too. As much as it hurt at the moment, it gets a lifetime of laughs from all of us. Someone getting suddenly whacked on the noggin and flattened never gets old, even if its you.

- I was in Sicily with my friend, Fred, and after a long day in bright sunlight, I walked ahead of him into the small, shady lobby of the hotel we were going to stay in. As I entered I saw that some kind of shimmering gauzelike veil had been put up across the whole area blocking my way. Instead of stopping, for some reason I continued walking, but putting out my hands in front of me to make chopping motions in order to cleave my way through it. After a few seconds of not feeling anything with my hands and my eyesight normalizing, I realized it was just some relatively brief combined effect of my light-contracted pupils suddenly expanding and a ray of sunlight coming through the window. In other words, there was nothing there. Fred came up and asked me what I was doing? I think everyone in the room saw. Oops.

- This one involves, not me, thank goodness, but my friend, Fred, mentioned above, who I know since the first day of my first full time job as were both looking for coffee. There were bathrooms in the hallway outside our office door with two stalls. Fred went in and noticed in one stall was someone sitting down, happily reading a newspaper (Fred could hear the paper crinkling as the occupant turned the pages). He says he also heard whistling, although that sounds a little too good not to be a false memory. Fred entered the stall, accomplished his mission and ready to leave the stall, flushed the toilet. The other guy was still there reading.  Fred went to the sink and washed his hands. Just as he was drying his hands to leave, he hears water spilling. The toilet didn't flush and was overflowing. Up in the air goes the newspaper and Fred can see the poor sod desperately trying to pull his pants up. Fred didn't wait. He said "Sorry" and fled. I am sitting here laughing at the memory.

Next post's doom and gloom will possibly make you want to cry, so I'm leaving this on a lighter note.

On the Border

A few days ago I posted, in part, on the institutions the left is trying to destroy, as opposed to Trump. But, I thought the section on the border was too long (I read long articles but some people I know will not read very much of an article, even one with which they completely agree). So, if you haven't read it, go to the last post and read it. If the State of the Union doesn't make you want to cringe, come back.

The left wants to weaken or destroy our border. Biden, hypocritically, pretended during the primary debates that he didn't want to decriminalize illegally aliens. But, immediately on becoming president he stopped the stay in Mexico policy, immediately ended the border wall project, ended the Trump ban on immigration from certain countries,* rescinded the Trump order calling for removal of illegal (undocumented according to the left) aliens, refunded Sanctuary Cities (in other words, he is a president who is rewarding those cities frustrating federal law), tried to pause deportation enforcement for a hundred days (thankfully, blocked by the courts), terminated the emergency proclamation (and then created a new emergency) and ordered the census to count illegal aliens (in other words, increasing the power of those states they would naturally flock to, like NY and Calif. - D states). Shortly thereafter, he ended immigration status checks for sponsors of unaccompanied minors, quadrupled the number of refugee admissions. 

I won't say I'm against everything he did, but most of it.

*Calling it the Muslim Ban was just another lie, as no persons were banned for that reason. In fact, banning people on religious grounds was prohibited. Only people from countries his administration believes do not control their immigration and which raised certain dangers. Yes, those countries were primarily Muslims, not least in part because they themselves are very exclusionary - but it was actually a tiny percentage of Muslims in the world. 

Biden's actions led to record low deportations, record border crossings, a huge influx of fentanyl (according to Tex. Gov. Abbot, an 800% increase) and even NBC News (NBC NEWS!!!) has admitted that there was a "massive surge at the border" because Biden gave "good reason (for immigrants) to believe it would be easier to get into the United States," causing "chaos at the border." The Southwest border crossing are on pace for largest in 20 years (back to early Bush terms). Forbes reported on May 11th, that in April, the last month reported on, immigration officers apprehended 179,000 people, the most in decades, border arrests were up to "63% from April 2019, more than tenfold from April 2020" and unaccompanied minor numbers were out of control. 

Not surprisingly, the news being what it is, I have intelligent friends who don't know or believe there is a crisis (again, I presume because of the media's protection of Biden). If there isn't one, why did Vincente Gonzalez, a Democrat congressman from the border call the Biden policies "catastrophic." Sen. Manchin called it a "crisis." Obama's Border control chief, Mark Morgan, has said that this is absolutely a national emergency. 

I need to quote Morgan, because again - this was Obama's guy - from March. He testified that "In February, we saw a 30 percent jump over the previous month, with agents apprehending or encountering nearly 75,000 aliens. This is an 80 percent increase over the same time last year. And I can report today that CBP is forecasting the problem will get even worse this spring as the weather warms up.”

