Posted on by

Congratulations to Philadelphia! 2020 has won the silver medal!

In 1989, the City of Brotherly Love set a new record for homicides, at 489 souls. The record didn’t last long, as 505 people gave up the ghost in Philadelphia’s streets the following year, but, after that, the number of murders started declining, and 1989 still holds the silver medal.

Well, not anymore: as of 11:59 PM on Sunday, December 27th, Philadelphia tied that 489 number, with four days left to go in 2020. With a current average of 1.3508 homicides per day, Philly ought to easily move past that number, and end up with 494 or 495 homicides. Mayor Jim Kenney (D-Philadelphia), District Attorney Larry Krasner (D-Philadelphia) and Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw ought to be really proud of the jobs that they have done.

Really, it wasn’t easy for them. When Mayor Michael Nutter (D-Philadelphia) and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey retired in first week of January, 2016, they left a city which saw 280 homicides in their last year. The year before Messrs Nutter and Ramsey took office, 2007, Philly had suffered through 391 killings. In their first year in office, the number of homicides dropped by 60, to 331.

In 2007, the homicide rate was 27.3 per 100,000 population. By 2013, it was down to 15.9. A bad spike in 2015, their last year in office, saw the murder rate jump to 17.9, as there were 280 killings that year, up from 248 the previous year.

In 2017, it jumped to 21.1, and then to 22.2 in 2018 and 2019. All of the progress under Messrs Nutter and Ramsey had been undone.

Now, at the end of 2020, projecting 494 homicides, and with the city’s population last guesstimated at 1.556 million, the homicide rate figures out to 31.75 per 100.000. Even if the last four days of the year pass with no more killings, the rate works out to 31.43. Either would be the highest number since 1997. Mr Krasner has accomplished what he set out to do, with his cockamamie social justice version of law enforcement.

Everyone hears about Chicago, where murders have skyrocketed under laughable Mayor Lori Lightfoot. According to The Chicago Tribune’s Tracking Chicago Homicides page, last updated following Sunday, December 20, 2020, the Windy City had seen 753 murders. That’s a lot of blood running into the gutters. But with a population of 2.706 million, the homicide rate there is 27.83, pending, of course, the final blood tally for the year. That’s a lot lower than Philadelphia’s! If Philly had Chicago’s murder rate, there’d be about 60 fewer people murdered in the streets. That’s how bad Philadelphia has become.
______________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

Posted on by

Setting a Budget at Christmastime

There are two types of people in the world: Savers and spenders. At Christmas, it is much easier to be a spender than a saver, and it can wreak havoc on your wallet if you are not careful. It is important that you set a reasonable Christmas budget that the whole family can stick to. In this way, you will be able to get gifts for everyone on your list without having to worry about a lasting financial strain from the holidays.

Consider Normal Monthly Expenses

Just because it is the holiday season does not mean that you will not have to pay things like rent, utilities or car notes. It is important to factor in your normal expenses when determining what your Christmas budget will be. Make a list of all the expenses that you incur throughout the month, including your groceries and any extras like vaping supplies from Smokingthings. In this way, you will be able to see what is left over to spend on your gifts.

Make a List of Gift Recipients

Your budget will be stretched a lot more if you buy a gift for every single person that you know. You should make a list of everyone that it is essential for you to buy for. Then, if there is a lot of money left over in the budget, you can add more people to that list. If you are having trouble stretching your budget across several people, you might talk to your family about drawing names for gifts this year. In this way, everyone gets one larger present instead of several small ones.

Do Not Forget About Yourself

During the holidays, it can be easy to get wrapped up in buying for everyone else, and you can easily forget about yourself. However, you should set aside some money to get something special for yourself. It does not have to be anything large; just something to cheer you up and make you feel indulged. It is not selfish to want to get something for yourself at Christmas; after all, you have worked hard to be able to spend your money.

There are plenty of things to get excited about during the holiday season, and gift giving is one of the main ones. Consider how you will budget for your gifts this year while still giving gifts that are thoughtful and meaningful. When you follow these tips, you can have a great Christmas that will not break the bank.

