Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has been a vanguard on coping with COVID-19, much to the consternation of authoritarian leftist politicians and the lapdog legacy media.
DeSantis' suffered the slings from elites elites and produced some pushback, making him a serious contender for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, especially if former President Donald Trump does not run.
While DeSantis' message is right and his no-nonsense approach is noteworthy, his messaging needs to be more pithy.
Over the weekend, some street artwork appeared in the District of Calamity which raised me eyebrows. While it is not uncommon for fringe activists to paste notices of happenings on lamp posts, exposed brick walls and even some sidewalks. In a city which voted 95% for Democrats, the scrawled "Fuck Trump" graffiti was commonplace. And in response to the rioting in cities during the summer of 2020, Downtown DC even commissioned local artists to paint "Black Lives Matter" on boarded up building windows.
With that in mind, it was remarkable to see peoples' propaganda that was not progressive street art as the oeuvres satirized "Scientism" and compliance in response to COVID-19.
Even though we are bombarded by progressive platitudes that "All are welcome" and "Co-exist", as well as the notion that we are supposed to accept challenging artwork, even if it offends us, it did not take long for people to rip down "right wing" things which run contrary to their weltanschaaung.
Several years ago, conservative street artist Sabo skewered Tinseltown (a.k.a. L.A.) with some provocative posters just before the Oscars noting how political correctness is killing their box office. However, in Fantasyland on the Potomac (a.k.a. DC) the Soviet styled counter COVID agiprop really hits home, as it seems like insulated, unelected Commissars (like Fauci) have a profound effect on the US body politic. Moreover, the artwork questions the current regimes instinct to demand compliance because "it's science!", even if the underlying facts are contrary to the ukases.
What seems particularly poignant is the poster about the children. Newly inaugurated Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) fulfilled a campaign promise to prohibit mandatory masking of children in schools, even though some Northern Virginia school districts, such as Fairfax and Arlington counties, vowed to defy this executive order. There is increasing evidence that most masks are ineffective against COVID-19, even if they are properly worn (which is questionable with school children all day). This agiprop highlights that masking may not mainly be about public health concerns but indoctrination of ideology and inculcation of authoritarianism.
What may be a better barometer as to how this agiprop is received by the public may be show in the Defeat the Mandate DC rally on Sunday January 23rd on the National Mall. Of course the mainstream media will mostly ignore this gathering, like the National Right to Life March. But if this rally against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passports is able to muster a giant crowd. it will demonstrate the unpopularity of authoritarian "answers" to a public health crisis.
H/T: @LeighWolf via Twitter
@neontaster (Noam Wolf) via Twitter
Even with that prescreening advantage, it is remarkable how often Biden Chief Spokesperson Jen Psaki has to "Circle back."
H/T Molly Hemingway
During his first days as the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), preened over his newfound power to set the agenda. But Schumer's smarmy remarks about the snap Second Impeachment of Donald Trump will be hard to live down.
On January 13th, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump for a second time in a mostly party line vote 232 to 197 (with ten Republican voting aye). This second Snap Impeachment in H. Res. 24 (117th Congress) was on a single charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”, predicated on remarks made at a political rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021 as Congress was set to certify the Electoral College results for the Presidential Election.
After certification of the November 3rd election results, President Trump’s term ends on January 20th, meaning that the snap Impeachment, which only acts as a judicial equivalent of an indictment, was in the last seven days of President Trump’s term of office. The Senate was not scheduled be in session until January 19th and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was unwilling to convene in emergency session, so the earliest that the Senate could take up an Article of Impeachment (presuming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promptly send it over this time) is 1 p.m. on January 20th, one hour after newly inaugurated President Joe Biden takes his oath of office.
Any astute political observers understand that this Second Impeachment was not meant to evict Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office but to besmirch his place in history and seek him from exercising any political power after January 20th. Unfortunately, this political stunt has some serious repercussions for the polity, the rule of law and even the Constitution.
Firstly, there was a rush to remove President Trump. When the Capitol Siege occurred on January 6th, Trump was only going to be in office for less than two weeks. When the Snap Impeachment was passed, the 45th President would leave office in seven days. But that perspective only looks towards part of the consequences and not the cause. Facts about the violence on Capitol Hill have been fluid. Vital questions such as who were the instigators of the insurrection and why a couple hundred agitators were allowed inside the Capitol. Thus is seems unwise to rush to judgment, but that did not deter Nancy Pelosi’s drive to impeach Trump again.
A day before the Impeachment vote in the House, the House passed a Resolution (on a purely party line vote) which implored Vice President Pence and the Trump Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would (temporarily) remove President Trump and make Pence Acting President pending Congressional assent. The 25th Amendment was intended for instances when the Chief Executive was incapacitated, not for policy disagreements or “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
The proper Congressional role in the 25th Amendment is to ratify the Acting President, not to instigate his or her installation. This Resolution abrogates the Separation of Powers, namely having part of the Legislative Branch leveraging the Vice President with a threat of an Impeachment vote unless Mr. Pence invoked the 25th Amendment. That kind of sounds like Speaker Pelosi was drunk on power for countenancing that Constitutional breach.
