Blog

Let Kamala be president now!

Let Kamala be president now! So say the republicans

I don’t understand why all the republicans are clamoring for Biden to resign now. Mike Johnson – the accidental speaker – has said that “if he is not fit to run for president, he is not fit to serve as president.” Other house republicans have said the same from Steve Scalise to Elise Stefanik have intoned much the same. On the senate side JD Vance, Steve Daines, Mike Braun and Rick Scott have called for Biden to resign. Nancy Mace in the house and Rick Scott in the senate say that they will introduce resolutions to ask the cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment. Again, this is an absolute waste of time.

What about the democrats? Its outright support for Biden to continue. No democrat senator or representative has called for Biden to resign. His usual cheerleaders and apologists like Connecticut’s Chris Coons, who actually cried hearing Biden had opted out, are still supporting his staying in office. In fact, eighty-one percent of democrats are against him resigning while 63% of republicans want him gone now.

But isn’t it a bit curious that the republicans want Kamala Harris to be president now and the democrats don’t? Maybe the republicans think that an incumbent Harris would be easier to beat but why risk it? She might actually surprise us all – even though I doubt it. Anyway, we have seen all the damage that Biden could do unilaterally. Don’t you think that a more “progressive” much younger President Harris would double down on Biden’s policies through the use of executive orders? I think we all would be better off with Biden staying. The words of the republicans ring hollow. Biden has not been capable of being president for at least the past year, perhaps two. Why just now call for his resignation? Again this points to the republicans being asleep at the wheel and literally doing nothing of importance during the Biden presidency. Lots of hot air. Lots of smoke. Losts of posturing before the cameras. But no substance. Letting the attorneys general do their job. If this has not been the worse republican delegation in memory, it is hard to find one that was worse.

A successful insurrection

In one of the nearly billion news articles on Biden deciding not to seek re-election, there was a comment section in the on-line version of the Wall Street Journal. I commented “Are the democrats who pushed Biden out going to be prosecuted as insurrectionists”? Naturally, it generated a bunch of “likes” except for one snarky response that I should look up the definition of insurrection. I thought I knew the definition. The American Heritage Dictionary says that it is “The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.” Isn’t that what happened? Over 20 high level democrats and many more operatives openly clamored for Biden to get out of the race, fearing losing the presidency to Donald Trump. The senate and House leadership went to his home to urge him not to run. Some wrote that Biden was pushed out of the race. If that is not an “act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government” then I don’t know what is. Unlike the Jan 6 “insurrection” which had no chance of succeeding, this one did. 

Unless the delegates to the democrat convention fall in line behind Kamala Harris, the convention will be a must see. The democrat leadership knowing Biden’s worsening condition, rigged the nominating process. They did not allow any competition to Biden and did not schedule any candidate debates. Now they are going to have to decide whether they can simply transfer Biden’s commitments and cash to Harris in order to avoid chaos at the convention. I would be stunned if their candidate were anyone but Harris. Not nominating her would rupture the party. Of course, she has the dismal Biden record to run on. At least everyone but the hardcore democrats think it was dismal. Democrat politicians and the pundits on the left are falling all over themselves praising Biden and his “accomplishments”. Harris has no record of accomplishments. Her only platform – other than she is not Donald Trump – is abortion. We will see whether that is enough to become the first woman (I guess she knows what a woman is) of color (black-Asian) to be elected president.

Lastly, Donald Trump again showed his petty, vindictive side. When offered the chance to pretend that he is presidential, he failed. His response to Biden’s opting out was “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve — And never was! He only attained the position of President by lies, Fake News, and not leaving his Basement.” In many other instances when tweets like this go out, those close to the tweeter will recall the tweet and substitute one more conciliatory. Not in this case, Trump’s follow up tweet was “Crooked Joe Biden is the Worst President, by far, in the History of our Nation. He has done everything possible to destroy our Country. He was not fit to serve from the very beginning, but the people around him lied to America about his Complete and Total Mental, Physical, and Cognitive Demise.”

Way to go Donald. What a classy guy.

Random thoughts #37

Random

As the chorus of democrats who clamor for Biden to not seek re-election grows there are a few thoughts that occur to me.

