Impressions from the Defeat the Mandates DC Rally

 Thirty thousand people recently rallied on the National Mall in a grassroots effort  against vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, coerced COVID-19 vaccinations on children and censorship.  People gathered at the Washington Monument and marched by the World War II and Vietnam Memorials while rallying at the Lincoln Memorial.

The scant coverage by so called Mainstream Media seemed content to echo the Biden Administration's framing that it was a gathering of right wing misinformed white supremacist contrarians. But as Mark Twain quipped: "A lie can travel half way around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes.".

After two years of COVIDian confusion, conflicting science propaganda, censorship to support the official viewpoint and authoritarian instincts by governments around the world, skeptical citizens are fed up with unending progressive tyranny with questionable public health results.

Of course, the Mainstream Media's scathing characterizations of the Defeat the Mandates crowd was scandalously skewed. There were signs and chants which stridently opposed the Biden Administration, but it was not dominated by an attitude of "Let's Go Brandon" or "FJB". Defeat the Mandate attendees were akin to less partisan Tea Party rallies from a decade ago. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was a major speaker at the podium, so it was not a Republican rally. Speakers on the podium included a Muslim, Jewish rabbi and a Christian minister, thus is wasn't a narrow focused gathering of insular "Jesus freaks".

A better indicator of what drew the Defeat the Mandates crowd was those keen on protecting individual liberties, railing against censorship and impeaching the preverification of public health officials and protecting the children.

People came from around the country to participate. As I casually asked people around me from where they came, I was told central Pennsylvania, a busload from Long Island New York, the Finger Lakes New York, Dallas Texas, Tucson Arizona and Los Angeles California. This was a rather remarkable turn out for a rally which came together in less than a fortnight.


The messages from the dais were consistent and remarkably restrained. The panel of doctors including Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough, offered compelling testimony that questioned the public health response of mandating COVID-19 vaccines to everyone and ignoring the efficacy of natural immunity.

Doctors noted that the vaccines have not been particularly effective for mutated COVID-19 infections such as Omicron. Moreover, patient rights are being violated by not disclosing risks and side effects of experimental use drugs and the blanket immunity for Pharmaceutical companies as well as the disparaging of alternate use for cheaper proven drugs.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had more of a pointed, political perspective warning that freedoms surrendered to the government in a pandemic will not be easily surrendered by authorities. After the speech, Kennedy walked back his inference that Anne Frank had more freedom under the Nazis than unvaccinated people have today in some places of the USA.

That being said, Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-DC) recently imposed a Vaccine Passport rule which requires prospective patrons of bar, restaurants and gyms to show their papers- namely proof of full vaccination as well as a photo ID and to wear a mask. Moreover the Deputy Mayor sent out an email warning DC residents of the March, noting that there was nothing to worry about but encouraged anyone to contact authorities. if they saw something suspicious.

Again, Mark Twain wisdom seems apt: " History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes.". One can't help but wonder if these emergency public health measures are progressing into establishing a more authoritarian regime dictated by elites and favored public health officials with no accountability.

The Defeat the Mandates rally in DC occurred as other anti-Mandate marches occurred in Stockholm Sweden and Brussels Belgium. In addition, the United Kingdom are letting their strict anti-COVID 19 measures lapse. What is happen in the self proclaimed "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave"?

If Election 2020 Political Football Goes Into Overtime

 

As a political junkie, I have jested with friends and family that Presidential Elections are kind of a Superbowl for me.  Usually, the sturm und drang of a political campaign ends on election day.  In rare occasions, not so much.  Election 2000 stretched out through Thanksgiving that year due to the Florida recount. 

So when my beloved asked me how long would it be until we know who will be President next year, she was shocked when I suggested that it might be until January 4th.  What a fitting way to close out the annus horribilis of 2020.  I think that the field has been prepped for overtime in Political Fantasy Football resulting in a contested election scenario.

