Wednesday, March 3, 2021

If States Don’t Roll Back Lockdowns, Americans Will Increase Their Civil Disobedience

In contrast to the rising hopes of most Americans, 
Dr. Anthony Fauci is preaching more caution, 
more isolation, and more of the same even as 
millions of Americans are now vaccinated.



We’re just a couple months into the year and 2021 is already looking better than 2020. COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all falling as multiple vaccines are approved and being administered. The distribution system is not perfect, and improvements are needed, but in general, the news is good and hopeful. Americans are looking forward to getting vaccinated and getting back into the regular swing of life.

The message from the Centers from Disease Control, however, is: “not so fast.” In contrast to the rising hopes of most Americans, Dr. Anthony Fauci is preaching more caution, more isolation, and more of the same. “There are things, even if you’re vaccinated, that you’re not going to be able to do in society,” Fauci said last Monday in a White House briefing. “For example, indoor dining, theaters, places where people congregate. That’s because of the safety of society.” 

People have largely followed the CDC’s advice on the pandemic, in part because they believed it was valid, and in part because many states’ governors used it to guide their emergency decrees that carried the force of law. Libertarians warned that emergency powers have a way of becoming permanent powers. They seem to be right in this case, not so much because of what the CDC is advising, but because of what their local governments are doing with that advice.

Science and public sentiment are aligned in saying that people who are vaccinated are safe from COVID. That is, in fact, the point of a vaccine, and studies continue to show that these particular vaccines are all very successful at that task.

As public sentiment diverges from the law, the law becomes irrelevant. Many pandemic mandates were already difficult to enforce and relied on the public agreeing to follow them. Even backed up by the state’s monopoly on the use of force, they will be irrelevant without widespread public buy-in.

Laws can sometimes change behavior at the margins, but only if they are enforced and the idea of law is respected. That concept saw widespread erosion even before the pandemic. Statute books are stuffed with laws that prosecutors never enforce and regulations that most people are unaware of—until they get tangled up in them. 

In 2009, Boston lawyer Harvey Silverglate wrote a book called “Three Felonies a Day,” referring to the number of crimes the average American is estimated to commit daily because of vague, outdated, and rarely enforced laws. Thanks to COVID and state mandates, we’re probably up to half a dozen a day at least.

Such a system is bound to breed disrespect for the law. When something is illegal, the average person’s reaction is supposed to be “Oh, that’s important. I’d better not do that, then.” Instead, 21st-century American law inspires derision. “That’s never enforced,” or “that’s outdated,” or “who cares what the law says” are far more common responses nowadays.

Frederic Bastiat wrote on this point in “The Law” in 1850.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are ‘just’ because law makes them so.

Do COVID mandates force us to choose between law and morality? For the most part, I don’t think so. But that is only true to the extent they are backed up by science and the consent of the governed. 

The best laws are passed by the people’s representatives in accordance with our best understanding of the natural world and take into account tradeoffs and the potential problems they create. Many restrictions passed in the last year fail by some of these measures. The CDC’s latest ideas fail by all of them.

What happens when the people no longer respect the law? Nothing good. In the best-case scenario, lawlessness on pandemic rules means that the government looks ridiculous and the rule of law is slightly diminished. People go back to ignoring CDC guidelines like we always did.

Remember when they cautioned against excessive screen-time for children? To kids stuck in Zoom classes for six hours a day, that widely disregarded advice must be recalled with nostalgia and longing.

The worst case, though, is something more dangerous: the erosion of law and societal order. In discussing some mostly ignored government initiatives in 2014, law professor Glenn Reynolds reminded us of an old term for this situation: Irish democracy

That is, in the words of another professor, James Scott, “the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people,” rather than “revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.” Americans are not going to start a revolution over anything Fauci says. But we will, at a certain point, stop listening.

The tremulous will stay sheltered in their apartments, but more and more regular Americans will calmly and cynically break the law. It will illustrate the limits of government’s power. Faith in government will continue to plummet as people ignore its laws. That is not good for a society, because it will most certainly not stop there.

The law deserves our respect, but to get it, it must prove itself worthy of that respect. Caution was warranted in this crisis, and still is in some ways, but excessive caution that flies in the face of science and reason (such as many school districts’ refusal to return to in-person education) will cause people not only to doubt this new advice but all government. Some skepticism of government has always been warranted, to be sure, but massive civil disobedience can lead only to the death of law.

The CDC should follow the science and the state governments should follow the people. Irish democracy was so called because it was the only form of democratic expression of which that conquered and disenfranchised people were capable. But Ireland is free now, and America is too. Our politicians should remember it when they seek to impose illogical, unenforceable rules on a people unwilling to abide by them.