The Snap Impeachment of 2021 was done at super speed in less than seven days from the Capitol Siege to passing the Article of Impeachment. The charge “Inciting an Insurrection” is a serious charge, verging on treason, thus one might try to justify an accelerated procedure. But it that were the case, then why didn’t the House stay in session to actuate the Impeachment. Instead, the House took the weekend off. The Impeachment was delayed by a voice vote on Monday January 11th rejecting the 25th Amendment Resolution and then passage of the unconstitutional 25th Amendment Resolution on January 12th before proceeding to the Snap Impeachment on January 13th.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee labored seven months drafting the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon (who resigned before any final Congressional vote). The Impeachment process of President Bill Clinton lasted four months. Even President Trump’s first Impeachment took three months. Yet, the slim Democrat majority in the House lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to pass an Article of Impeachment with three HOURS of floor “debate” and no committee work.
Unlike in the Impeachment of 2020 when some of President Trump’s staff were allowed to offer some positive input, there was no fact finding or committee hearings before the Impeachment Debate. So the Snap Impeachment ignored precedent.
It can be argued that an impeachment is like an indictment. Some cynically say that a Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, as the defendant is not entitled to counsel in that forum.
Part of the animus against President Trump is for his brusque manner which agitates people. The Article of Impeachment which passed cited “Inciting an Insurrection” and pointed to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric as part of the charge. With that in mind, it was curious that the rules for debate on the 25th Amendment and Impeachment resolution lifted decorum prohibitions. This allowed members like freshman Representative Cori Bush (D-MO 1st) slanderously referred to the gathering on the Ellipse to the White Supremicist-in-chief addressing White Supremicists (sic). Not surprisingly, this comes from the same Member who proposed expelling any Congressmen who voted against certifying electors (N.B. bill was dropped on January 5th, the day before the ruckus). With actions and language like Rep. Bush, one wonders who is inciting unrest.
One of the things that were done on the first day of the 117th Congress was rules in the House which barred Members from using gender specific language in legislative business. Yet when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) gave a rare floor speech in favor of the snap Impeachment, she proclaimed “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter...”
Guess that rules are only intended to be applied for peasants or the opposition, even silly ones.
Even though the Snap Impeachment was done in an expedited fashion, it was not immediately walked over to the Senate. While Impeachment Managers were named, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) who was recently exposed as having involvement with Chinese spy Fang Fang, the Article was not conveyed to the Upper Chamber for trial. It is unclear when Speaker Pelosi will send over the Article of Impeachment. For the 2020 Impeachment, Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before sending them to the Senate. So much for a supposed clear and present danger.
With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that essentially this was not a second impeachment of impeachment of Donald Trump but more of a show trial, Soviet style which gave the illusion of some system of justice but had a predetermined outcome dictated by the ruling House legislative majority. Aside from exercising its rightful impeachment power, there were attempts at Congressional dominance over the Executive branch and eschewed principles of due process which have influenced America’s common law heritage.
But that is only considering the ramifications from one chamber of Congress. The Senate is where the Impeachment Trial occurs. This will be made complicated due to timing. Again, it is unclear when the Article of Impeachment will be transmitted. If the House Majority truly wanted to eject President Trump from office, it would be immediately sent. The snag with that is the Constitution requires that the Senate immediately take up the Impeachment and can conduct no other legislative business.
The Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until January 19th, and won’t be put into emergency session sooner. Current Senate Majority Leader McConnell is circulating a draft rule which requires unanimous consent to doing business aside from Impeachment. It is improbable that in such a contentious environment that all 100 Senators grant such a deviation from customary procedure. So when the Impeachment Article is conveyed, it will dominate Senate business.
It is conceivable that if House Impeachment Managers present themselves with House Res. 24 to the Senate on January 19th, that McConnell could press the Senate to immediately consider a Motion to Dismiss which could pass by simple majority vote. Looking at it politically, Democrats can crow that Trump was impeached twice and Republicans are forced to indicate if they still support a besmirched President Trump. But it is unclear if the Republican caucus in the Senate could hold firm to dismiss. If it is a razor thin vote, it might require current Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie. If the motion fails, then the Senate would immediately be broiled into an Impeachment trial.
When the inauguration occurs on January 20th, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) will become Vice President and surrender her seat in the Senate, but constitutionally she will become President of the Senate. This role will allow her to break tie votes, which will be crucial in a 50–50 split Senate, thereby giving Democrats the majority. This means that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becomes Senate Majority Leader and will call the tunes for the Impeachment trial, but changing the operational rules again could be a sticking point.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC 6th) has suggested that the Impeachment trial be delayed to give President Biden his 100 day honeymoon. That won’t be possible if the House rushes the Article of Impeachment, but that is unlikely. Presuming the Impeachment is held until May, it will hang over the new President’s head and may well force involvement, either to allay the situation or verbally stumble into taking a stance.
There is a significant Constitutional question as to the propriety of the Impeachment of a President after he or she has left office. Impeachment is a process in which the legislature brings charges against a civil officer of the government. Well, after Noon on January 20th 2021, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen again. It is moot as to whether it would be proper for the Senate to try a private citizen. Prominent contemporary legal scholars like Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershewitz and Jonathan Turley argue against impeachment of an ex President. But there is a little historical precedence for it.
In 1876, there is the example of Secretary of War William Belknap who was investigated by the House for corruption. But minutes before the Impeachment occurred, Belknap submitted his resignation to President Ulysses S. Grant. However, the House impeached him anyways and the Senate tried him but failed to get the 2/3ds majority. This issue is not clear cut and would probably prompt judicial consideration which will likely be rejected as a political issue. Then again, it might force Chief Justice John Roberts to consider a difficult issue while proceeding over a Senate trial.
