Republican Ego-Ridden Obstructionists

The “conservative” House Freedom Caucus now is holding its collective breath until the dozen, or so, members are blue in the face if they can’t have their way every time. As a practical matter, they’re blocking the Republican Party from passing bills strongly favored by Republicans, including those self-styled Freedom Caucus Republicans, bills like a procedural rule for a vote on a bill to stop the Biden administration’s efforts to curtail the use and sale of gas-powered stoves.

We hold the floor, crows Matt Gaetz (R, FL). As of last Wednesday, all votes for the rest of the week had to be canceled because of the temper tantrum of these Precious Few.

Just to illustrate the utter foolishness of the children of the tantrum, Congressman Chip Roy (R, TX) complained that the gas stove bill wasn’t thrown into a Christmas tree version of the debt ceiling and spending cuts bill that was just passed. Then he said—and he actually was serious,

We should be serious about forcing votes to get it done[.]

And then he participated in blocking that vote.

This is the same mistake the then-newly elected Tea Party Caucus made, and those members were personally responsible for the failure to repeal Obamacare during the early months when repeal had the best chance. The repeals weren’t pure enough to suit them, they said their version or the highway, and they got the highway on any repeal. Most of those Congressmen learned the lesson of the failures caused by “their way or the highway” virtue-signaling obstructionism.

It’s time now for the crop of Republican virtue-signalers in that “Freedom” Caucus to (re)learn the same lesson, a crop led by Congressmen Roy, Gaetz, and Andy Biggs (R, AZ). Or at least to acknowledge that their “Freedom” Caucus stands for freedom for them and eh for everyone else, and therewith give fatal credence to what used to be a mere trope that Republicans cannot govern.

Politely

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas lost his appeal from a Federal district court’s injunction blocking DHS from implementing a policy that allows for the release of migrants into the US without court dates. The Appellate Court summarized (within my own summary) Mayorkas’ plaint [italics added]:

As to irreparable injury, [DHS argued among other things]…”The most immediate consequence of the [District Court’s] orders,” according to DHS, “will likely be [the] overcrowding [of] CBP facilities during increases in border encounters,” which would threaten the “health, safety, and security” of USBP officers and aliens.

The Appellate Court wrote in part:

To start, DHS’s claims of irreparable injury ring somewhat hollow on this record, considering the department’s track record of overstating similar threats in the underlying proceedings. For instance, on January 12, 2023, DHS represented to the district court that any vacatur of the Parole+ATD policy would result in “disastrous consequences” for the management of the border starting the very next day. DHS made the same representation again on February 16, 2023. But, in truth, CBP had stopped using the Parole+ATD practices as of January 2, 2023, and DHS now admits that it was able to “manage[] its detention capacity [since January] using many other tools at its disposal.” The department’s ability to ascertain future harm is uncertain at best. Given this record, we take DHS’s latest claims of impending disaster if it is not allowed to use either of the challenged policies with some skepticism.

And

Recent data from the border casts further doubt on DHS’s irreparable-injury argument. Contrary to DHS’s catastrophic predictions, the number of daily encounters with aliens did not surge in the days following the expiration of the Title 42 order on May 11, 2023, but instead fell significantly. Compare Doc. 13-1 ¶ 11 in No. 23-cv-09962 (predicting a daily average of 12,000–14,000 encounters), with Doc. 28 at 4 in No. 23-cv-09962 (showing that the number of encounters dropped from 9,649 on May 11, 2023, to 4,193 on May 14). DHS has neither explained how that data is consistent with its representations nor provided any more recent data demonstrating a surge in illegal crossings at the border. This Court will not find irreparable harm based on mere conjecture.

This is the court calling Mayorkas—politely, mind you, and with the circumlocutions for which courts are well-known—a liar. Which he is. Now the case, State of Florida v United States of America, et al., will finish its wending through our courts with the block on blanket release without any requirement to show up in court remaining in place.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling (nearly unanimous; one judge concurred in part and dissented in part) can be read here. It’s a breathtakingly terse dismissal of Mayorkas’ dishonesty.

Banning the Bible in Schools

The Davis School District, Utah’s second largest for public schools, has decided to ban the Bible from its elementary and junior high schools, retaining it only in district high school libraries.

The district’s officials aren’t even claiming the transparent fig leaf of separation of church and state for the ban. The Bible is out because of its vulgarity or violence. It’s true enough that the Bible has what some might consider vulgarity—all those begets and begots, even incidents like one man in a leadership role sending a rival off to war to be killed so the one could have the other’s wife for himself.

And that violence—all those wars, David so violently killing Goliath, the mass killing of Pharoah’s army in the Red Sea; sacrificing animals; the violence just goes on and on.

What’s the next set of books to be banned from the Utah district’s children’s tender minds?

History books, of course. History is rife with the violence of war and all those killings, destructions of whole nations, slavery, rape. There’s the vulgarity, too, of those rapes: the Sabine women, the rapes of slave women, the literal rape of Nanking, comfort women; the incestuous behavior of royals who married each other’s women for the sake of politics; one king’s serial use and abuse of his wives—these make up just a few examples.

This is the Left, infesting even Utah’s schools.

Aiding and Abetting?

Acting as an accessory?

Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald is defending with a straight face his decision to fire two employees who, while thieves were robbing a Lululemon store, verbally objected to the thefts, filmed the thieves in the act, and called the police.

McDonald insists that employees should “let the theft occur.” He went on:

We put the safety of our team, of our guests, front and center. It’s only merchandise. They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there’s cameras and we’re working with law enforcement.

This is, to use the technical term, a crock. The employees he fired used cameras—the ones in their cell phones—and they worked with law enforcement—they called the cops on the thieves.

Stepping back and letting the theft occur: that puts the safety of Lululemon employees front and center how, exactly? Allowing the crimes to occur unhindered only makes Lululemon stores—and other stores in the immediate area—even more susceptible to crime. And that endangers even more store employees and those customers who are present when criminals accept the McDonalds of the nation’s invitations.

I report. You decide. Or something like that.

Sandbagging

General Li Shangfu, the People’s Republic of China’s Minister of National Defense, says war between the US and the PRC would be an unbearable disaster for the world, and further,

China seeks to develop a new type of major-country relationship with the United States. As for the US side, it needs to act with sincerity, match its words with deeds, and take concrete actions together with China to stabilize the relations and prevent further deterioration.

Li says this against the backdrop of the PRC actively preparing for war with us as a part of its preparation for invading and conquering the Republic of China. If Li’s words are accurate, then the PRC side needs to act with sincerity, match its words with deeds, and take concrete action with the United States to stabilize relations and prevent further deterioration.

That concrete action begins with the PRC ending its threats against the RoC, including ceasing its preparations for invasion and disbanding the units assembled for that purpose. That sincere action needs to be followed by the PRC side’s withdrawal from its seizure of the South China Sea and from its occupation of the islands of that Sea, islands that are owned by (if disputed among) the other nations rimming the Sea. The PRC then needs to cease its aggressive moves in the East China Sea, including its moves against the Japanese islands there.

Along the way, the PRC must leave off from its hostile acts against military aircraft and shipping that are operating in international airspace and international waters.

If the PRC side chooses not to do those things, if the PRC side continues on its present course, Li’s words will be revealed to be completely insincere, to be a cynical effort at sandbagging.