Tag Archives: #FascismFromTheLeft

Posted on by

Will Bunch wants to cut out large swaths of America

I remember when columnists had a 750-word limit, but with the coming of the internet, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch, who is so far to the left that he makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez look, if not sane, at least less wacky, got in 1,345, in which he tells us that he has no flaming idea about his topic. Nevertheless, I’d have expected him to understand something about politics!

A broken America should build a monument to Joe Manchin’s massive ego

The self-centered, greedy West Virginia senator is a poster child for everything wrong with U.S. politics. So what is the Joe Manchin workaround?

by Will Bunch | Columnist | Thursday, September 16, 2021

As the summer of 2021 comes to an ignominious end this week, millions of Americans will remember these blazing hot months as a time of dashed hopes on ending our life-altering pandemic and growing alarm about the floods and fires fueled by climate change. But in Washington, D.C. — the place where solving these problems needs to start in the U.S. — both the hellish season and what it might mean for future generations will be recalled as “Almost Heaven,” the well-equipped houseboat owned by West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin where the nation’s leaders spent a moonshine-soaked summer lazily floating past the crises. .  .  .  .

Will Bunch, from his Philadelphia Inquirer author photo.

So, who is Will Bunch? His first-person Inquirer biography states, “I’m the national columnist — with some strong opinions about what’s happening in America around social injustice, income inequality and the government.” I’ll admit it: whenever I see #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading phrases like “social justice” and “income inequality”, I know I’m dealing with someone who has no flaming idea about real life. People are different, and different people means different outcomes for people. Sadly, the Inquirer staff are eaten up by wokeness.

Mr Bunch also supports the Palestinians and their terrorist groups, which also tells us a lot.

Mr Bunch’s Twitter header photo shows him walking away from a dilapidated Appalachian (?) home, but it seems that he has little understanding of the people who live in Appalachia.

But with autumn closing in, Washington seems hopelessly adrift on Biden’s ambitious plans for working families and fighting climate change, and any forward progress will likely depend on what comes out of Manchin’s bandaged brain in the coming weeks. In a slew of TV appearances, the West Virginian has made it clear he will use his deciding vote in the 50-50 Senate to shrink Biden’s plan from $350 billion a year to only $100 billion to $150 billion — he’s failed to truly articulate why — and he’s also managed to downsize the ambitions of a do-or-die-for-democracy voting-rights bill, even as he insists (for now) he won’t end the filibuster to pass even that. Whatever happened on that houseboat, the brief chance to end American kleptocracy may be sinking.

Indeed, analyzing Manchin and his motives — both politically and psychologically — has become something of a cottage industry in the nation’s capital. I’ve already written about how Manchin’s pro-billionaire austerity politics are wildly out of step with the real-world needs of voters in poverty-plagued West Virginia, suffering from pothole-laced highways, climate-worsened floods, and opioid abuse. Instead, the senator and former governor sees promoting his personal brand as his path to winning elections and wielding power.

And here we have exactly what I would have expected from a big-city liberal, the self-assured knowledge that he knows what’s best for rural dwellers in a different state.

In the 2020 election, President Trump carried West Virginia, beating Joe Biden 545,382 (68.62%) to 235,984 (29.69%), Mr Trump’s second strongest state, percentagewise. In only one county, Monongalia, did President Trump get less than 50% of the vote, 49.45%, which still beat Mr Biden’s 48.21% there. Mr Trump got over 80% of the vote in nine separate counties.

This is the part Mr Bunch just doesn’t get: Senator Manchin, the only statewide elected Democrat in office, is doing what his constituents in the Mountain State want him to do. He is acting like the moderate Democrat he campaigned as being.

Mr Bunch has a long section, which I have not quoted, in which he tells us what a self-centered, greedy political hack Mr Manchin is, before telling us what he thinks is needed.