Senator Questions Director Wray About Domestic Surveillance/Geolocation of Jan 6th Protestors

Senator Mike Lee questions FBI Director Chris Wray about the FBI using tenuous legal authorities to identify people who attended the DC protest rally on January 6, 2021.

Senator Lee specifically asks FBI Director Wray if they are using cell phone geolocation and under what legal authority this is being done:  National Security Letters? FISA Court? Search warrants based on probable cause?  Wray’s respons is disingenuous… WATCH:


Additionally, according to a segment aired February 4th on Tucker Carlson television show, Bank of America sent customer purchasing history to federal agencies to assist in their investigation of persons who attended the January 6th protest in Washington DC.

Again, demonstrating the ramifications from a lack of privacy protection, the assembly of an enemies list has been part of the overall investigation.  Gizmodo outlined how the phone numbers of Parler users were tracked using GPS and also used by investigators [SEE HERE] This type of exploitation should serve as a warning to Americans…. There is a big brother, and that system can/will be weaponized by government if/when an ideological administration is in power – like now.

Ali Boumendjel: France admits 'torture and murder' of Algerian nationalist

 France has admitted that a prominent Algerian nationalist was tortured and murdered by its army more than 60 years ago

 

 

Ali Boumendjel was arrested during the Algerian War of Independence in 1957, and his death shortly after was covered-up as a suicide.

But, in a meeting with Boumendjel's grandchildren on Tuesday, President Emmanuel Macron reassessed the death.

"[He] did not commit suicide. He was tortured and then killed," he said.

Algeria gained independence from France in 1962 after a bloody seven-year war.

Boumendjel, a 37-year-old lawyer and nationalist, was active in the campaign against French colonial rule. He was detained during the Battle of Algiers and placed in solitary confinement by French troops.

The activist was then killed and thrown from the sixth-floor of a building in an effort to disguise his death as a suicide.

The BBC's Ahmed Rouaba says that Algerian and French organisations have been campaigning for decades for the truth about Boumendjel's death.

In 2001 Gen Paul Aussaresses, who was at the time head of French intelligence in Algeria, confessed to ordering the killing of dozens of Algerian prisoners, including Boumendjel.

 

 

Mr Macron said the latest admission was made "in the name of France".

The rare act is one of a series of measures aimed at improving relations between France and Algeria and the way both countries remember the war that ended colonial rule.

 

 

The conflict has cast a long shadow, and it is only in recent years that Paris has begun to acknowledge some instances of torture and abuse.

There are conflicting reports about the Algerian death toll during the war. French historians estimate that up to 400,000 Algerians were killed, while the Algerian government says more than one million people died.

There are also millions of people with links to Algeria living in France, and the conflict remains a deeply contentious issue that has strained relations between both nations.

On Tuesday, Mr Macron reiterated his desire to give "the families of the disappeared" the opportunity to find out the truth about the war.

"No crime, no atrocity committed by anyone during the Algerian War can be excused or concealed," the statement, released by the Elysee Palace, said.

 

 

In 2017, during his election campaign, Mr Macron described the colonisation of the North African country as a "crime against humanity". He has also expressed a desire for French-Algerian relations to be forward-looking despite historical enmities.

But the president faced a backlash earlier this year when he refused to issue an official apology for crimes committed during the conflict. He said there would be "no repentance nor apologies" rather "symbolic acts" aimed at promoting reconciliation.

He agreed to form a "truth commission" aimed at shedding light on the conflict after a government-commissioned report recommended doing so.

But the report has since been criticised by the Algerian government, which said it was "not objective" and fell "below expectations".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56262963 

 


 

Florida and NY Data Prove Lockdowns Made No Sense



Today is the first day of March, which means we now essentially have a full year of COVID data from the four largest states in the country: California, Texas, Florida and New York. Thanks to the fact that we have federalism in this country, we can look at the factual COVID data and begin to answer a big question: did COVID lockdowns make any sense at all? And also, how do we assess the overall performance of governors in this country?

Regardless of your politics, the best state leadership would have done two things during COVID: limit deaths and keep people employed. That is, the best a state could do would be to have a low COVID death rate and a low unemployment rate. (Keeping schools open generally corresponds with a low unemployment rate since a low unemployment rate means lockdowns were less stringent.)

Given that all states have different geographic and economic conditions, it can be hard to compare every state’s COVID response head-to-head. But you can, in general, compare the four biggest states in the country and their responses to COVID, which is why California, Florida, Texas, and New York offer intriguing test case scenarios to asses which governors and which states handled COVID the best.

And there is now a year’s worth of data to make that decision predicated on data as opposed to opinion. That is, rather than get lost in the daily noise of social media opinion, we can just look at the raw COVID data from the past year to determine how our four biggest states handled the pandemic.

And the results just may stun you.

For much of the past year, the media told you that New York governor Andrew Cuomo was the political hero of the COVID outbreak and that Florida governor Ron DeSantis was the political villain. This narrative began back in March of last year and has proven to be incredibly durable, carrying all the way into 2021.

Except the data tells us the exact opposite is true: no big state governor in the country has done a better job than Florida’s Ron DeSantis and no big state governor has done a worse job than New York’s Andrew Cuomo.

Yet tens of millions of people in this country believe the exact opposite.

How did this happen?

Well, dive in as we explore the data. But first, let me reiterate. This is is not an opinion. This is what objective and factual data tells us. The mainstream media has largely peddled falsehoods to their audience about how New York and Florida’s governors responded to COVID, praising New York and denigrating Florida.

Leaving aside the double sexual harassment allegations that have emerged in the past week, New York’s Andrew Cuomo received nearly universal media praise for his interviews on CNN with his brother Chris, wrote a triumphant book on how to handle COVID, Dr. Anthony Fauci told us that Cuomo managed the pandemic better than anyone, and New York’s governor even received a special Emmy award for his use of television to communicate with the general public.

An Emmy!

Unfortunately, the facts prove that Cuomo’s COVID heroism was all a lie.

All of it.

At the same time they were praising Cuomo, the media told you Florida governor Ron DeSantis was handling COVID worse than anyone in the country. This narrative started back in March of last year and still exists. When the Super Bowl was played last month in Tampa, the media covering the game were aghast at the lack of masks there and the upcoming super spreader events that would follow. (Spoiler alert: COVID cases continued to decline massively in the Tampa area in the two weeks after the Super Bowl.) As DeSantis fought to keep the Florida theme parks open, allowed hotels and short term rentals for vacation travel, and permitted bars and restaurants to remain open as well, the media gnashed its teeth and wailed that he was trying to kill everyone.

Sadly, these inaccurate media narratives about Florida and New York become repeated by the gullible, such as NFL reporter Peter King. King came on my radio show and praised Andrew Cuomo’s COVID performance while denigrating Ron DeSantis’ performance. While King got played by the media and wasn’t smart enough to realize it, he wasn’t alone. Tens of millions of people in America still believe, even to this day and even with transparent and factual data proving otherwise, that New York has done an incredible job with COVID and that Florida has done a disastrous one.

Put simply, the media sold you a false bill of goods and, sadly, many people still believe those lies. That’s even in the wake of Cuomo potentially facing criminal charges for allegedly covering up the death rate in New York nursing homes after Cuomo made the disastrous decision to send COVID-infected patients back into nursing homes.

The objective and factual data tells us a far different truth. Far from Andrew Cuomo being a stellar leader as it pertains to the COVID pandemic, Cuomo handled COVID worse than any elected official in a major state in this country. Indeed, if it were a country, New York would have been the worst performing country in the world at handling COVID. (New Jersey would have been a tad bit worse, but most of New Jersey’s issues came from New York City.)

In fact, even yesterday, nearly a year after the initial outbreak, the state of New York still had the most COVID cases in the United States. You read that right. One full year after the outbreak in New York began, the state of New York is still the worst in the entire United States when it comes to dealing with COVID.

And that just continues the trend that has been in existence for the past year.

Here’s the death data in the four largest states in the country over the past year. Deaths per million of population:

New York 2,459
Texas 1,520
Florida 1,437
California 1,321

So New York has been substantially worse than the other three largest states in the country.

But New York hasn’t just done a bad job relative to other states in the country. Here’s how the state of New York’s COVID death rate per capita would rank in the entire world:

New York 2,459
Czechia 1,909
Belgium 1,899
Slovenia 1,899
England 1,805
Italy 1,622
Portugal 1,607
United States 1,582

Let me repeat this: New York, if it were a country, would have the worst COVID death rate in the entire world. The objective data is clear. Far from being a COVID hero, Governor Andrew Cuomo is probably the worst performing elected official in the entire world when it comes to dealing with COVID.

But that’s not all, not only has New York been the worst performing location for COVID in the entire world, they’ve also managed to destroy their economy in the process by adopting draconian lockdowns which have been almost totally ineffective at saving lives.

Look at the most recent unemployment rates in each of the four biggest states in the country:

Florida 6.1%
Texas 7.2%
New York 8.2%
California 9.0%

So not only has New York posted the worst death rate from COVID in the world, they have also tanked their economy in the process, posting the fourth highest unemployment rate in the United States. (They are 46th overall. California is even worse as the 49th worst unemployment rate in the nation.)

The data from the four largest states make it clear: lockdowns haven’t worked in this country.

At all.

They haven’t limited deaths, and they’ve tanked the economy.

This isn’t an opinion. This is what the factual data tells us.

