RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/09/15/the_deep_politics_of_vaccine_mandates_146408.html

The debate over President Biden’s vaccine mandates has focused, understandably, on the tradeoff between individual rights to make medical choices and the potential harm the unvaccinated pose to others. That tradeoff is unavoidable. It is simply wrong for Biden to say, “It’s not about freedom.” It is. It is equally wrong for some Republican governors to say it is all about freedom. It’s also about the external effects of each person’s choice. To pretend that tradeoff doesn’t exist is demagoguery. But then, so is most American politics these days.

What’s missing or underappreciated in this debate?

The most important thing is that the Biden administration’s “mandate approach” is standard-issue progressivism. The pushback is equally standard. The mandates exemplify a dispute that has been at the heart of American politics for over a century, ever since Woodrow Wilson formulated it as a professor and then president. That agenda emphasizes deference to

Experts, not elected politicians,
Rational bureaucratic procedures,
Centralized power in the nation’s capital, not in the federal states, and
A modern, “living constitution,” which replaces the “old” Constitution of 1787 and severs the restraints it imposed on government power.

Implemented over several decades, this progressive agenda has gradually become a fait accompli, without ever formally amending the Constitution. The bureaucracies began their massive growth after World War II and especially after Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives of the mid-1960s (continued, with equal vigor, by Richard Nixon).

https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/15/science-they-said/

The scientific method used to govern much of popular American thinking. 

In empirical fashion scientists advised us to examine evidence and data, and then by induction come to rational hypotheses. The enemies of “science” were politics, superstition, bias, and deduction. 

Yet we are now returning to our version of medieval alchemy and astrology in rejecting a millennium of the scientific method.  

Take the superstitions that now surround COVID-19. 

We now know from data that a prior case of COVID offers immunity as robust as vaccination—if not better. 

Why then are Joe Biden’s various proposed vaccination mandates ignoring that scientific fact? Dr. Anthony Fauci, when asked, seemed at a loss for words. 

Is this yet another of the scientific community’s Platonic “noble lies,” as when last year Fauci assured the public there was no need for masks? He later claimed he had lied so that medical professionals would not run out of needed supplies. 

Fauci also seemed to throw out all sorts of mythical percentages needed for herd immunity, apparently in an attempt to convince the public that it will never be safe until every American is protected from COVID by vaccination only.

And why was it that hard for the scientific community to postulate a likely origin of COVID-19? 

Instead, some of the very scientists engaged in gain of function research oversaw an investigation with Chinese authorities. They all confirmed the predetermined conclusion that the virus likely had little to do with gain of function engineering. And they saw little proof it was birthed in the Wuhan virology lab. 

Yet the preponderance of scientific opinion, emerging data and evidence, and basic logic have suggested just the opposite.  

How can the government hector citizens that they have a moral duty and soon a legal obligation to be vaccinated, when it does not ask vaccinations of unvetted refugees flying in from Afghanistan? 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/the_unsung_death_of_my_body_my_choice.html

Just 79 minutes after Harris breathed new life into it, President Joe Biden put the mantra out of its misery

As late as 3:43 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, the long-lived mantra of the pro-abortion movement, “My Body, My Choice,” was still showing signs of life. It was at that time, that the White House published the remarks made by Vice-President Kamala Harris at a “Reproductive Rights” roundtable.

“The President and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies,” said Ms. Harris.

“And, needless to say,” Harris continued much too quotably, “the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.”

So far is Harris out of the White House power loop that she may not have known the mantra had less than two hours to live. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/if-the-china-story-is-true-milley-has-to-go/

At the very least, we must stop the corrosive politicization of institutions that we need to keep nonpolitical — including the military.

I agree with our editorial that General Mark Milley should be aggressively investigated and, if the Washington Post reporting is verified, removed from office. In fact, I think he ought to be pressed, as a preliminary matter, about whether the reporting is substantially accurate; if he concedes that it is, he should be suspended immediately pending an investigation.

But we need a real investigation. I carry no brief for Milley, who personifies the politicization of institutions that must be apolitical in a properly functioning republic. Nevertheless, conclusions about his alleged behavior have gotten way out in front of the evidence.

As our editorial notes, Bob Woodward has a dubious history. As a foundation for admissible evidence, his reporting methods — particularly, encouraging sources to speak without attribution — would be laughed out of a courtroom.

To be sure, the Woodward MO of portraying the most voluble leakers as his story’s most valuable players would strongly suggest that Milley is one of his main sources. On this occasion, that would add credibility to Woodward’s account, on the legal theory of declarations against interest. That is, in touting himself as the commander who bravely reined in an unhinged commander in chief, Milley would have (however inadvertently) admitted misconduct that could subject him to discipline. (Statements against interest, though hearsay, are generally admissible in court because they are presumptively reliable: When people acknowledge actions that put them at risk, they are usually not lying.)

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/16/afghan-tragedy-border-blunders-vaccine-disaster-now-biden-co-want-to-spend-us-into-socialist-oblivion/

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin had it partly right when he called for a “strategic pause”. But now it is clear that the $3.5 trillion price tag seriously understates the Bernie Sanders/AOC/progressive reconciliation bill through which they will try to remake America into their socialist image.

Early on, Sens. Rick Scott, R-Florida, and Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., both recognized that the price tag was artificially low for all these socialist goodies revealed in the initial budget resolution. And that’s just the start. They and many others are pegging the actual price tag at $5 or even $7 trillion. The reason for the discrepancy is found in the entitlements, the actual details of which are still embargoed in the massive 10,000-page bill.