Granted, information may change by the hour, but on the evening after Election Day, the Democrat candidate Joseph Robinette Biden is thought to have 264 Electoral College votes, and Nevada is poised to surrender its six Electoral College votes, giving him a squeaker of a victory in the only metric which constitutionally matters.  Incumbent President Donald Trump is disputing an early call of Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes.  

If Trump carries North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania (battleground states where he is leading) and Arizona then Trump would win 274 votes and be re-elected.  Notwithstanding an outright victory, the Trump campaign has vowed to litigate against many instances of alleged voting irregularities, canvassing violations and potential fraudulent ballots for unvetted late mail in votes. Trump’s legal team has vowed to fight these violations, possibly even petitioning the US Supreme Court. 

This has the potential to impact results in key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.   If there are substantial cases, this may take time to litigate, which may delay or sway the official reporting of results.   Regardless of judicial outcome, if these violations are compelling, they may sway the process.

To refresh our civics knowledge, we do NOT live in a democracy but a Republic.  So when one casts a vote on election day for President, you are actually not voting for a Presidential candidate per se, you are voting for a slate of electors who then votes for the winning candidate in each state in the Electoral College, the ultimate party school. That’s how it normally works.  But technically, according to Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the power to name electors lies with state legislatures.  

Note well, this is a state legislature’s responsibility under federalism, which does not include input from a state Governor.  It is important to note that several battleground states with alleged voting irregularities, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, have Republican majorities in their legislatures, despite having liberal Democrat Governors.   

It would be extraordinary, but not inconceivable, that Republican Legislatures may be convicted that voting irregularities which do not follow their legislation and would have be addressed when naming Electors for the Electoral College.  Obviously, Democrats would object to having their win overturned, so more than likely an alternative slate of Electors would attempt to be presented to the Electoral College.  And political mayhem ensues.

Presuming that the Constitution is followed, the legislature endorsed delegates would participate in the Electoral College vote on December 14th and that result would be sent to the US Senate. 

On January 3rd, the second duty of the Senate in the 117th Congress after their swearing in would be to ratify the Electoral College vote.  First vote decides the Vice President among the top two vote getters. Then the EC vote for President among the top three candidates. 

Normally, this is a pro forma vote and there is polite applause for whoever won the Election.  But in this scenario, Senators would challenge state slates of Electors.  This should be determined by a majority vote, with a tie being decided by the sitting Vice President (who is in office until January 20th).  If slates are thrown out and neither candidate gets a majority of Electors, then the contested election moves to the House of Representatives.

Even though Democrats have maintained their majority in the House, voting in a contested election is done by Representatives en banc via state.  Republicans have a 26 to 24 state majority in Congress, thus it would point to re-election of President Trump.  If there is not a majority of state delegations electing a President or Vice President by January 20th, then the Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 11th) or whoever is Speaker of the House at that time,  Acting President until the succession is determined. 

 Historically, there have been a few contested elections. In 2000, the Florida recount was settled by a Supreme Court decision in favor of George W. Bush.

 While the 1960 Presidential election was not formally disputed, the popular vote was only decided by 0.14% in favor of John Kennedy.  It is said that if 10,000 votes switched in four states, Richard Nixon would have become President in 1961. There were allegations of shenanigans in Texas and Illinois.  Moreover, there were 14 unpledged delegates in Mississippi and Alabama cast for Harry F. Byrd.  But Nixon did not want to divide the country so he did not fight. 

The 1876 Presidential Election was a quintessential case of a contested election.  Democrat Samuel Tilden won the Popular Vote but there were difficulties in the  Electoral College.  One of Oregon’s Electors was deemed ineligible as he was an elected official.  But Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana had competing Electors as each party sent slates, amounting to 19 more unresolved Electors.   To resolve this matter, Congress adopted an informal agreement known as the Compromise of 1877 which gave all 20 unresolved electoral votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, thereby making him President.  In exchange, the federal government under Hayes withdrew Reconstruction troops that had been propping up carpet bagging state governments in Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana.  

