RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://spectator.us/nevertrumpers-betrayal/

In March 2016 as Donald Trump looked likely to be the Republican party’s nominee to run for president, more than 100 foreign policy professionals signed a letter vowing not only that they wouldn’t work for him should he become president but that they would work ‘energetically’ to prevent his election. As the months wore on, the light in which the signatories appeared often shifted. Once Trump became the nominee, and then the President, these representatives of the ‘national security community’ appeared to have demonstrated one of the most damaging things any such group could demonstrate: their own irrelevance.

It turned out that more than a decade and a half into a set of wars that the world’s most advanced military had managed to fight to various draws, the American public did not much want to hear from foreign policy professionals.

Once Trump was actually in office the whole thing appeared in another light. A Republican president was in the White House, but 120 people who would normally have filled the administration of such a president had already signed a document vowing not to work for him. A number of people who would have been crucial in specific roles were overlooked because they had signed this and other similar letters.

Shortly after this vetting was becoming clear, I met with one of those who had convened the biggest NeverTrumper list. In retrospect, I asked, was it wise of him to have invited so many people who could have been of serious service to their country to effectively remove themselves from the running? The convener had no qualms. The Trump team were struggling already — and would struggle for another four years — to fill up many of the key foreign policy positions. But it was worth it. The NeverTrumpers were not cooperating. All they needed to do was to sit back and be seen to be right. Though few did fully sit back. For four years, the NeverTrumpers formed groups and pacs, filed columns and blogs and launched many a derisive tweet. But at least they had not contaminated themselves.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/18/governor-cuomo-should-take-a-polygraph-test-just-like-he-said-brett-kavanaugh-should-have-n1215636

I’m not fond of recovered memories of sexual harassment, nor, of some the definitions of harassment, but it is satisfying to see the Guv hoist on his own petard…..rsk

Governor Andrew Cuomo is reportedly on Biden’s shortlist for attorney general.

He’s also been accused of sexual harassment by a former aide.

The governor has denied the allegations, of course, but there still ought to be an investigation.

But if Cuomo really is potentially going to be the attorney general of the United States, the top law-enforcement officer of the nation, we need some answers quickly. Perhaps he should follow his own advice and take a polygraph test.

Back during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, when Democrats tried to thwart his nomination with bogus accusations of sexual assault, Governor Cuomo had a grand idea that Kavanaugh should take a polygraph test.

“President Trump, you said you would watch the hearings today. I believe Dr. Ford’s testimony is very compelling. Only a political skeptic could find a reason to disbelieve her,” Cuomo said. “What is her possible motive to lie? In any event, I fear this will just increase the political polarization. Whatever happens, your decision will be tainted for history and with it the credibility of the Supreme Court.” He went on to say:

“Here is one basic fact that badly hurts Judge Kavanaugh: Why won’t he take a polygraph? Dr. Ford did. If he does not take a polygraph test, it is the ultimate, ‘he said, she said.’ It is the one powerful piece of evidence that seriously damages his credibility and the credibility of his Republican supporters, including yourself. You can and should ask him to take the test. If he refuses, you should pull the appointment. It will show at least a modicum of fairness on your part. If you do not insist that Judge Kavanaugh take a polygraph, it will be further evidence that you are putting political motivation over your constitutional obligation. Do not aid and abet a lie. Demand a polygraph.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-court-stands-on-principle-11608334424?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The fuss over President Trump’s order to exclude undocumented immigrants from the decennial reapportionment may be much ado about nothing. That’s essentially what a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court said Friday in dismissing a legal challenge (Trump v. New York) by Democratic states for lack of standing.

“A foundational principle of Article III is that ‘an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation,’” the Court noted in an unsigned ruling with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

Democratic states claimed they would lose federal funding and Congressional seats if the President’s order was implemented, though these harms are speculative. President Trump’s order directed the Commerce Secretary to gather information “to the extent practicable” and exclude undocumented aliens “to the extent feasible.”

The Justice Department conceded during oral arguments this month that the government lacked records on many of the 10.5 million or so undocumented immigrants in the country. It was also unclear whether the Census Bureau could even mesh the records in its possession with the decennial enumeration.