So Andrew Cuomo has the worst COVID death rate in the world, and he’s tanked New York’s economy too. He has failed to protect his residents and left them unable to care for themselves or their families because they have also lost their jobs at nearly the highest rate in the country.

On the flip side, Ron DeSantis, who has far more elderly people living in his state than any of the three other big state governors, has protected his state residents and kept them gainfully employed better than any big state governor in the country.

So how is it that Cuomo has received nearly universal media praise for much of the past year and DeSantis has received almost universal condemnation?

Sadly, the only explanation is politics.

Because Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat, the big lie was sold that Cuomo had performed admirably. The media set up Cuomo as the contrast with Donald Trump, whom they wanted to ensure wasn’t reelected. So Cuomo became the Democrats COVID savior, the anti-Trump. Since DeSantis was a Republican allied with Trump, he was a convenient scapegoat to tie to Trump in the Sunshine State, an important battleground in 2020.

As a result, the media sold the false lie that DeSantis had performed awfully and Cuomo had performed incredibly. This started in early March, when the media lost its mind over Florida beaches being open. “HOW DARE DESANTIS ALLOW HIS STATE RESIDENTS TO BE OUTSIDE IN A PANDEMIC!,” much of the media wailed. (Being outside has been shown, by the way, to be the best place people can spend time during the pandemic.)

Far from being a COVID pariah, if every governor had made the exact same decisions as Ron DeSantis, there would be far more people alive in this country and there would be far more people employed too. Rather than hold him up as an example of everything that’s wrong with COVID, DeSantis should be our national hero, the best performing big state governor in the country.

Instead, the mainstream media sold much of the country a big COVID lie: Andrew Cuomo was a hero and Ron DeSantis was a villain.

And, as I said above, the sad thing is tens of millions of people still believe this lie.

But a year later, something very interesting is finally happening — many Americans are waking up to the truth.

Andrew Cuomo is close to losing his job — and may face criminal charges for COVID lies. California’s Governor Gavin Newsome is facing recall for his disastrous shutdowns which have destroyed the California economy, and Ron DeSantis is the most favored candidate in the entire country to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 if Trump doesn’t run.

It’s taken a long time, but the truth is finally starting to win over the lies.

And the truth is the exact opposite of what the media has told you: New York governor Andrew Cuomo is the worst performing elected official in the world and Florida’s Ron DeSantis is one of the best.

That’s not an opinion. It’s just the facts.


Are Your Kids Going To Grow Up To Be Democrats? Know The Warning Signs



If there’s one thing Christians worry about with their kids, it’s that their children will one day grow up and vote for Democrats. If that happens, that’s because you raised your children wrong. Don't worry-- we're here to help! Here are the signs to look for that suggest your innocent little child may become a horrible, Democrat-voting adult:

  • Expects food, clothing, and housing for free - The #1 sign you're raising a future sucker of the government teat.

  • Constantly whines - Ooh, is the little baby hurt from stubbing his toe? Rub some dirt on it and get back in there, bucko!

  • Is small and weak (like a Democrat) - No muscles to speak of. Very beta.

  • Has grubby little hands constantly snatching things that aren’t theirs - They're either going to grow up to be a bank robber or a Democrat, but we repeat ourselves.

  • Is happily unemployed - No job? You're looking at a future Democrat voter.

  • Leaves messes everywhere - Today, they're leaving Play-Doh on the ground. Tomorrow, they're leaving protest signs behind at rallies.

  • Never attended a rally for Ronald Reagan - Or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter.

  • Has a short attention span - If your kid flips from YouTube video to YouTube video every 30 seconds, they'll be pretty likely to be outraged about a different thing every 30 seconds in the future.

If you see any of these signs, now you have time to disown your children and write them out of your will before they donate their inheritance to Kamala Harris or something.

Don't let this happen to you! 


If You Liked Common Core, You’re Going To Love Joe Biden’s Anti-American Civics Project

We have just the perfect solution for American kids' deep ignorance about their nation's founding principles, system of government, and history. 
It's making them into political activists!



It’s deja vu all over again. A coalition of government- and billionaire-funded nonprofits has a “bipartisan” plan for national curriculum goals, this time concerning U.S. history and government. Today this “state-led” coalition is releasing a major report they hope will get the attention of the Biden administration and state governors to “collaboratively” enact their vision nationwide.

Remember, these sorts of national plans are supported by people on the right and left, so there can be no need for further investigation or any public questioning. The experts have got this problem all figured out. Your children and the nation’s future are in their hands. Trust them, these are experts under whose leadership the nation’s civic and historical knowledge not only hasn’t improved but may be at the worst point in possibly all of American history, because of — oops, I mean in spite of their best efforts! 

More than 300 “leading scholars” have spent 17 months putting together a “roadmap” for “what and how to teach integrated K-12 history and civics for today’s learners.” It’s a “cross-ideological conversation about civic learning and history at a time when our country needs it the most,” so don’t worry your pretty little heads about anything and let the experts sort it out! What could go wrong?

What, you heard that the Smithsonian is saturating its exhibits and materials with social-justice saturated fake history and forking over good taxpayer money for racist propaganda, and therefore you’re a bit concerned about their involvement in this project? What’s wrong with you, the Smithsonian is an old and venerable American institution! Republican senators are putting billions of dollars behind its promotion of cultural Marxism!

Did we mention this project is also bipartisan? The education secretaries for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all on board, of course. They presided over a massive decline in U.S. education quality and increase in bureaucracy, so you know it’s a good idea!

The DC uniparty has just the perfect solution for American kids’ dangerous ignorance about their nation’s founding principles, system of government, and history. It’s making them into political activists! It’s called “action civics.” Isn’t that exciting? Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were big fans. Remember them? So are Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, those models of respect for the U.S. Constitution! 

No, kids don’t need to know anything to lobby their local, state, and national governments, that would ruin the effect. Everyone knows learning is boring! What’s fun is action! Action civics! You know, like the nation saw in the past year or so, all those refreshing young people protesting in the streets for racial justice.

That’s the kind of civic entrepreneurship we’re looking for, not the boring conventional entrepreneurship these civic entrepreneurs destroyed to the tune of an estimated $2 billion. That’s old news, just like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Didn’t you hear those were written by slaveowners like George Washington to keep black people in chains?

No, what we want is democracy. That’s why this project is called Educating for American Democracy. Out with that old constitutional republic stuff, it’s so racist. RAY-CIST. What’s new and hip is a living constitution, just like RBG fought for. The Educating for American Democracy Project has a brilliant new report, see, all about why the nation’s dearth of civic knowledge demands a solution from “cooperative federalism,” just like Common Core was the obvious solution to the nation’s shamefully poor-quality math and English education!

Even though this initiative is being created in almost exactly the same way the Common Core rules for math and English were created, this is nothing at all like Common Core. For one thing, it was created by committees of unelected participants funded partially by government and partially by private organizations not subject to transparency laws like open meetings and open records requests. Wait, that’s just like Common Core. 

But this is NOT, let me repeat, NOT a national curriculum at all. It’s only a set of guidelines, lesson plans, curriculum design frameworks, and stuff like that — just like Common Core. Um, I mean… This is just like Common Core but it’s totally NOT AT ALL LIKE COMMON CORE. Just trust me, brand-name Republicans are involved. Just like with Common Core!

Why would anyone on the right oppose this — almost every single committee for this project includes the one conservative guy we could find to put his name on this thing so we could introduce him to Republicans nervous about this idea. Okay, actually, it’s maybe 10 conservatives out of more than 300. They’re not really always comfortable identifying themselves, not sure why, especially since they are paid to be “cross-partisan,” just like those super-useful Never Trumpers we rent out for special events at a great discount.

Regardless, 10 conservatives would never get steamrolled on a project like this, right? Just ask the five genuine subject-area experts who signed onto the Common Core project and then retracted their support after it in no way resembled defensible curriculum requirements. They weren’t used and then discarded in a cynical attempt to hide this project’s flaws under the veneer of “transpartisanship” until it was too late. No way. Lefties never do that to conservatives. Ever.

No way action civics will get into place in states and then this project will be cited as the reason for far-left curriculum like that already happening in Massachusetts under the test run for this national project. That was touted as “bipartisan,” too, and run by the many of same people and organizations that are about to boost this national project. 

Too bad, conservatives, you kicked at Leftist Lucy’s football again, ha! Thanks for playing! We love this game. Kick again, please! We’re counting on it.

I mean, Common Core was foisted on states by the Obama administration in exchange for federal funds. Joe Biden was there when that happened, and he would never govern like Obama, now, would he? No way, he’s way more aggressive than Obama was! And he yanked that divisive 1776 Commission Report on his first day in office, so you know his U.S. Department of Education supports what is best for children, not all that jingoistic “loving your country” crap!

Unity in hating America, that’s the goal here, and we’ve almost achieved it. We just need a bit more tinkering, okay, we haven’t got the formula quite right yet, those insurrectionist Trump voters are clouding Republican senators’ view a bit too much still. We’ve almost trained some to swat them away like gnats. John Cornyn, for sure. Just a few more years of cranked-up indoctrination combined with open borders in Texas, and Beto can finally replace him.

So for the sake of unity, just go along with reinforcing public schools as leftist indoctrination factories. Sing kumbaya with us and none of your precious little public school funds will get threatened. You wouldn’t want anything to happen to that money, would you? It’s for the children. And civics. Conservatives like civics, right? Pay no attention to all the leftists behind the curtain.


Why Deadnaming Matters

 

 
Richard Levine wearing women's clothes hides his face
 
 
Article by Declan Leary in The American Conservative
 

Why Deadnaming Matters

When we allow the other side to the set the terms of discussion, and police ourselves to conform to them, the battle is already lost.

Richard Levine was born in 1957 in Wakefield, Massachusetts, an affluent suburb 20 minutes north of Boston. He went to Hebrew school and had a bar mitzvah before heading to the very tony (very expensive) all-boys Belmont Hill School, where he played as a linebacker on the football team. From there he went to Harvard undergrad before heading south for med school at Tulane. While still in school, he married classmate Martha Peaslee; the couple would go on to have two children, one boy and one girl.

Richard’s career got off to a running start with a residency and fellowship at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan. From there he moved to Penn State Hershey Medical Center, where he established himself firmly as a leader in his field, building both an adolescent medicine division and an eating disorders clinic. But even with a loving family and a meaningful career, something was amiss in Richard Levine’s world. Eight years after his move to Pennsylvania, the doctor began to see a therapist. Another eight years after that, he publicly announced his decision to transition to presenting as a woman. Now, a full decade after that announcement, Richard—now Rachel—stands as Joe Biden’s nominee for the United States’ Assistant Secretary for Health.

The broader situation has evolved dramatically even since Levine’s 2011 transition, when about a quarter of a percent of American adults identified as transgender. A mere five years later that percentage had more than doubled, and now the nation’s (potential) first trans federal official awaits confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

This would have been unimaginable a few years ago—as even supporters acknowledge, boasting of Levine’s “historic” nomination. In fact, long after gay and lesbian politicians broke into legislatures across the country, the idea of a transgender official remained decidedly taboo. In 1992, for instance, Althea Garrison—a black, conservative Republican and perennial candidate for state-level office—squeaked out a narrow election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Two days later, the Boston Herald reported that Garrison had been known, in a past life in Georgia, as A.C. Garson—and as a man. Garson/Garrison was defeated by a ten point margin in the next election cycle, and despite continued efforts—totaling 32 campaigns to date—the onetime legislator has never managed to return to office.

The glass ceiling sustained cracks at times, but never showed any serious signs of breaking. As late as 2017, “only three elected transgender officials and a smattering of appointed officials” were serving anywhere in the country, according to a glowing Washington Post profile of Levine, then serving as Pennsylvania’s physician general. To understand how the situation has developed at such a breakneck pace, we have to realize how rapidly and readily social conservatives have ceded ground to the progressive left.

Consider the terms of the argument: None of them are ours. Even conservative writers, when addressing what was once a controversial subject, tend only to employ the preferred pronouns and new chosen names of the individuals in question. Deadnaming, they know, is a grave and unforgivable sin. It would be practically unthinkable for any respectable journalist to use “he” or “him” when referring to Dr. Levine, to say nothing of the gendered birth name Richard. This proscription results in bizarre constructions like “She has two children from his marriage to Martha,” and this from the Washington Post, which defies parody even as it stabs at something like humor: “The staid office where Rachel Levine works as the Keystone State’s top doctor is lined with family photos, including one perched high on a shelf that was taken on a vacation long ago, when her children were young and she was a broad-shouldered man named Richard.”

Words matter, and not just because it’s nearly impossible to win a fight in which every rule is set by your opponent. In practice, using the other side’s terms amounts to—or, at least, appears as—conceding the substance of their points. Every time we call Dr. Levine “she,” or even “Rachel,” we reinforce the belief that Richard Levine—linebacker, husband, two times a father—can become Rachel Levine—female public health authority—by sheer force of will and against the dictates of his body. We deny reality for the sake of civility. We suspend what we know to be true—that the human person is a hylomorphic creature, a union of body and soul that is not (and is not meant to be) divided against itself—for what? For fear of being called bigots by the editors of Vox?

The semantic concession is tied to a tangible loss—or, rather, a long string of losses—in the policy arena. The conservative mainstream has adopted a general position of “this far, but no further,” acknowledging transgender claims either as legitimate or as a losing battle, and only attempting to limit (as they retreat) the enforcement of those claims in the public square. Thus we find ourselves talking not about whether troubled people should be given medical assistance in mutilating themselves based on feelings, but about whether those people, after said mutilation, should use the men’s or the women’s restroom. Not about whether young men and adolescent boys whose self-image has been savaged by incessant attacks on masculinity should be encouraged to abandon the masculine altogether; only about whether their abandonment should be hurried along medically before or after puberty, and whether or not they should be allowed to run varsity track on the girls’ team. There is never a substantive question of whether we should concede to the left’s agenda; only a procedural one of how we should go about it.

Conservatives must reclaim some hastily abandoned ground. The question is not whether Doug should be allowed onto the field hockey team, but whether Doug can become Daisy in the first place. (He can’t.) The best and the most honest way to quell the totalizing power of the transgender agenda is not to trim away at its edges but to take aim at its root. We have let this twisted tree grow unimpeded—and even watered it, when we found the time—and now it’s standing off-keel in the Capitol ready to topple and do some real damage.

We can only blame ourselves that Rand Paul’s inquiry as to whether Dr. Levine would support hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or mutilative surgery for minors confused about gender has met accusations of “transphobia” and extremism. Never mind that shielding children from harmful treatment in service of a political agenda is the absolute least we should expect of a respectable right in the debate over transgenderism. Conservatives have so fully abdicated our role here that a mild, moderate presentation of the conservative position is now denounced almost universally as miles beyond the pale. Nobody can pretend to be surprised that Ryan T. Anderson’s book got banned by Amazon; for years we’ve granted tacit credence to the left’s belief that trans-skepticism is a heresy against the ever-changing soft science of ever-changing genders, incurring latae sententiae excommunication from the ranks of respectable, intelligent people. We invite them to trample on us, then squeal in disbelief when they take us up on the offer.

No Republican senator has even thought to suggest that a man who is convinced he is a woman might have personal troubles that disqualify him from holding a high-ranking position in the nation’s public health apparatus. The mere idea that any of them could, after years of giving up on an entirely winnable issue, is laughable. We have admitted to the world that Richard is Rachel and Bruce is Caitlyn and everything they’re telling you is entirely correct but please don’t let them act on it too much (though we can’t explain to you why you shouldn’t).

Voltaire got very little right, but one warning still rings true: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” We might find the atrocities both much less common and much more easily combatted if we could manage, at the very least, to keep the obvious absurdities out of our own mouths.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-deadnaming-matters/





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Forty Days of Biden: Not so Centrist, Not so Competent



On the menu today: We’re past the 40-day mark of the Biden presidency, and already some things are clear. First, as many of us warned, Biden really isn’t much of a “centrist,” despite what much of the media claimed throughout 2019 and 2020. Second, he and his team are not exactly the wise, experienced, old Washington hands that they like to think of themselves as — remember that passing a COVID-relief bill was supposed to be the easy part of their agenda. Finally, Biden isn’t exactly moving with great speed to fill up the lower ranks of the executive branch.

Six weeks into the Biden administration, the bad news is that Joe Biden and his team are way farther to the left than the candidate promised on the campaign trail in 2020. But this is somewhat offset by the fact that he and his team are much less competent than promised.

Let’s just quickly review impeachment, which ended two weeks ago and already feels as if it’s ancient history. The Biden team didn’t really want the Senate to take the time to deal with a doomed effort, but also didn’t want to take the heat that publicly discouraging the Senate from holding a trial would bring. The trial went forward, it didn’t eat up a ton of the Senate’s time, and in the end, not much changed; Trump got his “acquitted again” headline. Maybe holding the Senate trial exacerbated the infighting in the GOP a bit, but a lot of that infighting was baked in the cake already.

Biden’s impending signature legislative accomplishment — a massive COVID-relief package — is likely to come to fruition, but in a way that leaves few factions all that satisfied. Ten Senate Republicans came to Biden with a smaller bill that would have gotten significant bipartisan support, but the president and his team turned them down. It’s now doubtful that the bill that ultimately passes will get any Republican support in either chamber. The relief bill will need to be passed through reconciliation, requiring just 50 votes. But raising the minimum wage nationally to $15 per hour can’t be included in a budget bill passed through reconciliation, and the final version is likely to include other compromises as well. West Virginia senator Joe Manchin is pushing to reduce the $350 billion in aid to state and local governments — and as we’ve seen, in a 50–50 Senate, what Manchin wants, Manchin usually gets.

Twelve years ago, the newly elected President Obama signed his stimulus into law on February 17, 2009. We haven’t even gotten to the conference committee for differing House and Senate versions of the COVID-relief bill yet, although Democrats seem confident they can get a bill to Biden’s desk by March 14, when certain jobless benefits expire.

But keep in mind, this relief bill was supposed to be the easy and bipartisan part of the Biden agenda. On paper, everybody in Congress wants to do something to help the economy, and almost everybody on Capitol Hill likes spending money. If it’s proving slow and difficult to pass even a watered-down version of Democrats’ original vision for this package, just imagine what, say, immigration reform will look like.

Biden’s senior adviser, Cedric Richmond, says the White House is “going to start acting now” on reparations. A White House that can’t build a working consensus on spending money when Democrats narrowly control both houses of Congress is not going to build a consensus for much more sweeping and controversial proposals.

