Tom Cotton opposes a challenge to certification

Screen Shot 2021-01-04 at 10.22.21 AM.png

I’m a huge admirer of Ted Cruz, but in this case, I think Cotton’s got the better argument

Endangers the Electoral College

Nevertheless, the Founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states — not Congress,” Cotton noted. “They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College — not Congress. And they entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts — not Congress. Under the Constitution and federal law, Congress’s power is limited to counting electoral votes submitted by the states.

“If Congress purported to overturn the results of the Electoral College, it would not only exceed that power, but also establish unwise precedents,” he continued. “First, Congress would take away the power to choose the president from the people, which would essentially end presidential elections and place that power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress. Second, Congress would imperil the Electoral College, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections. Democrats could achieve their longstanding goal of eliminating the Electoral College in effect by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect. Third, Congress would take another big step toward federalizing election law, another longstanding Democratic priority that Republicans have consistently opposed.”

For these reasons, he will “not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes” on Wednesday. Doing so won’t give President Trump a second term, he argued, “it will only embolden those Democrats who want to erode further our system of constitutional government.

Thus, I will not oppose the counting of certified electoral votes on January 6. I’m grateful for what the president accomplished over the past four years, which is why I campaigned vigorously for his reelection. But objecting to certified electoral votes won’t give him a second term—it will only embolden those Democrats who want to erode further our system of constitutional government.



A time for womending fences

I’d like to think that this congressperson will soon be herstory, but his/her/whatever’s constituents will no doubt be persuaded to keep it in office in view of the supportive comments of other leftists, who have not been niggardly in their praise.

The never-ending war

Screen Shot 2021-01-03 at 5.01.10 PM.png

I ran across this piece while randomly perusing the NY Post

I work for a recruiting firm. My boss said that we should not be referring any candidates for jobs if they worked for the Trump administration in any capacity. I don’t feel comfortable with that, but I am not sure how to handle it. Is it legal to discriminate based on where someone worked previously?

It’s not a matter of legality, it’s a matter of ethics. Throughout history, keeping “lists” of people has never been for good, only for bad. It’s a hiring manager’s prerogative to evaluate candidates based on where they worked and for whom and decide whether that experience is suitable for the job or culture. But for a recruiting firm to insert their own politics into the process and ban applicants because of where they worked is simply outrageous. Where someone worked or for whom doesn’t mean that person embodies the same characteristics or values of their employer. I can’t tell you what to do, but I know I wouldn’t obey that order, and I wouldn’t work for someone who tried to enforce it. I understand if you can’t quit or lose your job, but would you like me to reject you for employment because of your boss?

It really is war, and it’s heating up

The first time as tragedy, the second as farce

Progressivism has returned; in fact, It’s been back for some time now, as National Review’s Jonah Goldberg pointed out in 2008: “You Say You Want a More ‘Progressive’ America? Careful what you wish for”.

I'm thinking of an American president who demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state, censored the press, imprisoned dissidents, bullied political opponents, spewed propaganda, often expressed contempt for the Constitution, approved warrantless searches and eavesdropping, and pursued his policies with a blind, religious certainty.

Oh, and I'm not thinking of George W. Bush, but another "W" – actually "WW": Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who served from 1913 to 1921.

President Wilson is mostly remembered today as the first modern liberal president, the first (and only) POTUS with a PhD, and the only political scientist to occupy the Oval Office. He was the champion of "self determination" and the author of the idealistic but doomed "Fourteen Points" – his vision of peace for Europe and his hope for a League of Nations. But the nature of his presidency has largely been forgotten.

That's a shame, because Wilson's two terms in office provide the clearest historical window into the soul of progressivism. Wilson's racism, his ideological rigidity, and his antipathy toward the Constitution were all products of the progressive worldview. And since "progressivism" is suddenly in vogue – today's leading Democrats proudly wear the label – it's worth actually reviewing what progressivism was and what actually happened under the last full-throated progressive president.

The record should give sober pause to anyone who's mesmerized by the progressive promise.

[snip]

The classical liberalism of the Founders – free markets, individualism, property rights, etc. – had been eclipsed by a new "experimental" age. Horace Kallen, a protégé of Pragmatism exponent William James, denounced fixed philosophical dogmas as mere rationalizations of the status quo. Sounding much like today's critical theorists, Mr. Kallen lamented that "Men have invented philosophy precisely because they find change, chance, and process too much for them, and desire infallible security and certainty."

The old conception of absolute truths and immutable laws had been replaced by a "Darwinian" vision of organic change.

Hence Wilson argued that the old "Newtonian" vision – fixed rules enshrined in the Constitution and laws – had to give way to the "Darwinian" view of "living constitutions" and the like.

"Government," Wilson wrote approvingly in his magnum opus, "The State," "does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." "No doubt," he wrote elsewhere, taking dead aim at the Declaration of Independence, "a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle."

In his 1890 essay, "Leaders of Men," Wilson explained that a "true leader" uses the masses like "tools." He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. "Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader."

Wilson once told a black delegation, that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." But his racism wasn't just a product of his Southern roots; it was often of a piece with the reigning progressive obsession with eugenics, the pseudoscience that strove to perfect society through better breeding.