Why would Democrats go through all of the trouble to impeach a President who was essentially a short timer anyways? Aside from trying to blot out a Trump presidency either with black marks or essentially cancel him, it would seem that they are scared about his future viability. Post Presidency Impeachment may not be able to remove Trump but would also barr him from ever holding federal office again. Considering the 74 million plus supporters who seem undeterred by bad press or even a snap impeachment, Democrats do not want strong opposition in 2024 to a weak Biden Administration featuring Kamala Harris. Some establishment Republicans would feel safer if the Populist America First movement goes away with Donald Trump. Thus they might encourage impeachment to dampen his pull on the party and they can continue unimpeded in their quintessential District of Calamity (sic) cocktail party.
There is a practical political consideration about a Senate Impeachment trial. Namely, are there the votes? Unlike procedural issues, the Senate is required by the Constitution to garner a 2/3rds majority to succeed. While there may be a few Republicans who despise Trump enough to vote for Impeachment, it would be hard to win 17 GOP votes. Even if Senate Democrats abolish the filibuster and push through Puerto Rican and Douglass Commonwealth (a.k.a. DC) statehood, they would still have to sway 15 Republicans.
Then there are the procedural problems with Trump’s second impeachment. There is only one Article, and that cites “Inciting an Insurrection”. Aside from the plain language of Trump’s Ellipse speech which never incited his audience, it can be shown that trouble was occurring 1 ½ miles away on Capitol Hill before the President finished his speech. Furthermore, facts from the FBI and mainstream media sources reveal that some agitators who have radical BLM and Antifa connections had been planning for trouble prior to the Capitol Siege. This information will have to be fleshed out in a fair trial.
Moreover, the Resolution’s language points to Trump’s citation of false information about winning the election. Of course, all Americans (even a President) have the Freedom of Speech, even if it is demonstrably wrong. But by citing Trump's prior speeches and claims, that opens the door for Trump’s defense team to further expose and substantiate all of the election irregularities that state courts, Article III courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear on their cases merits. That may take a long time and could upset the apple cart about the 2020 elections, further throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency.
Then there is the matter of Big Tech. Social Media giants like Twitter and Facebook censored President Trump when questioning the election. To add injury to insult (sic), these Social Media Cyber Nannies banned President Trump from even making statements to tell his supporters to go home peacefully. That may open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020.
As the Article of Impeachment proof texts Trump’s remarks to find the most inflammatory takes, context might examine social media’s role in the matter. That avenue of defense open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020. If incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer resists allowing the Trump team a vigorous defense, it will become clear that it is a show trial worthy of a Soviet state or a banana republic (not the kind selling safari clothing).
However, if some wild cards come up during the trial, such as obvious election fraud or collusion, some may prefer visit Niagra Falls over a barrel, with or without Dr. Jill.
Just as the Biden campaign was not about him but all about Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Trump may well overshadow the early Biden presidency. While the will to get Trump might be widely held among Democrats (and some establishment Republicans), actuating this animus may well impede the ambitions of “The Great Reset”.
On the Christian calendar, January 6th was the Epiphany, a day of illumination. In the Constitutional process, it was the day when Congress would consider and ratify the results of the Electoral College. As President Donald Trump was convinced that election irregularities had stolen his victory from November 3rd, he called for a big Save America rally on the Ellipse to #StopTheSteal.
Instead of being remembered as a time when defenders of the rule of law in Congress put forth a case that some of the state’s election results were invalid, most people will remember a Siege of the Capitol, in which Congress left in haste, troublemakers overtook part of the building and one woman was shot and killed. Conventional wisdom will link the rioting with the Deplorables’ March on Washington, and establishment opinion makers will use it as a means to discredit the populist political movement, or even to remove President Trump by a late day impeachment or the 25th Amendment.
In the fog of war, there is a lot of confusion. So when trying to make sense of the Capitol Siege, there are some things that do not add up. A basic question is how could agitators so easily breach the Capitol building? After all, the date was when all federal lawmakers and the Vice President would be gathering at the Capitol for what is usually a pro forma ceremony. It was clear that some objections would be raised and there would be debate over certification. Surely, security plans would afford added protection for the lawmakers. In addition, Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-Washington, DC) had requested (and received) help from the National Guard while warning residents to stay home. With that in mind, how did the Capitol so easily find itself in peril?
Deployment of forces certainly was part of the problem. The National Guard called up was initially tasked with directing traffic around many of the blocked off streets around Capitol Hill and downtown DC. National Guard typically does not get front line security deployments because of posse commitatus concerns and letting local law enforcement take the lead. In retrospect, it seems silly to have troops play traffic cops when there were a half million protesters going to march up the National Mall to the Capitol to protest “Stop the Steal”.
One also has to wonder about the Capitol Hill police. Video from when protestors breached the West lawn perimeter does not depict officers with full riot equipment as they clashed with troublemakers wearing helmets and carrying shields who later broke into the Capitol. But there are videos videos both on the West exterior stairs and the West entrance which give the impression that agitators were let into the complex by Capitol Police. This seemed strange.
Then one must consider the timing of the Capitol Siege. President Trump was still speaking on the Ellipse at 1 PM when the Joint Session of Congress met for Electoral College Certification. Shortly after certification began (ironically when the Arizona objections were raised), was when serious challenges of the Capitol building entrances began. The Ellipse is at least a mile and a half away from the Capitol. It seems like troublemakers were pre-positioned on Capitol Hill to riot. Adding to that conclusion is that the House Cannon Office Building and Library of Congress Madison buildings had been evacuated earlier in the day for security concerns. Moreover, law enforcement found potential pipe bombs near the RNC which had to be detonated. Kind of odd for conservatives and populists who needed Republican support to air their objections to physically threat the Republican National Committee.
To make sense of the Capitol Siege, it is incumbent to examine who perpetrated the breach. A facile answer is MAGA types. While there is no doubt that a multitude of passionate protestors came to Capitol Hill to exercise their First Amendment rights, most milled around the Capitol steps and did not go inside. But that's hardly the whole story.
Many who were photographed trespassing in legislative chambers or the Rotunda did not fit the bill as quintessential MAGA rally attendees. Giving the BLM salute while sitting in the Senate President pro tem’s seat is incongruous with Trump supporters. Jake Angeli (aka QAnon Shaman), an agitator dressed like a Viking had been seen at BLM and Climate Change rallies, again not run of the mill MAGA issues.
A rioter who assumed the seat of the President pro tempe of the Senate made the quintessential BLM power gesture.
Pro Trump protestors stopped Antifa agitators when caught ransacking the Capitol. At prior DC MAGA rallies in November and December, Antifa had counter-protests and assaulted peaceful MAGA protesters on the streets. Where were such agitators on January 6th? Nonetheless, it seems that fringe elements and agitators were the instigating the violence.
This is not to imply that some Trump supporters did not participate in the unlawful Capitol Siege. Leo Kelly, a Capitol Siege participant interviewed by LifeSiteNews gave an interview saying that he participated in a communal prayer while trespassing in the Senate Chamber. A West Virginia State lawmaker recorded his storming the Capitol and was heard directing people in the Rotunda not to do any damage. Ashli Babbet, the woman who was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer, was a 14 year Air Force veteran who had flown into Washington for the rally. Capitol Police report that three other people died at the Capitol. But some of those casualties may well have stemmed from ordinary health maladies.
It is a reasonable presumption that a relatively small group of Antifa types created chaos on Capitol Hill, breached the Capitol and egged the many disgruntled MAGA demonstrators to participate. With the prior soft barricades being removed, many from the Ellipse surrounded the Capitol, probably with the attitude that “it’s the peoples’ house”.
In trying to make sense of the fallout from the Capitol Siege, it was easy to see how this violence overshadowed any objections to certifying some of the Presidential Electors due to election irregularities. It was clear that the 117th Congress was unlikely to accept any objections, considering the slim Democrat majority in the House and Republican Senate leadership coming out against them. Moreover, Vice President Pence issued a statement claiming that he had no power in the matter other than acting as a ceremonial manner, quashing hopes that some certifications would be sent back to the states. However, the objections to certification would have given a public forum to show the facts in a formal setting, so they would not be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Alas, debate on the first set of objections in Arizona was interrupted by the Capitol breach.
When Congress reconvened that evening, some lawmakers who previously considering joining the objectors switched sides, and in general consensus Congress rushed through the certification. Those who wondered about the propriety of certifying states with voting and election irregularities will be left unsatisfied and will likely conclude that President-elect Biden holds office under questionable legitimacy. Seeing how quickly Republican establishment lawmakers folded under pressure gives the impression of being quislings. Those groups who make trade of violent street protests as a vehicle for change will feel empowered. The establishment in the media and on Capitol Hill may well use this as the pivot point to discredit populism and re–establish Deep State authority.
President-elect Biden gave a speech imploring President Trump to condemn the violence and demand an end to the siege. At the same time, President Trump was recording a message for social media urging people to go home and be peaceful. But tech oligarchs on Twitter and Facebook interfered with distributing President Trump's message and later suspended Mr. Trump until he withdrew that message because it might incite violence and questioned the election results. Now our cyber betters have indefinitely banned the 45th President from Facebook
It is also odd that more National Guard troops were called up and their mission was changed by Vice President Pence and the Acting Secretary of Defense in conjunction with Congressional leaders. Isn't the President Commander-in-Chief? If one takes the rumors that Cabinet officials were talking (but not with Vice President Pence) about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump, doesn't this lend credence to something resembling a coup?
In the aftermath of the Capitol Siege, many details are distorted or undiscovered so there is not a true Epiphany. One ought to give some consideration that these events may have been an attempt to actuate a Color Revolution and progressive forces use the chaos to make a play and power and cement their dominance over the body politick. As noted before, Antifa was not present in their typical garb, but their tactics and some mannerism seemed evident amongst some rioters. On January 5th, there were caches of bricks, lumber and propane tanks stowed on the street near Freedom Plaza, close to MAGA protest sites. Those supplies have the hallmarks of Antifa or BLM rioting tools. But with the Capitol Hill Siege being successful, they were not deployed.
Time will tell if such kinetic tactics will continue in the 46th President’s Administration or will markedly expand to other fringe groups. Moreover, it is unknown if the civic response to this anarchistic agitation create crackdowns on civil liberties or against voices which challenge the Establishment "mainstream".
Post Scriptus 01/12/2021
There have been indications that there were Antifa Agent Provocateurs who planned to create chaos and egged passionate Pro-Trump protestors to storm the Capitol.