In other words, the order might not even be implemented, let alone harm Democratic states. “At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the Court noted.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-green-lights-trump-removal-of-illegal-aliens-from-census-count_3624432.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-18-3

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may remove illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count, which eliminates that population from the process of allocating congressional seats and Electoral College votes that officially determine the presidency.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. New York issued Dec. 18 is a victory for the Trump administration.

Placed on a judicial fast track because various census-related deadlines are nearing, oral argument took place telephonically before the nine justices on Nov. 30.

The Trump administration wanted illegal aliens removed from the decennial census count to prevent them from having an impact on the apportionment of political power among the states.

States and local governments, including so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials, sued to prevent the administration’s plan from moving forward. They argued that President Donald Trump, a Republican, was attempting to interfere with the count and prevent Democratic-leaning areas with large illegal-alien populations from gaining congressional seats.

But the high court found that their challenge was premature because they could not demonstrate any so-called concrete injury they might suffer. The ruling apparently leaves open the possibility of further challenges in the future and acknowledges the Trump administration may have difficulty implementing its policy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/the_new_england_journal_of_medicine_is_now_fully_woke.html

Although it’s seemingly good news that there’s a Wuhan virus vaccine available, not everyone is embracing it. After all, they’ve seen the medical establishment, from Fauci on down, make one mistake after another during this difficult year. Worse, many in the medical establishment are proving to be insane as only leftists can be. The latest example is the once prestigious and reliable New England Medical Journal, which published an article declaring biological sex irrelevant.

In the latest issue of the NEMJ, two doctors and a lawyer have written that it’s time to do away with putting a newborn baby’s biological sex – as demonstrated by its external genitalia – on birth certificates. The article is behind a paywall, but the summary is there for all to see:

Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people. Moving such designations below the line of demarcation wouldn’t compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.

First, let’s meet the authors. Vadim Shteyler is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at Brown University. He’s a hospitalist, which means he’s a regular internal medicine doctor who doesn’t have an office practice but works only in a hospital.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/ama_lied__how_many_died.html

The American Medical Association has been adamantly against hydroxychloroquine as a therapeutic for COVID for the past year. Just a few days before the presidential election they reversed course, reversing their opposition. Did they suddenly realize HCQ might have benefit in certain patient groups or were they lying for the past year? How many individuals died as a result of being denied potential lifesaving treatment?

The AMA is synonymous with organized medicine, despite myriad specialty societies that may better represent the needs of its member physicians. In fact, only 12 percent of practicing physicians belong to the AMA due to concerns that the AMA is more interested in its own finances and politics than the concerns of doctors.

When the AMA talks, media and the public listen, due to their perceived clout. Last spring, the AMA issued a statement critical of hydroxychloroquine as it was being used off-label in the treatment of COVID, not FDA-approved for this purpose with supposed “dangerous side effects.”

Quietly at the end of October, the AMA issued a new statement, conveniently overlooked by the media, giving the green light to doctors prescribing HCQ to their COVID patients.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/cuomo-wields-imperious-axe-against-nyc-restaurants-joseph-klein/

Power-hungry Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is singlehandedly starving New York City’s restaurants. By executive edict, Cuomo ordered the city’s restaurants, which were barely getting along as it was, to once again shut down their indoor dining services completely. Cuomo the grinch did so just in time for the holidays, when restaurants were hoping to make up for at least some of the revenue they have lost this year. By decimating the restaurant industry, Cuomo is also destroying the livelihoods of low and middle-income New Yorkers. For many restaurants, Cuomo’s draconian order is their death sentence. Restaurants are closing permanently in droves.

Restaurant owners and workers have reached their breaking point. Together with industry leaders, they protested in Times Square on December 15th. “Save our restaurants! Save our jobs!” protesters chanted before marching to Cuomo’s Midtown East office, the New York Post reported.  “The situation continues to get more and more dire, and the shutting down of indoor dining during the holidays, when New York City restaurants are providing the safety measures, is the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Jeffrey Garcia, president of the New York State Latino Restaurant Bar and Lounge Association (NYSRBLA), said at the protest. “We need action immediately.”

A restaurant owner lamented that “now that we’re unable to pay rent due to the shutdown, I’m afraid that I’m going to lose everything altogether.” Another owner said, “My employees don’t have a job two weeks before Christmas. It breaks my heart.”