Posted on by

Oh, life on the farm is kind of laid back Ain't much an old country boy like me can't hack

When I was graduated from high school, in 1971, I just couldn’t wait to get out of small town Mt Sterling, Kentucky, and move to what passed for a big city, Lexington. After stops in Hampton, Virginia and the suburbs of Wilmington, Delaware, it was 2002 before I finally realized how good I had things in a small town, and we bought a house in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, population 4,659.

In 2014, we bought our retirement home, a small farm in rural Estill County, Kentucky.

OK, OK, maybe our place isn’t quite like Green Acres, but we have 7.92 acres, 500 feet of frontage on the Kentucky River, and we bought it for the ridiculously low price of $75,000. The house is a bit of a fixer-upper, but yes, it is being fixed up! We have one neighboring family, who mostly keep to themselves.

Life is good.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Want to Move to the Countryside?

The pandemic offers a unique opportunity to fix the housing crisis plaguing rural America.

By Kerry Thomson | December 25, 2020 | 2:58 PM EST

With the Covid-19 pandemic has come the rise of remote work, and rural America is having a moment. Searches on RedFin and Zillow show upticks in interest in rural areas, as more Americans determine to flee the cities for greener pastures.

Finding a house in rural America, however, may be easier said than done. Consider Orange County, Ind.—population 19,840 in 2010—which is in many ways a model for rural America. It has a thriving arts community, a local food co-op and a farmers’ market, interesting ecological and natural features such as the Rise at Orangeville natural spring and Hoosier National Forest, and a rich history, with a name deriving from the Dutch Protestant House of Orange.

And it has wide open spaces—too wide open. There simply isn’t enough housing for the people who want to live there. This counterintuitive housing shortage is having a devastating effect on rural America’s economy.

At first glance, Orange County’s housing shortage doesn’t make sense. One would think building in rural America would be easy. There is plenty of cheap land; zoning rules are generally less restrictive; and employers are struggling to fill job openings. Yet the housing crunch is an enormous struggle. In 2017 there were a mere 79,000 single-family home starts in all of “nonmetropolitan” America, compared with 223,800 in 2005.

One explanation is the unwillingness of banks to extend loans to contractors or developers looking to build housing where there are no comparison properties nearby. And given the relatively small, sometimes stagnant housing markets in rural areas, there are often few such “comps.” Without them, there can be no loans. Without loans, there can be no building.

It isn’t often that we see a huge error in economic thinking in the Journal, but this is one of those times.

The second issue is a lack of investors who see adequate potential return on investment in rural areas. The average home value in Orange County is a little over $100,000. In Bloomington, 50 miles away, the average price is more than twice that. It isn’t hard for contractors to figure out where they can earn a bigger return.

Finally, there is a lack of skilled labor. In the fallout of the 2007-09 financial crisis, which crippled the construction industry, 2.2 million construction workers out of roughly 5.3 million left the industry and never returned. This is a national problem, but given the higher potential return on investment for construction in urban areas, rural areas are lower on the list of destinations for contractors.

On its face, this makes sense, but dig deeper, and you can see the mistakes. Some of those 2.2 million construction workers are still out there, and would be willing to return to work if there was work for them. Twelve years is a long time, and some of those workers have passed retirement age, but a lot of them are still out there.

More, with the huge number of unemployed, there will be many who would happily take a try in the construction industry, if given a chance. Yes, they are mostly unskilled in the construction trades, but the only way to get those skills is to start working, and learn your way up from the bottom. That’s how I did it!

The Journal article simply assumes that there are no construction companies in small towns or rural areas, but that isn’t the case by any means. A lot of the construction companies in small towns and rural areas are small, and not currently very profitable, but given the opportunities to grow, most would certainly take advantage of them.

The housing shortage aggravates many of rural America’s other crises. One is the aging and dwindling population—a trend that could potentially reverse as people find greater flexibility through remote work and the pandemic diminishes the appeal of coastal cities. Who wouldn’t want to live in an affordable community where you know your neighbors and maybe have a national forest as a backyard? But talented young professionals—the type who start businesses that hire people and offer upward earning potential—aren’t going to relocate to rural areas if they can’t find a place to live.

