That appears to be what Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a columnist for MSNBC, thinks. In her diatribe against the very concept of physical fitness—it’s a white supremacist, right-wing extremist thing—she pointed out that, after all,
[p]hysical fitness has always been central to the far right. In Mein Kampf, Hitler fixated on boxing and jujitsu
Zuckerberg both is highly physically fit, and he pursues, with enthusiasm, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
Hmm….
FBI Director Christopher Wray was wearing them, when he wasn’t overtly insulting the intelligence of committee members, when he testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday. Committee members asked Wray a number of questions that he refused to answer, even as he couched his refusal in a number of rationalizations.
Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R, OH) asked whether the FBI had asked financial institutions for customer transaction records in the DC area for the period surrounding the 6 Jan riots. Wray: I don’t know the answer.
Darrell Issa (R, CA) asked Wray whether FBI agents infiltrated those riots. Wray refused to answer altogether, referring Issa to “existing court filings.”
Matt Gaetz (R, FL) asked Wray how many times the FBI misused FISA authorities to spy on American citizens. Wray refused to say, or even to explain why the illegal searches happened.
Pramila Jayapal (D, WA) asked Wray whether the FBI was purchasing Americans’ personal data from the Internet or social media collectors. Wray refused to “confirm or deny.” When she asked how the FBI used such data, Wray said,
Respectfully, this is a topic that gets very involved to explain, so what I would prefer to do is have our subject matters come back up and brief you[.]
He thereby confirmed that his FBI does obtain such information, whether through buying it, or through other means. And his answer was insulting to the committee members, particularly to Jayapal, implying that the Congressmen were too grindingly stupid to understand the matter or by insulting their intelligence with his claim that he doesn’t understand the matter himself.
And so on through hours of testimonial evasion, pretended ignorance, and insults.
This FBI has long since outlived its usefulness, and it needs to be disbanded.
This example is breathtaking in its explicitness. California Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D, 59th District) has proposed a piece of openly racist legislation:
Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.
Because the way to eliminate racial discrimination in sentencing is to engage in racial discrimination in sentencing.
This is how steeped in victimhood Party has become. Its members no longer can…discriminate…right from wrong, can no longer discriminate being racist from not being racist.
These Special Ones cannot even perceive the “disparate impact” on crime victims or discriminate the criminal from his crime’s victim.
And too many laws. Jimmy Sexton, CEO of Esquire Group, is right about the rules.
More than 88,000 federal regulations were promulgated between 1995 and 2016, the most recent data I can find. The Federal Register, a compendium of each year’s new federal regulations, proposed rules and notices, totals nearly two million pages dating back to its inception in 1936. And the Code of Federal Regulations ran to 185,000 pages in 2020. In addition, state and local governments have their own laws and rules.
As he noted,
Laws should be easy to comply with and simple to enforce.
The easy compliance and enforcement isn’t only a matter of each one being short and sweet; the ease flows especially from keeping the overall number small and knowable in their aggregate.
And I’m right about too many laws, especially at the Federal level. Just on the criminal side alone, there are almost 5,200 criminal laws and roughly 300,000 regulations that can subject people to possible criminal penalties. among our statutes, even though the only crimes our Constitution actually names are treason and bribery—and the nebulous high Crimes and Misdemeanors, named in the context of impeaching the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States. Even the first enumeration of national-level crimes, the Crimes Act of 1790, passed in the 1st Congress, identified only 21 additional crimes wanting Federal-level enforcement and punishment:
The rest of criminal behaviors and their definitions are, by design, left to the police powers of each of the several States.
The only Federal criminal laws we need, then, are few: against treason and bribery, and against each of those additional 21, each of which needs to be particularly describing these crimes’ defining criteria, and especially for those 21, particularly describing the criteria that separate them from State crimes and make them Federal crimes.
And yet we have an enormous and bureaucratic Department of Justice and a broad range of Federal police forces: the FBI, the Marshals Service, the Secret Service, each Federal cabinet has its own police force, even the Congress has the Capital Police.
The 6th Circuit overruled a Tennessee federal district court’s injunction, lifting it, and allowing a Tennessee law barring gender-related child abuse “gender-affirming” “care” for minors to go into effect. Per the AP, the appellate court ruled
[i]n a 2-1 ruling, the majority opinion stated that decisions on issues such as transgender care, which is considered an emerging policy issue, is better left to legislatures rather than judges[.]
This is a good start, and a strong step in the right direction. It’s also important to keep in mind the fact that the matter is still in the courts: the appellate court lifted an injunction; it did not uphold the law itself.
Decisions on issues such as transgender care, though, are even better left—are best left—in the hands of the parents. Government—at any level of governmental hierarchy—has no legitimate business inserting itself into a family’s internal affairs beyond protecting family members from abuse. Which “treatments” to alter a child’s gender away from his or her biological gender most assuredly is.