powerlineblog--2020-10-11--Biden/Harris = “Green” Energy Disaster

Biden/Harris = “Green” Energy Disaster

There are many reasons why Joe Biden and his cohorts should never govern the country , but let ’ s not forget their commitment to some version of the Green New Deal .
Biden has alleged that he doesn ’ t support Ocasio-Cortez ’ s fantasy , apparently unaware , in his senescence , that his web site says that he does support it .
Or maybe he is just confident that reporters won ’ t tell on him .
In any event , a Biden/Harris administration would mean an all-out attack on reliable fuel sources ( natural gas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasted on “ green ” energy ( wind and solar ) which is pretty much useless unless you are a government-favored investor .
At American Thinker , Norman Rogers begins by noting Amazon ’ s conversion to the green religion : Amazon has jumped on the global warming/ renewable energy/ sustainability bandwagon .
They are spending millions on television ads to tell everyone how virtuous they are .
Amazon ’ s 2019 annual report is heavy with climate change , carbon footprints and renewable energy .
Amazon is building wind and solar farms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledge.
” … Although Amazon has a history with renewable energy , it is necessary to keep in mind that in some circumstances , due to massive subsidies , renewable energy can be a profitable exercise .
“ Green ” energy will never replace reliable energy sources , because physics .
It is also noteworthy that wind turbines cause more warming than they avert , even on the leftists ’ false calculations .
But a great deal of money will be made , at taxpayer and ratepayer expense , before this becomes blindingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy is billions of dollars for wind and solar farms that are absolutely a complete waste of money .
Every claim made about the virtues of renewable energy is a lie and not a subtle lie .
Further , the advocates of renewable energy that are technically literate have to work very hard not to see the truth .
Of course , not seeing the truth is easier if your paycheck depends on not seeing the truth .
Climate Scientists for Nuclear agree with me .
They say renewable energy is useless and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing CO2 emissions .
James Hansen , the most prominent climate scientist in the world and a proselytizer for global warming , calls renewable energy “ grotesque.
” *** Climate Scientists for Nuclear tell us that wind and solar will never be effective for reducing CO2 emissions .
They are horribly expensive energy , requiring an 80 % subsidy .
If you get to the point of replacing about 25 % of the grid electricity with wind and solar , the cost and difficulty of adding more becomes overwhelming .
*** Since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can be difficult to counter with scientific or engineering facts or data .
The facts and data concerning global warming ( now called climate change because there wasn ’ t enough warming ) lead directly to a swamp populated with computer models .
But when it comes to wind and solar , the renewable energy that counts , the facts are very clear .
The crippling handicap of wind and solar is intermittent and erratic operation .
Because their operation is unpredictable , wind and solar can ’ t replace existing fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay , in full force , to take over when the wind stops or the sun is obscured by clouds .
Either wind or solar electricity costs , exclusive of subsidies , about $ 80 per megawatt hour .
The cost is mostly the capital cost of the plant amortized over the life of the plant .
The alternative is to burn natural gas in the existing plants at a fuel cost of $ 15 per megawatt hour .
Renewable energy is a scheme to displace $ 15 electricity with $ 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , primitive energy sources that we wisely abandoned long ago .
( Think steamships . )
They are not going to come back in any significant way , but many billions of dollars will be wasted and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed in order to funnel money to Democratic Party constituencies .
This is why Democratic cronies/donors are salivating at the idea of a Biden/Harris administration .
One of the best writers on the folly of “ green ” energy is my colleague Isaac Orr .
You can follow him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by the way , is due for a total revamp around the first of the new year .
We also have in the works papers by Isaac and by Robert Bryce on the environmental and land use evils of wind and solar energy .
Bryce has calculated that if we were to try to get all of our electricity from wind power , we would need to dedicate an area twice the size of California ( or , put differently , an area the size of Texas plus Kentucky ) to wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to happen .
Nor , needless to say , should it .
I will have more to say about their papers and events drawing thereon in days to come .

There are many reasons why Joe Biden and his cohorts should never govern the country, but let’s not forget their commitment to some version of the Green New Deal. Biden has alleged that he doesn’t support Ocasio-Cortez’s fantasy, apparently unaware, in his senescence, that his web site says that he does support it. Or maybe he is just confident that reporters won’t tell on him.
In any event, a Biden/Harris administration would mean an all-out attack on reliable fuel sources (natural gas, coal and nuclear) and countless billions wasted on “green” energy (wind and solar) which is pretty much useless unless you are a government-favored investor. At American Thinker, Norman Rogers begins by noting Amazon’s conversion to the green religion:
Amazon has jumped on the global warming/ renewable energy/ sustainability bandwagon. They are spending millions on television ads to tell everyone how virtuous they are. Amazon’s 2019 annual report is heavy with climate change, carbon footprints and renewable energy. Amazon is building wind and solar farms. They have signed a “climate pledge.” … Although Amazon has a history with renewable energy, it is necessary to keep in mind that in some circumstances, due to massive subsidies, renewable energy can be a profitable exercise.
“Green” energy will never replace reliable energy sources, because physics. It is also noteworthy that wind turbines cause more warming than they avert, even on the leftists’ false calculations. But a great deal of money will be made, at taxpayer and ratepayer expense, before this becomes blindingly obvious to everyone. More:
Renewable energy is billions of dollars for wind and solar farms that are absolutely a complete waste of money. Every claim made about the virtues of renewable energy is a lie and not a subtle lie. Further, the advocates of renewable energy that are technically literate have to work very hard not to see the truth. Of course, not seeing the truth is easier if your paycheck depends on not seeing the truth. Climate Scientists for Nuclear agree with me. They say renewable energy is useless and won’t be remotely useful for reducing CO2 emissions. James Hansen, the most prominent climate scientist in the world and a proselytizer for global warming, calls renewable energy “grotesque.”
***
Climate Scientists for Nuclear tell us that wind and solar will never be effective for reducing CO2 emissions. They are horribly expensive energy, requiring an 80% subsidy. If you get to the point of replacing about 25% of the grid electricity with wind and solar, the cost and difficulty of adding more becomes overwhelming.
***
Since the Religion of Green is a religion, it can be difficult to counter with scientific or engineering facts or data. The facts and data concerning global warming (now called climate change because there wasn’t enough warming) lead directly to a swamp populated with computer models. But when it comes to wind and solar, the renewable energy that counts, the facts are very clear. The crippling handicap of wind and solar is intermittent and erratic operation. Because their operation is unpredictable, wind and solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel plants. The existing plants have to stay, in full force, to take over when the wind stops or the sun is obscured by clouds. Either wind or solar electricity costs, exclusive of subsidies, about $80 per megawatt hour. The cost is mostly the capital cost of the plant amortized over the life of the plant. The alternative is to burn natural gas in the existing plants at a fuel cost of $15 per megawatt hour. Renewable energy is a scheme to displace $15 electricity with $80 electricity.
Wind and solar are archaic, primitive energy sources that we wisely abandoned long ago. (Think steamships.) They are not going to come back in any significant way, but many billions of dollars will be wasted and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed in order to funnel money to Democratic Party constituencies. This is why Democratic cronies/donors are salivating at the idea of a Biden/Harris administration.
One of the best writers on the folly of “green” energy is my colleague Isaac Orr. You can follow him daily at the American Experiment web site–which, by the way, is due for a total revamp around the first of the new year. We also have in the works papers by Isaac and by Robert Bryce on the environmental and land use evils of wind and solar energy. Bryce has calculated that if we were to try to get all of our electricity from wind power, we would need to dedicate an area twice the size of California (or, put differently, an area the size of Texas plus Kentucky) to wind turbines. That simply isn’t going to happen. Nor, needless to say, should it. I will have more to say about their papers and events drawing thereon in days to come.