An executive chef/owner of two lower Manhattan restaurants pointed out the ripple effect of the shutdown. “It’s important to understand that the restaurant industry is an ecosystem, so when you shut down restaurants you are looking at a serious domino effect from the purveyors to the farmers and the employees,” he said.

“How will I pay rent, buy food, support my family?” a long-time cook at a West Village restaurant asked. “That is what I am afraid of.”

https://spectator.org/biden-moderation-progressivism/

The dominant media is an unreliable arbiter of political labels. While it is quick to cast even the most prosaic Republicans as “hardline conservatives,” it is far more circumspect in its description of Democrats. To enhance the appeal of figures like Joe Biden, the media will often confer upon them the label “moderate.” This is a lever by which the media moves the ideological spectrum steadily leftward, to the advantage of liberals. A biased media would like the public to see liberalism and “moderation” as interchangeable. Hence, even though Biden ran a campaign to the left of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, many in the media still described it as moderate.

This media flattery continues as Biden rolls out his personnel picks. He hasn’t selected a veritable moderate yet. All his picks come from the ranks of liberal Democrats, and some of the most important posts have gone to the most ideological of them, from Neera Tanden at the Office of Management and Budget to Xavier Becerra at Health and Human Services. This week Biden named Jennifer Granholm, an opponent of traditional sources of energy, to head up the Energy Department, which is a bit like making a pacifist the head of the Defense Department.

It is clear that no serious dissenters from liberal orthodoxy will receive any positions in a Biden administration. Yet some in the media are still playing up “tensions” between Biden and “progressives” so that the mythology of Biden as a moderate can continue. “Progressives frustrated with representation as Biden Cabinet takes shape,” says the Hill. But the carping doesn’t amount to much. It appears more personal than ideological: Bernie Sanders and company would like to see more of their friends getting jobs. To the extent that it is ideological, it represents little more than an intramural dispute not between moderates and liberals but between leftists of varying degrees. (Neera Tanden is described in the article as “establishment,” though she is as liberal as they come.)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-end-lockdowns-next-month-11608230214?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The approval of several Covid-19 vaccines is an impressive technological development that should rapidly end the lockdowns and allow normal life to resume. But authorities like Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates argue that lockdown restrictions may have to continue through the fall and even into 2022, notwithstanding the catastrophic harms the lockdowns have caused, especially to young people, the poor and the working classes.

The imminent dissemination of vaccines can help end lockdowns by the end of January. The Great Barrington Declaration, which we wrote with Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School, provides the key idea: focused protection of people who face a high risk of mortality should they become infected.

The risk of mortality from Covid-19 infection is now well established by seroprevalence studies conducted world-wide. Seroprevalence studies measure a lower bound on the number of people who have been infected. There is a sharp age gradient in the survival rate after infection. At least 99.95% of people under 70 survive infection; that figure is only 95% for 70 and older.

Covid-19 is thus especially deadly for the old and others with chronic conditions. But the lockdowns are deadly as well. The harms include plummeting childhood vaccination, worse cardiovascular disease outcomes, and less cancer screening, to name a few. It’s impossible to quantify the total deaths they have caused and will cause, but it’s safe to conclude that for people under 70 without chronic conditions—especially children and young adults—Covid-19 is far less deadly than a lockdown. For children, the cessation of in-person schooling has led to severe learning losses, which are predicted to shorten the lifespans of affected students. Among 25- to 44-year-olds, the CDC reports a 26% increase in excess all-cause mortality relative to past years, though less than 5% of 2020 deaths have been due to Covid-19.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/12/18/want-real-economic-stimulus-end-economy-killing-lockdowns-now/

Congressional negotiators, we’re told, are inching ever closer to a deal for what’s being called a “second round of stimulus spending.” Sorry, but what’s planned has nothing to do with supercharging the economy. Want to really “stimulate” growth? End the foolish COVID-19 lockdowns that have decimated small businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The sound you’ll no doubt soon be hearing is hundreds of Washington, D.C., politicians and policymakers clapping themselves on the back for the pending stimulus package.

As it now stands, the $900 billion-plus deal is likely to include “direct payments to all Americans, funding for vaccine rollout and delivery, and an extension of unemployment benefits as well as much-needed aid to small businesses,” according to The Week.

But this is not “stimulus” by any means. It is the economic equivalent of putting a dying patient on life support.

So call this bill what it is. Government relief for a problem the government itself caused through mandated lockdowns.