Again, Wilson was merely one voice in the progressive chorus of the age. "[W]e must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many," declared the progressive social activist Jane Addams.

"New forms of association must be created," explained Walter Rauschenbusch, a leading progressive theologian of the Social Gospel movement, in 1896. "Our disorganized competitive life must pass into an organic cooperative life." Elsewhere, Rauschenbusch put it more simply: "Individualism means tyranny."

Not surprisingly, such intellectual kindling was easy to ignite when World War I broke out. The philosopher John DeweyNew Republic founder Herbert Croly, and countless other progressive intellectuals welcomed what Mr. Dewey dubbed "the social possibilities of war." The war provided an opportunity to force Americans to, as journalist Frederick Lewis Allen put it, "lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step." Or as another progressive put it, "Laissez faire is dead. Long live social control."

With the intellectuals on their side, Wilson recruited journalist George Creelto become a propaganda minister as head of the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI).

Mr. Creel declared that it was his mission to inflame the American public into "one white-hot mass" under the banner of "100 percent Americanism." Fear was a vital tool, he argued, "an important element to be bred in the civilian population."

The CPI printed millions of posters, buttons, pamphlets, that did just that. A typical poster for Liberty Bonds cautioned, "I am Public Opinion. All men fear me!... [I]f you have the money to buy and do not buy, I will make this No Man's Land for you!" One of Creel's greatest ideas – an instance of "viral marketing" before its time – was the creation of an army of about 75,000 "Four Minute Men." Each was equipped and trained by the CPI to deliver a four-minute speech at town meetings, in restaurants, in theaters – anyplace they could get an audience – to spread the word that the "very future of democracy" was at stake. In 1917-18 alone, some 7,555,190 speeches were delivered in 5,200 communities. These speeches celebrated Wilson as a larger-than-life leader and the Germans as less-than-human Huns.

[snip]

Under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, Wilson's administration shut down newspapers and magazines at an astounding pace. Indeed, any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn you a prison sentence. One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he didn't want to buy Liberty Bonds.

The Wilson administration sanctioned what could be called an American fascisti, the American Protective League. The APL – a quarter million strong at its height, with offices in 600 cities – carried government-issued badges while beating up dissidents and protesters and conducting warrantless searches and interrogations. Even after the war, Wilson refused to release the last of America's political prisoners, leaving it to subsequent Republican administrations to free the anti-war Socialist Eugene V. Debs and others.

[snip]

In Senator Clinton's case, the most vital intervention is intruding on the family. Mrs. Clinton proudly follows the "child saver" tradition of Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Jane Addams. In 1996, she proclaimed "as adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn't really any such thing as someone else's child." In her book, "It Takes A Village," she insists that children are born in crisis, requiring progressive government intervention from infancy on. She seems to subscribe to Wilson's view, when president of Princeton, that the chief job of an educator is to make children as unlike their parents as possible.

What Goldberg doesn’t discuss is what I think was Wilson’s most grievous, evil act, bringing America into World War I. Goldberg says “when World War I broke out”, but it was Wilson and his fellow progressives who inserted us into that war. If England had no national interest at stake worth sacrificing 888,000 of its young men, Wilson’s feeding 2 million American soldiers into what was essential a fight between Germany and France lacked any justification whatsoever. He was directly responsible for killing 115,000 Americans and wounding another 250,000, all to feed his ego and grandiose idea that he could personally move the world forward to a new, better system. A Great Reset”, in effect, and now that plan has come round again. The Wuhan Flu, I believe, will prove merely a sideshow to the real disaster ahead.

A cop who defunded himself

NAzi matt lima

NAzi matt lima

On Sunday, Dec. 20, Somerset Police Officer Matt Lima responded to Stop & Shop, 815 Grand Army Highway, for a report of a shoplifting in progress.

Upon his arrival, Officer Lima spoke to a Stop & Shop asset protection associate who told him that he observed the suspects, two women with two young children, allegedly not scanning all of their groceries and then putting them into shopping bags at the self-checkout kiosks. The associate then printed the transaction receipt and noticed numerous items they took were missing. The suspects were subsequently asked to return inside with their items while they awaited for Somerset Police to respond.

During the on-scene investigation, Officer Lima discovered that the two suspects fell upon hard times and attempted to take additional groceries they did not have enough money to pay for so they could provide a Christmas dinner for the two young children.

Officer Lima served the two women Notice Not To Trespass forms and informed the associate that he would not be pressing criminal charges as all the missing items on their receipt were groceries.

“The two children with the women reminded me of my kids, so I had to help them out,” Officer Lima said.

[From another report]:

He was moved when he learned that the mother of the two kids had no job, and the food they were stealing was for their holiday dinner. “There was nothing else on there like health and beauty items, shampoo, anything like that. It was all food,” he said. “I just tried to put myself in that family’s shoes and show a little bit of empathy.”

[Back to the original]

Officer Lima then inquired about where the items were that the suspects allegedly attempted to take and was informed that they have been returned to their shelves. Officer Lima then subsequently purchased gift cards in the amount of $250 with his own money so the women would be able to purchase groceries for their Christmas dinner at another Stop & Shop location.