powerlineblog--2020-10-11--Not tired of it, but there has been plenty of winning under Trump

This George Will column is called “ Republicans , are you tired of winning yet ?
” Oddly , Will makes no real effort to assess the extent to which , from a conservative Republican perspective , America has been winning under President Trump .
Instead , Will devotes the first part of his column to complaining that America is having difficulty managing the mechanics of voting .
But this difficulty is due to the challenges of a pandemic , coupled , in my view , with efforts by Democrats to use the pandemic to loosen requirements that safeguard election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with whether Trump has kept his promise to Republicans about winning .
The rest of Will ’ s column consists mostly of random reflections about the history of presidential elections involving incumbents and the electoral difficulties Trump faces this year .
Again , he says nothing about conservative Republicans winning or losing during the Trump administration .
Trump might well lose this election .
I believe he probably will .
However , it ’ s also clear to me that conservative Republicans have been winning consistently during Trump ’ s tenure .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts , with ( 1 ) the likely addition of three Justices who believe in interpreting our laws and our Constitution as written , not as an instrument to affect change and ( 2 ) the filling of lower court judgeships with judges mostly of the same bent .
We ’ ve won on the economy with lower taxes and a less oppressive regime of government regulation .
Trump overstates the amount of credit due him for the smashing economic success we experienced before the pandemic , but there was plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s policies .
We ’ ve won on North American trade .
Trump substantially improved our trade agreement with Canada and Mexico .
Even most Senate Democrats voted in favor of the improved deal .
We ’ ve won , from a conservative perspective , on health care .
The oppressive Obamacare individual mandate has been repealed .
We ’ ve won against ISIS .
Arguably , Trump overstates the amount of credit he ’ s due for this accomplishment .
The tide had started to turn against ISIS under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the Trump administration that destroyed the caliphate .
At this point , we may not have won the fight against China ’ s unfair and harmful trade practices , but progress has been made under the Trump administration .
The Obama-Biden administration was largely passive in the face of China ’ s improper behavior .
From the perspective of most Republicans and conservatives , we ’ ve won on matters pertaining to Israel and the Middle East .
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital and moved our embassy there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Golan Heights as part of Israel .
And he has stood up against anti-Israeli international organizations like UNESCO , from which the U.S. wisely has withdrawn .
The administration has stood tough against Iran , ending the flow of American dollars to that terrorist , anti-American regime .
In the process , Trump has leveraged regional fear of the mullahs into growing friendship towards Israel by previously hostile Sunni Arab states .
We haven ’ t won on immigration nearly as much as Trump promised we would .
However , his administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of removing illegal immigrants who commit non-immigration related crimes , and of combatting new illegal immigration through physical barriers and the hiring of new agents .
We have lost against the Wuhan coronavirus .
But so has every other nation with whom it makes sense to compare our performance .
If , on this record , Will wants to taunt Trump for saying we ’ d tire of winning under his administration , that ’ s his right .
However , it would have been better if he had bothered to analyze the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he would compare the amount of winning conservative Republicans can expect in a second Trump administration to the amount that ’ s likely to occur if Joe Biden wins .
The latter amount is approximately nil .
Instead , we can expect non-stop losing , including , quite possibly , a packed Supreme Court and the end of the Senate filibuster .
These measures would give Democrats almost limitless ability to enact left-wing legislation with virtually no hope of having the unconstitutional portion of that agenda struck down by the courts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Never Trumpers to recognize this reality .
To most of them , it ’ s more important to signal their distaste for a distasteful president than to focus on the policy implications of defeating Trump .
And the worst of them have already switched their positions on key policy matters , anyway .
In one way or another , they have sold conservatism down the river .

This George Will column is called “Republicans, are you tired of winning yet?” Oddly, Will makes no real effort to assess the extent to which, from a conservative Republican perspective, America has been winning under President Trump.
Instead, Will devotes the first part of his column to complaining that America is having difficulty managing the mechanics of voting. But this difficulty is due to the challenges of a pandemic, coupled, in my view, with efforts by Democrats to use the pandemic to loosen requirements that safeguard election integrity. It has nothing to do with whether Trump has kept his promise to Republicans about winning.
The rest of Will’s column consists mostly of random reflections about the history of presidential elections involving incumbents and the electoral difficulties Trump faces this year. Again, he says nothing about conservative Republicans winning or losing during the Trump administration.
Trump might well lose this election. I believe he probably will. However, it’s also clear to me that conservative Republicans have been winning consistently during Trump’s tenure.
For example, we’ve won on the courts, with (1) the likely addition of three Justices who believe in interpreting our laws and our Constitution as written, not as an instrument to affect change and (2) the filling of lower court judgeships with judges mostly of the same bent.
We’ve won on the economy with lower taxes and a less oppressive regime of government regulation. Trump overstates the amount of credit due him for the smashing economic success we experienced before the pandemic, but there was plenty of winning. Some of it was due to Trump’s policies.
We’ve won on North American trade. Trump substantially improved our trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Even most Senate Democrats voted in favor of the improved deal.
We’ve won, from a conservative perspective, on health care. The oppressive Obamacare individual mandate has been repealed.
We’ve won against ISIS. Arguably, Trump overstates the amount of credit he’s due for this accomplishment. The tide had started to turn against ISIS under the Obama-Biden administration. However, it was the Trump administration that destroyed the caliphate.
At this point, we may not have won the fight against China’s unfair and harmful trade practices, but progress has been made under the Trump administration. The Obama-Biden administration was largely passive in the face of China’s improper behavior.
From the perspective of most Republicans and conservatives, we’ve won on matters pertaining to Israel and the Middle East. Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved our embassy there. Similarly, he has recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel. And he has stood up against anti-Israeli international organizations like UNESCO, from which the U.S. wisely has withdrawn.
The administration has stood tough against Iran, ending the flow of American dollars to that terrorist, anti-American regime. In the process, Trump has leveraged regional fear of the mullahs into growing friendship towards Israel by previously hostile Sunni Arab states.
We haven’t won on immigration nearly as much as Trump promised we would. However, his administration has done a better job than its predecessor of removing illegal immigrants who commit non-immigration related crimes, and of combatting new illegal immigration through physical barriers and the hiring of new agents.
We have lost against the Wuhan coronavirus. But so has every other nation with whom it makes sense to compare our performance.
If, on this record, Will wants to taunt Trump for saying we’d tire of winning under his administration, that’s his right. However, it would have been better if he had bothered to analyze the record.
It would also be nice if he would compare the amount of winning conservative Republicans can expect in a second Trump administration to the amount that’s likely to occur if Joe Biden wins. The latter amount is approximately nil.
Instead, we can expect non-stop losing, including, quite possibly, a packed Supreme Court and the end of the Senate filibuster. These measures would give Democrats almost limitless ability to enact left-wing legislation with virtually no hope of having the unconstitutional portion of that agenda struck down by the courts.
It’s futile to ask most Never Trumpers to recognize this reality. To most of them, it’s more important to signal their distaste for a distasteful president than to focus on the policy implications of defeating Trump. And the worst of them have already switched their positions on key policy matters, anyway.
In one way or another, they have sold conservatism down the river.


powerlineblog--2020-10-11--Times Change—or Stephens’ Suicide Note?