He blames both asylum law loopholes and incentives for being in the States. “The intelligence will show you they’re not fleeing violence and persecution like a lot of the talking points. Actually violence in Guatemala, [and] all Central American countries, are way down—homicide rates overall.”

Morgan's comments about the immigrants not fleeing violence and persecution is important because during the campaign Biden said in a primary debate “I have guts enough to say his plan doesn’t make sense” (speaking of another candidate, Castro). “Here’s the deal: The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they’re seeking asylum. People should have to get in line.”

But, if there is not a real reason for refugees (or as much as there used to be) and they are just using it as an excuse, he doesn't make a lot of sense either. 

The border patrol chief in San Diego, Aaron Heitke, said in late May, “This year, there has been an alarming uptrend in the apprehension of convicted sex offenders.” Several sex offenders were caught among the 1600 apprehended border crossers in a single sector in Texas in just 3 days. Of course, it is not just sex offenders. They have also apprehended two Yemenis on terrorist watch lists and many Iranians, a country which it seems everyone but Biden's team understands is the leading exporter of terrorism. 

Meanwhile, it has been reported that journalists were not being given access to the border. Wonder why? Same reason, I guess, that Henry Cuellar, another border Democrat congressman says he gets more information from Mexico than he does from the Biden administration. Cuellar has leaked photos about the horrid condition the children are being kept in. And there are many children because the immigrants know it is another way to get into the country, once the children are taken care of - you know, reuniting the families. 

What are they hiding from? Well, it's because it's, no doubt, Biden's fault and only a few media outlets, which are basically like Pravda now and an arm of the D party,  (I know, I've said this before, but it's worth repeating) want to report on it. Mexico knows. Mexico's president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador right away said it was Biden’s policies that caused the “expectations” which spurred the illegal immigrants on. Why wouldn't he say it? It's obviously true. In February, Biden's first full month as President, Border Patrol caught over 100,000 illegal border crossers, a 28% increase over January's haul. Guatemala's president,  Alejandro Giammattei, said that human smugglers also exploited Biden's message and that families understood get the kids in and then they can get the parents in. That's not a secret. If you know any immigrant Hispanics you are friendly, ask them.

Biden, who pretended that he was the moderate during the campaign, has caused an almost unprecedented crisis in decades, almost immediately. In May, last month, the numbers climbed still. 180,000 according to CBP.  Fortunately, thanks to Trump (yes, Trump) CBP can still turn away most under the emergency health regulations without letting them stay. But far from all.

In response, Biden's administration now says - "Do not come." Actually, I'm sure to provide him, a white man (something he now seems to find offensive), with cover, he had the VP say it.

What is it all about? Come on, come on. You know you know. Like so many things the Ds do, it is about future votes. The more immigrants, even with illegals, the more they can expect can stay and eventually become citizens - and vote Democrat. The danger and pain to the children - you think they care? Even the radical AOC said that under BIDEN the treatment of immigrants was "inhuman," "horrifying" and "unacceptable." Even "barbaric." Not surprisingly, she called for reparations for those who aren't even citizens (so, why wouldn't they ignore her "do not come" message). The effects on crime in the border states, the additional Covid-19 risks, terrorism, drugs - you think they care?

I honestly don't expect most people to know these things. The media says it wants more information, but they don't report on things that hurt the left.

As with almost all posts, there is much more to it and I can't touch on everything. But, I think this is enough to show that it is not just a crisis but one created by the new Administration and no one else. Why wouldn't the new left, the ones who made the great leap left in their party not want to destroy or end the border. Some have come right out and say things like defund ICE (such as meteoric rising star on the left - AOC). According to Wikipedia, even now mainstream Ds like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bill De Blasio feel the same way (all sourced). A CNN article from July 3rd, 2018 listed those above and 7 other congressmen. I notice only 1 was from a southern border state, the rest were northerners, but that's where most of our radicals come from. D presidential candidates Sanders, Warren, Harris (now, of course, the VP), and Pete Buttigieg (now, Biden's Sec'y of Transportation) and congressman Julián Castro all called for decriminalization of illegal crossings. 

Of course, many non-official Ds feel exactly the same way.  A Morning Consult poll in 2019 found that a plurality, 42% of Ds would vote for a primary candidate who would abolish ICE. 