What the Journal article is suggesting is that there is a potential demand for housing in small towns and rural areas. If there is an actual demand, two things will happen: prices will rise, as competition in a reduced supply market pushes prices higher, and those higher prices will spur a greater profitability in construction in those areas.

Kerry Thomson, Executive Director, Center for Rural Engagement, from her LinkedIn profile.

And that will lead to a third thing: other economic development in those areas, as people living in smaller areas and working from home will need more grocery stores and want more restaurants.

Kerry Thomson, the article author and executive director of the Center for Rural Engagement at Indiana University, Bloomington, draws the conclusion that government need to push things, but she has missed the point. If there really is a demand for more small town and rural housing, that demand will push everything that is needed. And if she is incorrect, and that demand really isn’t there, then the government programs she is pushing will be just another pointless government expenditure. She wants the government to push things by “offering a time-limited expansion of rural-specific loan guarantees to banks and lenders. This would provide an incentive to lend to builders in rural areas.”

More, what Miss Thomson wants to do is, in effect, apply large city thinking to small towns and rural counties. She wants to provide those areas with “local government zoning and planning information” and “a tax model to help communities determine the cost and benefit of new homes, among other resources.”  She would add governmental costs to building projects, as planning and zoning commissions require review and approval of construction projects, and add layers of inspections that we normally do not see in small towns and rural areas, things which raise costs, and prices, but do not add value to homes.

New design prototypes could also offer answers. A project to design a prototype for cost-effective, modestly sized homes that appeal to both young professionals and older residents is being piloted in southern Indiana. The homes appeal to both young and old because they are moderately sized and modern, with open floor plans and energy-efficient design features.

One of the great things about small towns is their diversity of housing design. What Miss Thomson has proposed sounds awfully cookie-cutter to me! I spent the better part of a year, through the winter, pouring basements and garage slabs in a subdivision called Quail Hollow, outside of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The whole subdivision was a project by Ryan Homes, and there were five floor plans, each of which could be reversed, from which buyers could choose. A huge, cookie cutter subdivision, and yes, it’s experiences like that which influence me today.

Housing, the author wrote, is one of the most serious issues in rural areas, but she sees it as the “driver” of many of rural America’s problems. In that, she has it all wrong. The primary problem in rural America is the lack of good jobs! What is needed is for manufacturers and entrepreneurs to choose to build their projects in less densely populated areas. That’s not only direct employment, but such creates subsidiary jobs as well. Decent jobs attract decent people, and decent jobs provide the money for people to fix up their existing homes as well as build and buy new ones.

Posted on by

O, their precious little feelings are hurt again!

A Philadelphia building mural by artist Michelle Angela-Ortiz, painted in a tribute to “LGBTQ activist and Latinx community icon Gloria Casarez,” Philadelphia’s first director of LGBT affairs, was painted over on the “former site of the 12th Street Gym in the Gayborhood.”

Why? The building had been sold to Midwood Investment and Development, a developer from New York City, which planned to build a 30-story housing complex. The new owners planned to demolish the building. Painting over the mural cost the developer money, but would spare the local “gayborhood” from seeing the mural being visibly knocked down.

And now, it’s an act of violence!

Whitewashing Gloria Casarez mural is a violent act against Philly’s LGBTQ community | Opinion

By David Acosta | December 24, 2020 | 12:41 PM EST

On Wednesday, Midwood Properties, a New York-based real estate developer who bought the property which used to house the 12th Street Gym, whitewashed the Gloria Cazares mural before demolition was set to start to make way for a 30-story housing complex. The act was not only deliberate, but it was also done in bad faith without consulting either the artist who created the mural, Michelle Angela Ortiz, or Mural arts.

For months, a group of us — including friends of Gloria; Gloria’s wife, Tricia Dressel; the artist; Mural Arts and concerned neighbors who opposed the project — had been working with Midwood Properties to try and preserve the mural and if not salvageable, to create a new project that honored Gloria’s legacy as well as the legacy of the Black abolitionist Henry Minton who lived on the property and was part of the underground railroad. It is believed that the property still contains tunnels used at the time, a fact that should be investigated so that the property can be designated as historically significant and so as to prevent its impending demolition.