Times Change—or Stephens’ Suicide Note?

It is worth taking a second look at Bret Stephens ’ s extensive takedown of the New York Times ‘ s egregious 1619 Project on Friday .
My understanding from a longtime Times person I know is that one of the unwritten rules is that you never criticize a colleague in print—especially on the editorial pages .
And yet Stephens names names and takes prisoners : Those concerns came to light last month when a longstanding critic of the project , Phillip W. Magness , noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ America ] began ” had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation .
These were not minor points .
The deleted assertions went to the core of the project ’ s most controversial goal , “ to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation ’ s birth year.
” .
.
.
In a tweet , Hannah-Jones responded to Magness and other critics by insisting that “ the text of the project ” remained “ unchanged , ” while maintaining that the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ true ” birth year was “ always a metaphoric argument.
” I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as “ our true founding ” had been merely metaphorical .
Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious that it went without saying .
She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that “ using 1776 as our country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ should not be taught to schoolchildren , ” and that the only one “ that should be taught ” was 1619 .
“ Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that , ” she added .
Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine ’ s editor , Jake Silverstein , as it appeared in print in August 2019 ( italics added ) : “ 1619 .
It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation ’ s birth .
What if , however , we were to tell you that this fact , which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July , is wrong , and that the country ’ s true birth date , the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world , was in late August of 1619 ?
” And this part has now been scrubbed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stephens goes on to make an extensive case for the grotesque distortions of the 1619 Project , and extends the beatdown : It should have been enough to make strong yet nuanced claims about the role of slavery and racism in American history .
Instead , it issued categorical and totalizing assertions that are difficult to defend on close examination .
It should have been enough for the project to serve as curator for a range of erudite and interesting voices , with ample room for contrary takes .
Instead , virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sing from the same song sheet , alienating other potential supporters of the project and polarizing national debate .
.
.
Then there was an essay in Politico in March by the Northwestern historian Leslie M. Harris , an expert on pre-Civil War African-American life and slavery .
“ On Aug. 19 of last year , ” Harris wrote , “ I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones … repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact checker : that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” None of this should have come as a surprise : The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence , not the other way around .
.
.
Sure enough , Times world is not happy : So , has Stephens just written his suicide note to the Times , leading to the same fate as Bari Weiss and James Bennet ?
Perhaps , but I have another hypothesis .
Bari Weiss mentioned months ago that she knows there are many Times staff in the senior ranks and in management who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wokeratri the paper has foolishly hired , and I think it is possible that someone high up at the Times gave Stephens the green light to push back internally against the indefensible embarrassment that is the 1619 Project .

It is worth taking a second look at Bret Stephens’s extensive takedown of the New York Times‘s egregious 1619 Project on Friday. My understanding from a longtime Times person I know is that one of the unwritten rules is that you never criticize a colleague in print—especially on the editorial pages. And yet Stephens names names and takes prisoners:
Those concerns came to light last month when a longstanding critic of the project, Phillip W. Magness, noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country’s “true founding” or “moment [America] began” had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation. These were not minor points. The deleted assertions went to the core of the project’s most controversial goal, “to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year.” . . . In a tweet, Hannah-Jones responded to Magness and other critics by insisting that “the text of the project” remained “unchanged,” while maintaining that the case for making 1619 the country’s “true” birth year was “always a metaphoric argument.” I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as “our true founding” had been merely metaphorical. Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious that it went without saying. She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that “using 1776 as our country’s birth date is wrong,” that it “should not be taught to schoolchildren,” and that the only one “that should be taught” was 1619. “Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that,” she added. Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by The New York Times Magazine’s editor, Jake Silverstein, as it appeared in print in August 2019 (italics added): “1619. It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?”
And this part has now been scrubbed, without acknowledgement from the Times editors. Stephens goes on to make an extensive case for the grotesque distortions of the 1619 Project, and extends the beatdown:
It should have been enough to make strong yet nuanced claims about the role of slavery and racism in American history. Instead, it issued categorical and totalizing assertions that are difficult to defend on close examination. It should have been enough for the project to serve as curator for a range of erudite and interesting voices, with ample room for contrary takes. Instead, virtually every writer in the project seems to sing from the same song sheet, alienating other potential supporters of the project and polarizing national debate. . . Then there was an essay in Politico in March by the Northwestern historian Leslie M. Harris, an expert on pre-Civil War African-American life and slavery. “On Aug. 19 of last year,” Harris wrote, “I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones … repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.” None of this should have come as a surprise: The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around. . .
Sure enough, Times world is not happy:
So, has Stephens just written his suicide note to the Times, leading to the same fate as Bari Weiss and James Bennet? Perhaps, but I have another hypothesis. Bari Weiss mentioned months ago that she knows there are many Times staff in the senior ranks and in management who are terrified of the young and intolerant wokeratri the paper has foolishly hired, and I think it is possible that someone high up at the Times gave Stephens the green light to push back internally against the indefensible embarrassment that is the 1619 Project.
UPDATE—Confusion at the Times:


powerlineblog--2020-10-11--Another Great House Candidate

Another Great House Candidate

I have been getting emails ( daily , it seems ) from Congressional candidate Joe Collins , without really focusing @ @ @ @ @ I should have paid more attention .
Collins is running against Maxine Waters in South @ @ @ @ @ , Collins lives in the district .
After 44 years in Congress , Waters lives @ @ @ @ @ mansion , somewhere else .
Collins has released this dynamite ad , which reminds us @ @ @ @ @ campaign ads in Baltimore : Can great candidates like Collins and Klasic win ?
I @ @ @ @ @ what is it going to take ?
Why do people keep voting for Maxine Waters @ @ @ @ @ for her district and is , to be blunt , an idiot ?
I can @ @ @ @ @ There is something seriously wrong with our democracy when people like Maxine Waters and Joe @ @ @ @ @ for decades , and continue being elected as though they had hereditary titles to their @ @ @ @ @ blame ?
The voters .
They deserve what they get .
Unfortunately .

I have been getting emails (daily, it seems) from Congressional candidate Joe Collins, without really focusing on who he is. I should have paid more attention. Collins is running against Maxine Waters in South Los Angeles. Unlike Waters, Collins lives in the district. After 44 years in Congress, Waters lives in a $6 million mansion, somewhere else. Collins has released this dynamite ad, which reminds us of Kim Klasik’s campaign ads in Baltimore:
Do you know where I am?
Maxine Waters’ $6 Million Mansion. Do you know where I’m NOT?
Her District. Mansion Maxine Waters doesn’t live in her District — I do. My name is Joe Collins and I’m running for Congress against Maxine Waters. Help Me WIN: https://t.co/K4OcfhUR0E pic.twitter.com/GgnmvSWSq9 — Joe E. Collins III For Congress CA-43 (@joecollins43rd) October 10, 2020
Can great candidates like Collins and Klasic win? I assume not. So, what is it going to take? Why do people keep voting for Maxine Waters, who has done nothing for her district and is, to be blunt, an idiot? I can’t explain it. There is something seriously wrong with our democracy when people like Maxine Waters and Joe Biden can stumble along ineffectually for decades, and continue being elected as though they had hereditary titles to their offices.
Who is to blame? The voters. They deserve what they get. Unfortunately.