Prior to the 2020 Elections, Democrats ran an election war game of a close election.  In this simulation Democrat activist John Podesta refused to concede and extracted political promises by threatening that West Coast states, such as California, Oregon and Washington would leave the Union unless they got their way.   This obstinate political modus operandi seems to echo the extracted promises from the Compromise of 1877. 

A hypothetical overtime in political football seems pretty theoretical but strange things have happened in 2020. We may be suffering from the Chinese curse of “May you live in interesting times”, even without  Joe Biden assuming the Oval Office.

Remembering 9/11 Victims

A dozen years ago, two planes were hijacked by jihadist terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden and they were deliberately flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.  Within two hours, both towers fell, killing 2,118 civilians in the building, 147 crew and passengers from American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 along with 11 hijackers.

Here is raw footage with raw sound from that chaotic day in lower Manhattan--

New York City chose to memorialize all of the innocent dead by creating a park with two waterfalls in the footprints of the Twin Towers, building a 1,176 foot high One World Trade Center (originally designated the Freedom Tower) and a$600 Million  museum to memorialize the horrific day.

There has been some controversy concerning the 9/11 memorials at Ground Zero in NYC.  It took over a decade to erect a new building which was meant to show American resolve.  The signature new World Trade Center building legally changed its name from the 102 story $3.1 Billion Freedom Tower to accommodate a 21 year lease with Vantone, a Chinese commercial realty company.  The 9/11 museum drew fire for featuring the jihadist hijackers "for the  historical narrative".  Some have complained that political correctness has gone made at Ground Zero erasing anything heroic, patriotic or influencing the narrative.  Atheists even tried to exclude a cross formed by two steel beams in the WTC collapse that gave many Ground Zero rescue workers solace, but fortunately courts denied this claim.



On September 11th 2001 at 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 flew into a first floor western facing wall of the Pentagon.  The crash killing 125 people on the ground (including 55 civilians)   53 passengers, six crew and five jihadist hijackers

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (third from right) assists with the injured at the Pentagon 9/11/2001

.The 184 victims of the attack on the Pentagon were honored in an outdoor memorial on the southwest corner of the Pentagon which was designed by Julie Beckman and Steve Kaseman with 184 illuminated benches arranged by age and whether they were in the building or aboard the terrorist hijacked aircraft.




United Airlines Flight 93, the Newark to San Francisco scheduled flight with a crew of seven and 33 passengers was hijacked by four jihadist terrorists.




The passengers revolted against the hijackers after learning of the other hijackings. Flight 93 crashed in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  It was  believed that had the jihadist hijackers prevailed, the plane was headed to crash into the US Capitol.  But in 2009 a high ranking al Qaeda detainee revealed that Flight 93's specific target was  White House. Whatever the case, these heroic passengers were first conscious US combatants in the War on Terrorism.




There was some controversy with the original design of the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The memorial originally was supposed to include 40 groves of red maple trees shaped like a crescent.  To quiet the debate, the 93 foot Tower of Voices has 40 wind chimes and a grove of 40 red maple trees which circle the walkway, following the bowl shape of the former surface mine.

As time has passed, the September 11th 2001 attack could fall into the recesses of memory for many Americans directly untouched by the fanatical atrocity. May we always remember the 9/11 victims and never forget the American virtues which made US a target of those wishing to establish a world-wide Caliphate.

A Diamond Analogy for the Flynn Judicial Fiasco

Attorney Sidney Powell, the replacement defense counsel for General Michael Flynn, filed an artful petition to the DC US Court of Appeals for a Writ of Mandamus to facilitate the withdrawal of a wrongfully compelled guilty plea and to replace the trial judge who made serious legal errors and displayed bias towards the defendant.

Attorney Powell made an effective case on the law, but she was also adept at analogizing her argument for the general public. 

;[L] Sidney Powell, [R] General Michael Flynn

If this petition is accepted, defendant Flynn will have an ardent advocate to pursue a case against his prior counsel from Covington and Burling (where Eric Holder, who was President Obama's first Attorney General and "wingman", is a partner) for inadequate counsel.  Moreover, considering all of the documents which acting DNI Richard Grenell declassified, Flynn may have a strong case for malicious prosecution. 

Mazie Hirono on Due Process and Impeachment

Elizabeth Warren on Impeachment and Criminal Law

Brett Kavanaugh on the Confirmation Circus

Jonathan Turley on Due Process

James Madison on the Constitution

Remembering 9/11 Victims

Seventeen years ago, two planes were hijacked by jihadist terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden and they were deliberately flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.  Within two hours, both towers fell, killing 2,118 civilians in the building, 147 crew and passengers from American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 along with 11 hijackers.

Here is raw footage with raw sound from that chaotic day in lower Manhattan--

New York City chose to memorialize all of the innocent dead by creating a park with two waterfalls in the footprints of the Twin Towers, building a 1,176 foot high One World Trade Center (originally designated the Freedom Tower) and a $600 Million  museum to memorialize the horrific day.

Ground Zero Memorial, New York City

There has been some controversy concerning the 9/11 memorials at Ground Zero in NYC.  It took over a decade to erect a new building which was meant to show American resolve.  The signature new World Trade Center building legally changed its name from the 102 story $3.1 Billion Freedom Tower to accommodate a 21 year lease with Vantone, a Chinese commercial realty company.  The 9/11 museum drew fire for featuring the jihadist hijackers "for the  historical narrative".  Some have complained that political correctness has gone made at Ground Zero erasing anything heroic, patriotic or influencing the narrative.  Atheists even tried to exclude a cross formed by two steel beams in the WTC collapse that gave many Ground Zero rescue workers solace, but fortunately courts denied this claim.

On September 11th 2001 at 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 flew into a first floor western facing wall of the Pentagon.  The crash killing 125 people on the ground (including 55 civilians)   53 passengers, six crew and five jihadist hijackers

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (third from right) assists with the injured at the Pentagon 9/11/2001

The 184 victims of the attack on the Pentagon were honored in an outdoor memorial on the southwest corner of the Pentagon which was designed by Julie Beckman and Steve Kaseman with 184 illuminated benches arranged by age and whether they were in the building or aboard the terrorist hijacked aircraft.




United Airlines Flight 93, the Newark to San Francisco scheduled flight with a crew of seven and 33 passengers was hijacked by four jihadist terrorists.




The passengers revolted against the hijackers after learning of the other hijackings. Flight 93 crashed in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.  It was  believed that had the jihadist hijackers prevailed, the plane was headed to crash into the US Capitol.  But in 2009 a high ranking al Qaeda detainee revealed that Flight 93's specific target was  White House. Whatever the case, these heroic passengers were first conscious US combatants in the War on Terrorism.




There was some controversy with the original design of the Flight 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The memorial originally was supposed to include 40 groves of red maple trees shaped like a crescent.  To quiet the debate, the 93 foot Tower of Voices has 40 wind chimes and a grove of 40 red maple trees which circle the walkway, following the bowl shape of the former surface mine.

As time has passed, the September 11th 2001 attack could fall into the recesses of memory for many Americans directly untouched by the fanatical atrocity. May we always remember the 9/11 victims and never forget the American virtues which made US a target of those wishing to establish a world-wide Caliphate.

[This piece previously was published on District of Calamity]

Sheldon Whitehouse on Rules

On Trump and the Courts

Joe Biden on the Ginsburg Rule

Rejecting Tomi Lahren's Pink Slime Pro-Choice Perspectives

In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution.

Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights.  She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion.  This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative.    Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.

“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice...
What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”

Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973).  Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion.

Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues.  Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable.  Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy.  No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception

Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within  penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation.

Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable.  This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat.  Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive.   That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism.

Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism.   In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided.  But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. 

It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis.  In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism.  No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. 

Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is  seen on the television menu.

President Donald Trump on Vetting SCOTUS Nominees

Antonin Scalia on the Constitution

Clarence Thomas on Universal Injunctions

Dennis Miller's SCOTUS Snark

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

On the Loch Ness Monster of the DC Swamp