In an extended interview with the Epoch Times, war correspondent Michael Yon noted how organized Hong Kong tactics were evident outside of the Capitol during the siege. In addition, Yon observed how peaceful Pro-Trump demonstrators tried to stop these agents provocateurs and sought to separate themselves from their anarchy.
h/t: The Epoch Times
In response to COVID 19, much of America practically shut down for much of 2020. Many Americans lost their jobs, particularly in the hospitality and restaurant industries. Congress passed a few bills intending to funnel stimulus money as a lifeline to these economically vulnerable Americans. But as the second wave of extreme closures hit parts of America during the holiday season, such payments from Uncle Sam to stem the financial pain are critical.
The fourth COVID stimulus were held up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for admittedly partisan reasons. Prior to the election, Pelosi demanded $2.5 trillion legislation, which included bailouts of states with underfunded extravagant public pensions. The Trump White House proposed a $1.6 trillion plan but was willing to increase it to $2 trillion to meet Democrats half way. Still, Pelosi was intransigent until it appeared that Joe Biden (D-DE) was the presumptive President-elect. So Congressional Democrats only got serious about another COVID stimulus bill until the December rush from Capitol Hill to be home for Christmas
Lame Duck Congress sessions after an election often take a devil may care attitude since the scrutiny of the ballot box won't happen for another two years and some members are not returning to Capitol Hill.
The Lame Duck 116th Congress was tasked with passing tardy spending bills which were supposed to have been finalized by the end of the Fiscal Year (September 30th). It seems that the plan from leadership of both parties was to pass a couple of stop gap Federal Spending Bills to buy time from a government shutdown, then rush to pass an $2.3 Trillion Omnibus Appropriation Bill that is a Christmas Tree, meaning that there were all sorts of decoration of ancillary legislation which becomes a must pass bill.
To add to the Slapdash Santa spirit, the powers that be agreed to pass a "skinny" COVID stimulus bill of ONLY $900 million of deficit spending, which earmarked a $600 check to Americans earning less than $75,000. Considering the financial insecurity of many Americans due to COVID, the Christmas rush when it was expected that people would not focus on the goings of Swamp City and the desire for President Trump to mitigate damage to his legacy, this must pass bill was expected to go through..
There were two flaws to this legislative strategy. While Congress only had a few hours to review a five thousand page bit of legislation before passage, the details started to leak out. Social media balked when it was discovered that only $190 million the the $900 million is set to go to needy Americans. The rest of it was a pork Christmas tree, with expenditures for earmarks like $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, funding for an American Womens' History Museum and an American Latino Museum on the National Mall, and nearly $90 million for Senate building maintenance. This raised the rankles of an already agitated American public. The House passed the combined COVID Relief package and Consolidated Appropriations measure (HR 133) by a 359-53 margin and the Senate passed the measure 92-6
The other thing impeding the typical jamming through pork barrel at the end of the year when people won't notice involves the 45th President. President Donald Trump deems himself a disruptor from the swampy ways of the Deep State. Even though the mainstream media has been parsing precious little time to President Trump since after the election, the Disrupter -in-Chief leveraged his social media skills to distribute a viral video.
President Trump demanded that every American ought to get a $2,000 stimulus check and the bill sent to him should be stripped of the other pork barrel legislation. Trump intimated that he may not sign the tripe bill that was sent to him. Since Congress procrastinated to nearly the end of the 116th Congress, the President could have a pocket veto--meaning that by doing nothing (keeping it in his pocket) that the legislation fails.
This puts Congress in a perilous situation. They recognize that there constituents are really hurting and they will lose confidence in them if they fail on a stimulus, especially when their prior bill was laden with wasteful pork barrel projects that have nothing to do with COVID. While the Comprehensive COVID Stimulus and Appropriations legislation passed by veto proof majorities, a pocket veto does not require resubmission to Congress. They let legislative time effectively run out for the customary rule of legislation.
The second problem is timing. The Continuing Resolution only funds the government until December 28th. So if President Trump fails to sign HR 133 and uses a pocket veto, then there will be a government shutdown. Congress may well get the blame for pushing pork barrel pet projects and giving taxpayers a pittance whereas the President wants to give every American adult $2,000. To avoid a pocket-veto, they would have to stay in session during the week between Christmas and New Years Day. And they could not easily do pro forma sessions because the Spending Continuing Resolution expires on December 28th.
A third issue is populist agitation. When the 117th Congress convenes on January 6th, they are supposed to certify the Electoral College results. Since President Trump is positioning his Congressional forces to contest some of the election irregularities in several battleground states. In conjunction with the Congressional vote, President Trump has called for a rally which he promised will be wild. Imagine the animus of a large group of "deplorables" against elected officials who won't "Stop the Steal", but due to their greed and indolence are holding back significant COVID relief packages for ordinary Americans.
It is unclear if and when additional COVID relief payments are doled out, as well as the fate of contested election. But because of lame ducks, Christmas trees and pocket vetoes, the next few weeks in Washington won't be as the Establishment had planned.
Now that the mainstream media has moved on with the presumption that Joe Biden is the President-elect, the chatter is now about the trappings of his Administration. As the public is growing accustomed to “the new normal”, there is a kerfluffel concerning honorifics attached to the First Lady, Jill Biden. Staff surrounding the wife of the President-elect have made it clear that she be referred to as “Doctor” Jill Biden.
Jill Biden earned her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Delaware in English in 1975. Jill Biden earned a Masters degree in education with a specialty of Reading from West Chester State College in 1981 while working as a teacher. In 1987, Jill got a Masters in English from Villanova University. Years later, she returned to school for her doctoral studies under her birth name Jill Jacobs. In January 2007, she was awarded a Doctor of Education (Ed.D) degree from the University of Delaware in “Educational Leadership”. She published her dissertation: Student Retention at the Community College: Meeting Students’ Needs as Jill Jacobs-Biden. The thrust of her thesis is that Delaware Technical and Community College (where she was an instructor) needed a Student Center.