Biden Agonistes

The pandemic has been very very good to Joe Biden , as it has allowed him to hide out in his basement for months and avoid much public exposure .
He may have found its limits with his refusal to say whether he will support court-packing if he wins .
Even our biased and weak-minded media is going to keep pressing the question , because Biden ’ s answer—that his answer will “ become an issue ” —is absurd .
But it also shows how inept Biden has become .
One of several reasons he wants to avoid answering is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might pry loose a couple of Republican votes against Amy Coney Barrett .
So Biden could say something like , “ I ’ d hope we won ’ t even need to consider the issue , which we won ’ t if the Senate does the right thing and doesn ’ t rush the confirmation of Barrett to the Supreme Court.
” Or some variation of this .
The other reason he doesn ’ t want to say is that he knows that a lot of the progressive left will push hard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient Senate majority , court-packing is unlikely to pass .
If he comes out for court-packing now , it could not only hurt his own campaign but could conceivably cost Democrats a couple of close Senate elections .
Someone in the media ought to ask Biden or his campaign spokespersons to comment on an interview Biden gave in Iowa last year , here he said the following : The Trump campaign might try promoting this quote , and assert that Biden has already declared against court-packing , and then see how Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that voter enthusiasm fort Biden is tepid at best , but some lefties are actually opposed to voting for Biden .
One lefty group , Common Dreams , is urging their followers to vote for Biden to get rid of Trump , and then go to battle against Biden !
Protestations that Biden is beholden to elites are true but beside the point .
The lesser evil is evil , but in this case , the greater evil is simply off the charts .
.
.
So , it comes down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
Vote for Biden at least in swing states—and urge others to do so as well .
And then get on with building grassroots movements for ongoing fundamental change .
This is too much for another lefty group called New Politics , who think that the left shouldn ’ t vote for Biden at all : We , members of the New Politics editorial board , wish to respond to the “ Open Letter : Dump Trump , Then Battle Biden , ” published in Common Dreamsand signed by 55 progressives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Given the horrendous nature of Trump and his regime , we understand why the signers have taken this position .
Nevertheless , we reject the letter ’ s call for leftists to vote for Biden as a lesser evil .
.
.
First , it is important to note that Joe Biden is a “ lesser evil ” who has used his power to do great harm .
For 40 years , Biden has been an enthusiastic proponent , and often a leading architect , of neoliberal foreign and domestic policies : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , militarized police forces , mass incarceration , gargantuan military budgets , savage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , full support to Saudi aggression against Yemen and Israeli aggression against the Palestinians .
Biden is a member in good standing of what Naomi Klein calls the “ Davos class.
” His entire career in Congress was bankrolled by the credit card industry .
And now , running for president , he famously promised his donors that “ nothing would fundamentally change ” for them if he is elected .
There ’ s much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can see not only why Biden is trying to thread the difficulty of keeping the Bernie Bros in the fold , and also how much difficulty he will have governing if he wins .

The pandemic has been very very good to Joe Biden, as it has allowed him to hide out in his basement for months and avoid much public exposure. He may have found its limits with his refusal to say whether he will support court-packing if he wins. Even our biased and weak-minded media is going to keep pressing the question, because Biden’s answer—that his answer will “become an issue”—is absurd.
But it also shows how inept Biden has become. One of several reasons he wants to avoid answering is that Democrats hope the prospect of court-packing might pry loose a couple of Republican votes against Amy Coney Barrett. So Biden could say something like, “I’d hope we won’t even need to consider the issue, which we won’t if the Senate does the right thing and doesn’t rush the confirmation of Barrett to the Supreme Court.” Or some variation of this.
The other reason he doesn’t want to say is that he knows that a lot of the progressive left will push hard for court-packing, and unless Democrats gain a sufficient Senate majority, court-packing is unlikely to pass. If he comes out for court-packing now, it could not only hurt his own campaign but could conceivably cost Democrats a couple of close Senate elections.
Someone in the media ought to ask Biden or his campaign spokespersons to comment on an interview Biden gave in Iowa last year, here he said the following:
Biden was not open to making any major changes to the judicial system, like expanding the Supreme Court. “No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” he said.
The Trump campaign might try promoting this quote, and assert that Biden has already declared against court-packing, and then see how Biden and the left deal with it.
We know that voter enthusiasm fort Biden is tepid at best, but some lefties are actually opposed to voting for Biden. One lefty group, Common Dreams, is urging their followers to vote for Biden to get rid of Trump, and then go to battle against Biden!
Protestations that Biden is beholden to elites are true but beside the point. The lesser evil is evil, but in this case, the greater evil is simply off the charts. . . So, it comes down to this. Dump Trump, Then Battle Biden. Vote for Biden at least in swing states—and urge others to do so as well. And then get on with building grassroots movements for ongoing fundamental change.
This is too much for another lefty group called New Politics, who think that the left shouldn’t vote for Biden at all:
We, members of the New Politics editorial board, wish to respond to the “Open Letter: Dump Trump, Then Battle Biden,” published in Common Dreamsand signed by 55 progressives, including two other members of the board. Given the horrendous nature of Trump and his regime, we understand why the signers have taken this position. Nevertheless, we reject the letter’s call for leftists to vote for Biden as a lesser evil. . . First, it is important to note that Joe Biden is a “lesser evil” who has used his power to do great harm. For 40 years, Biden has been an enthusiastic proponent, and often a leading architect, of neoliberal foreign and domestic policies: assaults on public education, bank deregulation, militarized police forces, mass incarceration, gargantuan military budgets, savage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, full support to Saudi aggression against Yemen and Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. Biden is a member in good standing of what Naomi Klein calls the “Davos class.” His entire career in Congress was bankrolled by the credit card industry. And now, running for president, he famously promised his donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” for them if he is elected.
There’s much more, but this is enough. You can see not only why Biden is trying to thread the difficulty of keeping the Bernie Bros in the fold, and also how much difficulty he will have governing if he wins.


How Newspapers Lie

A front page story in yesterday ’ s Minneapolis Star Tribune is a good illustration of how corrupt today ’ s press has become .
It would be insignificant , except for the fact that its dishonesty is replicated thousands of times every day , in newspapers across the country .
The Strib ’ s story is headlined , in the print edition , “ Town Lashes Out at Floyd ’ s Uncle.
” The story refers to a controversy that occurred several months ago in Gettysburg , South Dakota , population 1,162 , where , coincidentally , George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strib reporter Chao Xiong describes the controversy this way : “ Jones led the charge to remove Confederate flag-adorned patches from the uniforms of Gettysburg police.
” At the outset , there are several problems with this story .
First , there is no news to report , unless you consider a handful of random Facebook posts to be news .
Nothing has happened in Gettysburg in the last three months that deserves to be on a newspaper ’ s front page , or any page .
It is a recycled story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never explains what the Gettysburg controversy was about .
If you didn ’ t know better , you would think that the little town of Gettysburg , which is named after the battle , is weirdly pro-Confederate , despite being located in the North and having been settled overwhelmingly by Union veterans .
Actually , the flag patch simply showed a cannon and crossed Union and Confederate flags .
Such crossed flags have been common pictorial symbols of the Civil War for over 150 years .
The Gettysburg police patch was in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the battle .
There were two sides in the battle , Union and Confederate .
Hence the patch : The Strib ’ s online story has an image of the police patch , but the print version does not .
It does , however , include a photo of a Confederate flag , all by itself , and the reporter refers to the patch as a “ Confederate flag logo.
” Most readers probably would understand that the Gettysburg Police Department was making a racist statement by featuring only the Confederate flag on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strib article briefly acknowledges , the handful of leftists , led by Jones , who objected to the police force ’ s patch got their way .
After they complained , it was immediately removed from officers ’ uniforms .
So what is the point ?
The point is to reinforce BLM themes , starting with George Floyd : That Floyd was killed by the police is reported as a fact .
In reality , it is a controversial proposition that presumably will be hotly debated if any officers are actually tried .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fentanyl in his system ” along with other drugs , he had two to three times a lethal dose of fentanyl .
And he was showing symptoms of a fentanyl overdose ( i.e.
, inability to breathe ) from the moment the first police officers arrived on the scene .
But the officers will never get a fair trial because of thousands of “ news ” stories like this one .
The real target , of course , is President Trump .
Every day , virtually every American newspaper runs stories like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anti-Trump themes : The reporter ’ s claim that President Trump hasn ’ t condemned white supremacy is a lie .
Trump has done so numerous times .
Note , too , the favorite trick of the dishonest reporter : attributing his own opinion to anonymous “ civic and political leaders , ” as though this makes it news .
More : This is what much “ news ” reporting is all about today .
Reporters know that Joe Biden is a terrible presidential candidate , but they are determined to drag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sad truth is that there is little point to reading newspapers these days .
Any actual news they might contain is overwhelmed by sheer political propaganda .

A front page story in yesterday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune is a good illustration of how corrupt today’s press has become. It would be insignificant, except for the fact that its dishonesty is replicated thousands of times every day, in newspapers across the country.
The Strib’s story is headlined, in the print edition, “Town Lashes Out at Floyd’s Uncle.” The story refers to a controversy that occurred several months ago in Gettysburg, South Dakota, population 1,162, where, coincidentally, George Floyd’s uncle Selwyn Jones lives. Strib reporter Chao Xiong describes the controversy this way: “Jones led the charge to remove Confederate flag-adorned patches from the uniforms of Gettysburg police.” At the outset, there are several problems with this story.
First, there is no news to report, unless you consider a handful of random Facebook posts to be news. Nothing has happened in Gettysburg in the last three months that deserves to be on a newspaper’s front page, or any page. It is a recycled story, at best.
Second, the story never explains what the Gettysburg controversy was about. If you didn’t know better, you would think that the little town of Gettysburg, which is named after the battle, is weirdly pro-Confederate, despite being located in the North and having been settled overwhelmingly by Union veterans. Actually, the flag patch simply showed a cannon and crossed Union and Confederate flags. Such crossed flags have been common pictorial symbols of the Civil War for over 150 years.
The Gettysburg police patch was in that tradition. The town is named after the battle. There were two sides in the battle, Union and Confederate. Hence the patch:
The Strib’s online story has an image of the police patch, but the print version does not. It does, however, include a photo of a Confederate flag, all by itself, and the reporter refers to the patch as a “Confederate flag logo.” Most readers probably would understand that the Gettysburg Police Department was making a racist statement by featuring only the Confederate flag on its uniforms.
Third, as the Strib article briefly acknowledges, the handful of leftists, led by Jones, who objected to the police force’s patch got their way. After they complained, it was immediately removed from officers’ uniforms. So what is the point?
The point is to reinforce BLM themes, starting with George Floyd:
But not long after his nephew, George Floyd, was killed by Minneapolis police in May….
That Floyd was killed by the police is reported as a fact. In reality, it is a controversial proposition that presumably will be hotly debated if any officers are actually tried.
Some people from town and across the state called out Floyd’s criminal history. Others noted that he had fentanyl in his system when he died.
Floyd didn’t just “have fentanyl in his system” along with other drugs, he had two to three times a lethal dose of fentanyl. And he was showing symptoms of a fentanyl overdose (i.e., inability to breathe) from the moment the first police officers arrived on the scene. But the officers will never get a fair trial because of thousands of “news” stories like this one.
The real target, of course, is President Trump. Every day, virtually every American newspaper runs stories like this one–no actual news, just a recycling of anti-Trump themes:
The turmoil in Gettysburg, about 350 miles west of the Twin Cities, is among many signs nationally of racially charged expression erupting more in public life, even becoming normalized. Many civic and political leaders are worried that President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and lack of condemnation of white supremacy is emboldening those who hold such beliefs.
The reporter’s claim that President Trump hasn’t condemned white supremacy is a lie. Trump has done so numerous times. Note, too, the favorite trick of the dishonest reporter: attributing his own opinion to anonymous “civic and political leaders,” as though this makes it news. More:
The [Facebook] posts are emblematic of the country’s new “overt racial consciousness” that is divided between social justice efforts and resurging white nationalism, said Enid Logan, associate professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota and associate chairwoman of the department.
***
“A lot of this … discourse has clearly been inflamed and encouraged by Donald Trump,” Logan said, adding that such beliefs gained “a new sort of legitimacy” under him.
This is what much “news” reporting is all about today. Reporters know that Joe Biden is a terrible presidential candidate, but they are determined to drag his feeble carcass across the finish line. The sad truth is that there is little point to reading newspapers these days. Any actual news they might contain is overwhelmed by sheer political propaganda.


powerlineblog--2020-10-12--Is a packed Supreme Court in our near future?

The Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett begin on Monday .
It ’ s likely , though not certain , that Barrett will be confirmed .
If she is , conservatives will hold either a 6-3 or a 5-3 majority on the Supreme Court , depending on how one categorizes Chief Justice Roberts and how he votes going forward .
If the Democrats win the White House and the Senate , Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer likely will want to pack the Court by adding four new Justices .
Why undertake something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t give the Dems a clear majority ?
As my father used to say , in for a dime , in for a dollar .
Would the Democrats succeed in adding four Justices .
It depends , I think , on the size of their majority .
If the majority is very slim , they might have trouble adding any new Justices .
If the Democrats get to , say , 52 seats , I can see them being able to add two new Justices , but maybe not four .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then adding four Justices becomes a very realistic possibility– or so I speculate .
If I ’ m right about this , the close races in which the Republican incumbent is thought to be ahead may hold the key to avoiding court packing and the abolition of the filibuster — races like those involving Steve Daines , David Perdue , and ( yes ) Lindsey Graham .
It is these these contests that , in the event the Dems will the Senate , will probably determine the size of their margin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight ’ s model gives the Democrats a 69 percent chance of taking control of the Senate .
The most likely outcome in its 40,000 simulations has the Dems holding 51 seats .
However , it gives them a slightly better than one-in-four chance of reaching or exceeding the 53 mark and about a one-in-six chance of reaching or exceeding 54 .

