Thursday, March 25, 2021

Without the filibuster, H.R. 1 and immigration reform will virtually guarantee one-party rule in the U.S.

On March 16, President Joe Biden opened the door to changing Senate rules requiring 60 votes in order to advance legislation, telling ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos “democracy is having a hard time functioning.”

When asked if he had to choose between “preserving the filibuster, and advancing your agenda,” Biden’s answer was “Yes.”

Biden continued, “But here’s the choice: I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days…You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

In 2020, Biden ran on a platform of enacting a public option for health insurance, raising taxes, moving to net-zero carbon emissions in energy production by 2035 and by 2050 for everything else including transportation, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants including a pathway to citizenship, passing his $1.9 trillion Covid stimulus relief legislation and election law reform.

Now, some of those things, like the stimulus and raising taxes, will be done under budget reconciliation that only requires a 50-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, and carbon emissions regulation can be dealt with largely via regulation if Biden sets his sights lower.

But on the bigger ticket items on socialized medicine, a more expansive Green New Deal, granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and the H.R.1 election nationalization legislation, however, would need to go through Congress. And, under current Senate rules, need a 60-vote threshold to pass and make permanent changes to law.

Other items, like increasing the number justices on the Supreme Court or granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would similarly need to be passed legislatively, all with 60-vote thresholds.

So, with the Senate split 50 to 50, the Democratic agenda is more or less at a standstill — and there is a diminishing window of opportunity to get anything done.

And in midterm elections from 1906 to 2018, the party that occupies the White House usually loses on average 31 seats in the House, and about three seats in the Senate. And with just a 10-seat majority in the House and a 50-50 tie in the Senate, there is a very high likelihood Democrats will lose one or both chambers in 2022.

Meaning, it’s now or never on the filibuster.

So far, however, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kirsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) appear opposed. “I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote [to abolish the filibuster] And I hope with that guarantee in place he will work in a much more amicable way,” Manchin said in an interview in January. Sinema for her part through her office said she is “not open to changing her mind.”

But that was before Biden chimed in. Now, pressure will mount on Manchin, Sinema and other Senate Democrats to radically alter the way legislation is passed.

The upside for Democrats is significant long-term. If they focus their initial energies simply on the H.R. 1 election reform legislation and granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, they will attempt to cement a generational electoral majority closely resembling the New Deal coalition that held from 1932 to 1952, where Democrats could pass anything they wanted.

It was one-party rule for close to two decades, except for a brief window in 1946 when Republicans reclaimed the House and the Senate, only to lose them promptly in 1948.

H.R. 1 would require states to automatically register residents to vote at Departments of Motor Vehicles, turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan entity controlled by the White House party, dramatically change Congressional redistricting, require the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, eliminate state restrictions on mail-in voting, require same-day voter registration and gut state voter identification laws.

When automatic registration is combined with mailing out millions of ballots for mail-in voting, along with granting citizenship to a reported 12 million illegal aliens, who are predominantly Hispanic, and Democrats would have a virtual long-term lock on both houses of Congress and the presidency for a very long time. Democrats won Latinos 65 percent to 32 percent in 2020, according to the CNN exit polls. Republicans have no offset in legal immigration that compares, and so it’s just a numbers game.

Throw in four more Democratic senators for D.C. and Puerto Rico, plus reallocating six representatives to the new states, and GOP prospects in Congress drop somewhat.

Now, even then that might not even be enough for Democrats to win the 2022 midterms in the House, but long term, this will make 2024 and future national elections much, much harder for Republicans to win.

It would be one-party rule for a long, long time.

Now, such majorities would not last forever — they never do. But by the time the GOP gets fully back in power, the U.S. would look dramatically different from what it does today. A lot of damage will have been done by then: a packed Supreme Court, the Green New Deal, socialized medicine, universal income and so on.

How much of the Constitution and individual liberty will remain by the time a competitive two-party system is rebuilt? It’s up to Senators Manchin, Sinema and others to make sure we never find out.


Top Health Insurance Provider Tells Employees Not To Hire White Men

Cigna, one of the nation’s largest health insurance providers, has allegedly told employees not to hire white men as part of the company’s broader critical race theory campaign.

According to an internal chat log obtained by the Washington Examiner, a hiring manager at Cigna dismissed a white candidate because he did not fulfill the company’s diversity standards. In the chat, an employee suggested the company interview a man with extensive experience for an open position. The hiring manager allegedly told the employee that the man could not be interviewed because he is white.