So Jill Jacobs-Biden earned a BA, a MA in Reading, a MA in English, and a Ed.D in Educational Leadership. That is a bit of sheepskin to hang on the walls. The specialty education in reading probably was quite instructive as Jill acted as a reading specialist. Dr. Jill prowess as an Education Leader combined with her intimate connection to a 34 year senior Senator from Delaware likely scared up funding for the Community College’s student centers (as there are multiple campuses).
That being said, it seems a bit presumptuous to demand that the public and the pliant press refer to her as Doctor Jill Biden. Being a political junky, I’m reminded of when former Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) dressed down a polite General testifying on Capitol Hill for calling her “Ma’am”, as she had worked so hard to get that title of Senator. Of course, who can forget Dr. Evil from Austin Powers demanding his honorific after six years in evil medical school.
Not all public figures choose to preen their pedigrees. Even though Bill Cosby also earned a Doctor of Education degree, he did not insist on being addressed with the honorific “Doctor”. Then there is Ben Carson, a world wide renowned brain surgeon who served as President Trump’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In his many media appearances, how often was he called Doctor (despite his medical degree) or did he insist on being addressed by that title?
America’s incoming Gaffer in Chief Joe Biden once explained why his wife sought higher degrees:
“She said, ‘I was so sick of the mail coming to Sen. and Mrs. Biden. I wanted to get mail addressed to Dr. and Sen. Biden.’ That’s the real reason she got her doctorate.”
It is unclear if Joe Biden followed that up with his patent “I’m not joking.” In some senses, the quote might have been intentional deprecation to charm a lunch bucket audience. Still, Joe often says uncomfortable off scripted things which reveal truths so judge for yourself. But Joe does not seem impressed by the aura of Dr. Jill’s status.
When a Wall Street Journal opinion writer penned a piece mocking Jill’s people insisting that she be called Dr. Biden, it created some controversy. Those prone to support a nascent Biden Administration defended Doctor Jill, claiming that calling her anything less was misogynistic.
Tucker Carlson bothered to read her thesis and found it riddled with typos, creative math and extremely awkward phrasing, which seems striking considering her Master’s in English.
Some parts sound slapdash and poorly edited. Still the University of Delaware awarded her a Ed.D.
Tucker Carlson rejected inevitable claims of sexist and affirmatively asserted that Jill was much smarter than her husband Joe. Carlson’s conclusion was that the controversy swirls around classism, that there are expectations of a certain sort of person that they have the right credentials, be they academic or accorded by a prestigious professional position, not to create but to lord over you. They have the presumption that their titles and status gives them “gravitas”.
While I can appreciate Tucker Carlson’s populist points, I believe that is only part of the story. Culture plays some part in the application of honorifics. In Latin countries, there is the tendency to address someone with a degree as “doctor” to lend credence to their arguments. In Poland, they are sticklers in demanding the use of honorifics for doctors, academicians and professors. But America was founded in an egalitarian environment which eschewed peerages and fancy titles.
Generally, in our culture we reserve the honorific Doctor to those with medical degrees. In academic circles, they may apply doctor to give their dissertations distinction. For some clergy who have garnered advanced degrees, such as the Dr. Martin Luther King, we accord that honorific. If one sought to be accurate, lawyers who have earned a Juris Doctor would be lawyers, but calling them Doctor would seem pretentious (especially after receiving their bills). Even attorneys would insist on signing with Esquire or JD are deemed kind of pretentious.
Following George Washington’s wishes, even the US Chief Executive is given a diminished honorific “Mr. President”, although we accord it much more prestige due to the power he (or she) wields.
But the presidential honorific is tempered with the esteem of the occupant. Many feel that President Trump did not receive “all due respect” from a contemptuous press. And after the shenanigans of the electoral Compromise of 1877, many referred to President Rutherford B. Hayes as “His Frauduency”. I fear that unless the questions about election irregularities are cleared up before Biden’s inauguration, that mocking title may make a revival.
Being a denizen of the District, it is easy to see most things through a political lens. Thus I believe that narrative is another important element of entitlement. More than just Tucker Carlson’s assertion that people of a certain class are expected to have certain trappings, political opinion makers can spin them to give additional gravitas to those with whom they give favor. President Barack Obama was portrayed as being a Constitutional because he taught at The University of Chicago. But if one digs deeper into that assertion, Obama was only an instructor and his curriculum was more about Saul Alinsky and being a community activist.
Defying Biden’s bumbling reputation, Joe Biden is esteemed in academia. Joe Biden has honorary degrees from the University of Scranton (1976), St Joseph’s University (LLM 1981), Wiedener University Law (2000), Emerson College (2003), Delaware State University (LLD 2004), Suffolk University Law (2005), Syracuse University (LLD 2009), Wake Forest Univeristy (LLD 2009), the University of Pennsylvania (LLD 2013), Miami Dade College (2014), University of South Carolina (DPA 2014), Trinity College, Dublin (LLD 2016), Colby College (2016), and Morgan State University (DPS 2017). See how smart you can look giving commencement speeches.