After 2022, the only way for the United States to get where it wants to go is not through Joe Manchin and his tired political hackery, but around him. West Virginia may be a very Trumped-up place right now, but voters here in Pennsylvania, as well as Ohio, Wisconsin, and other key states, will get a shot next fall to build a Senate majority that is actually controlled by Democrats and not the Chamber of Commerce. Metaphorically speaking, we need an infrastructure bill with a 10-lane superhighway of American progress, that bypasses West Virginia altogether.

It doesn’t seem to occur to Mr Bunch that perhaps, just perhaps, not all Americans agree with him as to where the United States “wants to go”. You’d think that he ought to have a clue, given that, while Mr Biden carried Pennsylvania by 81,660 votes, it was because he carried Philadelphia by 471,050; President Trump carried the rest of the Commonwealth by 390,445 votes. Perhaps, just perhaps, with 378 homicides in just 259 days of the year, for an average of 1.46 per day, on track for 532 for the year, Philly isn’t exactly the model of modern life that the rest of the country would see as great.

Ahhh, but, then again, perhaps he does realize that, given that he wants to “(bypass) West Virginia altogether.” He’d probably throw Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky in that same category as well.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Laurie Penny and Americans “weird” about our First Amendment

I first heard of Laurie Penny through my good friend Robert Stacy McCain, who pretty much has no use for her:

    Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) was the subject of an item here yesterday because of her quarrel with lesbian feminist Cathy Brennan, an argument that highlights the profound schism between radicals like Brennan (who are and always have been the core of the feminist movement) and trendy opportunists like Ms. Penny. The American reader may ask, “Who the hell is Laurie Penny, and why the hell are you writing about her?”

    Briefly, then: An ambitious young British journalist who attended exclusive private schools (which are for peculiar reasons called “public schools” in England), Ms. Penny graduated from Oxford and then went to New York. There, she was rescued from death by actor Ryan Gosling, an incident that became the subject of an embarrassingly narcissistic article at Gawker. Ms. Penny is a certain type — a “posh bird,” as the Brits would say, whose ostentatious leftism is a fashionable pose among many upper-class youth — and as such is well on her way to becoming the Most Despised Woman in England. She came to my attention here in the States only because, in researching my “Sex Trouble” series on radical feminism, I was browsing Amazon for recent feminist books and came across Ms. Penny’s new volume, Unspeakable Things: Sex, Lies and Revolution. Ranked #6 by Amazon in the “Gender Studies” category, and #11 in “Feminist Theory,” this seemed relevant to my project.

    With our American reader’s questions asked and answered, then, we proceed to explain what no English reader needs to be told, namely that Laurie Penny is an impudent young fool with a penchant for making an utter spectacle of herself. As soon as I blogged about her yesterday, comments on the blog and feedback on Twitter began to fill up with notices of Ms. Penny’s previous self-inflicted embarrassments, including this public implosion in June 2012:

The rest is available on Mr McCain’s website, which I shan’t quote further here.

Now, I wouldn’t be particularly interested in this British posh bird, but I found myself particularly amused that Miss Penny was exercising her freedom of speech and of the press to criticize freedom of speech and of the press.

Where We’re going, We Don’t Need Platforms….

When does free speech absolutism become moral cowardice?

by Laurie Penny | September 10, 2021

Imagine you’re throwing a party and somebody kicks off. It was going so well. You spent ages deciding on drinks and making a playlist, and now some blowhard is off on a homophobic rant. He’s not holding back, either. He’s getting loud and mouthing off with the vilest bigotry you can imagine, and people are getting uncomfortable. It’s your party. What do you do?

What you do depends on lots of things. What sort of party is this? Is it your birthday, or a rave, or Christmas dinner, or a fundraiser for sick kids? Who is this guy? Did you invite him? Is he an old friend who’s going through something and is very drunk and likely to be very embarrassed in the morning? Is he the father of a gay son? Is he your father-in-law? Your most important client? Your boss? Your husband’s boss? Your husband? What are the consequences of calling him out? Who gets hurt if you don’t? Are there any gay people in the room?

Are you sure?

There’s no good choice here. The mood is already ruined. Doing nothing would be a statement in itself. It’s up to you, and you’ve got minutes to decide, and your decision matters.