In a separate chat log, a hiring manager dismissed another candidate who he assumed to be white. The candidate was a racial minority. After learning of the candidate’s accurate skin color — and little else — the hiring manager allegedly reversed course and hired the candidate.

Employees were also forced to undergo training wherein they were taught that white people have “white privilege,” straight men have “gender privilege,” and Christians have “religious privilege.” The company defines religious privilege as “a set of advantages that benefits believers of a certain religion but not people who practice other religions or no religions at all.”

Included in the training was an “inclusive language” guide, which told employees the phrase “hip hip hooray!” was inappropriate language.


Jordan Petersen: Abandon Woke Now

“Truth is the handmaiden of love. Dialogue is the pathway to truth.”— Jordan Petersen

Nothing reveals desperation like the human need to reduce life to basic categories of blame. At times, it is necessary to condense complex subjects into simple ideas, but today’s wokeness is a phenomenon that we have already seen end in the horrific.

Jordan Petersen in a discussion of his new book, "Beyond Order, Twelve New Rules," advised “Allow yourself to think in more complex terms. It’s useful to reduce complex phenomena to their simpler elements. But is not useful to reduce it to the point of absurdity.”

Our modern struggle originates with two seminal thinkers, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who simplified complex reality. Both attempted to reduce nuanced subjects to simple material phenomena. Wokeness is a combination of the two of them, and a culmination of their influence.

Marx wanted to explain away hierarchical functions in economics that result from competence or intelligence and replace them with political power. Freud wanted to explain human dynamics and psychological phenomena in terms of sex.

They boil down human motivation to a single dimension. While that makes for a compelling story, it is leading to cultural suicide. Marx’s revolution via mental tyranny explains everything but, in the end, helps nothing. Freud precipitated mass sexualization.

See Cardi B during the Grammy Awards.

Most things are not simple and require multi-variant approaches to reach rational conclusions. Take, for instance, the wage gap between men and women. There are many reasons and causes, not one. So what is gained by blaming this only on gender and power?

Blame allows one to identify an enemy wholesale like “the patriarchy” or “white privilege.” Once you can identify the enemy it makes you a victim and places you on the side of the righteous.

Oversimplification based on moral justification gains an audience.

You don't have to test your theories against others or even the real world. Before being woke that was accomplished in the academy or through journalism. Now it offers a quick unearned sense of moral superiority.

What is the cause of poverty, for example? Is it only systemic corruption? What about alcoholism, drug abuse, broken families, variation in intelligence, or conscientiousness, immigration, bad luck or timing, drive, education, and on it goes?

Poverty is not the result of one thing, and will never be completely resolved with easy answers, as Marx and later Stalin and Mao promised. Even Jesus himself who some claim was a proto Communist says in Matthew 26:11, “the poor you will always have with you.”

Freud’s theory about the role of sex as the identifier of all neurosis or oppression is the woke’s sole indicator of identity. It makes things much easier than the idea of Martin Luther King Jr.’s character or the journey of personal meaning.

Life does not have homogenous categories of power or sex or pure conservative or all liberal. Ideology reveals crude and unsophisticated thinking. And most dangerous, it has no room for self-reflection.

Even more dangerous, cultish thinking allows the state to gain more control. Divide the people and unify the power. Then establish a moral woke tautology that claims those who doubt the justification of power lack moral integrity.

As Petersen suggests, “If you want to solve problems oversimplified solutions just get in the way.” Today, in the name of waking, there is blind spending, open borders, hiring for race and gender, and a growing menu of grievances.

As a result, in math class, we focus on anti-racism. Or in English literature, we teach gender inequality and often skip the readings of Petersen or Aldous Huxley’s "Brave New World," or take heed of George Orwell’s "1984" that offers us this stark warning of woke thinking: “Asleep or awake, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or bed—no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters in your skull.”


The Appalling Double-Standard of the Leftist Media’s Anti-Asian Hate Crime Coverage

In the Brave New Intersectional World our leftist overlords have created and rule over with an iron fist (with virtually all the power), white males, the ones they unironically claim have all the “power,” are the only group capable of committing a “hate” crime. So you’ll be forgiven for thinking, in the wake of the horrific Atlanta shootings by a white man who took the lives of six people of Asian descent, that white guys are committing all of the hate-motivated violence against Asian-Americans that the media has been all-of-a-sudden focusing on since the Atlanta shooting.