But Joe Biden’s academic prowess does not stop there. For years, Joe Biden co-taught a political science course at Wiedener University on Saturdays. Joe Biden raised enough money under his name for the University of Pennsylvania to create the The Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. Joe also joined the University of Pennsylvania Annenburg School of Arts and Sciences as Ben Franklin Presidential Practice Professor, but it is unclear if he actually taught anything there or if he served in other ways.
The University of Delaware named their School of Public Policy after him as he donated his nearly half century of papers to them. Some scholars wanted access to Senate paperwork during the campaign but they were off limits. Enquiring minds want to know why.
In the minds of opinion makers, one has respectability with lots of degrees or holding diplomas from prominent schools, which can elicit the cynical retort: “Oh sure, but he went to Harvard”.
However, such respect is not accorded to those on their political naughty list. Consider President George W. Bush. As a Republican, one is typically typecast as evil or stupid. In the case of “W”, it was the latter. Bush was painted as being stupid, despite being an alum of Yale and earning a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard. He went to the “right” schools but Bush isn’t a Democrat so he was demeaned as a dummy. In fact, while occupying the Oval Office, President Bush read a book a week. But that did not go with the prevailing narrative.
Ronald Reagan did not have storied academic career, earning a BA from Eureka College. Reagan was typecast in critical conventional wisdom as an amiable actor who knew how to read his script in “B” movies, the TV teleprompter and on the radio. Yet after his death, it was discovered that his weekly scripts which delved deep into political conservatism was written by his own hand. But that contradicted the narrative foisted upon the public by elitist opinion makers.
This shaping of narrative is not limited to intellectual perceptions. Opinion makers can shape public perceptions of First Ladies too. When she was First Lady, Michelle Obama was a fashion plate, adorning the covers of numerous magazines which glowed about her stylings, despite having a more muscular figure. Then there is Melania Trump, who truly was a fashion model prior to coming to the White House, yet she has not been in one fashion magazine photo shoot or cover. Some critics have criticized how the Slovenian immigrant can’t speak English well. Of course that naysayer omitted that she speaks five languages. But pushing the narrative is more important.
To be fair with First Ladies, this narrative is not just shaped by the press or conventional wisdom. Pat Nixon did not want to be in the spotlight and wanted to support her husband’s middle class public persona. So as early as the Checkers speech of 1952, she was content to wear that cloth coat and steer clear from fashion coverage. President George Herbert Walker Bush’s wife Barbara cultivated the nickname “The Silver Fox” because of her grandmotherly demeanor. “Bar” was happy to play up the perception that her wardrobe mainly consisted of clothes from the Sears catalog. Those narrative nuggets demonstrate how some choose to deprecate themselves rather than emphasize entitlement.
Normally, narrative is entitlement in action by opinion makers. I suspect that Jill’s insistence at being called "Doctor Jill" may be more than just an ego message. Considering her degree in Educational Leadership and her numerous side-by-side appearances with her husband at their sparing 2020 campaign appearances, the public may be being set up for a more active role in a presumptive Biden Administration. Doctor Jill may seek to have a guiding hand publicly as well as privately, for educational policy. There has been Democrat talking points about making Community College free to students and the pandering promise to wipe out student debt.
To paraphrase Dr. King, I personally wish for a world in which people are judged by the content of their character rather than the title of their honorific. And what a wonderful world it would be.
For many Christians, Advent is a a time anticipation for our ultimate salvation via the incarnation of our Messiah Jesus the Christ. To get to that point, the faithful are asked to prepare by contemplating the end times and final judgment. That is why the liturgical readings are prophetical and often tinged with a sense of calamity. This preparation exposes hard ultimate truth and raises questions as to how we comport ourselves in the here and now.
In our culture we prefer the unbridled joy of Christmas Carols rather than the brooding meditations of Advent hymns, like "Wake, Oh Wake" and "Veni Emmanuel". One of the new contributions to the Advent repertoire is "Mary Did You Know?", a Protestant carol written by Mark Lowry 1984 and later set to music in 1991 by Buddy Green of the Gaither Vocal Band. The lyric were written as reflections between acts of a Christmas play which posed hard questions as to whether the Blessed Virgin Mary understood everything that would be implicated by her fiat, her assent to what God asked for in the Annunciation.
In the wake of the instances of election irregularities and accusations of coordinated voter fraud in Election 2020, Eric Metaxas did a a filk written by by John Zimrak and produced by Chris Hines of the contemporary Christmas-tide classic in "Biden Did You Know?
This video could be dismissed as a piece of propaganda from a Trump supporter blowing off steam at the victory of his opponent former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE). More sympathetic listeners might find it hard to hear as Mr. Metaxas is not a natural soloist. But the video raises some uncomfortable questions that the presumed President Elect must address as nearly half of Americans are under the impression that Election 2020 was stolen. Metaxas combined pop cultural film references, graphics which illustrated his points along with video evidence indicated election night Malarkey (sic), such as the Fulton County Georgia suitcase of hidden ballots, the Detroit TCF Cobo Center hidden vote count center and CNN's chyron of over a hundred thousand ballots instantly switching columns.
Even though Election 2020 was conducted during the COVID19 pandemic, the Biden presidential campaign was conducted in an extremely unorthodox fashion. During the General Election campaign, Biden basically hid in his basement with a message of defeating Trump and COVID19 using a wholesale campaign strategy. Biden ads ran heavily, along with allies like the Lincoln Project. Other campaign events included poorly attended Zoom calls and scripted "interviews" with friendly media (and Biden reading off a teleprompter or being corrected by his wife DOCTOR Jill Biden--sic).