What we do know comes from the budget resolution that outlines the Bernie Sanders/AOC “leftist wish list” and seeks a complete remaking of the American economy. It is key to remember that congressional budgets are blueprints for the actual spending – advanced ultimately in this case in a reconciliation bill – which will take place later this month.

Reconciliation was originally adopted as a provision of law to cut overall government spending to fit into the federal budget. But today it is a chance for another bite at the apple for tax increases and for new entitlement spending that cannot be cut since entitlement spending is automatic as provided by law. Today reconciliation serves another purpose: adoption of new regulatory policies that effectively operate as taxes by imposing new costs on businesses.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/15/california-you-blew-it-again/

Not only did California Gov. Gavin Newsom survive the recall election, the vote margin was tilted so far in his favor by Wednesday morning that he’s likely to see the results as a mandate to issue another round of harsh pandemic rules. What is certain is that he will consider it a signal to press the Blue State agenda that’s made California a miserable experience for so many.

Recalling a Democratic governor in a state where roughly twice as many Democrats are registered to vote as Republicans was always going to be a nearly impossible task. At one time, polls indicated Newsom could be ousted. It appeared a chance to climb out of the wreckage had arrived. But in the final poll that matters, voters changed the narrative. On the morning after, results were showing 64% said no to the recall, only 36% said yes.

It wouldn’t be loco to think that Newsom is now going to seek revenge on those who voted to remove him. A likely place to start is to put California back under a tight and unforgiving pandemic lockdown regime even though it had never fully escaped Newsom’s iron fist over the summer. If not for the heat he felt from the recall polls, the life-has-been-handed-to-him governor would have surely reinstated the freedom-robbing policies he had ordered in 2020 after the Delta variant arrived in June.

There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, Newsom’s constituents are supportive of lockdowns, mask mandates, and government-required coronavirus vaccinations, while those who voted to rid themselves of this meddlesome prince of privilege were hungry for the liberties he’d so cruelly taken. Now he’s free to punish those who dared challenge him, and will do so with the gushing approval of the affluent progressives of California who are his most ardent supporters.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/16/another-covid-fact-turns-out-to-be-a-wild-exaggeration/

We keep hearing how hospitals are being overrun with COVID patients because of those dastardly unvaccinated. This has certainly made the Delta variant look highly dangerous, helped keep people in a state of panic, and ginned up support for draconian vaccine mandates. But is it as bad as we’re being told?

Two studies suggest that all the talk of mass hospitalization from the COVID outbreak is a huge exaggeration. Researchers found that a substantial number of those admitted to hospitals – adults and children – either have minor symptoms or were checked in for something else but happened to test positive for COVID after being admitted.

Of course, that’s not the message the public is getting. Instead, we are being treated daily to headlines such as:

“Child Covid-19 hospitalizations soar, filling pediatric wings, data show”

“COVID-19 Hospitals: overrun with COVID patients”

“As Idaho hospitals ration care, doctors fear a COVID peak may still be weeks away”

When the death rate from COVID plunged, the media started focusing on the number of people hospitalized as the “better” indicator of how serious the current COVID outbreak is.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/waiting-for-general-mark-milley-china-bob-woodward-report-11631744398?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Donald Trump’s behavior as a candidate and President unhinged some of America’s vital institutions, including the press and the FBI. It would be disturbing to find out that military leaders also responded to the President’s norm-breaking by betraying their institutional obligations.

That’s the implication of a report of national-security freelancing by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at the end of Mr. Trump’s term. Congress needs to find out how much is true—not because of partisan demands for retribution against the general, but because even the appearance of attenuating civilian control of the military is damaging to democracy.

A forthcoming book by journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa alleges that Gen. Milley called China’s top military commander shortly before the November election and said, “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” After the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and a call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Milley tried to increase his control over nuclear launch procedures out of fear of what Mr. Trump might do.

Mr. Woodward’s opaque method makes it impossible to judge the accuracy of his reporting. He relates conversations he didn’t hear based on sources whose motives aren’t explained. Those on the right now demanding Gen. Milley’s head based on Mr. Woodward’s book were rightly cautious of the journalist’s insider accounts of GOP presidencies.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/elected-mark-milley-china-military/

A coup by any other name and maybe even a little light treason. Those are the accusations flying over revelations in a new Bob Woodward book about what Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley did after the January 6 Capitol riots.

Milley reportedly held several phone calls shortly after January 6, with both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and with his counterpart in China. According to Woodward, the general gave assurances to Gen. Li Zuocheng that he would alert the Chinese to any possible coming attack, nuclear or otherwise.

There is no evidence President Trump was planning any kind of strike against China, or Iran, or Florida. No battle plans were being drawn. Miller supposedly took these actions after Trump signed an executive order removing US forces from Afghanistan. Woodward and Robert Costa write that Milley was concerned that Trump would ‘go rogue’ post election loss. Milley held meeting and phone calls without Trump’s knowledge and directed staff, ‘No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure.’ Milley then went around the room to each general and demanded what the book is calling ‘an oath’.

The trouble is, Milley wasn’t legally granted any of these extraordinary powers. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff essentially usurped the chain of command and attempted to take civilian control of the United States military away from a duly elected president, simply because of his own gut feelings tinged with a bit of paranoia.