  1. Biden likes being president and will resist until his closest allies and family tell him to quit.

    a. The family wants him to stay president.

    b. Jill craves the attention

    c. Biden is the sole gravy train for Hunter and the rest of the family

    d. When Biden does leave, the money stops flowing to the family.

    e. Unlike the Obamas and the Clintons, Biden will not earn millions when he leaves office. No $100,000 speeches. No $5 million memoirs. No foundation.

    2. What if Biden does announce he is not running for re-election?

    a. If he announces before the convention, he could resign the presidency to make Harris president. That would lead to her being the democrat nominee.

    b. If he didn’t resign, there would be a fight for the nomination at the convention and chaos if the party rejects Harris.

    3. What if he resigns after the convention?

     a. Harris would become president 

    b. But would she automatically be the democrat nominee?

    c. Would there have to be a nominating convention called to make her – or anyone else – the nominee?

    d. What about a Harris-Michelle Obama ticket?

    Are kidney transplants racist?

    As was the case with my recent posting on the Supreme Court, I once again tread into an area of scant expertise – kidney disease. In his administration’s continuing war on “white privilege” the Department of Health and Human Services has announced a plan to prioritize low income patients in performing kidney transplants. This is intended says HHS secretary Xavier Bacerra to root out “racial inequities” in the “transplant process.” The proposal which is to be effective January 2025 (provided the democrats keep the presidency) is a confusing one to someone not versed in regulatory minutia. 

    I quote from the Washington Free Beacon: “The plan would place the nation’s 257 transplant hospitals into a pilot program that uses an annual point system to grade participants. Under the system, a successful kidney transplant counts as one point. A transplant furnished to a low- income patient, however, counts as 1.2 points thanks to a “health equity performance adjustment,” thus incentivizing the hospitals to prioritize such patients. At the end of each year, those points are applied to a transplant quota. Hospitals that meet their quota receive as much as $8,000 per transplant; those that don’t may have to pay up to $2,000 per transplant. “

    On the surface this looks like the hospitals should have the low income patients go to the front of the line when getting transplants or more cynically hospitals are encouraged to fill up their surgery schedules with low income patients and completely bypass higher income patients. This, of course, assumes that there is a waiting list for surgeries that provide an excess demand at the hospitals. This would also assume that hospitals are currently bypassing low income patients in order to perform surgeries first on higher income patients. 

    Does this mean that the hospitals are racists engaging in “racial inequities” in the transplant process? The research shows that blacks have a 2-3 times greater incidence of kidney failure than whites but have a lower likelihood of receiving a kidney transplant. Is this due to the racist policies of hospitals? Well the research shows that there is no racial difference in receiving a deceased donor transplant. The difference is that blacks are less likely to receive a living donor transplant. In 2020, 64 percent of the living donor transplants were on white patients while 11 percent were on black patients and 16 percent on Hispanics. Not surprisingly over 95 percent of all living donor transplants come from close relatives. Again the research finds that the “under-representation of Black living donors may be due to greater health co-morbidities within the Black community, including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, making fewer Blacks eligible to be living donors such that candidates may be less likely to find medically acceptable living donors within their social networks.” Does this sound like racism on the part of the hospitals?


    Therefore, I wonder how the HHS proposal will affect these numbers. Since there is no difference in receiving a deceased donor kidney, does the proposal aim to incentivize hospitals to find more black living donors? A modest proposal would then be for the Biden Administration to offer monetary incentives for black family members to donate a kidney to their kinfolk. Thus, perhaps a payment of say $10,000 to a low income donor might erase the difference between black-white donors. I don’t see how providing incentives and disincentives to the hospitals will accomplish HHS’s goals of “rooting out racial inequities.” But certainly a direct payment to donors might help.

    The algorithm once used to determine whether a patient went on the transplant list was found to understate the severity of kidney disease amongst blacks. That algorithm has since been changed to more accurately reflect the extent of kidney disease for black patients. This means that the real degree of kidney disease has been understated for blacks and the waiting lists for patients will grow. This further points to the necessity of finding more black living donors. If anyone at HHS is listening, please initiate a pilot program to offer monetary incentives to the family members of transplant patients. In order to make it sound race neutral, the incentives can be scaled acording to income.

    The Dangers of Woke

    I am a bit dismayed that so-called conservative media has adopted the language of the left. I wrote an essay for a solidly conservative organization that proceeded to capitalize “black” but not “white”. I capitalize neither and asked why did they change my style? They replied that they used the AP style guide. A bit later I wrote a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal complaining that they also capitalized “black” and not “white”. Their response was that they followed the AP Style Guide. I then wondered if they were then going to refer to pregnant women as “birthing people”? Doesn’t the AP style Guide say “Phrasing like pregnant people or people seeking an abortion seeks to include people who have those experiences but do not identify as women, such as transgender men and nonbinary people. Such phrasing should be confined to stories that specifically address the experiences of people who do not identify as women.” Here the so-called conservative press veers away from the style guide and continues to use the term “women” to refer to “women”. Yet the so-called conservative press often uses feminine terms to refer to men who now claim to be women and male terms for women who now profess to be men.

    There are other examples of woke-speak now creeping into everyday usage, like cisgender which is defined as “Identifying as having a gender that corresponds to the sex one has been assigned at birth; not transgender”. Other terms like “binary”, “cultural appropriation”, “marginalization’, “microaggression”, “privileged”, “safe space”, “systemic racism”, “social justice”, “anti-racism”, “unconscious bias”, “gender fluid”, “gender affirming care”, “Latinx”, “LGBTQ+”, “preferred pronouns” and “woke” itself have intruded into our everyday language. They have even tried to get rid of “master bedroom.”

    When Stanford University devoted thousands of dollars and manhours (woke alert!) to write and publish a glossary to eliminate “harmful language” it was mocked to the point that it withdrew the glossary. Stanford said “The goal of the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate* many forms of

    harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased (e.g., disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias) language in Stanford websites and code.” The glossary was extensive with the preferred translation of hundreds of words. Its website cautioned with the following: Content Warning: This website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace.

    I did not find the content harmful or offensive. I guess only those who suffer microaggressions and feel hurtful and need the shelter of a safe space would be offended. Nonetheless, the left is relentless in seeking to alter how we speak and how we speak does affect the public’s perception of things. Note that we have substituted “handicapped” for “crippled”. We seldom hear the word “retarded”. We now use Native American instead of Indian. I am awaiting the press to use alternatives for black box, blackball, white paper, white hat, black sheep, black mark, brown bag, yellow fever, white paper and “go off the reservation”. It’s a wonder I haven’t been pressured to change my last name. Also isn’t it interesting after insisting that “convicted felon” be changed to “person who is/was incarcerated or convicted of a crime”, that the left constantly ignores their own wokespeak and calls Donald Trump a convicted felon?

    One must understand the power of language. The left seeks to change our language insisting that in its current form injustice will continue until the language itself – which they insist represents privilege – is dismantled. The left attacks what it calls “imperialist and patriarchal” systems and charges that “capitalism is racist and racism is capitalism.” We are now in the world of the “oppressor versus the oppressed.” 

    All of this wokeness has migrated into the classroom. The teachers’ unions are solidly progressive. Our schoolchildren who lack proficiency in reading and math are now proficient in wokeness. School systems are dumbing down their curricula and eliminated standards. Some states are proposing to eliminate entrance exams to law and medical schools and then eliminate proficiency exams to be admitted to practice.  Schools have ethnic studies curricula that are anti-capitalist, pro-transgender and woke to the extreme. Years of indoctrination in our schools will not lead to a more just and equitable society. Rather it will foster resentment and racial strife. It will also produce generations of illiterates who cannot perform basic skills. This is woke America until we all awaken.

    Trump shot

    Trump was shot at a rally in Pennsylvania. Unlike other high profile shootings, I have not heard the democrats calling for a ban on guns. We should have seen this coming and wonder why it took so long to happen. The democrats have shouted long and hard that Trump was the second coming of Hitler and their main message this election season is that Trump was evil and a threat to democracy. I cannot recall another presidential campaign with this much vitriol and incendiary speech. The main stream media has been complicit with the democrats in trying to spread fear amongst the electorate. MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today and the rest have raised the temperature in this election. Much like when Chuck Schumer tacitly threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and there was an assassination attempt on Kavanaugh, I have been anticipating an attempt on Trump.

    I am not giving Trump a pass either. Many times, his messages have been interpreted as xenophobic and racist. In fact, during his first campaign many of his comments led me to remark “I thought George Wallace was dead.” Hopefully, this shooting will cause the rhetoric on both sides to be toned down.

    But here are a few choice comments by the democrats on Trump.

    “We’ve done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,” – Joe Biden

    America faces an immediate future of military occupations, political executions and concentration camps unless millions of its citizens unite against “dictator” Donald  Trump” – Salons Chauncey DeVega

    “There is one existential threat: It’s Donald Trump”  –  Joe Biden 

    “Trump poses an existential threat to abortion rights in Pennsylvania” – Democratic US Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon

    There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy. The MAGA movement.”  Joe Biden

    Those who stormed this Capitol and those who instigated and incited and those who called on them to do so held a dagger at the throat of America and American democracy. – Joe Biden

     “The last thing America needed was sympathy for the devil but here we are.” Colorado state Rep. Steven Woodrow

    “Donald Trump’s campaign is obsessed with the past, not the future,” Biden said earlier in the speech. “He’s willing to sacrifice our democracy, put himself in power.” – Joe Biden

    “Someone who vilifies immigrants, who promotes xenophobia, who stokes hate and who incites fear should never again have the chance to stand behind a microphone  and never again have the chance to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States of America.” – Kamala Harris

    Do you think any of this might have prompted the shooter? On the other hand please look at this article on Vox to see how the left views Trump as the “accelerant.”

    https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech

    Who’s the Nazi?

    MSNBC’s Joy Reid said “I’d vote for Biden in a coma to avoid Hitler in the White House.” I guess she thinks that Trump is a bigger racist than Biden. That is debatable because Biden has been a racist most of his life yet gets a pass because he is a democrat. As to Hitler? Hitler was a Nazi and perhaps the greatest antisemite in history. Over six million Jews were killed under his watch. So is Trump a Nazi? No. The Nazis were socialists. Nazi stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Bernie Sanders and AOC would be proud. Trump is many things but he is no socialist. But Biden may well be a closet socialist adopting Bernie Sanders agenda. Hitler was antisemitic. Today’s Jew haters are on the far left and on the fringe right. Trump is neither. Biden however tries to walk down the middle of the road in a futile attempt to appease those on the far left who hate the Jews. I doubt if Trump would have slow walked the military assistance to Israel. Biden did. By the way, is Joy Reid pro Hamas or pro Israel? Who is the Nazi here? I wonder if Reid noticed a Nazi flag at a pro Hamas rally. BTW, the flag was not saying that Israel was Nazi – which is ludicrous – but was advocating extermination of Israel. So Joy Reid, who is the Nazi? As I have written before, isn’t it interesting that the far left and the far right are both antisemitic but somehow only the far right is being branded as “Nazi”?

    More Racist Joe

    In 2012, on my old blog I asked the retorical question “Is Joe Biden a racist?” Again in the Knoxville Focus on November 29, 2021, I repeated the question. The answer is a resounding yes and the only question being why do the “elite” black intellectuals and politcians ignore it? The payoff they get from the democrat establishment and the bribes and monies going to the black grifters must be worth their silence. Well in a video taken at a rally Biden passes over a young black woman after greeting a white man to hug a white woman. The young black woman looks as if she is going to cry. You can be for sure that Bill Clinton would have hugged her – but Joe Biden? Jim Clyburn should be ashamed of himself. Without him and the black voters in South Carolina, Biden would be convalesing at a nursing home.

    More on the Supremes

    I admit a bit of discomfort writing about the opinions of the Supreme Court justices. I am no legal scholar. I was pre-law as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia and opted to get a PhD rather than go to law school after my junior year. However, I did get some comfort on my observations regarding the Court in this piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. I never considered that Robert Bork would be the intellectual father of this court. I remember his hearing and the usual smear tactics employed abainst him. Since then the term “Borking” arose. That the confirmation process has become more about seeking to smear candidates rather than an evaluation of their expertise is a pox on the senate. Regardless, few if any of the senators on the judiciary committee have the knowledge to insightfully question the candidates. That Amy Coney Barrett did not get a single democrat vote when she should have been confirmed unanimously is testimony to senator incompetence.

