Breaking Fake News Update (v20)

Fake News Broke on September 19, 2025!

It seems we're going to be in for a continuing bumpy ride with the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting in the coming weeks or months. Well, truth be told, it's already a bumpy ride there, as the FOTUS told us the numbers we'd received this week were bad and he fired a BLS official, or the fault of the Federal Reserve, and that we have to wait a year for the good numbers. And now, we have new concerns that have led to today's fake news update.

Since the shocking murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk - just the latest episode of political violence in the US - there's been a concerted effort on the part of the FOTUS and his administration (JD Vance, Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Pam Bondi, and others), Republican elected officials, talking heads (including Miller's wife), and just regular Joes to root out so-called 'haters' of Kirk and 'celebrators' of his murder, and get them fired for comments they made primarily, but not exclusively, on their personal social media pages. 

Between the folks doing the doxxing and those getting doxxed, there's lots of lost productivity, fewer people in the workforce, and a potential for the unemployment rate to increase.

Educators, reporters, editors, analysts, moms and dads, government employees, employees of private companies, comedians, medical professionals - pretty much across the board, folks are being doxxed and blasted for ALLEGEDLY making negative comments. Some clearly did, according to reports. But others? Not so much. People are being investigated, disciplined, or fired simply for quoting Charlie Kirk's own words. A favorite? His comment about some gun deaths being OK to protect the Second Amendment.

And it goes further than that - tourists may be refused entry to the US; a Congressman has suggested anyone who speaks ill of Kirk's death be banned from all social media platforms, and that media companies can be shut down if they don't comply. 

It's out of control, folks, it truly is. Again, there's no question some people have reacted with joy at Kirk's death, as is their right. Many others, though, have merely expressed an opinion that's not to the liking of the powers-that-be. I have no idea when this will stop; it likely won't until everyone in the universe who is not celebrating the life of Charlie Kirk or mourning his death in a manner deemed appropriate by folks who haven't issued any guidelines on what exactly we're allowed to think or say about this issue.  

Honestly? it's a #goodthingimretiredtheycantgetmefired

Who knows how many will lose their jobs, and who knows what kind of celebration will be hosted at the White House when the scope of this effort is realized? I suspect we won't know that until next year, when the "good numbers" are issued.

In the meantime, when fake news breaks, we'll have it here. 

Wondering on Wednesday 7/6/22

Ready... Set... Wonder! 

• I wonder why I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but folks can legally purchase so-called 'weapons of war', so-called 'assault rifles' and happily go people-hunting, mowing down children, teenagers, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents - pretty much anyone they feel like aiming at... 

• A little bit ago, I opined that it would be discriminatory if 'life begins at fertilization' only applied to the pre-born conceived in a womb, and not to those conceived in fertility clinics. There's an article in the Boston Globe that explores this issue that I found very interesting.

First, I'm surprised at how little interest there is in regulating all embryos the same. According to a spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee, "IVF is not even really on our radar." And second, I have to wonder why red-state legislators "in at least 10 states" have put bills out there that would treat frozen embryos the same as, you know, warm ones - and not a single one of the bills have passed. 

• Here's another one that's got me doing some bigtime wondering. A guy who, I'd surmise, was trying to prove how manly he is, wandered around Broken Arrow, OK wearing a tactical vest and openly sporting both a pistol (in a holster) and a semi-automatic rifle. From the article, it seems pretty much everyone was nervous or scared. For example,

Employees at the Broken Arrow Justice Center ― a government building that houses the local court and police offices ― locked their doors, and someone called 911. 

Oklahoma's constitutional carry law  "allows people ages 21 and over to carry firearms in public without a permit or training." Police didn't have a lot of options to do anything, but as luck would have it, the guy was also carrying brass knuckles, which are illegal under both state and city law. 

I have a hard time with open carry laws, I really do - especially ones that allow rifles to be slung casually over someone's shoulder like a purse. And I don't wonder at all why the sheriff said, "nobody needs to be walking down the street with a rifle. But I don’t make the laws; we just try to live by them and do a very difficult job in a world that’s got those people in it."

Hear, hear - even to his use of "those people" which normally I don't approve. In this case, I'll make an exception.

• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-we ever screwed for electing Trump, or what?) was one of the Trump minions issued a subpoena by a prosecutor in Georgia. His attorneys say they'll fight it, even though they said Graham's "neither a subject nor target of the investigation, simply a witness." I wonder, though, about their grounds for fighting it. Ok, honestly? I laughed at their grounds for fighting it.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham was well within his rights to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections. Should it stand, the subpoena issued today would erode the constitutional balance of power and the ability of a member of Congress to do their job.

Now, does anyone else wonder whether Graham was acting in his official capacity as ranking member - not chairman - of the Judiciary Committee when he stuck his genteel nose into the Georgia process, or do you think he was acting as a rank member of Trump's cadre of snoops and liars?

• And the final bit of wondering tonight comes courtesy of Martha Raddatz, who hosted This Week on Sunday. Here's the silly question she asked Mary Bruce, ABC's Senior White House correspondent, to close the show.

And, Mary, we really just have about 20 seconds, but I want to go back to Uvalde. What is President Biden doing about that?

I'm not sure why she dignified the question with an answer, but she did. And when she finally got around to talking about the feds and Biden, it was to note that "it's pretty unclear" how much the feds can do, adding 

But this White House continues to point to that gun legislation they’re passing. Would that have solved this? We just don’t know.

Except we do know quite a bit, Mary.  

Anyway, here's what I'm wondering: why didn't she say, "look, Martha, President Biden is much too busy causing global inflation, global supply chain issues, global food shortages, global immigration issues, and doing too much and not enough to help Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and others, to be able to focus his attention on a single mass shooting that happened months ago. Haven't you been to a gas station lately and seen his sticker?"