So does context.  Are you throwing this party in a fascist, homophobic dictatorship where gay people are persecuted every day? Is this guy surrounded by people who are secretly waiting for permission for a bit of rhetorical queer-bashing? If you confront him, will other people be in danger? Character matters, including your own. How brave are you? How much are you prepared to sacrifice, or ask others to sacrifice, for a quiet life and the pretence of civility? How important is it that this party goes well, and is that still even an option? Lastly – this one’s important, so be honest, if only with yourself.

In one regard, she is right: context matters. While Miss Penny is firmly stuck in the #woke mentality of the early 21st century, for the vast, vast majority of the time about which we have any knowledge of human societies, said “blowhard” would be thought of as informed and sage, and homosexual activity thought of is immoral, sinful, wrong and mentally deranged. And you don’t have to venture far from Western societies to find the same opinions this very day.

This is my first post on Substack, and it’s partly about why I’m on this platform, given that Substack continues to host and profit from the propaganda of, among others, transphobic hatemonger Graham Linehan. The best and most comprehensive breakdown of Linehan’s behavior and why it’s so abhorrent comes from Grace Lavery, also on this platform. I share her conviction that Substack ought to throw this deranged bigot out of their party right now, before anyone else gets hurt.

I said so, in fact, in my initial conversations with Substack. I also spoke with some queer creators and allies who have decided to leave or boycott the platform. I respect that choice. I made a different one, for lots of reasons, but mostly because I think I can do a lot of good work here, with the tools and structure Substack offers, and that that work outweighs what I’d achieve with a public boycott. Before I made that choice, I told my contacts at Substack that they ought to ban Linehan, along with anyone else doing deliberate, wilful, hateful harm to any oppressed minority.

I didn’t actually expect them to change their policy based on my objection. They’re libertarians. They really are libertarians, and I believe that because they know I’m writing this post and told me I had every right to do so, and I’m holding back on details purely out of respect for privacy.

I do not know how much money Miss Penny makes from Substack; given that this was her first article there, probably not much so far. But it is interesting that she exercised her freedom of speech, over Substack’s ‘press,’ if we can call an internet platform that — and I do — to advocate that Graham Linehan not be allowed to use Substack’s press, in an attempt to keep his exercise of freedom of speech as unheard by others as possible. Miss Penny even admitted that Substack knew of the subject on which she was going to right, and stressed that she “had every right to do so.”

I also told them that at some point soon, whether they like the idea or not, they’ll find themselves having to make an active moral choice about whose ideas are worthy. I said that the time is coming when all platforms and publishers will need to take a stand somewhere, and I advised them to start thinking now about how to do so with dignity.

That paragraph of Miss Penny’s is one I take two ways. First, I take it as a not-so-veiled threat, that unless the ‘publishers’ of Substack start refusing to publish ideas she doesn’t like, bad things will happen to them. But secondly, and more importantly, is Miss Penny’s belief that some ideas are not worthy, at least not worthy of debate.

One wonders: if Miss Penny believes that Substack should judge “whose ideas are worthy,” does she not realize that, a hundred years ago, even sixty years ago, her ideas would be rejected as not “worthy” of publication.

What does it mean, then, when a company like Substack chooses to host this sort of malicious hate speech- and to do so in the name of free speech?

This is a post about platforming, and censorship, and moral choices, and why they matter. The question of who does and does not deserve a ‘platform’ is a massive, active issue. So much of our political speech and action is now effectively also publishing– and publishing using platforms that function as public space but are owned by private companies. Every platform is now having to make decisions about what it will and will not tolerate, and those decisions set the political agenda and shape our social world.

It’s significant that most of those platforms are run by precisely the sort of people most likely, for all sorts of reasons, to be free speech fundamentalists. That includes white, straight, cisgender men who are far less likely to be personally harmed by targeted hate speech than they are to be disadvantaged by speech restriction; tech libertarians soaked in a specific vintage of California ideology which considers the freedom of the individual utterly sacrosanct; and Americans. Who are weird about their First Amendment. Sorry, but they really are.

Sadly, Miss Penny is not quite right about that, as Google, Twitter and Facebook have most certainly censored or flagged speech they don’t like, and have done it in a one-sided direction: the mad mullahs of Iran and, now, Afghanistan are allowed Twitter accounts, but the immediate former President of the United States is banned. I have already noted how Twitter allowed a Tweet from Rachel Maddow, one which spread absolutely false and quickly debunked information, claiming that “patients overdosing on ivermectin” were clogging up hospitals in Oklahoma, while putting warning flags on those which stated that masks “don’t work” to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

We have previously noted how Twitter has banned “deadnaming” and “misgendering,”[1]‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring … Continue reading and The New York Times, with its logo “All the News That’s Fit to Print, gave OpEd space to Andrew Marantz to claim that Free Speech is Killing Us, and Chad Malloy[2]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy. The First Street Journal’s Stylebook notes that we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their birth names … Continue reading to claim that Twitter’s restrictions on ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ actually promote the freedom of speech.

For some people, the principle that all ideas have equal value, and that measured debate will always lead to reasonable compromise, is a shield against the realization that the world is worse than you imagined. Insisting that the liberal exchange of ideas still works protects you from having to face a world where the liberal exchange of ideas doesn’t work.

Not at all. I most certainly do not believe that Miss Penny’s ideas have “equal value” with mine, or even much value at all. Others may think differently, and put their money where their ideas are by subscribing to her Substack. But I am one of those Americans who are “weird about (our) First Amendment,” and strongly believe that the censorship of speech, and the punishment of ideas some people don’t like, is a far, far greater threat to liberty than censoring or ‘deplatforming’ Miss Penny.

Back to that dinner party, with the homophobe who is, by now, getting up in your other guests’ faces and making himself everyone’s problem and yours in particular. It’s not just about free speech. It’s about social context, and harm done. If you ignore him, if you brush him off by saying it’s his right to express himself, you’ve made a statement about whose comfort and safety matters in your space. This wingnut is still shouting about how gay men are perverts who can’t be trusted around children, and your best friend’s kid who just came out is sitting right there. You’re going to have to do something.

“(A)nd harm done.” Miss Penny is telling us that a person who does not approve of homosexuality is actively doing harm to other by expressing his opinions, without ever considering the harm done to individuals and to society in general by censoring those with whom the ‘governors’ disagree. Miss Penny’s example is about disagreeing with homosexuality, but somehow, some way, she has forgotten that without active societal discussion about homosexuality, the change in public attitudes about the subject in many people would never have occurred.

There is one thing about Americans, who are so “weird” about our First Amendment, that Miss Penny, and, sadly enough, far too many of the Special Snowflakes™ in the United States, really don’t understand. Freedom of speech and of the press require a thick skin for those who are willing to speak in public or publish what they think. More, it requires a thick skin of those who would listen or read, because it is always possible that someone will say, or write, something their listeners or readers just don’t like. Miss Penny would subscribe to cowardice, to the shutting down of all ideas which do not fit neatly into her own worldview.

In a world without white supremacy or transphobia or misogyny, we wouldn’t have to put a price on absolute free speech, or consider who might end up paying it. But we don’t live in that world, and if we don’t have the courage to make moral judgements when it matters, we never will.

And in the concluding paragraph of her 2,754 words,[3]No, of course I haven’t quoted all of her article, though I have quoted more of it, using ‘fair Use” standards, than is my wont. Miss Penny expresses the same ideas as The New York Times, once a great defender of freedom of the press, when it was their freedom of the press in question, that certain ideas are simply so beyond the pale that they ought not to be allowed.

When I read such things, I keep thinking that George Orwell was right about everything but the date.

References

References
↑1 ‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by sex-specific terms referring to his biological sex rather than the sex he claims to be.
↑2 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy. The First Street Journal’s Stylebook notes that we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their birth names and biological sex.
↑3 No, of course I haven’t quoted all of her article, though I have quoted more of it, using ‘fair Use” standards, than is my wont.
Posted on by

Comment rescue from Patterico To me, the far, far greater danger is the mortality rate to our constitutional rights, to our liberty and our privacy.

Factory Working Orphan wrote:

    As (Time123) pointed out, the fact that the postal workers have been exempted from this shows that this isn’t about enforcing a public safety edict to prevent the spread of a highly lethal contagion. It’s about the cabal trying to take advantage of the situation to grab as much power as they can, so that the tool always stays in the toolbox for when they think it’s needed.

There have been several pushes to repeal the Patriot Act, mostly by libertarians like Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Rand Paul.

But a “highly lethal contagion”? Being the [insert slang term for the rectum here] that I am, I did something really radical like actually do the math.

The New York Times had a story with the headline and subhead, “One in 5,000: The real chances of a breakthrough infection.” You have to actually read the story to discover that the 0.02% chance of a fully vaccinated person contracting a breakthrough COVID infection was 1 in 5,000 per day, which means 31 in 5,000 per month, or 365 in 5,000 per year.

I compared that with the published statistics in Fayette County, Kentucky, and found that the breakthrough rate in Fayette County was a bit higher, 0.0290% per day, but not significantly out of line. Then I used the same set of numbers for the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated population, and found an infection rate, in the same community, of 0.0905% per day, 3.121 times that for the fully vaccinated, but still not even a thousand to one chance that an unvaccinated person will contract the virus on any given day.

Yes, it makes sense to get the vaccine, because it cuts the chances that if you do contract the virus, you’ll actually get sick. But that raises an obvious question: if the vaccine helps keep those who contract the virus from getting sick, or as sick, as those who have not been vaccinated, are the asymptomatic but vaccinated population being tested at significantly lower rates?

Highly lethal? With 40,870,000 total cases in the US, and 659,231 COVID deaths, that works out to a mortality rate, under American medical care, of 1.61%. Worldwide, 219,000,000 cases and 4,550,000 deaths, the mortality rate works out to 2.08%. This ain’t the bubonic plague (mortality rate 30 to 60%) or smallpox (30% mortality rate).

To me, the far, far greater danger is the mortality rate to our constitutional rights, to our liberty and our privacy. Though I suspect that nk was kidding — at least to some extent — when he said that he “would hope that the government would have a database (that he) could easily access,” I’m fairly certain that there are a lot of souls on the left who really would want just that. We already know that far, far, far too many people have accepted “Wir müssen Ihre Dokumente sehen!” as perfectly reasonable and normal.

Posted on by

Scratch a liberal, find a fascist

It seems that President Biden believes he has the authority to order people to get the COVID-19 vaccines:

    Biden expresses frustration over the unvaccinated, says ‘a distinct minority’ is keeping the U.S. from overcoming the coronavirus

    By Annie Linskey, Yasmeen Abutaleb, Seung Min Kim and Lisa Rein | Thursday, September 9, 2021 | 5:52 PM EDT

    President Biden announced sweeping new vaccine mandates Thursday that will affect tens of millions of Americans, ordering all businesses with more than 100 employees to require their workers to be inoculated or face weekly testing.

    Biden also said he was requiring all health facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding to vaccinate their workforces, which the White House believes will impact 50,000 locations.

    And the president announced he would sign an executive order that would require all federal employees to get vaccinated against the coronavirus — without an option for those who prefer to be regularly tested instead — in an effort to create a model he hopes state governments and private companies will adopt.

    The cluster of new policies comes as the country grapples with the highly contagious delta variant, which has sent cases surging to more than 150,000 a day and is causing more than 1,500 daily deaths. The White House has struggled to convince hesitant Americans to get vaccinated and has been increasingly shifting toward requirements.

    In remarks from the White House, Biden took a more antagonistic tone toward the unvaccinated than he has in the past, as he turned from cajoling toward compulsion and blamed those who refuse to get shots for hurting those around them.

Yeah, that’s going to persuade people who haven’t wanted to get vaccinated to do so!

There’s more at the original, but the Washington Post article never stated under what legal authority the President claims he can order private businesses to do this. The New York Times said that:

    The requirements will be imposed by the Department of Labor and its Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is drafting an emergency temporary standard to carry out the mandate, according to the White House.

An obvious question: if getting vaccinated is so important, why did Mr Biden only order it for companies with 100 or more employees?

There’s at least one more day of the special session of the Kentucky General Assembly; I would suspect that the legislators would quickly put together a bill banning all state employees from in any way assisting OSHA in enforcing this order of the President’s/

Posted on by

Some Central Bucks Karens want to force other people to wear masks, but don’t have the courage to identify themselves

We have previously noted the decision by the Central Bucks School Board not to make facemasks mandatory for the upcoming school year. Naturally, when some people oppose a decision by an elected body, they sue!

    Central Bucks parents sue after school board votes against mask mandate

    It asks the judge to order the district to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for mitigating the virus in schools.

    by Maddie Hanna | August 28, 2021

    A group of parents of children with special needs sued the Central Bucks School District late Friday, alleging the district’s plan to start the school year Monday without masks or other COVID-19 mitigation measures violates their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    The lawsuit — backed by a fund-raiser started by parents that had amassed more than $35,000 as of Saturday afternoon — follows a 5-4 vote by the school board Wednesday night rejecting a mask mandate and other measures ahead of the new school year.

    It asks U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to order the school district to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for mitigating the virus in schools.

    “Together we have made a phenomenal statement that we need to follow CDC and [American Academy of Pediatrics] guidelines to keep the children, teachers and staff in our schools safe as well as prevent the spread of COVID in our community,” Susan Lipson, a family medicine physician who helped organize the GoFundMe, wrote on its page.

Actually, I’m surprised: Maddie Hanna, the article writer, actually wrote the way a journalist is supposed to write, with the most important information, the lede, first! But further down came the infuriating part:

    Parents suing the district — whom the lawsuit identifies only by their initials because “universal masking is a very contentious issue in the district” — say the plan puts their children “at risk of death and debilitating illness from COVID-19.”

So, we have parents suing the school, attempting to force other people to go along with their wishes, and to override the decision of the elected school board, and they don’t have the guts to identify themselves? I’m going to tell you what to do, but you don’t need to know who I am?

Yeah, that’s pretty infuriating.

The decision by the school board does not prohibit anyone from wearing a face mask. These parents can wear one or three or twelve masks if they want! They may take any virus mitigation efforts they wish, as far as their children and they are concerned.

But that isn’t good enough; they want to force other people to take extreme steps to protect their children and themselves. But they don’t have the courage to admit who they are.

Posted on by

Impeach Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd!

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd. Photo: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts.

I wrote Impeach Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd! back on March 3, after he issued his illegal and unconstitutional injunctions against laws passed by the General Assembly, and it appears I was right. It took way, way, way too long for the state Supreme Court to rule that the injunctions should not have been issued, and order the injunctions dissolved:

    We find that this matter presents a justiciable case or controversy but that the Franklin Circuit Court abused its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction.[1]Cameron v Beshear, Section B, pages 13 forward. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to dissolve the injunction.[2]Cameron v Beshear, page 2.

Now, five days later, we find that Judge Shepherd is not going to follow the instructions to dissolve the injunctions!

    KY judge delays following Supreme Court COVID order as Beshear & lawmakers negotiate

    By Jack Brammer | August 26, 2021 11:57 AM

    Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and legislative leaders are working together on a new set of COVID-19 emergency orders, which they hope to present to a Franklin Circuit Court judge before he dissolves an injunction against new laws that will torpedo Beshear’s existing emergency orders and regulations.

    At a status conference hearing Thursday morning, Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd said he will follow the Kentucky Supreme Court’s instructions in a ruling last Saturday for him to dissolve the injunction but he will wait until the court hears more about the work between the Democratic governor and the Republican legislative leaders.

    The high court unanimously said the injunction was wrong and that the new laws limiting Beshear’s emergency powers during the coronavirus crisis should not have been blocked. A provision in one of the new laws would limit Beshear’s executive orders to 30 days unless renewed by the legislature.

Just where in the Court’s ruling does it give Judge Shepherd the discretion as to when to dissolve the injunctions?

    Beshear has said he would like to implement a statewide mask mandate, but lawmakers have shown little interest in that suggestion.

Of course they haven’t: getting rid of the mask mandate was what the voters elected the legislators to do!

    David Fleenor, counsel for Senate President Robert Stivers, told Shepherd he did not know exactly when the negotiations between the governor and lawmakers would be completed but said he expects it to be in days, not weeks, quickly adding, “I hope I’m not being overly optimistic.”

The Court specified that the General Assembly makes policy for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not the Governor,[3]Cameron v Beshear, page 20: “As we have noted time and again, so many times that we need not provide citation, the General Assembly establishes the public policy of the Commonwealth.” yet somehow Judge Shepherd believes he has the authority to hold off on following the Supreme Court’s instructions to dissolve the injunction until he hears more about what, if any, negotiations are ongoing between the Governor and legislative leaders.

That was not part of the Court’s ruling.

Judge Shepherd has told the parties to report back to him on Tuesday, September 7th, 12 days from now, and 17 days since the Supreme Court issued its ruling. Judge Shepherd, who had already suspended the laws which the state Supreme Court noted were passed legally, for 171 days, now thinks he can add another 17 days on top of that. That would be one day short of 27 weeks, more than half a year.

The state House of Representatives needs to impeach this judge when the regular session begins next January, and the state Senate needs to remove him from office and attaint him from ever holding another office in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The state Court of Appeals needs to overrule him and dissolve the injunctions, if the Supreme Court doesn’t beat them to it; I would expect Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R-KY) to immediately appeal Judge Shepherd’s refusal to dissolve the injunctions, and move that he be removed from the case.

References

References
↑1 Cameron v Beshear, Section B, pages 13 forward.
↑2 Cameron v Beshear, page 2.
↑3 Cameron v Beshear, page 20: “As we have noted time and again, so many times that we need not provide citation, the General Assembly establishes the public policy of the Commonwealth.”
Posted on by

The Department of Fatherland Security thinks I’m a potential domestic terrorist

Remember when dissent was patriotic? It wasn’t even five years ago, and persisted until just six months ago. But now, according to the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security — perhaps it would sound better as Abteilung für Vaterlandssicherheit — I am a potential domestic terrorist!

    DHS Issues New Terrorism Threat Alert as 9/11 Anniversary Approaches

    Foreign groups are upping their attempts to inspire homegrown terrorists, and racially and ethnically motivated extremists continue to pose a threat as the 9/11 anniversary looms.

    By Claire Hansen | August 13, 2021 | 4:58 PM EDT

    The Department of Homeland Security on Friday issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning of the threat of extremist violence as the coronavirus spreads widely again and the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks approaches.

    “The Homeland continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment leading up to and following the 20th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well religious holidays we assess could serve as a catalyst for acts of targeted violence,” the bulletin says. “These threats include those posed by domestic terrorists, individuals and groups engaged in grievance-based violence, and those inspired or motivated by foreign terrorists and other malign foreign influences.”

    The threats are “exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions,” DHS said. . . . .

    “These extremists may seek to exploit the emergence of COVID-19 variants by viewing the potential re-establishment of public health restrictions across the United States as a rationale to conduct attacks. Pandemic-related stressors have contributed to increased societal strains and tensions, driving several plots by domestic violent extremists, and they may contribute to more violence this year,” the bulletin says.

I have stated previously that yes, I took the vaccine. I have stated that I think everyone should. But I have been adamant in my belief that the government should have no authority to force people to accept vaccination, to punish them is they don’t, or require some form of ‘vaccine passports’ — Wir müssen Ihre Dokumente sehen! — to engage in normal life or occupations.

