RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/09/what-makes-riots-conspiracies-cabals-and-insurrections-good-or-bad/

“Indeed, men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.”

—Thucydides, on the stasis at Corcyra

 If the Republicans take the House or perhaps even the Senate, what new norms will they inherit from the Democratic majority of 2019-2021? 

Will Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on national television ritually tear up the text of Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address and grimace while he speaks? Was that Speaker Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) intended vision of her new “narrative” for the 21st-century Congress?

Will the new majority, calling back to 2018, almost immediately begin impeaching an unpopular Biden? And will Republicans likewise dispense with a special counsel’s report, or with formal hearings with an array of witnesses with spirited cross-examinations? 

Will they establish a special committee to investigate the rioting of summer 2020? Perhaps, in the new cannibalistic spirit of the age, will they dig into which national political figures—or colleagues—communicated with the Antifa or Black Lives Matter riot leaders, or offered them bail?

Will Speaker McCarthy veto Democratic committee members and instead appoint his own Democrats—on three criteria: one, that they have previously voted to impeach Biden; two, that either they cannot realistically again run for, or cannot conceivably be reelected to, the House; and three, that in advance they publicly praise and agree with McCarthy on the unwarranted virulence of the 2020 riots?

Will Republicans claim as reason to impeach Joe Biden that he failed to execute the laws as he swore to, by nullifying U.S immigration law? Was he not also guilty of an “abuse of power” and “obstructing Congress,” as he allowed 2 million aliens unlawfully to cross the southern border, during a pandemic without either testing or vaccinations, helping to spread the disease with reckless disregard? Will the new Congress subpoena generals to investigate the surrender and flight from Afghanistan, and especially who ordered it and why?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/philosophy-and-history-science-age-covid-jack-kerwick/

“The science is settled.”

To be sure, those who say such a thing are either illiterate when it comes to science and/or shameless partisan opportunists who are trying to score political points. If they accuse those who challenge their account of “science says” with “denialism” of one sort or another, or if they demand “a quick and devastating take down” of scientists with competing theories and express satisfaction that the demand has been met by such prestigious scientific journals as The Nation and Wired, you can take it to the bank that it is their political agenda that they prize above all.

Just the slightest familiarity with the history of science readily reveals that the science is never settled. Quite the contrary, it is emphatically unsettled as “the science” proves itself to be no less susceptible to flux than the world that it purports to disclose.

In the popular Western consciousness, science is the pinnacle of human cognition. Yet the average person, and, particularly, those who spare no occasion to adorn their property with signs revealing their “belief in science” and portraits of Anthony Fauci, have a profoundly impoverished view of science. Science, for them, begins and ends with the declarations of only those scientists who have received the stamp of approval by the government and the media. And these declarations are treated as dogma.   

Scientists are impartial conduits of objective reality, always and only just calling things for what they are. Thus, anyone who so much as remotely questions the assertions of (government-media approved) scientists are guilty of trying to discredit science itself (as Fauci recently said not so long ago when he charged his critics for challenging, not himself, but science).  

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/01/supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-biden-covid-19-joseph-klein/

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 7th regarding two Biden administration COVID-19 mandates. One case arose from a challenge to a vaccine-or-test-weekly mandate imposed on private-sector employers with 100 or more employees. This mandate was issued in the form of an “emergency” rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The other case focused on a vaccination requirement imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services for healthcare workers at health facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The Biden mandate that drew the most skepticism in varying degrees from the Supreme Court’s six conservative-leaning justices is the OSHA private business vaccine-or-test mandate. There appeared to be less inclination on their part to strike down the health care workers vaccine mandate. The three leftist justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan – expressed full support for the Biden administration’s mandates in both instances.

The conservative justices expressed concern during the portion of the oral arguments devoted to OSHA’s emergency mandate order about whether there was proper legal authority for OSHA’s action. They raised questions regarding the implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. They also inquired into whether OSHA had intruded on the states’ ability to exercise their constitutionally-reserved police powers to protect the general welfare and health of their own residents.

The trio of leftist justices defended the OSHA private business vaccine-or-test mandate largely on public policy grounds. Reaching, by hook or crook, what they felt was the right policy outcome to protect the public against the historic COVID-19 pandemic was all that mattered to them.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/the_supreme_courts_mandate_review_may_be_the_last_chance_to_rein_in_agencies.html

As if we needed confidence in yet another American institution destroyed, we were treated with a true spectacle of deceit in last Friday’s Supreme Court’s oral arguments on OSHA’s vaccine mandates. With the hysterical hyperbole of a CNN anchor, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman,” refuted that description by declaring, “We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”

Despite her Yale pedigree, or perhaps because of it, as physicist Wolfgang Pauli famously quipped, she’s “not even wrong.” You must at least be in the ballpark to be wrong, especially when the facts are easily accessed on HHS and CDC websites. As of today, hospital capacity is at 79% with only 18% being used for COVID; there are 140 COVID hospitalizations of children; and cumulative child COVID cases since its inception total just 5520. Ventilator use, which proved deadly at the beginning of the pandemic, is used in only 3% of the cases.

Extending her epidemiological deception to the legislative record, Sotomayor explained, “OSHA proposed regulations, it didn’t act fast enough, and Congress told it to act faster.” The problem is, not only did Congress do no such thing, it did exactly the opposite! Only a month ago, the Senate, with Democrat support, passed S.J. Res 29 to nullify OSHA’s vaccine mandate.

As implacably vacuous as Sotomayor’s hysterics were, Justice Elena Kagan plunged the Court to a level so benighted it made Robert’s “it’s a tax” seem like wisdom from the Oracle of Delphi. While her progressive ramblings are certain to inspire the army of “experts” infesting every crevice of DC’s bloated bureaucracy, they betray a profound contempt for constitutional law:

So who decides? Should it be the agency full of expert policymakers and completely politically accountable through the President? This is not the kind of policy in which there’s no political accountability. If people like this policy, they’ll go to the polls and vote it that way. If people don’t like it, they’ll vote that way. This is a publicly — a politically accountable policy. It also has the virtue of expertise. So, on the one hand, the agency with their political leadership can decide. Or, on the other hand, courts can decide. Courts are not politically accountable. Courts have not been elected. Courts have no epidemiological expertise. Why in the world would courts decide this question?