What's on your wondering mind tonight? 

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 3)

Shockwaves continue to move across the landscape after the not-unexpected Supreme Court decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so the states must decide individually what they'll allow. 

But all is not lost in this battle, and pro-choice politicians - primarily Democrats - have a variety of opportunities to make a difference, and, of course, to make a horrible mess of things.

I look to the Notorious RBG for motivation here, and what she teaches us about Roe: that it was the right decision, wrongly justified. She believed, and stated more than once, that Roe should have been decided as an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as Amy Frieder noted in a Salon article this past May.

She elaborated on this in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart:  "[L]egal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." (Emphasis added.)

Because of that, Frieder continued, "Advocates must argue that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting already-existing human lives subjected to oppression that stems from state action based on impermissible sex stereotyping in an unequal society. To put that in plain language, abortion is necessary so long as sex inequality in society persists." 

And, she included in the article,

"When abortion-restrictive regulation is analyzed as state action compelling motherhood, it presents equal protection concerns that Roe's physiological reasoning obscures," according to constitutional law scholar Reva Siegel. Equal protection should preclude state coercion of motherhood. 

The Dems and their pro-choice allies should use the discriminatory and unequal arguments as their primary tactic to challenge state laws, or at least legislate corrections to them.

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for the pregnancy being 'outside the woman's control' is discriminatory, as abortions aren't similarly available to women who get pregnant due to a contraceptive failure, equally outside her control. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for any other reasons is purely arbitrary, creates a separate class of pregnancy, and is therefore discriminatory. There can be no exceptions based on how the pregnancy occurred.

• Allowing destruction of embryos created outside the womb, but not allowing destruction of embryos created inside the womb, creates a separate class of 'pre-born children' and is discriminatory. 

• Allowing dependent tax deductions and other financial advantages for living children but not for 'pre-born' children is discriminatory. 

• Companies providing a benefit for women to travel to receive medical care, but not providing that same benefit to all employees, is discriminatory. 

• Period- and location-tracking apps, and similar technologies, are private and cannot be used against any woman seeking a legal abortion. Laws must be put in place, before the abortion law goes into effect, making use of these technologies for this or any similar purpose a crime.

• Any state banning abortion must provide health insurance coverage for all pre-natal, maternity, and post-partum care. Regulations providing the benefits, and confirmation that they're available, must be in place the abortion law goes into effect. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide paid time off from work for all necessary care and treatment, including maternal/child bonding if the woman is keeping the child. If the woman is enrolled in any level of school, special provisions, including tutoring if needed, must be made available. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide housing, nutritional, transportation and/or other assistance to any pregnant woman requesting it; the state must prove the capability to provide this assistance for the anticipated population before the abortion ban can go into effect.

• Using Medicaid or other generally accepted 'access-to-care' metrics, any state that bans abortion must prove there is sufficient access for the projected population to receive appropriate care throughout the pregnancy, and after. If the access is not available, the state must develop, fund, and implement programs to provide it before the abortion ban can go into effect.

Believe me, I realize some of those might be distasteful, particularly the ones challenging widely-supported abortion exceptions and IVF; hence the tag of 'unpopular' opinions. But not fighting discrimination that we agree with is wrong. 

In Case You Missed It (v95)

It seems like last week was extra-long, doesn't it? Or, is it just me? 

I was surprised I managed to get four posts out; if you had asked me how the writing went, I'd have guessed two posts made it out the door - the week was a blur.

Here's a recap of the posts that made the cut. 

Sunday was the day I confronted Father's Day 15. And it's the day I confronted the moodiness that often overwhelms me three months of the year when I feel his absence most dramatically.

I know, now, reflecting on 15 Father's Days without you, that it's not out of my control. It's within my control, within my capabilities, t0 react better to January, the month we lost you; February, the month you were born; and June, the month with a day to celebrate you.

Well, maybe not react better - but to react differently. To focus differently: on what's present, not on what's missing. On the fullness, not the emptiness. To remember, rather than trying to forget. So many ways of saying basically the same thing, right? Darn words...

Darn words, indeed. 

Moving on to your Sunday School lesson, I covered three interviews; here are highlights from Dana Bash's conversation with Sen. Fred Upton (R-MI). One of the ten Republican senators who voted to impeach Donald Trump, Upton is not running for re-election. 

Among the topics they covered was the January 6th Committee hearings; he felt they are making a difference, but he also 

expressed frustration with folks who are talking to the committee now, saying

...where have they been for the last year-and-a-half? Why weren't they saying what they're saying now a year-and-a-half ago, particularly to those of us that actually witnessed what was going on, to back us up a little bit?

The other two interviews? George talked with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in the This Week classroom, and in the Face the Nation classroom, Margaret Brennan talked with Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the network's go-to guy for COVID stuff, about the newly authorized vaccine for kids five and under. 

I was going to devote your Extra Credit to Juneteenth, but there was so little discussion on that topic in the classrooms, there wasn't a post. Personally, I think that's sad.

There was Wondering on Wednesday, last week, including this piece about free speech, the NFL, and the horrible Rep. Jim Jordan.

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

And there, was a piece on Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who's currently #3 in the House Republican leadership. She's more "conservative" than most NY pols. 

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. 

There was more wondering, too, of course. 

And, almost before I knew it, it was Friday, and it was time for your TGIF entry. I didn't do a standard good week/bad week list; it was more like a future bad week list. Here's a bit of the post.

 If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer... 

You see what's happening, right? Remove one right, and removing the next one is easier. The one after that is easier, and the next is even easier... The question is, where does it end? 