Philadelphia has imposed new mask mandates, then tweaked them some because the vaccines haven’t been approved for children under 12, and teh city is trying to push “Ve need to see your papers”:

    Businesses seeking to avoid the mask mandate should have clear signage at their entrances indicating they will be verifying customers’ vaccination status, (Acting Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole) said. Those found out of compliance will first be warned and given time to correct, then could be forced to close and pay a $315 fine for re-inspection.

We have, of course, noted how the government are using fear to break the resistance of the people to draconian measures, mostly imposed by an authoritarian executive, that no free people should ever accept.

So, naturally, the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security want to oppose any resistance! Resistance is futile!

Two weeks, we were told, two weeks to flatten the curve, and so very many people accepted it, because, after all, it was necessary, don’t you know, and hey, sure it was a pain, but it was for only two weeks!

Two weeks metastasized into fourteen months, and now the authoritarians want to impose restrictions again, for our own good, of course!

Well, not just no, but Hell no! The virus is serious, but the threat to our freedom, to our liberty, to our constitutional rights is far, far worse. If the Abteilung für Vaterlandssicherheit — or would that be the Reichssicherheitshauptamt? — wants to call me a potential domestic terrorist, let them. But at least they’ll never be able to call me a sheep!

Posted on by

Los Angeles Unified School District plans on physically assaulting every student and employee, every week.

Have you ever had a COVID-19 test? I have, and it’s a very unpleasant experience. Basically, a nurse sticks a long, stick-mounted cotton swab — think of an eight-inch-long Q-Tip — up your nose to obtain the ‘material’ to be tested. In every state in the union, if you have not consented to this, it would be considered an assault. Does the Los Angeles Unified School District plan on making public education, something required by state law, to be contingent on consenting to be assaulted?

    LAUSD to require COVID-19 testing for all students and staff, regardless of vaccination status

    by: Sareen Habeshian, Jennifer McGraw |Posted: July 29, 2021 | 2:31 PM PDT | Updated: July 29, 2021 | 11:39 PM PDT

    The Los Angeles Unified School District will require all students and employees who are returning for in-person instruction to participate in weekly COVID-19 testing — regardless of vaccination status, the district announced Thursday.

    “This is in accordance with the most recent guidance from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health,” Interim Superintendent Megan K. Reilly said in a statement.

Really? The LAUSD employees are unionized. Have the District gotten the OK from the employees’ unions for this? What union is going to approve of this kind of employment condition?

    LAUSD, the nation’s second-largest school district, had previously said that fully vaccinated students and employees would not require testing. But as schools district-wide prepare to reopen for in-person instruction on Aug. 16, L.A. Unified said it’s closely monitoring evolving health conditions and adapting its response. . . . .

    In addition to regular testing, safety measures will include: masking for all students, staff and visitors; maximizing physical distancing as much as possible; continuing comprehensive sanitizing efforts, including frequent hand washing; upgraded air filtration systems; and collaborating with health partners and agencies to support free COVID-19 vaccination.

Also see: LA Times: Let’s Bring On The COVID Cracksdowns!

So, if some parents are concerned about the safety of the vaccines, why would they bother with getting their children vaccinated if they will still be subjected to weekly testing, and all of the other COVID-19 restrictions?

And since the vaccines have not yet been approved for children 11-years-old and younger, that means almost every student through the fifth grade will be unvaccinated. Even if the LAUSD changes its mind, and allows vaccinated students and employees to skip the weekly testing, the District are still planning on physically assaulting every student from pre-school through the fifth grade.

    “Ultimately, the greatest protection against COVID and the Delta variant is vaccination,” L.A. Unified said in its statement Thursday. “We encourage everyone who is eligible to be vaccinated.”

Really? You don’t plan on having vaccinations make any difference in how you treat students and employees!

The state is required, by law, to provide ‘free’ public education for every student who wants it, and compulsory attendance laws require all school-aged children to be educated. How is the LAUSD going to impose such a rule?