If this crime had been perpetrated by anyone but a white male, other than the predictable calls for gun control, would we still be hearing about it? Of course not, but he was, and we are - because, well, there’s a leftist narrative to drive. That narrative contends that since former President Donald Trump often pointed out the origins of the coronavirus and since Trump and his supporters (most of whom are white) are eeevil raaacists, it logically follows that they would be the ones attacking Asian people willy-nilly. You know, because they’re such uneducated, ignorant rubes that they think individual Asians they encounter in the street are somehow personally responsible for the goings-on in Wuhan and they must have their revenge.

Nevermind, of course, that the shooter has personally stated that his sex addiction drove him to his crimes, that two of the victims were white, or that all of the victims worked in an industry that fits what the attacker said was his motive. Oh no, apparently now the new narrative is that white defendants, especially this one, aren’t allowed to tell us what their motivations were, even though real hate criminals tend to not be shy about making their motivations crystal clear.

“African-Americans have to pay for what they've done,” Dylann Roof, the Charleston church murderer, wrote in a journal after his arrest. Robert Bowers, the Tree of Life Synagogue killer, made no bones about his antisemitism, accusing Jews of committing “genocide” against whites. El Paso shooter Patrick Wood Crusius openly said he wanted to “kill Mexicans” and wrote an entire manifesto about it. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Yet, in a staggering op-ed for The Hill titled “Asian Americans are the latest victims of white supremacy,” DePaul University professor Tom Mockaitis insists the Atlanta shootings “may have been racially motivated” because, well, “racism and misogyny are often linked.”

“The Atlanta murders fit an all-too familiar pattern. An individual unaffiliated with any group becomes radicalized and lashes out at marginalized people,” Mockaitis writes before going on to list several other white-perpetrated hate crimes ... against blacks, against Jews, against Mexicans, but none against Asians. His headline referred to Asian-Americans as “victims,” but only of white supremacy, not of the actual perpetrators, who in the majority of recent cases happen to be oh-so-inconveniently non-white.

Still, it’s hard to go wrong these days by just blaming racism anyway. MSNBC writer Hayes Brown, even after acknowledging investigators’ account of the defendant’s stated motivation, nevertheless insisted the crime was “still about race and power structures, even as his direct motivation was overwhelming misogyny.”

In a piece last month, before the Atlanta shooting, cautioning against the automatic labeling of crimes against Asians as hate-motivated, NBC’s Kimmy Yam wrote this astonishing paragraph: “While anti-Asian sentiment has risen markedly during the coronavirus pandemic, experts say it's important to evaluate each case individually. They said both defendants and victims deserve a fair, rather than a public, trial no matter what race they may be. They emphasize that that's particularly important if suspects are of color in the context of a justice system that hasn't been proven to be colorblind.”

Without directly pointing it out, because that would be politically incorrect and not fit the desired narrative at all, Yam tacitly acknowledges what anyone with half a brain who is capable of looking at a surveillance video can tell - most if not all of these crimes against Asians aren’t being perpetrated by white Trump supporters. Sure, this writer gave a nod to colorblindness, but the overarching leftist narrative is becoming clearer every day. When the perpetrator is a minority, we’ve got to have muted media, fair trials, no rushes to judgment, but when a white person commits a crime against someone of another race, it’s automatically labeled a hate crime and, presumably, that defendant must somehow now prove they were NOT motivated by hate. If this way of thinking isn’t the grim foundations of a dystopian, two-tiered justice system, I don’t know what is.

Until the media had a white perpetrator they could pigeon-hole into their narrative, even if strained, Asian-American activists were literally begging the media to pay attention to the rash of violence against their people brought on by suspects who didn’t fit the preferred talking points, like the 23-year-old man from Yemen who plunged a knife into the back of a Chinese man walking home near Manhattan.

Which brings up the real question: Is that Chinese man’s life less deserving of protection than those of the Atlanta salon workers? Because if the left’s hate-narrative holds up, his attacker, had he succeeded, would get a lighter sentence than the Atlanta shooter. Of course, that’s the whole problem with the absurdity that is hate crime law. Other than as it relates to obtaining a conviction or acquittal, why should it matter in the end what a criminal suspect was thinking when they committed a crime? Is the victim any less injured or dead?




No comments: