President Donald Trump incited the assault on the Capital Building last Wednesday—or so say Progressive-Democrats, the NLMSM, and the Left generally—with those words.
Here’s the definition of “fight,” per Merriam-Webster:
1 a : to contend in battle or physical combat especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons
The soldiers fought bravely.
b : to engage in boxing
He will fight for the heavyweight title next month.
2 : to put forth a determined effort
They were fighting to stay awake.
Mark Zuckerberg is at it again, this time blocking a President’s access to his Facebook, which he created explicitly to be a public forum. But only for those of whom he personally approves.
Never mind that President Donald Trump plainly has never intended to obstruct the peaceful transition of power, but merely to continue his fight to ensure only those votes legally cast and counted are counted. That he plainly expected that to demonstrate his reelection rather than confirm his loss is neither here nor there. And it certainly doesn’t compare in the slightest to the refusal to accept the outcome of the 2016 election, and the Left’s and Progressive-Democratic Party’s active and four-year-long attempts to overthrow the President duly elected that year. That was an effort Zuckerberg and his minions at Facebook not only whole heartedly approved, but they actively supported and participated in, going to the point of censoring the President’s speech.
In the aftermath of Wednesday afternoon’s events, the Progressive-Democrats already are blaming their political opponents rather than the thugs who assaulted the Capital Building. And calling for Republican heads to roll.
Ex-HUD Secretary Julian Castro:
@tedcruz is guilty of treason and must resign from the United States Senate.
Here’s Carrie Lam, Hong Kong Chief Executive:
[T]he opposition’s goal of objecting to every policy initiative of the government may fall into the category of subverting state power.
Hard to tell the difference.
So much for Progressive-Democrats’ calls for unity.
A group of Senators are planning to join a (large) group of Representatives to object, tomorrow, to a few States’ Electoral College slates being accepted unless they get agreement to an audit commission, modeled on a 19th century audit commission created for the same purpose that consisted of five each of Representatives, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices, that will conduct a 10-day audit of elections in the objected-to States.
Naturally, Progressive-Democrats in both houses of Congress together with the NLMSM are up in arms, to the point of hysteria about the move.
The Trump administration promised 20 million doses of the Wuhan Virus vaccine would be delivered to the States by the end of 2020. In fact, only 12-14 million doses were delivered. That’s a significant shortfall—or it would be were it not for a far more significant shortfall that renders the lacking 6-8 million doses wholly irrelevant.
…far fewer people than expected are being immunized against Covid-19, as the process moves slower than officials had projected and has been beset by confusion and disorganization in many states.
Of the more than 12 million doses of vaccines from Moderna Inc and Pfizer Inc with BioNTech SE that have been shipped, only 2.8 million have been administered, according to federal figures.
A brief thought. Joseph Epstein wrote about true diversity, as opposed to the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s ideology of race, sex, et al., diversity before merit in his Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed.
In the main, he’s right. I want to add a little, though, to his concluding sentence.
The best way to celebrate diversity, perhaps, is to begin by celebrating diversity of thought.
Number two is overtly recognizing the inequality of individual talent, interest, work ethic, plain luck, and a host of other inequalities intrinsic in every man that culminate in unequal outcomes flowing from the utterly necessary equality of opportunity.
And it’s not the People’s Republic of China this time. It’s a European ally.
Spain is planning to keep a record of individuals who refuse to receive the coronavirus vaccine, said the country’s minister of health on Monday.
Worse, Salvador Illa, Spain’s Minister of Health says,
The log of people who refuse vaccination will be shared with the country’s “European partners,” but will not be shared with employers or otherwise made public….
Not even simple, ordinary doctor-patient confidentiality matters here. This medical information will be shared around so all of Europe’s governments can participate in a pan-European surveillance state, even though the putative purpose of such surveillance—so that local employers, et al., can take “appropriate” measures—will be blocked.
Alan Dershowitz made short work of this and of the objections to President Donald Trump’s recent small number of pardons.
The media is just wrong: President Trump understands better than previous presidents that the pardon power is part of the system of checks and balances. He understands when the executive and judicial branches get out of whack, it’s the job of the president to restore justice.
Not only is it not corrupt, it’s absolutely proper. The president feels very strongly that the Mueller commission acted improperly—and if that’s his belief and he believes that strongly, and he has a basis for it, he should be pardoning and commuting people who were the victims of an injustice.
Daniel Henninger had a thought in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal on the relationship between the Wuhan Virus situation (my term, not his) and apologies.
I have my own thought on the broader matter of apologies themselves.
…difficult this year to tell which is greater—the number of people infected with Covid-19 or the number of politicians issuing apologies….
Other than Operation Warp Speed’s chief, General Gustave Perna, I’ve heard almost no politician apologize for anything. In truth, though, the apology was killed long ago.
Rick White, Republican Representative from Washington at the end of the last century, had a thought on Section 230—he wants to repair it rather than eliminate it—and so (of course) do I. He began with this:
…some saying it allows big tech companies to censor political views, and others saying it enables the spread of disinformation.
What far too many who should know better miss, though, is that both of these are true; it’s not a matter being mutually exclusive, or even a matter of one or the other.