Monthly Archives: December 2022

Correct Beef, Inadequate Correction

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) and Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R, IA), in their 27 December Fox News op-ed, correctly identified a critical problem with our military as deconstructed by the Progressive-Democratic Biden administration: Commander-in-Chief Biden’s and DoD’s preference for wokeness in over combat effectiveness of our military service men and women. As they put it,

[T]he US Air Force Academy had cadets participate in a seminar that instructs them against using the word “terrorist” and to avoid gender specific phrases. When we’re training cadets how not to offend terrorists rather than how to destroy them, we need to seriously review our priorities.

However, the corrective action they suggested is wholly inadequate.

When Republicans take control of Congress next year, we must return the military’s focus to its core mission. We should start by firing every last Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer on the Department of Defense’s payroll. All unnecessary and onerous administrative training, especially so-called “extremism” trainings, should be eliminated.

Leaving aside the erroneous claim of “control of Congress”—Republicans will have a majority only in the House of Representatives—the Cotton-Hinson proposal can be no more than Step 3. Eliminating those personnel will by itself change nothing; the individuals would be promptly replaced by others of similar ilk by the managers at the top.

The first step in return[ing] the military’s focus to its core mission is the Critical Item. The personnel in the Office of the Secretary of Defense must be fired—every single one of them, from SecDef Lloyd Austin on down. At the same time, all of the incumbent personnel in the Offices of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard also must be fired.

The second step is another Critical Item, and it must deal with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Every officer and senior NCO in the JCS beginning with CJCS Mark Milley and his staff and including each of the Service Chiefs and their staffs must be relieved and either retired or reassigned to the Combatant Commands to serve in situ in actual line jobs—whether combat, supply, or maintenance.

Without a complete replacement of the current crop of managers—they cannot be called leaders—removing the subordinate personnel will have no effect.

To those who warn that such a sweeping, essentially simultaneous turnover of the top management of our military establishment will leave our military rudderless and without direction, consider: the Combatant Commands remain intact (so far—the damage being done hasn’t materially harmed those Commands, yet). And: with the current crop of managers at the top, our military establishment already is without direction and has been—dangerously so—for the last two years.

A State Judge Gets It Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Concerned with what her child might be taught were that child to take a particular course in Michigan’s Rochester Community School District, a mother asked the District for information related to that course—lesson plans, course curriculum, readings to be assigned, and the like. Things led to things, and the mother formalized her request as a FOIA request under Michigan’s FOIA law. More things led to more things, and the matter wound up in Michigan Circuit Judge James Cunningham’s court, with the mother asking the course instructor, in addition to the District, be required to deliver the requested information, and the District denying having the requested information and further denying requiring its instructors to develop anything like that information.

Cunningham proceeded to rule against the mother.

He quoted Michigan’s FOIA law [emphasis in the opinion]:

“Public body” is defined in MCL 15.232(h)
…
(iii) A city, county, township, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, ….

Cunningham then proceeded to write that since Michigan’s law listed school districts as bound by State FOIA requirements, but it didn’t list school district employees, those employees—teachers in the present case—are not bound by State FOIA requirements.

This is a cynical interpretation. A “school district” does not exist without the personnel that populate it: its employees, from superintendent on down through school principals and teachers, to janitors and bus drivers.

Of course the Rochester school district’s teachers are subject to a FOIA request under Michigan law.

This is a…silly…ruling that ought to be overturned on appeal, which the mother intends to bring.

They Don’t Clash

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey has a new gun control law, one which Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed just last week.

Under the new law, concealed carry is not allowed in “high-density” locations, places with vulnerable populations or where there is First Amendment or government activity.

New Jerseyans can’t exercise their Second Amendment rights where they’re exercising their First Amendment rights? How does that work, exactly? The two sets of rights are synergistic, not conflicting.

And of what is Murphy’s government so terrified that his administration’s “activities” need to be protected from the people for whom he works?

There’s this fillip, too:

The new law also restricts who is ineligible to obtain a carry permit, including those with an outstanding arrest [warrant]….

But not convicted of the charge. So much for innocent until proven guilty in New Jersey.

And

…four endorsements of character from non-related references must be provided with applications.

Those four endorsers, too, each will be…interviewed…by Murphy’s government men. Murphy’s government not only is tracking New Jersey citizens who have firearms, now he intends to track those who support those who have firearms, also.