At what point will a government so small it fits in a uterus stop trying to fit into smaller and smaller places? And at what cost?

I'll be back later, with Sunday School, or something else - you just never know.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/22/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Separate from the foolishness of a Congressional Oversight Committee holding hearings on the NFL's Washington Commandos, which in and of itself deserves wondering, I can't help wondering why people continue to think that there's a quote-unquote First Amendment issue when an employer fines, fires, or otherwise disciplines an employee for comments made, or for bad behavior, or other such infractions. 

For the folks in the back, here's what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything there about the NFL? The Washington Commandos, or Redskins, as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ick) called the team? 

I can only wonder when Jordan last read the First Amendment; based on his questioning of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, I'd say it's been a while. 

"You believe in the First Amendment, don't you?" Jordan asked Goodell. "Yes, Congressman," Goodell replied. "Why do you ban Dave Portnoy from NFL games? He's a journalist. In fact, he's a sports journalist," Jordan asked. "Why is he banned?"

Is Jordan seriously suggesting that Goodell has in some way stripped Portnoy of his constitutional rights? Or is he just being his usual idiotic showboating self? Dumb question, I know. Silly me. 

I also find myself wondering about this part, too, and whether Jordan knew how ironically funny it sounded, given the former president's well-documented proclivities....

Jordan then mentioned that Portnoy, whom multiple women have accused of sexual assault, is an established journalist who interviewed former President Trump, saying, “Seems to me, [if you] can get into the White House, you should be able to get into a football game.”

Moving from the First Amendment to the Second, there appears to be enough bipartisan agreement to pass some gun reforms this time; the initial vote to advance the legislation passed 64-34. Folks are lining up on their respective sides of the aisle, with some Dems suggesting they might not vote for it because it doesn't go far enough, and some Rs saying outright they won't vote for it because it goes too far. 

Here's one who suggests exactly that: the #3 Republican in the House, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-Embarrassing NY as Best I Can). Stefanik, who's got a better-than-fair chance of becoming the House Majority Leader if the Rs win in November, given Trump's public souring on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, released this statement today.

I will continue to stand up for Second Amendment rights against this legislation that shreds the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans with no effect on deterring criminals who do not follow the law when obtaining firearms. This bill contains unconstitutional gun control provisions and allows the implementation of red flag laws that take away due process rights. It would restrict men and women who are able to serve in our military from purchasing a firearm and would strip the Constitutional rights of gunowners by broadening the scope of punishment for even nonviolent misdemeanors. As this blatant government overreach seeks to make gun owners second-class citizens, I will continue to stand up for the Constitution and push for solutions, including advocating for increased mental health resources across the country.

I feel kind of bad for her, that she feels compelled to say stuff like this, particularly that last part, about her intention to advocate for increased mental health resources. And I wonder if she's even read the bill, or any news reports about it?

According to this article, the bill "provides $15 billion in federal funding to bolster mental health services..." from training programs to pediatric mental health care to community health services to intervention and prevention services t0 school-based mental health services, and more.

I often wonder if folks like Stefanik wouldn't be happier in a red state like Texas, where everything is way more bigly conservative, and where her opinions would fit right in. After all, the Texas GOP passed two resolutions as their convention last week; one declared President Biden to be the 'acting' president and the beneficiary of a stolen election. The second is below. 

Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:

Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.

Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty.

Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self-defense in emergencies such as riots.

Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights.

We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). 

One more thing on Stefanik? Taking a page out of her Dear Leader's playbook, she's endorsing sketchy characters for office. For example, she proudly endorsed Carl Paladino for Congress in the new #NY23 district.

Carl is a job creator and conservative outsider who will be a tireless fighter for the people of New York in our fight to put America First to save the country.

I guess it makes sense that she'd endorse a guy who said Hitler is the kind of leader we need today. After all, someone very much in Stefanik's corner seems to meet the "get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized" definition Paladino used to describe Hitler... 

But, I wonder if she remembers Paladino going public with plans to threaten NY members of Congress if they didn't support Trump in 2016? Or, later that same year, when he said stuff so bizarre about the Obamas that even the Trump campaign objected? 

And that's where the real wondering comes in: is it possible that Trump's peeps have out-Trumped him? 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

Sidebar: The Irony Board: Free Speech

In Thursday's Irony Board post, we heard from Mitch McConnell that even the esteemed author Salman Rushdie is uncomfortable with the silencing of speech in America. According to McConnell, 

Rushdie recently signed an open letter with other intellectuals, many liberals, sounding the alarm on this cultural poison. 

It might surprise McConnell to learn that Rushdie is uncomfortable about several other things, too. In an op-ed last month in the Washington Post, he spoke of seeing "several dictators rise and fall" and, and defined for us the 'dictatorial cast of mind."

Extreme narcissism, detachment from reality, a fondness for sycophants and a distrust of truth-tellers, an obsession with how one is publicly portrayed, a hatred of journalists and the temperament of an out-of-control bulldozer: These are some of the characteristics.

Hmm... sound familiar? There's a reason for that.

President Trump is, temperamentally, a tinpot despot of this type. But he finds himself in charge of a country that has historically thought of itself — by no means always correctly — as being on the side of liberty. So far, with the collusion of the Republican Party, he has ruled more or less unchecked. Now an election looms, and he is unpopular, and flails about looking for a winning strategy. And if that means trampling over American freedoms, then so be it.

A tinpot despot? Ruling with the collusion of his party? Trampling on our freedoms? Who knew?

Rushdie also spoke of that infamous Bible photo op,  pointing out that the man "... whose inflammatory language full of racist dog whistles has played a significant role in unleashing white-supremacist bigotry upon us all," stood in the Rose Garden expressing a desire to protect peaceful protesters, while "just down the street, his security forces, some of them on horseback, are attacking a peaceful protest with tear gas and rubber bullets." I'm sure the protesters felt safe, wrapped in the protective arms of tinpot despotism that day, wouldn't you agree?

And, Rushdie noted,

We are so inured to the behavior of this man, so used to his lies, his inexhaustible self-regard, his stupidity, that maybe we are tempted to think of this as just another day in Trumpistan. But this time, something different is happening. The uprising that began with the killing of George Floyd is not fizzling but growing. The man in the White House is scared, and even, for a time, takes refuge in the basement and turns out the lights... 

If left to his own worst instincts, unchecked by his party, what comes next?

If he is allowed to use the actions of a tiny minority of criminals and white extremist infiltrators to invalidate the honorable protest of the vast majority against the murder of Floyd, the violence of the police toward the black community and the entrenched power of American racism, he will be on his way to despotism. He has threatened to use the Army against American citizens, a threat one might have expected from a leader of the former Soviet Union, but not of the United States. 

Rushdie, the intellectual, the freedom-loving American citizen, closed his op-ed with a warning.

In my most recent novel, “Quichotte,” I characterized the present moment as the “Age of Anything-Can-Happen.” Today I say, beware, America. Don’t believe that it can’t happen here.

Do you hear him now, Senator McConnell?  Are you listening, America?

The Irony Board: Free Speech, McConnell Style

In this week's Wondering on Wednesday, we looked at a couple of news organizations - the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times - which have taken some heat recently for how they manage their Op-Ed pages, and how speech is being constrained. There were also some comments from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on our rights.

Shortly after completing that post, I stumbled on this opinion by Senator Mitch McConnell in the NY Post. Let's take a look at the piece, titled 'The lawless left's attack on America's bedrock beliefs.'

Since the spring, our nation has engaged in important conversations about racial justice in policing. Most people understand that continuing our nation’s tremendous progress toward justice does not mean battling against US principles or history. Progress means fulfilling our values, not attacking them.

And yet a group of radicals has latched onto this moment to say we should repudiate our country itself. Mobs have dragged statues of Washington, Jefferson and Grant through the dirt. And in parallel, inside many elite institutions, self-styled intellectuals say we should similarly discard the basic principles they fought for.

I followed the link above, which took me to another NY Post article; would you be surprised that it contains no mention of radicals, leftists, country, America, US, repudiate, values, founders, or principles? I was.

McConnell goes on to say

One of the key pillars of our nation is the rule of law. In a civilized society, the same laws need to apply to everyone. The times our nation has fallen short on this score, particularly for all the years when black Americans were completely denied the equal protections of law, it has been to our great shame.

This has been central to the cause of civil rights. There’s a reason the Fourteenth Amendment insists on “the equal protection of the laws.” And yet in recent months, local leaders have violated this basic tenet. As riots rocked major cities, we saw politicians decline to act. They seemed to fear far-left critique more than looting and chaos. And we saw the uneven application of other rules, like when mayors cheered on mass demonstrations but continued to prohibit religious gatherings.

Again, another link to another NY Post article, with no evidence that any politicians were 'fear(ing) far-left critique' in any way, shape or form. And, of course, mass demonstrations  - even armed ones - were fine when the goal was the 'right' one. You know, good speech.

That is the rule of law in jeopardy. Of course, that last example is also a First Amendment issue. And the freedom of expression itself is another principle that’s come under threat.

As I said a few weeks back, this goes deeper than just constitutional law. America has always prized the spirit of the First Amendment. We citizens must want to protect an open, civil discourse; a true marketplace of ideas. But lately, the political left has embraced something totally different.

Today’s far left is not interested in winning debates with better arguments. It prefers to shut down debate altogether. It doesn’t try to win the contest, it just harangues the referees to stop the game.

Oh, the irony.  Folks, this is Mitch McConnell talking!

The same Mitch McConnell who refused to allow anyone the opportunity to "win a debate with better arguments." The same Mitch McConnell who "prefers to shut down debate altogether." The same Mitch McConnell who "doesn't try to win the contest." He did that, of course, when he refused to allow consideration of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination.

He denied every person who voted for Barack Obama the opportunity to have their voices heard, in favor of allowing other people in the future an opportunity to have their voices heard. He denied people their representation.

Not only that, but McConnell also refused everyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama the right to have their voices heard, to have their elected officials go on record, to have them do their jobs.

And yes, this is the same Mitch McConnell, who proclaimed,

One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'

Yep - one of the proudest moments of the Senate Majority Leader was denying people their rights. But now, he's concerned about our rights?

Here's more.

If leftists don’t like an op-ed, they want it unpublished. If they don’t like a tweet, they want to track down the author and get him fired. If they don’t like a tenured professor, they throw around Orwellian accusations that his or her ideas make them feel unsafe.

This hostile culture is getting results. According to one brand-new survey, it is only far-left Americans who do not feel compelled to self-censor their views because of a hostile climate. Everyone but the far left feels the threat. And 50 percent of self-identified strong liberals say that simply contributing to the GOP presidential candidate ought to be a fireable offense for a business leader.

One "brand-new survey" without referencing the organization who led or commissioned the survey, no definitions (what is a "far-left American" and what is the "far-right American" equivalent?), nothing on how or when the survey was conducted - for all we know, the survey is completely fake.

McConnell continued, writing

We recently saw The New York Times apologize for publishing a straightforward policy argument from a US senator. Since, an editorial staffer resigned from the paper because even center-left opinions were not liberal enough and led to her constant harassment. You see, the safe spaces only ever go in one direction.

On elite campuses, such as Princeton, we see faculty turning against their tenured colleagues, and even administrators weighing in, to chastise people with unpopular views.

Citation? References? Facts? Who knows? I guess I should give him credit for actually naming one of the Ivies.  Pompeo only generically referred to "our institutes of higher education" in his comments. 

We see online platforms such as Facebook threatening to ban political advertising altogether, chilling our democracy.

Even at a time when there is significant appetite in Congress to take a second look at the legal protections afforded to these supposedly neutral platforms, they still contemplate giving an angry minority of agitators a veto over Americans’ speech.

Proof that people who hate political ads on Facebook are "an angry minority" and not a disgusted majority? Survey data? Bueller? Anyone?

McConnell, again.

The author Salman Rushdie, who was himself threatened with death for controversial speech, once said this: “Two things form the bedrock of any open society: freedom of expression and the rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country.”

Rushdie recently signed an open letter with other intellectuals, many liberals, sounding the alarm on this cultural poison.

“Editors are fired,” they wrote, “books are withdrawn...journalists are barred from writing on certain topics...professors are investigated... steadily narrow[ing] the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.”

You can guess what happened next. The grievance-industrial complex came after the letter ­itself. The authors were accused of advancing bigotry. And the cycle of nonsense started all over again.

The United States of America needs free speech. We need free expression. And all of us, from all perspectives, need the courage to speak up and defend it.

Mitch McConnell

I'll remind you of another thing about Mitch McConnell, so aggrieved by the suppression of free speech that he sees in the country right now.  In February, he admitted that there were 395 House bills sitting in the Senate that would not get passed, or even considered. I'm not sure how many there are now. Isn't that yet another stifling of speech being perpetrated upon our duly elected Representatives?  Or doesn't that count?

And I'll throw in another one - McConnell has repeatedly said that the Senate won't take up legislation unless he knows the president will sign it. So much for the co-equal branches of government, right? So much for "open, civil discourse."

What, or who, is he afraid of? His re-election chances? His wife's boss? The American people? Free speech itself?

Wondering on Wednesday (V177)

Let's get some wondering underway, shall we?

Is anyone wondering how long Labor Secretary Alex Acosta will get to stick around, now that the Epstein stuff is hitting the fan, and taking attention away from the president? 

Acosta was the US Attorney involved in the plea deal that let Jeffrey Epstein spend 13 months in a  private wing of the country jail, and be picked up by his valet six days a week to go to work and earn money (and do who knows what in his office because no one, including the police, was paying attention). And yes, he had to register as a sex offender, but as someone pointed out, the 13-month sentence is what's recommended for someone possessing less than a teaspoon of crack cocaine, and that seems pretty light for someone who sexually abused over 100 young girls.

And how it is that Epstein, named co-conspirators and unnamed co-conspirators all got immunity from federal prosecution?  I can see maybe Epstein, if that's what it took to get him to take a plea deal on the state charges, but everyone else too?  This is part of why Acosta is in hot water.  And, of course, there's taking attention away from his boss, as noted above.

What else is going on? The president won a round in a court case, which doesn't seem to happen all that often these days. This time, it was the emoluments case that was filed by the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland, who asserted that the president's hotel was getting business from foreign governments and taking business away from other hotels in their areas.

In addition to not having standing, and to having been spanked for wasting the court's time, there was also a question of what the remedy would have been, had the decision gone the other way.  Here, in part is what the three-judge panel said.

Even if government officials were patronizing the hotel to curry the president's favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the president enjoined from receiving income from the hotel. The hotel would still be publicly associated with the president, would still bear his name and would still financially benefit members of his family. 

So, we're left wondering whether there is a way to enforce any ethics rules against this president or members of his administration? The Hatch Act is ignored, emoluments cases can't go forward because there's no way to keep him from making money off being president...what's an ethical person to do? Grin and bear it, knowing that this president would be fired from most companies in this day and age?

Staying with the courts, the president did lose one this week, too: he cannot block people on Twitter simply because they disagree with him. In a nutshell, three judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that

The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees... In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public opinion concern is more speech, not less.

Of course, if you read the comments on social media articles, you won't need to wonder how many people actually read the articles before commenting (in my experience, less than 10%) and not only that, won't have to wonder how many of them follow the president. Again, based on the complete lack of understanding on how the president uses his personal Twitter account (hint - it's not just for insulting detractors, antagonizing our allies, and lying to the public).

And about the court's decision? Hear, hear. Chirp, chirp. Tweet, tweet. And if you disagree with the president or any other government official, let 'em know in the comments. It's the right thing to do, and it's your right to do it.  Nothing to wonder about there.

Trump in Transition (v36)

Listen, I know there's lots of important stuff going on in the world that might require the attention of the (ahem) leader of the free world, but I've got to tell you, I didn't know that I was so totally focused on the wrong stuff.  

I mean, here I am getting prepared for this morning's lectures from the Sunday pundits, and thinking about the budget, and what "the most awe-inspiring military" really even means, and then there's climate change and the weather and trying to learn the difference between them so I can talk intelligently with people on this critical subject, and of course there's terrorism in all its forms with good people on both sides and I'm surely trying to get my arms around that, as a patriotic American, and there's redistricting and voter suppression and border security and dear lord, jobs and the economy and taxes and entitlements and healthcare and prescription drugs and there's even helping women in shithole countries and and and there's just SO MUCH STUFF TO THINK ABOUT, right?

So, being a patriotic American, I decided to see what the president was thinking about; maybe I could follow his lead? 

#MAGAMA 

#NMPNNNE 

#WHATTHESNIFF 

Wondering on Wednesday (v124)

Where should we start tonight, the wondering?  Well, let's see.

Instead of going to Jared, Jared Kushner went south of the border to meet with the Mexican president; seems his father-in-law is barely able to have a phone conversation with the Mexicans, so hopefully Jared will be able to work his magic and get things back on track.  It may not be as hard as, you know, Middle East peace or anything, but if they're talking about who's going to pay for the wall, things could get ugly.

Speaking of  the great, big, beautiful wall, I can't help wondering whether Kushner is supposed to stay in Mexico until all of the issues are resolved, or until the wall gets built, whichever comes first? Given his loss of clearance, and all the unpleasant news about the family business, he could be on the president's short list for clearing bad vibes out of the West Wing.

Sticking with the White House for another moment, did you hear about the lawsuit against the president for blocking people on Twitter?  A Seattle woman was blocked by the @realdonaldtrump verified Twitter account, which is the one the president uses several times a day to bully his opponents (and appointees), brag about how much size matters, and let the world know when he'll be making call-ins to various Fox News shows -- and, at times, to announce policy decisions.

The offending tweet that led to her being blocked was a video clip of Pope Francis dropping his smile when he looked at Trump. And it kind of makes sense that it would be something so trivial that caused the blockage; after all, he probably thinks this post is about him...

The case is being watched closely not only for its curiosity value, but also as a test of how courts will apply the first amendment in the context of public officials' use of social media accounts, at a time when the role of social networks in politics has generated intense controversy.

 Can elected officials block their constituents? Or are social media accounts essential avenues for citizens to petition leaders? Is it the constitutional right of all Americans to start an online flame war with the politician of their choice, as the founders surely intended?

Somehow, the Justice Department is trying to make the case that the @realdonaldtrump account is a personal one, not a political one - which is truly laughable. I wonder, have they even read any of the president's tweets?

On the wonderful front, legislators in Florida have passed new rules on guns - and more - less than a month after the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, which just happened on Valentine's Day.  Among the proposals:

• raising the age to purchase all firearms;
• banning the purchase and possession of bump stocks;
• setting a three-day waiting period to buy any gun - shotguns and rifles included

But that wasn't all - there are provisions to address mental health (mobile crisis teams included) and school safety too, by adding metal detectors, bulletproof glass, and resource officers. There's also a provision that allows for allowing some school personnel to carry firearms.

People who have been calling for a comprehensive approach might want to take a look at this one - it brings consistency to existing laws, actually provides funding for mental health issues (instead of just hand-wringing), and it addresses the 'hardening' of schools.

I wonder if folks, seeing something like this get from point A to the governor's desk in less than a month, will still maintain that thoughts and prayers are all we can do? Certainly there will be people who are not happy with some or all of the provisions -- on both sides of the aisle - but this shows what can be done when people listen, and learn and come together.

And finally tonight, circling back to government officials using Twitter, Betsy DeVos got a taste of people paying attention when the posted a couple of stock photos - one old, one really old - as representative of public school classrooms.

The reaction was swift, as teachers from across the country posted pictures of actual public school classrooms, which look nothing like the pictures DeVos posted.

Many commenters pointed out that what she posted looked more like charter schools than public schools, or that she might actually want to go in a public school classroom to see for herself what actually happens in one. What was nice was that, for the most part, the comments were polite, if firm, and there were not all that much snark.

I wonder whether she's read the comments? And whether she'll actually take up the offer from any number of teachers who invited her, politely, to visit them?  And then I wondered, what on earth am I thinking?

Wayne's World

Did you catch Wayne LaPierre's talk at CPAC the other day?

He talked about 'hardening' schools and making them safer, of course. He also took credit, on behalf of the NRA, for the National Instant Check System, and for fighting to make sure that all the bad people who needed to be in the background system were there. Many people disagree with those characterizations of the NRA's positions, but that's a story for another post.

What I wanted to share with you is LaPierre's vision of America; if you like the 2016 Republican National Convention or Trump's inaugural address, you'll love this stuff.

As usual, the opportunists wasted not one second to exploit tragedy for political gain. Saul Alinsky would have been proud. The breakneck speed of calls for more gun control laws, and the breathless national media eager to smear the NRA - think about that, in the midst of genuine grief, in an understandable passion, as millions of Americans searched for meaningful solutions, what do we find? Chris Murphy, Nancy Pelosi and more, cheered on by the national media, eager to blame the NRA and call for even more government control. They hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment, they hate individual freedom....

For them it is not a safety issue, it is a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. 

 They fantasize about more laws stopping what other laws fail to stop. The truth is, laws succeed only when people obey them, that is what the law-abiding majority in this country practices. But once again, so many existing laws were ignored. Their laws do not stop illegal criminals from crossing our borders every single day. Their laws do not stop this scourge of gang violence and drug crime that savages Baltimore, Chicago and every major American community. Their laws have not stopped the plague of opioids and Chinese fentanyl that floods the streets and kills victims every single day in this country. No wonder law-abiding Americans all over this country revere their Second Amendment that protects them more than ever. They do not care if their laws work or not, they just want to get more laws to get more control over people. 

Hold a moment please - the "breakneck speed" with which LaPierre moved from hardening schools to protect children to accusing Democrats and the media of being responsible for, or at the very least complicit in, all of society's ills and of trying to take over the universe was truly breathtaking.

And that's not all. There's a whole cabal of America-hating bastages at work here that need to be foiled, don't you know?  You don't know?  Well, follow along.

Obama promised a fundamental transformation of our country. And you know what? It began with his own national party, a party that is now infested with saboteurs who do not believe in capitalism, do not believe in the Constitution,  do not believe in our freedom, and do not believe in America as we know it. 