As in my last post, if you voted for Biden (possibly because of  "But Trump" politics), you have to own this, including the tragedy of all those little kids. Trump worked with Mexico and other countries and pretty greatly reduced the illegal crossings. Though we continue to return most of the illegal immigrants, Biden, in his efforts to please his radical base by undoing all the good Trump did within his power, seems willing to do any amount of damage. 

But Trump . . . .

A lot of my best friends, including family members, voted for Biden. They are for the most part very smart people. But, politics isn't about smart at all. It's not about rationality at all. Albert Einstein was a political idiot in my view and he's a synonym for genius. He was also, for the most part, a very congenial man. But, my friends are also nice - they are terrific people. So, you might wonder if you pay close attention to what is going on in the country, why would they vote for Biden?

I know the answer. They've told me many times. "Trump's too conceited and that's dangerous." "Trump's too arrogant." "Trump's too mean." "Trump only does things to increase his own power." "Trump is evil." These are literally the arguments I have gotten from friends who I think are smart and nice. Basically, to any question or point, the answer might simply be "But Trump. . . ."  

"But Trump" trumps everything else. For some, it is the answer to any political question, the escape hatch for any set of facts.  It wouldn't matter if they believed Biden was also conceited, arrogant, dishonest or desperate for power at any cost to the nation, because, But Trump. . . . Though there is a point at which a presidents character or personality should impact us, at this level, their complaints seem meaningless to me, especially in a policy discussion, but it's not meaningless to them. For them, his personality dwarfs the importance of his policies and what he actually did.

Of course, there is second answer too. They don't know what is happening (I'm sure some would think that insulting, but if you watch mostly the usual media suspects on the left, you cannot know what's going on - the media literally hides it). So many times friends, discussing politics, say to me . . . but I never heard that, when I tell them something definitively true, which goes against the narrative. Inevitably, they watch CNN or MSNBC or read the usual suspect media. There's not much I can do about it if they just won't believe, not just what I tell them, but what they can easily learn themselves if they research it just a little.

I used to say that Obama was the worst president in modern times (and wrote 8 of 10 blogposts about it), but Biden has shot passed him as if Usain Bolt was racing me.  Despite what I think has been a disastrous first five months, I hear no regrets from my friends. I doubt they have these regrets. They still believe Trump is bad, Biden is either good or at least not Trump. I know Trump hate is fulsome. One friend (another smart and wonderful person), though seemingly opposed to almost everything on the left, said to me "I don't care if we have to pay reparations or if the whole country is destroyed - I hate him that much." Now, if the country was destroyed, her family lost their house, her kids their future, she'd care. Of course, she'd care. Remember, when polled in 2020 if they would rather a meteorite destroy human life on earth or Trump get re-elected - 64% of New Hampshire Ds picked the meteor But Trump. . . .

I have another friend who weekly complains about what is going on in this country? Why is this happening, he sometimes asks? I answer, repeatedly, "Because you voted for Biden."

For those who voted for Biden, I'd like you to consider the following:

The 2020 election.  Of the many offenses against Trump and his supporters, is the censorship by high tech media companies of their claim that the election was rigged or fraudulent or stolen. Why? Because they don't like him and just don't want to hear the possibility even being raised. Is there a possibility it was stolen? I don't think it was in the sense that it probably wasn't enough fraud to turn the election, but I'm guessing. I think it was lost through the media assaults on him, but the fact that courts refused to hear the matter (like the Supreme Court refusing to consider Texas' well drafted complaint against State's it believed stole the election or allowed illegal or fraudulent voting). I studied two cases from one of the States - Wisconsin - and it seems to me that it was stolen there by the judiciary and a couple of county clerks. I haven't finished my studies on the other states and cases (who knows if I will ever). 

But, leave aside whether the fraud charge is correct. The left, the Biden administration, the courts even, act as if it is outrageous for any candidate to challenge the veracity of elections. Yet, isn't that exactly what they did when Trump was elected - challenged his validity. John Lewis, once a hero, but who became dishonest and bitter in his old age, said in 2017 - "I don't see Trump as a legitimate president." Joe Biden, the Great Uniter (snicker) said in New Hampshire on the campaign trail in 2019 that he agreed Trump was "an illegitimate president in my mind." Hillary Clinton also said in 2019 “No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.” Jimmy Carter said in 2019 "“I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated, would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.” Asked if he was illegitimate, Carter said “Based on what I just said, which I can’t retract, I would say yes.” A number of D congresspersons skipped Trumps inauguration. 

You get the picture. George W. Bush's was called illegitimate too. Despite Al Gore's concession, almost 1 out of every 5 Americans did not accept him as legitimate according to a Gallup poll. A Los Angeles Times' poll said 38% did not think it was a legitimate election.