    The Supremes: Some Observations

    Harold A Black

    I got a call from a friend who is a “progressive” wondering what I thought of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. I told her that I had no opinion. She was surprised. I have always felt that the justices on the Supreme Court should be legal experts and interpret the Constitution given their legal expertise. I am neither a legal expert nor a student of the Constitution. I may agree with a particular ruling. I may disagree with another ruling. But my opinions come from my personal beliefs, standards, morals and biases rather than a lifetime of reading the law. Few ask the question “why are there so many Christian denominations” or “why are there so many different interpretations of the Bible.” Is there only one correct religion? Is there only one correct reading of the Bible? Is there only one correct reading of the Constitution?

    I always ask if a justice is consistent or does the justice wander all over the place? Clarence Thomas is the most consistent justice with regard to a literal reading of the Constitution. Sonia Sotomayor’s rulings appear to be based on emotion rather than on legal grounds. Look at the opinions of Justice Gorsuch. Few question his intellect or scholarship. But Gorsuch is a staunch supporter of Native American rights. He wrote the majority opinion in 2019 that the state of Oklahoma could not bring criminal prosecutions for crimes on Indian land without the consent of the Indian tribes. In 2022, the court modified the decision shifting the power to prosecute away from the federal government and back to the state. Again, this was a 5-4 decision. Gorsuch’s minority opinion was withering. Gorsuch recounted the Court’s decision in 1832 baring the state of Georgia from confiscating the land of 100,000 Cherokees. Georgia and the odious Andrew Jackson ignored the ruling, leading to the Trail of Tears. Gorsuch said that Native American tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise. Since Congress had not ordained otherwise, was Gorsuch right or was he wrong? Nonetheless, Gorsuch has been consistent in his reading of the Constitution.

    What about the Chief Justice? Hard right critics have lambasted Roberts as being “wobbly”.  But is he?  Perhaps his most famous ruling was the vote that enabled Obamacare. Roberts said that if Obamacare funding were a tax then it was constitutional. Even the middle of the road Anthony Kennedy tried to convince Roberts that he was wrong but to no avail. 

    When the three Trump nominated justices were installed, the press said that Roberts had been rendered ineffective and it was now Thomas’ court. They were wrong. If anything, Thomas appears to be increasingly isolated in his view of the Constitution. Even Alito at times votes differently. Rather Roberts seems to be in control of this court. But is he wobbly? Not according to some experts. Roberts is consistent in his rulings. Despite his opinion on Obamacare he has led in clipping the wings of the Administrative state and rolling back federal regulatory authority. He seems less interested in social matters and has been said to favor ideological cease fires through procedural rulings that leave hard choices for another day. 

    Amy Coney Barrett has proven to be an intriguing justice. Even when she votes with the other conservatives which is 90 percent of the time, her opinions bear her own stamp. Coney Barrett has proven to be her own person. In her concurring opinions, she places less stock in history than do Gorsuch and Thomas. In fact, she has chided them on occasion for relying too much on the past. What is most enjoyable about Coney Barrett is seeing the confusion she sows amongst both the left and the right. Those on the left seem totally confused about her opinions. Those on the right say she is wobbly. However, she seems to be a solid conservative and her votes with the liberal wing have never – unlike Gorsuch – been in a deciding vote with the other conservatives in the minority.

    What about Kavanaugh? Although many on the right thought that he would be the most likely justice to turn Souter, he has not. Many forget that Kavanaugh had perhaps the most experience on the bench than any other justice with hundreds of opinions. He has turned out to be pragmatic and consistent in his rulings and has been in the majority more than any other justice.

    The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson may turn out to be the most interesting. Seemingly ignored is her voting with the conservatives in two cases. She voted with the conservatives (excepting Coney Barrett) in ruling against the Justice Department’s novel application of the obstruction of justice law regarding January 6. In her concurrence she wrote “Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis and even when the conduct alleged is indisputably abhorrent.” We would never see such a statement from Kagan or Sotomayor. She also voted with the majority of the conservatives against a nationwide opioid settlement. But that was an interesting decision with Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett and Jackson in the majority with Kavanaugh, Roberts, Kagan and Sotomayor in the minority. Yet I have heard no one accuse Jackson as being wobbly.

    Overall, despite all the gnashing of teeth about selected rulings from Biden, Schumer and those on the left there is no MAGA court or else there would be less whining from the right. I think that reasonable people should be pleased with the Robert’s court and impressed with the deft hand of the Chief Justice who now seems to be firmly in control.