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett begin on Monday. It’s likely, though not certain, that Barrett will be confirmed. If she is, conservatives will hold either a 6-3 or a 5-3 majority on the Supreme Court, depending on how one categorizes Chief Justice Roberts and how he votes going forward.
If the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer likely will want to pack the Court by adding four new Justices. Why undertake something as radical as court packing if it won’t give the Dems a clear majority? As my father used to say, in for a dime, in for a dollar.
Would the Democrats succeed in adding four Justices? It depends, I think, on the size of their majority.
If the majority is very slim, they might have trouble adding any new Justices. If the Democrats get to, say, 52 seats, I can see them being able to add two new Justices, but maybe not four. But if they get to 54 seats, then adding four Justices becomes a very realistic possibility– or so I speculate.
If I’m right about this, the close races in which the Republican incumbent is thought to be ahead may hold the key to avoiding court packing and the abolition of the filibuster — races like those involving Steve Daines, David Perdue, and (yes) Lindsey Graham. It is these contests that, in the event the Dems will the Senate, will probably determine the size of their margin.
For what it’s worth, FiveThirtyEight’s model gives the Democrats a 69 percent chance of taking control of the Senate. The most likely outcome in its 40,000 simulations has the Dems holding 51 seats. However, it gives them a slightly better than one-in-four chance of reaching or exceeding the 53 mark and about a one-in-six chance of reaching or exceeding 54.


How Politicians Lie

As you probably know , the FBI has arrested six men who allegedly plotted to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer .
At least three of the six have been shown to be BLM , Antifa , anti-Trump radicals .
Maybe the count has risen since I last checked in on the story .
Today Governor Whitmer sent out a fundraising email to her supporters–or , anyway , those on her list , a group that includes me .
The subject heading was : “ We ’ ve seen the disastrous effects of Trump ’ s hateful rhetoric.
” That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong in the world is a result of “ Trump ’ s hateful rhetoric.
” The Democrats ’ far more hateful rhetoric , meanwhile , has evidently no consequences .
The email continues : “ That woman ?
” How hateful can you get ?
Why , a president hasn ’ t referred to “ that woman ” since Bill Clinton !
“ That woman ” apparently dwarfs the outrageous slurs that Democrats , including Whitmer , have directed against President Trump .
And the “ radical right-wing groups ” that protested against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually were found to be unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court–so the “ radicals ” were right !
–were entirely peaceful .
Unlike the BLM/Antifa rioting , looting and arson that we have seen in recent months , for which no Democrat takes responsibility and which hardly any Democrats have even criticized .
This is deeply dishonest .
Whitmer refers to the first presidential debate , when liberal moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump to tell the Proud Boys ( who have no connection whatsoever to the administration ) to “ stand down.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump tried to comply with Wallace ’ s request but didn ’ t remember the right preposition .
The idea that he was somehow trying to incite the Proud Boys to violence is a ridiculous lie .
As is Whitmer ’ s statement that those arrested by the FBI are members of “ right-wing militia groups.
” In fact , they are mostly , if not all , left-wingers and anti-Trump anarchists .
What is most interesting to me about Whitmer ’ s email is that she and her handlers are confident that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that what they are saying about Trump ’ s comments in the first debate and about the leftists who allegedly conspired to kidnap Whitmer are lies , but they don ’ t care .
They assume that the press will cover for them , and that the vast majority of those who receive their fundraising appeal will not know that it is based entirely on lies .
Their confidence is well-placed .
In today ’ s America , the “ mainstream ” media exist mostly to keep secrets .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitmer were mostly left-wing Antifa/BLM activists is a deep , dark secret that will be kept from nearly all Americans .
Because we have an election coming up next month .

As you probably know, the FBI has arrested six men who allegedly plotted to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. At least three of the six have been shown to be BLM, Antifa, anti-Trump radicals. Maybe the count has risen since I last checked in on the story.
Today Governor Whitmer sent out a fundraising email to her supporters–or, anyway, those on her list, a group that includes me. The subject heading was: “We’ve seen the disastrous effects of Trump’s hateful rhetoric.” That is typical. Pretty much everything that goes wrong in the world is a result of “Trump’s hateful rhetoric.” The Democrats’ far more hateful rhetoric, meanwhile, has evidently no consequences. The email continues:
First, Trump launched attacks against Gretchen Whitmer, deriding her as “that woman” and calling for the “liberation” of Michigan. Radical right-wing groups responded by storming the State Capitol building and demanded a recall.
“That woman?” How hateful can you get? Why, a president hasn’t referred to “that woman” since Bill Clinton! “That woman” apparently dwarfs the outrageous slurs that Democrats, including Whitmer, have directed against President Trump.
And the “radical right-wing groups” that protested against Whitmer’s shutdown orders, which eventually were found to be unconstitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court–so the “radicals” were right!–were entirely peaceful. Unlike the BLM/Antifa rioting, looting and arson that we have seen in recent months, for which no Democrat takes responsibility and which hardly any Democrats have even criticized.
The email continues:
Then, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Right-wing militant groups in Michigan heard him loud and clear. Just days ago, the FBI thwarted a full-fledged terrorist plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government.
This is deeply dishonest. Whitmer refers to the first presidential debate, when liberal moderator Chris Wallace asked President Trump to tell the Proud Boys (who have no connection whatsoever to the administration) to “stand down.” After a couple of exchanges, Trump tried to comply with Wallace’s request but didn’t remember the right preposition. The idea that he was somehow trying to incite the Proud Boys to violence is a ridiculous lie.
As is Whitmer’s statement that those arrested by the FBI are members of “right-wing militia groups.” In fact, they are mostly, if not all, left-wingers and anti-Trump anarchists.
What is most interesting to me about Whitmer’s email is that she and her handlers are confident that she can lie with impunity. They know that what they are saying about Trump’s comments in the first debate and about the leftists who allegedly conspired to kidnap Whitmer are lies, but they don’t care. They assume that the press will cover for them, and that the vast majority of those who receive their fundraising appeal will not know that it is based entirely on lies.
Their confidence is well-placed. In today’s America, the “mainstream” media exist mostly to keep secrets. The fact that those who allegedly schemed to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer were mostly left-wing Antifa/BLM activists is a deep, dark secret that will be kept from nearly all Americans. Because we have an election coming up next month.


powerlineblog--2020-10-11--Times Change—or Stephens’ Suicide Note? (Updated)


