Topic #1: Congress passed a COVID-relief bill on Monday night with a whopping $900billion in new spending, alongside a $1.4trillion omnibus bill as detailed in over 5,500 pages of documents. Late on Tuesday during a video speech, President Trump balked at the bill, telling Congress to amend it by cutting out the pork and increasing the amount paid to individual Americans.
"*" indicates required fields
Thoughts and Observations:
- For those accusing others of conflating the two bills, please, spare me. They were released at the same time. They were voted on at the same time. And the only reason they’re in two different bills is because some Democrats wanted to be able to vote no on the omnibus bill. Are we supposed to pretend that they’re totally separate because there’s a plastic divider after page 3,396?
- Trump’s two main issues with the bill are that there was only $600 going to individuals who qualify, and the amount of nonsensical pork it included. Among other items, Trump called out the excessive funding of foreign countries while accurately blaming COVID on China, with Americans continuing to struggle in the meantime. Trump also specifically called for the amount per individual to increase from $600 to $2,000.
- Without knowing the financial breakdown, if that $2,000-per-person can be paid for by eliminating the pork, then I’m with President Trump. If the president is suggesting that spending $2.3trillion between the two bills is not enough – which seems to be the case – and that we need to spend more. No way. We can’t just continue piling up our debt, Mr. President.
- Included in the pork is funding to study a riot in Springfield, Illinois. If you’re scratching your head and saying to yourself, “Self… I don’t remember a riot in Springfield, Illinois,” that’s understandable. The riot they’re planning on studying happened in 1908. There’s also $19million designated for “remediating dioxins” in Vietnam, and $15million for” the refurbishing of a high endurance” patrol boat in Sri Lanka. Seriously. Not kidding. Cross my heart.
- As mentioned, the bill itself is over 5,500 pages and was provided to lawmakers only a few hours prior to being asked to vote on it. Pushback regarding the size of the bill and the timing of its release came from both sides of the aisle including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). We’re the greatest country that has ever existed, there has got to be a better process than this.
- This bill is just the latest in a long line of examples of why conservatism works and liberalism doesn’t. This bill(s) would have spent $2.3 trillion of money we don’t have, so we can give a pittance to folks that won’t solve their problems, and it was all done with a document of over 5,500 pages. Government is not the solution to your problems; government is in fact horrible at solving problems. We need less government, not more government.
- It’s clear that Congress took the approach of, “we have to do something,” so they did, and this is what we got. These are the people we elected, so I suppose we deserve it.
- Assuming an updated bill is passed and Trump signs it, Republicans need to ensure that this is the last such COVID relief bill. Trump has correctly practiced federalism throughout this pandemic, opting to allow state and local governments to decide for themselves how to handle it. States such as New York and California have governed as if there is an orchard of money trees somewhere that will be available to bail them out. They have locked down businesses without the slightest concern for the financial impact. It is wrong to have taxpayers from states who have acted responsibly footing the bill for the idiocy of Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsome, which is what this bill would do. No more. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it.
Topic #2: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel which reports to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), held a meeting on Sunday which produced updated recommended guidelines for prioritizing who should receive the COVID vaccines first. Earlier this month, the ACIP had proposed that younger, essential workers should receive COVID vaccines before the elderly.
Thoughts and Observations:
- Included in that original advisement was the explanation that we should be “vaccinating essential workers over older people in part because of equity considerations — essential workers are more racially and socioeconomically diverse than elderly Americans.”
- Here’s the translation of the ACIP’s original recommendation – Make the vaccine available to “essential workers” because that group has a higher percentage of minorities than the American elderly.
- And here’s a translation of the translation – We should let old, white people die of COVID so that we can make the vaccine available to younger minorities, even though those younger folks are significantly less likely to die of the virus; and we should do this in the name of “social justice.”
- The CDC, the leftists who cheer them on, and the Democrats who nod their heads in agreement can try to justify this type of rationale all they want, but ultimately there’s only one word to accurately describe their recommendations: racist. And if you want to add a second word, call it outrageously racist.
- Basing health care policies on race and socioeconomic status amidst such a deadly pandemic sounds eerily similar to Germany in the mid-1930s. Reverse the races and the potential effects on them and this is the type of proposal for which the KKK in their heyday would have been clamoring.
- Backlash against the ACIP was loud and came from multiple directions, including several liberals. It’s fine that the CDC ultimately corrected the wrong, but the fact that such a recommendation had even been considered should be disturbing to all Americans.
- This news comes as a natural progression from the rhetoric we’ve been hearing from the Left for years. Since the Civil War, America has been trying to right the wrongs of slavery, and with the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 the playing field had been essentially leveled. The subsequent policies of Affirmative Action were designed to tilt the playing field in favor of minorities. Then more recently we’ve heard talk of slavery reparations. And now this news. This whole mindset is disgusting and bad for the country and our society. It’s nice to see liberals beginning to push back. Enough is enough.
Topic #3: Another natural progression for social justice warriors and the Woke is this news: Brandon Hasbrouck, a professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, had an OpEd published in The Nation in which he advocates for having votes by black Americans count as two votes.
Thoughts and Observations:
- Or, Mr. Hasbrouck, maybe we should only count white votes as ½ of a vote? What do you think?
- There is a good rule of thumb to apply any time an opinion regarding race is expressed: if you reverse the skin-color in the statement or idea, and if it then comes across as racist, then that’s what it is. Racist.
- Apply that rule to Mr. Hasbrouck’s opinion and what do we get? Correct. Racism. And in fact we get racism similar to this week’s topic #2, which is outrageous racism. It doesn’t matter if the targets are black, or brown, or white, if this type of discrimination is being pushed, that’s what it is. Racism.
- In 1787 during the founding of our country – when there was unfortunately slavery and genuine systemic racism in America, not the imaginary variety being claimed by today’s Left – an agreement known as “The Three-Fifths Compromise” came about. The agreement was established in determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives, and it declared that slaves should be counted as only 3/5 of a person. Sound familiar?
- We on the Right can only hope that people such as Mr. Hasbrouck finally start to open people’s eyes, and it appears that may indeed be the case. Hasbrouck, his cronies in academia and the rest of the Left are seriously overplaying their hands and are in fact exposing themselves for their true intentions. These people hate America and are nothing but vicious racists. They’re despicable.
- Any benefactors or alumni of Washington and Lee, you need to speak up. While I’m generally not a fan of modern cancel culture, this may be time for an exception. And at the very least, you should ask serious questions about the university’s hiring and communications policy. You should be indignant.
Topic #4: Earlier in the week, Joe Biden was asked by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy whether or not the scandal circling around his son Hunter was actually “Russian disinformation” as had been alleged by Biden and his communications department (aka the mainstream media). Biden confirmed that indeed he believed the scandal to be simply Russian disinformation and then called Doocy a “One Horse Pony” for asking the question.
Thoughts and Observations:
- I’ve heard of a “one-trick pony,” which is an old aphorism as well as the title to a terrific album/movie by Paul Simon. I’ve heard of a “one-horse open sleigh,” the thought of which puts a smile on our faces and makes us want to hum along. And I’ve heard of a “dog-faced pony soldier,” thanks to Good Ole’ Joe, even though I still don’t know what that means. But what in the hell is a “one horse pony?”
- The fact that Biden continues to evade questions about his son, combined with the fact that only Fox News reporters and a handful of others will even broach the subject with Biden, gives us a good indication of what to expect with a Biden presidency. Biden will dismiss any attempts at accountability, the mainstream media will be his wingman, and we’ll be left to rely only on conservative news outlets to try and get to the truth of any matter. Fortunately we may very well have a lot more conservative news options to choose from in the future.
- Considering that Doocy was asking questions about a topic that has already been confirmed as being investigated by the Justice Department and the U.S. Senate, and considering that Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has said unequivocally that there is no Russian disinformation regarding the Hunter Biden story, Joe Biden was blatantly lying. Was he pressed on his lie by the media? Don’t be silly.
- Bear in mind what Hunter Biden is potentially being investigated for. There’s substantial evidence already available connecting him to various foreign governments and oligarchs for potentially illegal business deals. One of those governments is China, our most serious foreign adversary. And there is evidence that may indicate Joe Biden was benefitting financially from those business deals. Yet there’s no journalistic curiosity from the legacy media?
- I haven’t seen one in a while, but there were several leftwing media outlets that were keeping a running tally of “lies” that have been told by President Trump since his election. Anyone think they’ll be keeping a similar scorecard on Joe Biden? Anyone?
Topic #5: After years of indecision, internal battles, and lengthy negotiations, the United Kingdom and the European Union finally agreed to a trade agreement on Thursday as the U.K. prepares to finally break from the E.U. in what has become known as “Brexit.”
Thoughts and Observations:
- To put the length of this process into perspective, consider that the original vote by British citizens to leave the E.U. happened in the summer of 2016, prior to President Trump’s election. Then consider that the Brits had to reaffirm their wishes with another vote that ousted Teresa May and elevated Boris Johnson to Prime Minister. Brexit has indeed been a long time coming.
- In making the announcement, Johnson proclaimed, “It has been a long and winding road but we have got a good deal.” Any time a British official can insert Beatle’s lyrics into politics, it has to be a good thing. Well done Mr. Johnson.
- This deal in particular, and Brexit in general, is a major blow to globalism and leftism, including those in America. The vision of a global, centralized authority determining public policy for citizens everywhere aligns perfectly with socialism. And, of course, if it’s bad for leftism, it’s good for conservatism.
- Congratulations to all British citizens. You’ve rejected being governed by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, you’ve reasserted your sovereignty, and you will be better off because of it. Bravo.
- We should expect to see other E.U. nations follow suit in the coming decade, and look for leftist immigration policies to be the driving factor. The entire premise of the E.U. has been flawed from the beginning, and Brexit is just the first crack in the foundation.