On foreign policy, Biden proudly announced that “America is back!” but what that means in practice is that our president doesn’t tweet angrily about allied leaders anymore.

Biden’s attempt to finesse Saudi policy, backtracking on his campaign promises, is landing with a thud. He wanted to restart the Iran deal, but the Iranians are, for now, rejecting it. A recent headline from the European edition of Politico reads: “Europe gives Biden a one-finger salute,” pointing to the EU’s expansion of investment in China and its decision to move full speed ahead with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia, as well as the soft-to-nonexistent European response to the Kremlin’s arrest of opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

Allied leaders might be glad that Biden isn’t Trump, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily more likely to cooperate with this administration.

When the complete history of the Biden administration is written, the nomination of Neera Tanden to be director of the Office of Management and Budget will be a minor detail. If her nomination fails, the White House will just find a like-minded nominee who doesn’t have Tanden’s personal HR issues. And the Senate’s confirmation of Biden’s cabinet is moving slowly but largely smoothly, with eleven of 23 cabinet officials confirmed so far.

But a fairer question, more than 40 days into Biden’s administration, is whether Biden and his team are moving fast enough to fill out all of those lesser-known administration positions. For example, Biden hasn’t nominated a director of the Food and Drug Administration yet, which seems a little odd, considering how central the FDA is to the approval of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 right now and in the coming year.

There are about 1,250 positions in the executive branch that require Senate confirmation; Biden has picked 58 nominees so far. Almost no positions below secretary have been filled in any department or agency. There are a few holdovers from the Trump administration here and there.

Donald Trump was astonishingly lax when it came to staffing the executive branch; in September 2020, nearly four years into his presidency, the White House had not nominated anyone to 135 of 757 key positions requiring Senate confirmation. Yes, Biden has been in office for six weeks, but he won the election four months ago. And we know the Senate-confirmation process doesn’t move quickly, so if Biden wants his own people in there, he needs to formally submit their nominations to the Senate sooner rather than later.

Yes, you can argue that Biden will be more comfortable with the acting directors and career bureaucrats than Trump was, to which I’d reply that presidents should and do tend to prefer to have their own guys in there, enacting their vision. Then again, maybe there isn’t much to the Biden vision beyond a reversion to the Obama-era status quo.

Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claims he’s trying to deal with the “dismantlement of the system and the time that it takes to rebuild it virtually from scratch.” Meanwhile, the Biden administration hasn’t yet nominated anyone to be Mayorkas’ deputy secretary, nor named a nominee for director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

This pandemic-centered administration hasn’t named anyone to be the Pentagon’s assistant secretary of health affairs or the Department of Veterans Affairs’ undersecretary for health. It has named nominees for just four of the top 18 spots in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Biden has not yet nominated a solicitor general, a director of the Census Bureau (at a time when the pandemic has delayed the bureau’s work), a director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a director of the National Counterterrorism Center, an NASA Administrator, a DEA administrator, an ATF director, a U.S. Marshals director, a director of White House Office of Drug Control Policy, a director of the National Park Service, a director of the Bureau of Land Management, a chairman of the International Trade Commission, a president and chairman of the Export-Import Bank, a chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, an administrator at the General Services Administration, a U.S. executive director of the International Monetary Fund, a director of the Peace Corps, or chairs of the National Endowment of the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.

Biden has not nominated a director of the Office of Government Ethics; please save all your jokes to the end.

The Biden administration hasn’t nominated anyone to be an ambassador to another country yet. In most cases, that’s fine, and the U.S. can function adequately with Trump holdovers or deputy chiefs of mission. But certain roles — such as the ambassadors to China and Russia — do carry some pretty important foreign-policy duties. Biden’s got to make some big choices on Afghanistan soon, but he doesn’t even have a named nominee to fill that ambassadorial post yet.

There are vacancies on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, the National Mediation Board, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

All of these unfilled vacancies aren’t a crisis, but it is already March. Nominating somebody is the part of the confirmation process that the White House controls; you can’t blame the Senate for moving slowly on a nominee that isn’t named.

Then again, maybe Joe Biden looks out the window of the White House every morning and feels pretty good. Lots of people thought he would never get here. The vaccination effort appears to be on pace again. He can get a lot of credit for just releasing a two-minute video that supports the unionization of workers at Amazon without actually saying the name of the company.

When a presidential candidate defines his mission in vague, intangible terms such as fighting “a battle for the soul of America,” it frees him from the burden of achieving specific, tangible goals such as passing certain legislation or achieving certain diplomatic breakthroughs. Throughout 2020, I wrote that Biden was running on the not-so-unspoken pledge to simply not be Donald Trump. Well, mission accomplished.