Obama may be gone but their Utopian dream, it marches on and president Trump's election, while crucial, cannot turn away the wave of these new European-style socialists bearing down upon us. I'm not just talking about Bernie Sanders, I mean, he's near the end of his career. What about Elizabeth Warren, Bill De Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Christopher Murphy and Keith Ellison?  They are not Democrats in the mode of John F. Kennedy or Tip O'Neill.

They hide behind labels like 'progressive' to make their socialist agenda more palatable and that is terrifying. And that should terrify every citizen who values the American ideal in this country of individual liberty. They politicize the Department of Justice. They weaponize the Internal Revenue Service, the EPA, perhaps cripple the FBI and the Intelligence Community, and seized and embedded leadership in all of them to advance their agenda 

Set aside, for a moment, the idea that my Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo and New York City's mayor Bill De Blasio have anything to do with the DOJ, the IRS, the EPA or the FBI and the Intelligence Community. Note also that that Keith Ellison, as a DNC executive - and a Democrat in the House - has even less influence than do Warren, Booker and Murphy in the Senate. But again, the truth and facts are not what we're looking for here.

This is a raw meat fest, CPAC is, and everyone knows it. I was naive, I guess, as to how raw the meat was - it's still on the hoof, for Pete's sake. It's blue and mooing, I tell you. Ready to get some of that?

Absolute control in every corner of our government is their ultimate dream. These intellectual elites, they think that they are smarter than we are. They think that they are smarter than the rest of us. And they think they are better than we are. They truly believe it. And you know it. 

The privileged and the powerful, they think they deserve to be in charge of every level of power but you know what? The United States Constitution makes it absolutely clear that they are not in charge. We, the people, are in charge of this country! But Washington - OH. MY. GOSH. The city likes to ignore that. Our intelligence community shrouds everything in secrecy, driving into darkness every dirty memo. And every dirty institutional secret and memory, in the name of national security. But when the leaks come, as so often occurs in the light of day, it reveals nothing about the security of our country and it reveals everything about the corruption of those in power. That is because in a captive society, the loss of transparency results in the loss of truth. 

And I'm thinking, "in the midst of genuine grief, in an understandable passion, as millions of Americans searched for meaningful solutions", the Executive Director of the NRA went off the deep end, way off the deep end, into the dark spiral of paranoia.

I can understand a bit of bad apples in organizations as large as the FBI. But what is hard to understand is why nobody at the FBI stood up and called BS on its rogue leadership. I mean, really, where was the systemic resistance that should protect every powerful institution that serves us? The lowest-ranking Marine knows to resist an unlawful order. The rank and file in every powerful institution must police its own leadership.

Do you think the membership of the NRA was hearing that call, to resist the urges of LaPierre and his bizarro world vision? And do you think LaPierre was right to co-opt the Parkland teens' rallying cry of "we call BS" for his own purpose?

But still, too much of today's Washington, nobody speaks out. Nobody challenges authority. Everyone keeps their mouths closed and their heads down. And that is exactly how socialistic societies function, when leaders do whatever they want, when resistance and repercussion disappears, and when the fundamental concept of moral behavior is expunged. 

The state rules the day and anyone who resists is smeared right into submission. Yep, you know it. - yes, the "art of the smear." 

The state rules the day, and the president, its leader, is a master of the art of the smear - it's one of the ways he vanquished his 16 opponents.

We live in a socialistic age of the art of the smear. It does not have to be true, it just has to stick somewhere, anywhere. It is designed to degrade, destroy, and it is all over the national media to serve their agenda.

Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!  Oh, sorry - I digress. I was practicing the Art of the Smear, which I'm sure will be a new Trump book now that the title has been handed to someone on a sliver platter.

And socialism is a movement that loves the smear. Racists. Misogynist. Sexist. Xenophobia and more. These are the weapons. These character assassinations scream to permanently hang on their targets and create a growing segment of victims. Because socialism feeds off of manipulative victims. You name the group and they will find a way to turn them into victims, they keep their movement growing by finding somebody to be offended every minute of every day.

You know, those 20 manipulative first graders and the six manipulative adults at Sandy Hook, and the 14 manipulative teenagers and three adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and all of the other manipulative victims of other mass shootings, the bastages. 

They do not like free speech any more than they like the Second Amendment. They like only limited speech, controlled speech, controlled by them through safe zones where they can shame the outspoken or riot to shut them up. If you still think that we have full First Amendment freedom in this country, try going right now at Berkeley and speaking out in favor of conservative causes or even the Second Amendment.

Forgetting, he must be, the sad tale of Milo Yiannopoulos. You see,  CPAC's sponsor invited Milo, who was the victim of those riots-against-free-speech-at-Berkeley to speak at the 2017 gathering of this same voodoo-juice-drinking crowd -- and then disinvited him when his free speech was a little too freely offensive. How soon, how soon, the conservatives forget that CPAC is a safe zone itself!

He then talked about how the "socialist state dreams of manipulating schoolchildren" to get information from them, all kinds of information about their parents, what they watch on TV (ironic, since the NRA and LaPierre point out how violent video games cause mass shootings) and if they own guns and stuff.

And all that private information will be entered in to the ultimate list, that cloud of data storage that couldn't care less about due process and constitutional freedom and your privacy as an American citizen and then it is just a short hop to the systematic destruction of our most basic freedoms in this country and you all know what they are, but let me say them: family; faith; individual responsibility; and self destiny. A free market economy; patriotism; respect for our national flag and our national anthem. Personal liberty and justice for all... It will not take long if we stay on the path we are on to erase them completely. That is the consequence of this new socialist wave in America.  

You know, I hear a lot of quiet in this room and I sense your anxiety. And you should be anxious and you should be frightened. If they seize power, if the so-called new European socialists take over the House, and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever.

I wonder, was the anxiety coming from LaPierre's ranting and raving?  Mine sure was.

And the first to go will be the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. History proves it. Every time, in every nation, in which this political disease rises to power, its citizens are repressed, their freedoms are destroyed, and their firearms are banned and confiscated. It is all backed in this country by the social engineering and the billions (billions of dollars, he means) of people like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and more, and gleefully promoted by those who have risen to power in the so-called national news media and seized control of social media to spread their propaganda.

They do not tell us news, you all know it and people know it all over the United States. They say it to me every day, they do not tell us news, they tell us what we need to think... 

You know, some people out there think that the NRA should just stick to its Second Amendment agenda and not talk about all our freedoms, but real freedom requires protection of all of our rights, and the Second Amendment isn't worth its own words in a country where all of our other individual freedoms are destroyed...

Forewarned is forearmed -- the NRA TV channel is looking to be way more bigly involved, and way more bigly accessible, just like NBC and CNN. Which are fake news. And Fox, which is real news, except that it does exactly the same thing as LaPierre just described the media doing, which was bad, in case you didn't catch that.

And now, the big finish - and yes, he does talk about guns again. I forgot that he was the Executive Director of the NRA for a second there - as, I think, did he.

Let's be clear. We are never talking about an armed resistance against the socialist corruption of our government. We are always talking about a resistance armed with the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in our country. The genius of those documents, the brilliance of America, of our country itself, is all of our freedoms are for every single citizen and there is no greater personal individual freedom than the right to keep and bear arms, the right to protect yourself, and the right to survive. 

It is not bestowed by man, but granted by God to all Americans as our American birthright. So I call right now today on every citizen who loves this country and who treasures freedom to stand and unflinchingly defend the Second Amendment, the one freedom that protects us all in this country.

And yes, in case you were wondering, LaPierre did close with the "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

And yes, in case you were wondering, CPAC, according to several reports, including this one, and this one, is a gun-free zone.

Some, All, or None of the Above

Pretend, for the sake of argument that this was the school shooting that is the one that changes everything. Columbine didn't, and Sandy Hook didn't. So pretend this is the one.

Pretend, for the sake of argument,  that we actually are inspired and want to make changes, across a wide spectrum, to try and make a difference.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that your elected representatives at the school, local, state and national level are motivated to listen to you and do whatever it is you suggest to keep your children safe.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that you are in control. I know, I know - that's a huge bit of pretending, I get it -- but just pretend.

Here's your list of options, based on what I've seen on various news and social media platforms. Know that none of these will work, because if a person really wants to commit mayhem, they'll find a way - that's what we're told, anyway, when some suggests changing gun laws. 

Know that  individually,  these might have no impact, but that collectively, they might make a difference --and choose as many as you think we should try.

1. Ban large-capacity magazines, clips, etc. so that a person would have to load their gun more often, making it take longer for them to commit mass mayhem and giving people more time to, hopefully, escape.

2. Ban new sales of the 'mass-shooting' rifle -- the AR-15 and similar weapons, and implement a buy-back program to get as many of them off the street as possible.

3. Ban sales of bump-stocks and similar items that make it easier to kill more people in a short period of time.

4. Ban sales of guns to anyone who is not old enough to purchase alcohol.

5. Ensure that the military is reporting all less-than-honorable discharges to the national background check system, and do not allow them to purchase any kind of gun, and that this reporting is timely - as in, immediately upon discharge. And fire anyone in the military hierarchy who failed to ensure this reporting occurred as required.

6. Close the 'boyfriend' loophole, which allows a person who commits violence against a partner to whom they are not married to purchase a gun, and treat these people the same as those who abuse their spouse.

7. Establish a ten-day waiting period on the purchase of all guns - handguns, medium guns, long guns, whatever - to bring consistency to the process, and to allow sufficient time for the background check process to occur.

8. Pay gun manufacturers not to make guns, just like we pay farmers not to grow crops.

9. Tax packages of ammunition the same way we tax packages of cigarettes. Add a user fee on the sale of every gun. Use this money as startup cash to pay for whatever needs to be paid for (see #11 and #12, for starters).

10. Close all background check loopholes. Private sales, gun shows - whatever the gaps, close them.

11. Secure our school buildings: locks on external doors, cameras, badge readers, metal detectors, security offices and security officers - real ones, not the kind you see at many offices - at entry doors, double door entries, limited number of doors with external handles, etc.

12. Secure the classrooms: bullet-proof glass in the windows and doors; panic buttons for teachers to warn the office and local police of a threat; doors that truly lock from inside and cannot be forced open.

13. Arm teachers, if they are willing, provided that the weapons they're assigned can be secured in their classrooms so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, and that they're carefully screen and can prove proficiency with their weapons (something that is not required for purchasing one, by the way).

14. Go back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools every day.

15. Re-institute school prayer.

16. Ban violent video games, television shows, lyrics, movies, poetry, fiction and non-fiction writing, and any other art forms which can project violence.

17. Enter mental health records into the background check system, regardless of the patient age, and never allow anyone who has had any mental health issues to legally purchase guns or ammunition.

18. Stop prescribing medications that can have mental health related side effects (depressions, thoughts of suicide, hyperactivity, manic behaviors and so on).

19. Ban contributions to politicians from any gun rights groups.

20. Wring our hands, offer thoughts and prayers, and as Paul Ryan said, count our blessings, whatever that means.

Have at it -- some, all, or none of the above?