Columbus Day

Christopher Columbus was one of the great figures of world history , not because he was a moral paragon ( although he was deeply religious ) but because he was an extraordinarily skillful sailor and leader of men .
Today President Trump issued a proclamation on the occasion of Columbus Day : More than 500 years ago , Christopher Columbus ’ s intrepid voyage to the New World ushered in a new era of exploration and discovery .
His travels led to European contact with the Americas and , a century later , the first settlements on the shores of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we celebrate Columbus Day to commemorate the great Italian who opened a new chapter in world history and to appreciate his enduring significance to the Western Hemisphere .
When Christopher Columbus and his crew sailed across the Atlantic Ocean on the Niña , Pinta , and Santa María it marked the beginning of a new era in human history .
For Italian Americans , Christopher Columbus represents one of the first of many immeasurable contributions of Italy to American history .
As a native of Genoa , Columbus inspired early immigrants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New World .
Today , the United States benefits from the warmth and generosity of nearly 17 million Italian Americans , whose love of family and country strengthen the fabric of our Nation .
For our beautiful Italian American communities — and Americans of every background –Columbus remains a legendary figure .
Sadly , in recent years , radical activists have sought to undermine Christopher Columbus ’ s legacy .
These extremists seek to replace discussion of his vast contributions with talk of failings , his discoveries with atrocities , and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from our history , this radical ideology and its adherents seek to revise it , deprive it of any splendor , and mark it as inherently sinister .
They seek to squash any dissent from their orthodoxy .
We must not give in to these tactics or consent to such a bleak view of our history .
We must teach future generations about our storied heritage , starting with the protection of monuments to our intrepid heroes like Columbus .
This June , I signed an Executive Order to ensure that any person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monument , memorial , or statue is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law .
I have also taken steps to ensure that we preserve our Nation ’ s history and promote patriotic education .
In July , I signed another Executive Order to build and rebuild monuments to iconic American figures in a National Garden of American Heroes .
In September , I announced the creation of the 1776 Commission , which will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and honor our founding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Executive Order to root out the teaching of racially divisive concepts from the Federal workplace , many of which are grounded in the same type of revisionist history that is trying to erase Christopher Columbus from our national heritage .
Together , we must safeguard our history and stop this new wave of iconoclasm by standing against those who spread hate and division .
On this Columbus Day , we embrace the same optimism that led Christopher Columbus to discover the New World .
We inherit that optimism , along with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trails , settled a continent , tamed the wilderness , and built the single-greatest nation the world has ever seen .
In commemoration of Christopher Columbus ’ s historic voyage , the Congress , by joint resolution of April 30 , 1934 , modified in 1968 ( 36 U.S.C .
107 ) , has requested the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “ Columbus Day.
” NOW , THEREFORE , I , DONALD J. TRUMP , President of the United States of America , by virtue of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the laws of the United States , do hereby proclaim October 12 , 2020 , as Columbus Day .
I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities .
I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and all who have contributed to shaping this Nation .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of October , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth .

Christopher Columbus was one of the great figures of world history, not because he was a moral paragon (although he was deeply religious) but because he was an extraordinarily skillful sailor and leader of men. Today President Trump issued a proclamation on the occasion of Columbus Day:
More than 500 years ago, Christopher Columbus’s intrepid voyage to the New World ushered in a new era of exploration and discovery. His travels led to European contact with the Americas and, a century later, the first settlements on the shores of the modern day United States. Today, we celebrate Columbus Day to commemorate the great Italian who opened a new chapter in world history and to appreciate his enduring significance to the Western Hemisphere.
When Christopher Columbus and his crew sailed across the Atlantic Ocean on the Niña, Pinta, and Santa María it marked the beginning of a new era in human history. For Italian Americans, Christopher Columbus represents one of the first of many immeasurable contributions of Italy to American history. As a native of Genoa, Columbus inspired early immigrants to carry forth their rich Italian heritage to the New World. Today, the United States benefits from the warmth and generosity of nearly 17 million Italian Americans, whose love of family and country strengthen the fabric of our Nation. For our beautiful Italian American communities — and Americans of every background –Columbus remains a legendary figure.
Sadly, in recent years, radical activists have sought to undermine Christopher Columbus’s legacy. These extremists seek to replace discussion of his vast contributions with talk of failings, his discoveries with atrocities, and his achievements with transgressions. Rather than learn from our history, this radical ideology and its adherents seek to revise it, deprive it of any splendor, and mark it as inherently sinister. They seek to squash any dissent from their orthodoxy. We must not give in to these tactics or consent to such a bleak view of our history. We must teach future generations about our storied heritage, starting with the protection of monuments to our intrepid heroes like Columbus. This June, I signed an Executive Order to ensure that any person or group destroying or vandalizing a Federal monument, memorial, or statue is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Earlier this year, leftists dragged down the statue of Columbus on the grounds of Minnesota’s state Capitol in St. Paul, with the approval of the state’s governor and lieutenant governor. To attack Columbus is to attack America. Leftists like Minnesota’s governor believe that America was a mistake, that it would be better if Stone Age peoples had continued to roam over North America, undisturbed. This view is increasingly taught in our public schools, as well.
I have also taken steps to ensure that we preserve our Nation’s history and promote patriotic education. In July, I signed another Executive Order to build and rebuild monuments to iconic American figures in a National Garden of American Heroes. In September, I announced the creation of the 1776 Commission, which will encourage our educators to teach our children about the miracle of American history and honor our founding. In addition, last month I signed an Executive Order to root out the teaching of racially divisive concepts from the Federal workplace, many of which are grounded in the same type of revisionist history that is trying to erase Christopher Columbus from our national heritage. Together, we must safeguard our history and stop this new wave of iconoclasm by standing against those who spread hate and division.
All of this will be undone if Joe Biden wins the election.
On this Columbus Day, we embrace the same optimism that led Christopher Columbus to discover the New World. We inherit that optimism, along with the legacy of American heroes who blazed the trails, settled a continent, tamed the wilderness, and built the single-greatest nation the world has ever seen.
Optimism is anathema to the Left. It knows only hatred and despair. The Left already controls nearly every major American institution, and may be on the verge of taking complete control over the federal government, with consequences that we probably cannot imagine.
In commemoration of Christopher Columbus’s historic voyage, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), has requested the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 12, 2020, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of our diverse history and all who have contributed to shaping this Nation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.
DONALD J. TRUMP


powerlineblog--2020-10-12--Democrats attack Judge Barrett with bogus talking point

Hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court began this morning .
It ’ s my understanding that today ’ s hearing was devoted to speeches .
I didn ’ t have the stomach to listen to them .
A reader who listened to the first few speeches writes : I ’ m watching the “ hearing ” about Judge Barrett ’ s nomination .
Senator Leahy is now describing how “ Vermonters ” are “ scared ” that Judge Barrett ’ s nomination will mean that Vermonters will lose healthcare and that the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gestapo .
The narrative seems to be that the sinister Judge Barrett is plotting to join the Supreme Court so that she and a right-wing cabal of maniacs will “ strip ” “ Vermonters ” and other Americans of their rights .
Meanwhile , Judge Barrett enjoys the privilege of sitting there all day listening to one speech after another by members of the Committee .
I think I ’ ll take my TV clicker and see if I can find a good rerun of the “ Love Boat.
” There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to deprive Americans of their healthcare .
As I said in this post , it ’ s true that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare .
However , there is almost no chance that this challenge will gain anywhere close to five votes , with or without Amy Barrett on the Court .
Nor has Barrett criticized Obamacare .
Sen. Chris Coons claims otherwise .
However , as Andy McCarthy shows , the book review Coons apparently relies on expresses no position on Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Roberts used to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 ( which was not the only reasoning by which the same result could have been reached , in theory ) .
However , that decision stands , and there is no indication that it will be revisited .
Nor need it be .
The penalty associated with the individual mandate has been repealed .
The question before the Supreme Court in the coming term isn ’ t the constitutionality of the mandate .
Rather , it is whether , now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire Affordable Care Act must be dismantled .
As noted , there is very little chance the Supreme Court will agree that it must be .
Thus , the attempt to tie Barrett ’ s confirmation to Obamacare is “ disingenuous , ” as McCarthy kindly puts it .
Democrats hope ( 1 ) to score points against Republican Senators facing reelection who will vote to confirm Barrett and ( 2 ) to build momentum for a push to pack the Supreme Court as quickly as possible , assuming Democrats take control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court began this morning. It’s my understanding that today’s hearing was devoted to speeches. I didn’t have the stomach to listen to them.
A reader who listened to the first few speeches writes:
I’m watching the “hearing” about Judge Barrett’s nomination. Senator Leahy is now describing how “Vermonters” are “scared” that Judge Barrett’s nomination will mean that Vermonters will lose healthcare and that the government will become a modern-day version of the Gestapo. The narrative seems to be that the sinister Judge Barrett is plotting to join the Supreme Court so that she and a right-wing cabal of maniacs will “strip” “Vermonters” and other Americans of their rights. Meanwhile, Judge Barrett enjoys the privilege of sitting there all day listening to one speech after another by members of the Committee. I think I’ll take my TV clicker and see if I can find a good rerun of the “Love Boat.”
There is no validity to the notion that Judge Barrett is going to deprive Americans of their healthcare. As I said in this post, it’s true that the Supreme Court will soon hear a case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. However, there is almost no chance that this challenge will gain anywhere close to five votes, with or without Amy Barrett on the Court.
Nor has Barrett criticized Obamacare. Sen. Chris Coons claims otherwise. However, as Andy McCarthy shows, the book review Coons apparently relies on expresses no position on Obamacare.
It does criticize the methodology Chief Justice Roberts used to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 (which was not the only reasoning by which the same result could have been reached, in theory). However, that decision stands, and there is no indication that it will be revisited.
Nor need it be. The penalty associated with the individual mandate has been repealed. The question before the Supreme Court in the coming term isn’t the constitutionality of the mandate. Rather, it is whether, now that mandate has been invalidated, the entire Affordable Care Act must be dismantled. As noted, there is very little chance the Supreme Court will agree that it must be.
Thus, the attempt to tie Barrett’s confirmation to Obamacare is “disingenuous,” as McCarthy kindly puts it. Democrats hope (1) to score points against Republican Senators facing reelection who will vote to confirm Barrett and (2) to build momentum for a push to pack the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, assuming Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate.
“Love Boat” reruns, anyone?