Never mind that the Supreme Court’s rulings in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, District of Columbia v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago individually and together acknowledged that the right of us Americans to keep and bear Arms is an individual right rather than a collective one, and that they acknowledged that we don’t have to satisfy Government of any sort of “need” or “suitability of purpose” in our keeping and bearing. Never mind, either, that the rulings also required carry permit issuance to be based on strictly objective criteria, not on a government functionary’s wholly subjective assessment of “character” references.

The opening line of our Constitution—the opening phrase—is We the People of the United States.  It’s our Constitution, not Government’s. We are sovereign in our nation, not Government. It’s our obligation to enforce our rights; Government can act (and should), legitimately, only to assist us, not to usurp our duties. We defend our nation; Government acts in our name for us, not in its own name for itself.

Our Second Amendment rights are critical to all of that. Without our individual, personal keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms, we cannot do any of that. That’s why our right shall not be infringed. Especially where First Amendment or government activities are occurring.

This is one example of why we can’t trust gun control pushers. They have no understanding whatsoever of our Bill of Rights and, by extension, of our Constitution.

Maybe

Posted on by
Reply

The Wuhan Virus has been spreading rapidly throughout the People’s Republic of China since President Xi Jinping lifted the Virus-related restrictions he’d been imposing for the last three years.

Sun Yang, a deputy director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, presented the figures [250 million infected with the Virus since the restrictions were lifted] during a closed-door meeting of high-level officials, according to the Financial Times. The figure, which accounts for 18% of the population, includes 37 million people who were infected on Tuesday [20 Dec] alone.

Some think this outbreak also will give an indication of the “true” lethality of the Omicron variant of the Wuhan Virus, since that seems to be the prevalent version in this outbreak. After all,

In countries including the US, high levels of Omicron-fueled infections are translating into less severe disease compared with earlier waves.
But Covid-19 vaccines and prior infections have bolstered immune defenses in the US and elsewhere, public-health experts said, lowering risks of hospitalization and death as the pandemic goes on.

However, a lethality assessment based on the PRC’s outcomes would require that PRC government-published data can be believed. That government routinely downplays and conceals infection and mortality rates related to its three-years of Virus presence (along with inaccurate reporting of a host of other, unrelated, data—for instance, the nation’s economic performance).

Tracking Omicron’s impact in [the PC] will be a challenge because undercounted deaths could obscure its deadliness and blind residents to the full danger, public-health experts said. They, along with relatives of deceased patients, have said they think the government isn’t publicizing the full toll from the virus.

For instance:

[The PRC’s] National Health Commission said there had been no new deaths [since 20 Dec]—and that it was retracting one of the Beijing fatalities from the official tally of Covid’s toll. No explanation was given.

The PRC’s NHC also has…altered…its definition of death by Wuhan Virus: henceforth it can only be by pneumonia or respiratory failure linked directly to the coronavirus; the presence of other factors—heart disease or any other comorbidity, even if only a co-factor, with the Virus the primary cause (by objective criteria)—mean the Virus could not possibly have been the cause of death.

Preventing Future Omnibus Bills

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Jacobs, Juniper Research Group founder and CEO, in his 23 December Wall Street Journal op-ed, offered a solution, but he made this error that’s fatal to his proposal.

But because the Senate parliamentarian allowed Democrats to create new slush funds for domestic spending with a simple majority via budget reconciliation in 2021, a future Republican Congress can do the same….

No. Two wrongs, as the saying goes, do not make a right. Republicans doing this because the other party does it is what Progressive-Democratic Party members do.

Aside from that, it’s simply a wrong thing to do, whether tit-for-tat or simply reconciliation. The better answer is to pass budgets and appropriations bills through truly regular order: get rid of reconciliation altogether and pass the money bills—or not—in the same way as other bills get passed or stopped.

There’s one other step required. One (ideally both) of the houses of Congress needs to enact a rule barring omnibus bills: only the single budget and the dozen separate appropriations bills can be considered.

If government shuts down as a result of money impass, there’s a big so what. The Obama Shutdown, the Schumer Shutdown, all the other shutdowns show how little government is missed.

This—Jacobs’ solution or mine—will remain pie in the sky, though, since we’re dealing with politicians and not persons representing their constituencies. That requires us, We the People, to get off our…couches…and fire those who don’t represent us once they get to DC and hire those who do. That will take two or three election cycles to drive the point home. Three to complete a cleansing of the Senate.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.