The erasure of the mural feels particularly painful as it was the only mural depicting a Latinx LGBTQ woman of color in a city with 3,600 murals to date and counting. The mural’s position in the heart of the Gayborhood was also significant to the LGBTQ community who see the neighborhood as an important location with historical ties to business, and community-based organizations, and as a place where the LGBTQ community has for decades celebrated not only our community festivals but also some of our most important civil rights achievements.

There’s more at the original, including all sorts of tropes of the #woke:

The optics of literally painting over the mural with white paint is not lost on those of us whose lives oftentimes feel invisible because of the color of our skin, our economic conditions, our sexual orientation and our stories as immigrants.

It was difficult to keep from laughing at all of that. The building was scheduled to be torn down! If the “Gayborhood” wanted the mural saved, they should have gotten the money together and bought the building themselves, before it was sold to a developer.

In what has already been a difficult year for so many, the destruction of the mural is a violent act against all of us who saw our lives and our work represented on that wall.

A “violent act,” huh? The City of Brotherly Love has seen 486 people killed in the streets; that’s violence! But the “Gayborhood” is worried that someone painted over a mural that was going to be destroyed anyway. When the “Gayborhood” gets together to try to work at stopping the slaughter of primarily heterosexual, young black males in Philly, I’ll start to be impressed with their abhorrence of violence.

I have to admit it: when I see the name “Gayborhood,” and realize that the old 12th Street Gym catered primarily, though not exclusively, to homosexuals, and that a 30-story housing complex will be built there, I have to wonder just how much of this is a concern that the population required to support a housing complex of that size will change the complexion of the area. Once the complex is built, there will be a lot of normal people moving in. Being in Center City, they’re likely to be mostly white and mostly liberal, and unlikely to be ill-disposed to homosexuals, but they will still be primarily heterosexual.

If a neighborhood tried to preserve its character by exerting political pressure to stay primarily white, it would be denounced as shockingly racist. Yet, when depressed, minority neighborhoods try to fight ‘gentrification,’ which involves primarily white, well-to-do individuals buying and fixing up run down properties, no, that isn’t racist at all. And if a ‘gayborhood’ is trying to preserve a primarily homosexual culture in their area, is that somehow illegally discriminatory?

The gym closed almost three years ago, because “the gym would have had to pay at least $500,000 to address fire-code violations found by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. He also said real estate taxes on the property have surged in recent years.” I have to wonder: how much degradation did a building vacant and (probably) unheated for almost three years suffer? Had it been broken into and seen homeless squatters camped out inside? It couldn’t be pretty.

The local patrons thought that a liberal government might save it:

But, of course, politics doesn’t somehow erase half a million dollars, or more, of fire code violations. Every commercial building in Philadelphia is subject to those kinds of inspections; do the “LGBTQ community” somehow think that their favorite places should somehow be exempt?

Every community is, and ought to be, subject to the same rules, the same laws, and the same economic laws. There ought not to be some special considerations for one particular group, due to race or sexual orientation or sex, that somehow overcome local building codes or economic problems. And if a mural gets painted over because the building got sold, well, too bad, so sad, but that’s life.

Posted on by

Killadelphia * Updated!

The Philadelphia Police Department only updates its Current Crime Stats page on normal business days, so the numbers are current as of 11:59 PM on Wednesday, December 23rd, where they show that 482 souls have gone to their eternal rewards due to homicide in the City of Brotherly Love in 2020. Uncharacteristically, The Philadelphia Inquirer has told us the tales since then. Yesterday, there was this:

Shootings leave two young men dead on Christmas Eve, police say

by Catherine Dunn | December 24, 2020 | 9:11 PM EST

A 20-year-old man who was shot multiple times died Thursday morning, Philadelphia police said.

The shooting occurred in the city’s Overbook section, on the 1800 block of Wynnewood Road, about 11:30 a.m., according to police. The man was taken to Lankenau Medical Center, and pronounced dead at 11:46 a.m.

In a statement, police said that a preliminary investigation indicated the victim was outside recording on social media when another man approached him, started a verbal altercation, and then shot the victim. When police arrived, authorities said, they found the victim lying in the grass, with multiple wounds to the torso. . . .