So, why would it be wrong to say Biden wasn't legitimate? Oh, right. But Trump. . . 

The Death of American Institutions

When you vote for a president, you are also voting for the message of his or her party. I don't mean the message of every person in the party. For example, if you voted for Biden, it doesn't mean you support AOC. But, if the party largely stands for certain things and wants to make them law or policy, you are bringing that with your guy or gal into the White House. One thing the D party has tried to do is destroy so many of our institutions, particularly the ones that keep them from one party power, while, hypocritically claiming Trump was destroying them.

Unlike the Ds, Trump does not want -

To end the national border: This was such a long topic, I have to do a separate post for it; coming very soon.

To destroy the constitutional nomination system - I've written before on the Kavanaugh hearing, the one event (if you can use that word) so many people have said to me is the worst thing they've ever seen in politics (I'd say since Jim Crow). I send you to my own comments on the hearing written while it was fresh (David's blog: A Stain on our Democracy? I'd have to agree (deisenberg.blogspot.com). If you want to know the skinny here, it was essentially a planned attempt by Ds on the Senate Judiciary Committee to interfere with the hearing, coupled with the actions of their radical associates who, spectators at the hearing, would simply get up and scream at intervals. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe any of them were prosecuted - nor any of the people who made false accusations against Kavanaugh, in at least one case, admittedly. 

And if you want to say, what about Garland, well, I've always thought it was a bad idea of McConnell's to not give a hearing or a vote, but, it was completely legal to do so, which is why Obama didn't really fight it. It was not the same as interfering with a congressional hearing or making up claims against a nominee. 

But, that's not all the Ds did. Even before Kavanaugh, the Ds tried their best to deprive Trump of his cabinet. If you want to go count for yourself the number of opposition votes Obama's cabinet appointees got from the Rs to the number Trump got from the Ds go ahead. I did it long ago and it's not close. As one nominee pointed out when asked why she had not responded to a Senator's question - the opposition had sent her predecessor 50 follow up questions - she had gotten over a 1000. Actually, the two Obama education nominees got 53 and 56 post hearing questions, and with sub-questions, Betsy Devos had 1397, approximately 25 times as many as either. 

To appease Russia: Since at least 1917, our countries position visa vis Russia is near the top of every president's agenda and responsibilities. Ds love to castigate Trump for saying he got along well with Putin. But, the truth is, he always held Russia's feet to the fire and never game them cheap victories. Look at Obama first. He famously sent Hillary to meet Putin with a giant red reset button. One of his most naive moves. When Russia was ready to take it's airbase in Syria, Putin went to meet with Obama and then Russia immediately went into Syria. We did nothing but we haven't been told that they discussed it in that meeting - the coincidence of the time probably tells us all we need to know. And then there's the famous Obama hot mike pick up of him saying to Medvedev, Putin's deputy, to tell Putin he would be more flexible after the election - in other words, telling Putin the truth while he kept it from us. If that wasn't impeachable, I don't know how anything Trump did could be. Not to mention Crimea. When Russia took it, Obama did nothing (personally, I didn't have a problem with that - only Obama's obvious inability to confront real aggression, as with ISIS. And, of course, we know Obama did little to help Ukraine protect itself from Russia.

Even during the first impeachment hearings the diplomatic corps witnesses who testified against Trump also said that he had done much more for Ukraine than Obama. Of course he did. Trump actually supported countries which were attacked in the world, like Ukraine and Israel. He took the handcuffs off our troops and destroyed the effective power of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Now, Biden is president, and what does he do? When Russia, seeing how vulnerable we are with Biden as president, starts building tanks and troops up against Ukraine, Biden sends to warships to the Black Sea and then - has them retreat. Poor Ukraine. Not only that, but, after canceling our new pipeline and Alaskan gas and oil leases, he approves Russia's pipeline to Germany. Why? I don't know. Does he want to help Russia? Maybe. Personally, although I do not believe Biden is handcuffed by China as some claim, I think Xi could walk into Taiwan and Hong Kong tomorrow, and only doesn't do it because he doesn't want the Olympics boycotted.

To let Israel flounder: It seemed that once the two parties competed to show their support for the tiny nation that survived and flourished in the desert surrounded by dozens of countries that called for its destruction. Though Biden says he has Israel's back, he immediately started in with her when Hamas shot some 4000 missiles into her borders. Israel, as it always has, acted with tremendous restraint, doing its best not to kill citizens but to destroy as much of Hamas as it could, in the short time the world would give it. And, as always, when Hamas asked for a truce, it gave it. Though most American Jews are Ds despite much anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions. A few Democrat congresspersons have called out Rep. Ilhan Omar from comparing the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and Taliban (I checked - every one of them Jewish), and even Nancy Pelosi, another horrible and dangerous human being, knocked her for it. But, Biden does not. I think he is afraid of the Squad if they decide to go after him. Just my opinion, but when Rashida Tlaib said she wants Palestine from the River to the Sea (in other words, no Israel), he was silent too. When fellow Squad members, Cori Bush and AOC, unafraid of Biden or their party, defended Khan, he said nothing. I don't have a problem with them bucking their party, they should when they think it wrong. But, I do have a problem with racism, whether against Jews or anyone else. 

Biden also has decided to start funding UNSWA again, which Trump stopped because of its links to terrorism. When missiles rain down on Israel, they may have been purchased with our tax dollars. 

If you are not anti-Semitic, and support Biden and Democrats, you should know, that other than the Jewish "useful idiots" among them, who have blinders on to the anti-Semitism of their party, so many members of the Ds are just that. Only last year, in response to an amendment proposed by an R to include anti-Semitism in a bill meant to fight discrimination, over 70% of the Ds in the House voted against it. In fact, 162 of the 164 votes against were D votes. This is not a surprise as the D party has become more anti-Semitic over the last ten years or so (see, e.g., Antisemitism Spikes, And Many Jews Wonder: 'Where Are Our Allies?' | WAMU). I don't think Biden is really anti-Semitic, but I do think he is afraid of those who are in his own party and has swallowed the company line on Israel. And because he, like Obama, reflexively thinks if you are nice to terrorists they will be nice to you, he supports them despite Hamas being a declared terrorist group.

Trump, of course, is hardly afraid of his party, as he quickly insults any in it who displease him. Some people love that about him. I have always liked anyone bucking their party and so admire that about him, while having disquiet about his temperamental and sometimes ridiculous way of showing it. You also couldn't call Trump anti-Semitic, although both Obama and Biden has tried to blame Trump for the rise in anti-Semitism (if you look at U.S. stats on hate crimes - I found 2019's, the closest year available - you see that they are committed by whites less than their share of the population and by blacks almost double their share of the population). It was also seen that though Jews are less than 2% of the population, 60% of religious hate crimes are committed against them. 2018 data showed Jews were 2.7 times more likely than blacks and 2.2 times more likely than Muslims to be victims of hate crimes. In 2019, there were 1032 Jewish victims of hate crimes as opposed to 797 against blacks, although blacks far outnumber Jews in the population. 

Trump also was a great friend of Israel, so much so, that they named a settlement Trump Heights. The accusations against Trump for anti-Semitism was astonishing, given his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish, given his having finally kept the American promise of making Jerusalem the home of our embassy and his support of their defending themselves.  Even if you aren't anti-Semitic, but think Israel is no big deal, don't you get queasy by the left's anti-Semitism?  Any claim that it is no different than the Klan or neo-Nazis on the right is just ridiculous. One, they are quite few and there's not a single one in congress. The GOP and conservatives completely reject those groups. You couldn't find a Republican in office who supports Nazis, but you can find hundreds of thousands of Ds in Portland alone, which supports Antifa and many radical congresspersons.

If you don't recognize as true the powerful anti-Semitic streak among blacks and especially BLM, well, I'll leave you to research it yourself, for now. I've said enough on this topic in prior posts.

To appease terrorists: I can't go as far as to say that Biden is pro-terrorist, but let's face it, the Obama-Biden team has worked hard to appease Iran, entering into an agreement that gave hundreds of millions to Iran (though they are considered the leading exporter of terrorism) and Biden has just restarted giving millions, perhaps over $100 million to Palestinian groups and government through the U.N. and others. You might feel that is good and that it will lead to peace, though it never has. UNRWA, the UN's Palestinian refugee agency has a history of being infiltrated with Hamas supporters and knuckling under to its pressure. A friend of mine texted recently "Could u imagine we have 100s of FBI & CIA agents working tirelessly for years & years, trying to track the sources of funding of terrorists, through businesses & charities. 1000s of pages of financial regulations to prevent funding of terrorist...yet Obama writes a billion dollar check to Iran & Biden to Hamas. This is literally right out of Catch-22 & would be funny if it wasn't reality."

To increase racism: I've been covering this topic a lot and leave you to read back-posts or research it for yourself. I'll just very generally point out that Biden, despite being lily-white himself, is a spokesman for anti-white racism, both by saying incredibly stupid things like only whites can be racist, by saying the words "white guys" or "white man's culture" like it was a type of cancer and restoring the incredibly anti-white rhetoric of the critical race theory (CRT, though its hardly an actual theory and really just racism) movement back into the federal government, even the military. If you don't know what CRT is, I refer you to Home (christopherrufo.com), as he has been no less than heroic in combatting it. And despite Obama's mockery of making CRT our biggest threat yes, I do think it is our greatest concern, as it seeks fascism imposed from inside, rather than without.  

While pretending to be a uniter, Biden has been imprisoned by his knowledge that he won the D nomination and the Ds the bare majority in the Senate, thanks mostly to blacks, often in southern states, but elsewhere too. His putting CRT indoctrination in the military (while at the same time saying we are not a racist nation) and his making a federal program to benefit farmers of only his preferred race are simply racist (thankfully, it has been temporarily shelved by an injunction) not to mention actually harmful to children and adults of every skin hue. There's no other word to describe except as fascistic, which I still think many people will feel goes to far as it envelops us. Trump stopped both these things - dealing with Iran as if it was a responsible government and giving money to Palestinians whose charters still include death to Israel.

To destroy our system of electing a president: How many Ds who ran for president in 2016 were for destroying the system of government that we have had since our founding - the Electoral College? Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson. How many will just say it would be difficult, impossible or impractical (but not that we shouldn't?) John Hickenlooper, John Delaney and Andrew Yang. How many sort of, kind of, maybe - Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard (the best of them, probably) and our VP, Kamala Harris.

Is there any reason to abolish the system which makes gives every State a say in the contest and not just elects who the Ds want? Could be. I'd like to hear it it. It's a difficult but ultimately fairer system than a straight popular vote. This becomes more obvious as millions of immigrants come in. In other words, most of them, although not Biden or Bloomberg. According to Pew, almost 3/4 of Ds are in favor of scrapping it, but only a little more than a third of Rs. I wonder why even that third think it's a good idea.

To water down the Supreme Court: Is there any reason to "pack" the Supreme Court other than to make sure the Ds never lose other argument before it? I don't think so. A NYTimes/Siena College poll said that 57% of Ds wanted to pack the Court and only 6% of Rs. A surprise? Hardly. If you heard one of our leading fascist Senators, Chuck Schumer, standing before the Supreme Court, calling out judges by name and promising to unleash the whirlwind on them, you wouldn't doubt it.

To make congress's impeachment powers ridiculous, partisan and trivial : Maybe you think that the two impeachments were valid exercises of the power. The first was no more than a joke. After failing to get rid of Trump by the Russia Hoax (he was right again), the Ds impeached him for asking Ukraine's leader to investigate corruption (though I admit he thought it would help himself - that's what almost all pols do). First they said it was a constitutional level crime, like Bribery. Then they said it was coercion (poor Ukraine, they argued). Then they gave up crimes (because there was no basis for it) and called it a quid pro quo for weapons even though Ukraine said they never felt any pressure to do it. They ended up by two vacuous charges, the usual "abuse of power" and, of course, "obstruction of congress." They knew it had no chance to win in a Senate vote, but Nancy Pelosi perhaps said it all by claiming it was a stain for all time on his presidency. It was a stain, but on the Constitution and Ds.

Then, after January 6th, they tried again, blaming Trump for what they called an armed insurrection, despite the fact Trump is recorded saying to supporters to "peacefully" protest. Despite the fact that there were no firearms. Even though it seems to have been, for almost everyone there, spontaneous. Even though there doesn't seem to be any real insurrection planned (I don't know, perhaps a few idiots). Even though the only apparent murder was of a protester by an officer whose name the federal government refuses to release and who isn't being prosecuted. Even though the Biden Administration pretended that Brian Sicknick was murdered and gave him a state funeral. And so on. But, despite the ridiculousness of the claim, they impeached Trump and even got a few yeah votes from Rs (most of whom I doubt will be re-elected and of whom I will speak about soon). 

Like with the George Floyd killing, Ds could not be happier than with the fake insurrection, which gave them one more opportunity to relentlessly attack Trump. Trump is the new "Jew," the new "black," the new scapegoat. Anything the Ds don't want to take responsibility for, or even just to distract us - its Trump.

As with most posts, I could go on and on. But, you hate droning on and on and so do I. In any event, I will be back shortly with the post on Biden and the border.