During the normally intense two months before the November 3rd vote, the Biden campaign called "lids" (no news today) at nine am for a fortnight. Biden's running mate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) did not try to outshine the top of the ticket on the hustings. When Joe Biden deigned to be seen in public, he mostly appeared in Delaware or within even driving distance of Philadelphia. Such "rallies" were more media events, with basely a score of attendings sitting in COVID correct socially distanced circles.
This Biden/Harris unorthodox campaign conduct sharply contrasted with President Trump, who help scores of rallies which attracted tens of thousands of attendees per event, many unruly off the cuff pressers. Donald Trump definitely won 10 million votes more than 2016, with marked increases of support from African American and Hispanic voters. Trump had coat tails, with Republicans winning 27 of 27 key House races and the GOP only losing two Senate seats when they had 23 races to defend. Trump won 18 of 19 bellwether counties. Yet supposedly Trump lost by six million Popular Votes and lost several battleground states by small margins bolstered by midnight ballot drops thusJoe Biden wins 306 Electoral Votes. In the abstract, that doesn't make sense, but these facts may be derided as sour grapes.
In retrospect, there were several odd remarks from Democrats about the Biden campaign the post election aftermath that when they are juxtaposed with the election anomalies that give a skeptical body politic cause for pause as to "Biden did you know?".
One of Joe Biden's persistent traits is being a gaffe maker So often, his off the cuff remarks seem blunderously off-message, wrongfully boastful, and actually quite odd (e.g. "Corn Pop"). I was willing to consider those moments as being the Biden gaffe machine, which has been heighted due to obvious cognitive challenges and overplaying his "aw-shucks Uncle Joe" persona. But sometimes these gaffes reveal uncomfortable truths, albeit in a clumsy manner. A pithy maxim in the District of Calamity is that a gaffe is a politician telling the truth. Joe Biden has said: "A gaffe in Washington is someone telling the truth and telling the truth has never hurt me." OK, let's test that premise.
One of the most striking verbal blunders was when Joe Biden actually said that [Democrats] had put together the biggest and most extensive voter fraud organization in history. Wow, what a gaffe!
Perhaps he meant to say "Get Out the Vote" organization. But let's examine this gaffe with the facts. In the 116th Congress of 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put forth HR1, which was a measure that sought to imposes mail in voting nationwide. Note this was a year BEFORE the Wuhan Flu reached the shores of America. When that measure did not pass, a couple of COVID relief bills were held up in reconciliation bills because Speaker Pelosi insisted that liberal mail in voting laws be imposed nationwide. The Democrat National Committee spent considerable resources shepherding mail in voting laws in the states, despite the fact that the Carter/Baker Commission concluded in 2004 that mail in voting was prone to fraud. So was it a Biden gaffe or Joe telling an inconvenient truth?
Prior to November 3rd, there were warnings from Democrats and the media that because of COVID19 that we would not know the results of the election immediately. In fact, I recall some Democrats warning that it might appear that they would be down but in the end they would be victorious. Former Democrat Presidential candidate First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton implored Joe Biden not concede if the election is close, perhaps ruing her concession which complicated "The Resistance" after the 2016 Trump victory.
What is more likely is that Democrat leaders realized that when then Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. conceded and then retracted the concession after the 2000 election that they lost some of the narrative which impeded their victory in the contested election coverage. I believe that there was so much pressure on President Trump to promise to abide by the election results, and after November 3rd to extract a concession is to give the psychological impression that the cake is baked and to normalize the presumptive Biden/Harris Presidency. But true to character, President Trump is a fighter and chooses to brawl in the legal system for what he believes was a wrong result due to illegitimate votes.
Three days before the election, in a prominent rally in the Motor City along with Barack Obama, Joe Biden said something truly strange: "I don't need you to get me elected, I need you once I'm elected...". Sure, a candidate might long for support for his policies (whatever the actually are) once in office, but at a Get Out The Vote Rally affirmatively saying "I don't need you to get me elected"--Huh? It's hard to explain that away as a simple verbal blunder.
One other rhetorical oddity which makes one wonder "Biden did you know?" is how readily Biden publicly sees his departure from the Oval Office. Quite understandably, it is prudent for a frail, gaffe prone 78 year old to announce that he was chary about running for a second term. But towards the end of the campaign in Tampa, Biden referred to the Harris/Biden Administration. Politicians tend to be ego driven so juxtaposing your running mate as top of the ticket might be telling the public something. That theme was echoed by Kamala Harris proclaiming "The Harris Administration under Joe Biden as President." It's it's kind of presumptive or is it a plan. Then there was a the post election Biden/Harris CNN interview when Joe claimed that if we ever really disagree, then I'll develop a disease and resign.
;
Biden was comparing his relationship with President Biden and applying it to the Harris Administration with President Biden (sic). One would expect such action with a subordinate. But isn't Biden supposed to be Chief Executive of the United States? In and of itself, this might have been another one of Joe being Joe. Yet a month before Election 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to create a commission to study applying the 25th Amendment to Presidents unable to carry out their duties? Coincidence or messaging?
Advent carols are all about anticipation of a messiah as an ultimate truth. Thus we ought apply Advent principles to our own age. The truth is that regardless of who prevails in the Election 2020 overtime, certainly we won't find a messiah.
I may be more like in Monty Python's Life of Brian: "There's a mess here alright but there's no messiah."
Alas, to shift pop metaphors, I fear that it may be more of a dark winter and winter is coming.