“I would like to personally commend Officer Lima for his actions,” Chief McNeil said. “His actions exemplify what it means to protect and serve the members of our community. When faced with a difficult situation in which a family was trying to provide a meal for their kids, he made the generous decision to not press charges and instead ensured that they would have a Christmas dinner they could enjoy.”




Nancy Pelosi, estimated net worth $114 million, bewails wealth disparity.

Screen Shot 2021-01-02 at 12.39.48 PM.png

And promises Congressional action to redistribute that wealth from the middle class to the truly deserving.

"Clearly, the disparities in income and equity in our country are vast," said Nacy, probably between bites of luxury ice cream from her $24,000 refrigerator. "We've known that. They've only gotten worse, and the pandemic, again, puts it in sharper focus."

Okay, Nancy, I'll bite. There is a growing disparity in our nation as the middle class vanishes due to government interference on a multitude of levels.

What are you going to do about it?

Will you call on Joe Biden to reverse his plans to tax the living daylights out of people? Will you tell Leftist governors to stop crushing tens of thousands of small businesses so they can actually hire people? Will you encourage responsible government spending so we don't end up with rampant inflation?

What about severely reducing the size of the federal government and its regulations, starting with the FDA's decision to fine distilleries for using their facilities to create hand sanitizer during an emergency shortage?

Nancy's answer?

Communism!

"That's why I'm proud to announce the creation of a new bipartisan Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth," continued Her Majesty, "which will be a central force for the Congress to combat the crisis of income and wealth disparity in America."

[snip]

Notice, however, that Pelosi isn't saying Congress will address poverty, but disparity.

Translation 1: Wealth redistribution, AKA "taking from those who have worked hard and saved a little bit and giving to the poor so that the rich can continue exploiting everyone!"

O.J. has already demanded royalties

Screen Shot 2021-01-02 at 11.43.10 AM.png

Biden releases memoir, ‘if I rigged it’.

WILMINGTON, DE—To commemorate the "completely fair and honest" 2020 election, Joe Biden has announced a brand new memoir called If I Rigged It. The book is already being met with critical acclaim for its compelling description of a totally hypothetical situation where Biden and the Democrats fraudulently steal the election.

"Listen here, Jack-- I didn't steal the election," said Biden to a group of adoring fans in the press. "But if I had stolen the election, this is how I would have done it. It's real simple, see? My new book will give you all the dirty details!" 

"This book is a masterpiece," said The New York Times. "Biden, who totally wrote this all by himself, draws the reader in with a compelling narrative of a totally hypothetical story. His prose is artful and engaging. The description of an effort to steal the 2020 election is way more believable and interesting than Trump's baseless claims. In short, Biden is a genius."

The book has soared to the top of the New York Times bestseller list in its first week since release. Experts predict it may become the best-selling book of 2021.

Critics have called the book "a highly suspicious work that reads more like an actual confession than a memoir." Trusted media outlets, fact-checkers, and social media have all dismissed these criticisms as "baseless."



NY has administered just 1/3 of its COVID vaccine supply as its expiration date nears

Don’t blame me, I didn’t do anything!

Don’t blame me, I didn’t do anything!

Blithering idiots

“It’s chaos out there. The state has no idea what it’s doing,” said Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin, particularly taking aim at the leadership of Gov. Andrew Cuomo. 

“The Cuomo handling of the vaccine is blithering incompetence.”

McLaughlin said that county governments like his have been largely sidelined during the vaccine’s launch, with Cuomo and his team micromanaging the process from Albany, getting bogged down in details rather than putting the jabs into the arms of those who need them.

“This administration can’t administer the vaccines that are in its hands,” he said.

And Granny Killer’s defense? Trump hasn’t supplied the state with enough of the vaccine, so that what, more can spoil in the refrigerator?

The states have had a year to prepare and set up systems for administration of a potential vaccine, and while admittedly they bought the “experts” claim that Trump was lying about a vaccine appearing by December, they could and should have had a plan in place for when vaccines were available. Many governors now say they didn’t have the money to do so, and, again, they blame Trump, but there’s always money in a state’s budget; it’s how they prioritize their spending, and in this case. they put COVID vaccination at the bottom of the list.

Not that I thought 2021 couldn't be worse than last year, but losing control of the Senate? Good Lord.

Screen Shot 2021-01-02 at 10.11.26 AM.png

Why would Trump deliberately undermine Republican chances to win? What “grand strategy” is at work? It could be as simple as Trump wanting to watch the world burn as he leaves office. More likely, he knows that with the GOP in chaos, he will continue to dominate the right, making any venture he decides to participate in after he leaves office more visible — and more profitable.

Make no mistake, this was a deliberate effort to discourage Georgians from voting and give an already energized and enthusiastic Democratic party more reasons to show up at the polls on election day. More than 3 million votes have already been cast in the state through early voting and mail-in ballots — a majority almost certainly Democratic, given the GOP’s reluctance to embrace those practices.

To put it mildly, Trump isn’t helping.