Hours later, at 1:42 p.m., a shooting in Philadelphia’s Kensington section led to the death of another young man.

The victim was about 20 years old, police said. He was shot five times on the 3200 block of G Street, according to information provided by police.

In neither case was an arrest made or weapons recovered. The Inquirer noted that no motive was determined in the first shooting.

Assuming those were the only two homicides on Christmas Eve, well 482 + 2 = 484.

Today is Christmas Day, a day of peace and love and brotherhood, right?

Philly police fatally shoot gunman accused of shooting into a crowd, killing teen and injuring another

by Diane Mastrull | December 25, 2020 | 2:51 PM EST

Christmas morning got off to a grim start in Philadelphia when a street fight escalated to one man firing a gun into a crowd, striking two teenagers in the neck before officers fatally shot him, according to police.

A 15-year-old male whose identity was not released was pronounced dead at Temple University Hospital, where a 17-year-old remained Friday in stable condition, police said.

The alleged gunman, 43, was shot in the torso and pronounced dead at Temple, police said. Police did not disclose how many times he was hit, just that two officers fired at him about 12:30 a.m. on the 3300 block of Emerald Street in the city’s Kensington section.

The officers had responded to a call about a disturbance or fight at that location. They were attempting to defuse the situation, police said, when additional family members of the feuding people came out of their houses and gathered on the sidewalk and in the middle of the street. Pushing and punching ensued between the original combatants, police said, when a man pulled a gun from his right rear waistband and fired it, hitting both teenagers.

The officers immediately pulled their service weapons and shot the “alleged” gunman, and I have to wonder if we’ll see protests such as the ones following the shooting of Walter Wallace, because the police killed a violent criminal.

484 + 2 = 486. Yes, the dead criminal counts as a homicide, even though it was obviously justified.

And Christmas Day isn’t even over yet.

Philly’s record is 505 killings in 1990, with 1989 coming in at second place with 489. With six more days remaining in 2020, the city has a very good chance to make second place.

By the time the Philadelphia Police Department updates its figures, on Monday, December 28th, the city might have already moved into second place!

The left will cry for more gun control, as though the guns somehow killed people by themselves. But the 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun used was reported stolen from Virginia. Shockingly, it appears — though I hate to judge a thing like that before all of the facts are in — that a criminal misguided gentleman broke the law in obtaining his weapon.

Updated: December 26, 2020 | 8:45 AM EST

Well, how about that? It turns out that the Christmas Day shooter, Jesus Perez, killed his own son, and wounded a nephew. From the updated version of the Inquirer story:

The family of the man, identified by CBS3 as Jesus Perez, denied that he was armed or would have fired at his own child. “He would obviously never do that,” his brother, Noris Cueva-Nova, said in an email. “He was a respectable, hard-working man who cared deeply for his family.”

The family denied that the guy, from whose warm, dead fingers the police pulled a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun, was armed. I guess it was just imaginary bullets which killed the guy’s son.

Pretty soon we’ll hear that the police shot the two boys, then planted the stolen 9mm in Mr Perez’s hand.
_____________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

Posted on by

This is why I have no sympathy for the Palestinians!

Given the chance to build something, and some of the best beachfront property in the world — the Palestinians could have created a real tourist Mecca to bring in literally billions of euros into an otherwise poor land — the irredentists decided that what they really wanted to do was continue to attack Israel. They didn’t care about their families, they didn’t care about Palestinian poverty, they didn’t care about anything but their own seething hatred of the Jews.

The Hamas terrorists are actually few in number, but like guerrilla fighters everywhere, they depend upon the support, tacit or otherwise, of the larger populations around them. The Hamas terrorists live among the Palestinian people, are housed and clothed and fed and supported by them; they are no different from the inner-city thugs in Chicago and Philadelphia and St Louis, hiding from the police and destroying their own neighborhoods with destruction and death.

Posted on by

Big Brother is watching you, and the left think you need to be watched more closely

In George Orwell’s 1984, every home was fitted with a Telescreen.

The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. . . . .

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.

After nine months now of increasingly draconian controls of our society and our economy in the huge governmental response to COVID-19, we are now being told that the one place into which government cannot reach, our homes, is the place in which our leaders need to exert the most control.

Where COVID-19 spreads most easily, according to experts

The most likely place to contract the virus is not at work or at school.

By Dr. Adjoa Smalls-Mantey | December 24, 2020 | 6:08 AM

COVID-19 is a highly transmissible disease, but evidence shows that small indoor gatherings and households are where the novel coronavirus is spreading the fastest.

For nearly a year, public health officials across the globe have grappled with how to reduce the spread of COVID-19. At times, travel has been restricted, schools and gyms have closed, and some cities, such as San Francisco, are under lockdown. But despite these restrictions, the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths continue to reach record highs.

“I think we want to be careful about blaming one particular environment and scapegoating one particular setting for generating transmission,” said Dr. John Brownstein, an ABC News contributor, epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital.

However, there are some settings where COVID-19 is more easily spread. In New York, for example, contact tracing has shown that 70% of new cases come from small gatherings and households.

“Informal gatherings may have played even the biggest role,” Brownstein said, “because they are harder to police, they’re harder to enforce, and people are probably more lax when it comes to recommendations of mask wearing and social distancing.”

I will admit to some amusement at Dr. Adjoa Smalls-Mantey’s, the author’s, choice of language, that informal gatherings, meetings between friends and family, “are harder to police, (are) harder to enforce” restrictions. In the end, of course, policing things, enforcing rules, is precisely what Our Betters want to do.

Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health, Dr Richard Levine[1]Dr Levine is a mentally ill male who thinks he’s somehow a woman, calling himself ‘Rachel.’ The First Street Journal does not go along with such foolishness, and always refers to … Continue reading issued orders that individuals must wear masks and practice social distancing inside their own homes if guests are present. The credentialed media were also full of similar recommendations.

When people gather in small groups with friends and family, they are more likely to let their guard down, not wear their masks and stay together indoors for longer periods of time, which makes it easier to transmit the virus.

In a recent study at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, researchers found that for children and adolescents who tested positive for COVID-19, it was small social gatherings — not school — that was the most likely place they were exposed to the virus.

The children who tested positive in the study were more likely to have attended social gatherings outside of their homes, had playdates or had visitors at their home where mask wearing and social distancing precautions were not taken.

Gladys Kravitz

As we have noted previously, various officials know that they can’t just send the gendarmerie into your house, so they want your neighbors to peer into your windows and snitch on you. Of course, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) does seem to think that he can send the sheriff’s deputies to your home, so perhaps other of our government officials will try to make my statement that they can’t send the police to your homes a false one. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that Dr Smalls-Mantey’s article is just something to condition the public into thinking that such is regrettably necessary, so that the sheeple will simply accept it, at least if it only happens to their neighbors and not themselves.

Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) issued executive orders limiting gatherings in your home of more than eight people, from more than two separate households. I am happy to say that we didn’t obey the Governor’s restrictions any heed on either Thanksgiving or Christmas. Three households, no masks.

If only the government had those telescreens, they wouldn’t have to depend on those Gladys Kravitzes to peer into your windows![2]I had to put a descriptive link to Gladys Kravitz in the article, because my good friend Donald Douglas pointed out that you have to be older than dirt to get the reference.

If we allow authoritarianism to continue for this emergency, in what other emer-gencies will it be used?

Am I just being paranoid here? In 1984, sexual activity is regulated by the government, and Winston Smith’s and Julia’s sexual life is a form of rebellion. And in 2020, Dr Levine issued ‘guidance’ about your sex life, ‘suggesting’ that you must ‘limit’ your number of sex partners, and always ‘discuss’ COVID-19 with any new potential inamorata. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-Washington, DC) did the same.[3]The left had always claimed that it was evil reich-wing conservatives who wanted to regulate sex, even referencing 1984, but it doesn’t seem to have been conservatives doing this now, does it?

People with actual governing authority have been telling us how we must live our lives, interfering in our jobs, our businesses and trying to impose their authority even in our homes, justifying it as an emergency, of course. But if they are allowed to get away with this for the COVID emergency, just what other ’emergencies’ can they use to justify restricting our rights? The September 11th attacks wound up justifying the PATRIOT Act, and, sadly, that was done by Republican congressmen and senators, and signed into law by a Republican president.

Benjamin Franklin put it best, saying, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We have surrendered some of our essential liberty, and far too many of our people have agreed with this, because it’s just so necessary, or, as the law would put it, “a compelling government interest.”

This is where we must say, nay, scream, that government cannot do this, and the people will not allow it. More than just scream, we must protest, we must take political action, to unseat the would-be tyrants and petty dictators. If we do not do this, now, we insure that it will happen again, and again, as those who believe they should run our lives for us can always find something to justify it.
_________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 Dr Levine is a mentally ill male who thinks he’s somehow a woman, calling himself ‘Rachel.’ The First Street Journal does not go along with such foolishness, and always refers to ‘transgender’ individuals by their birth names and sex.
↑2 I had to put a descriptive link to Gladys Kravitz in the article, because my good friend Donald Douglas pointed out that you have to be older than dirt to get the reference.
↑3 The left had always claimed that it was evil reich-wing conservatives who wanted to regulate sex, even referencing 1984, but it doesn’t seem to have been conservatives doing this now, does it?
Posted on by

Dr Fauci: “You can’t handle the truth!”

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the over-hyped Dr Anthony Fauci, head of the government’s COVID-19 taskforce, has been lying to us. No, this isn’t from some conservative blog, but The New York Times:

How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?

Scientists initially estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the population needed to acquire resistance to the coronavirus to banish it. Now Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are quietly shifting that number upward.

By Donald G. McNeil Jr. | December 24, 2020 | 5:00 AM EST

At what point does a country achieve herd immunity? What portion of the population must acquire resistance to the coronavirus, either through infection or vaccination, in order for the disease to fade away and life to return to normal?

Since the start of the pandemic, the figure that many epidemiologists have offered has been 60 to 70 percent. That range is still cited by the World Health Organization and is often repeated during discussions of the future course of the disease.

Although it is impossible to know with certainty what the limit will be until we reach it and transmission stops, having a good estimate is important: It gives Americans a sense of when we can hope to breathe freely again.

Recently, a figure to whom millions of Americans look for guidance — Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an adviser to both the Trump administration and the incoming Biden administration — has begun incrementally raising his herd-immunity estimate.

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

Translation: the guy who has been all over CNN and MSNBC, giving us an air of quiet confidence, had been lying to us, and doing so deliberately. Perhaps he was channeling Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men:

Dr Fauci admitted to trying to sell us a bill of goods:

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

The good doctor wanted to sell us something, but the Times reported that roughly 20% of Americans are unwilling to accept the vaccine.

Think about that: if the incoming President is going to keep Dr Fauci as his COVID guru, and Dr Fauci tells him that 90% compliance is required, but the willingness to take the vaccine tops out somewhere around 80%, then we’ll have a government which will try to force people to take the vaccine, and, if the government can’t, then the government will want to keep the economic and social restrictions in place for who knows how long.

So, why would anybody accept the word of an admitted liar?

In the end, the government’s response has been at least as much about control of citizens as it has been about fighting the virus. Of course, the editors of The New York Times, though they ran the story, will never make that connection for you.

Posted on by

And now Bill de Blasio wants to trample on the Fourth Amendment as well as the First

We have noted, over and over and over again, that the various actions of state Governors and big city Mayors have been violations of our First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and free exercise of religion.

Well, now Oberbürgermeister Bill de Blasio (NSDAP-New York City) has decided that that isn’t enough, and now he’s going to violate your Fourth Amendment rights as well:

The Fourth Amendment provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Under Katz v United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protected anyplace in which a subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the Oberbürgermeister sends the sheriff’s deputies to anyplace the subject of the visit has a reasonable expectation of privacy, which would seem to include “the home or the hotel of every single traveler coming in from the UK,” those deputies are all going to need warrants.

Note that some people traveling to the New York City from the United Kingdom will be American citizens.

Does travel from one country to another constitute probable cause? Can a city or state impose regulations against free travel from another country, or is that solely a federal power?

Remember how the left were complaining that President Trump was an authoritarian fascist? Well, it isn’t President Trump threatening to send in the gendarmerie to everyone’s home.