powerlineblog--2020-10-12--Race discrimination at Yale

Race discrimination at Yale

Last week , I reported that the Department of Justice has sued Yale University for discriminating against Whites and Asian-Americans in undergraduate admissions .
Today , I want to look more specifically at what the DOJ ’ s complaint alleges .
At the outset , it ’ s worth noting the differences between the DOJ ’ s race discrimination suit against Yale and the race discrimination suit brought by private plaintiffs against Harvard .
My sense is that the Harvard case was brought with Justice Kennedy in mind .
At the time , he was the swing vote on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , it would make sense if the plaintiffs shaped their case with him in mind .
That might explain why the plaintiffs focused on discrimination against Asian-Americans and did not allege discrimination against Whites , even though Harvard undoubtedly discriminates against them .
It might also help explain why the plaintiffs emphasized the way Harvard used subjective ratings of “ personal qualities ” to ding Asian applicants .
This evidence seemed likely to offend Justice Kennedy ( as well it should ) .
Kennedy is no longer on the Court , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
The Justice Department alleges discrimination not just against Asians , but also against Whites .
And its complaint , after describing how Yale instructs its admissions officers to treat certain minority statuses as a plus at each stage of the admissions process , focuses on the cold numbers to prove that Yale engages in “ racial balancing ” of its admitted classes .
According to the complaint : Each year for 18 consecutive years , from 2000 to 2017 , data on domestic applicants and admits .
.
.show that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Yale College was higher than the percentage of Black and Hispanic applicants to Yale College .
Each year for 18 consecutive years , from 2000 to 2017 , data on domestic applicants and admits .
.
.show that the percentage of Asian applicants admitted to Yale College was lower than the percentage of Asian applicants to Yale College .
From 2010 through 2017 , Yale engaged in racial balancing of domestic admits by keeping the annual percentage of Black admits within approximately one percentage point of the previous year ’ s admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through 2017 , Yale engaged in racial balancing of domestic admits by keeping the annual percentage of Asian admits within approximately 1.5 percentage points of the previous year ’ s admitted class .
.
.Indeed , in most years the range was only one percentage point or less .
Most successful applicants to Yale College receive a rating of a 2 or 2+ on the “ first reading ” of their application .
First readers are instructed to take race and ethnicity into account in assigning a score .
Thus , Yale uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive a rating of 2 or 2+ .
Having already granted Black and Latino applicants an advantage , Yale then uses race significantly to determine whether to extend offers to applicants who have been rated 2 or 2+ .
The admit rates of Asian and White applicants with an overall rating of 2 are significantly lower than the admit rates of Black and Latino Hispanic applicants with an overall rating of 2 .
Similar differences exist for applicants with a 2+ rating .
Yale also uses an academic index in deciding whom to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , how applicants in the different deciles of the academic index fare in the admissions process .
( By way of illustration , the tenth decile includes applicants to Yale with approximately the top 10 percent of academic index ratings , i.e.
, greater than the academic index ratings of approximately 90 percent .
The first decile includes applicants in the bottom ten percent . )
According to the complaint , which is based on the DOJ ’ s lengthy investigation of Yale ’ s undergraduate admissions process , Blacks in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are admitted to Yale at a rate of 60 percent .
By contrast , Whites are admitted at a rate of 20 percent and Asians at a rate of only 14 percent .
Because Yale is a highly selective college , few applicants of any race or ethnicity are admitted from the third decile or below .
However , in the fourth decile ( the top 30 to 40 percent of applicants ) , Blacks are admitted at a rate of 12 percent — about the same rate at which Asians in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admission rates for Whites and Asians in the fourth decile are just 2 percent and 2.5 percent , respectively .
In the fifth decile ( the top 40 to 50 percent ) , Blacks are admitted at a rate of 21 percent — about the same rate as Whites in the very top decile .
For Whites and Asians in the fifth decile , the admission rates are just 4 percent and 3.5 percent , respectively .
The pattern is the same in all ten deciles .
The Justice Department ’ s allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few decades , Yale has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race and national origin in determining admissions to its college .
Because the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit , and given the likely composition of the Supreme Court ( assuming no court packing ) , the chances of success are excellent .
However , if Joe Biden is elected president , the DOJ surely will drop the case .
In that event , Yale will continue to discriminate on the basis of race indefinitely , unless private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to rally around the cause of reelecting President Trump .
And it ’ s another reason to view with disdain conservatives who don ’ t back Trump ’ s reelection .

Last week, I reported that the Department of Justice has sued Yale University for discriminating against Whites and Asian-Americans in undergraduate admissions. Today, I want to look more specifically at what the DOJ’s complaint alleges.
At the outset, it’s worth noting the differences between the DOJ’s race discrimination suit against Yale and the race discrimination suit brought by private plaintiffs against Harvard. My sense is that the Harvard case was brought with Justice Kennedy in mind. At the time, he was the swing vote on the Supreme Court in racial preference cases. Thus, it would make sense if the plaintiffs shaped their case with him in mind.
That might explain why the plaintiffs focused on discrimination against Asian-Americans and did not allege discrimination against Whites, even though Harvard undoubtedly discriminates against them. It might also help explain why the plaintiffs emphasized the way Harvard used subjective ratings of “personal qualities” to ding Asian applicants. This evidence seemed likely to offend Justice Kennedy (as well it should).
Kennedy is no longer on the Court, so there is no need to cater to him. The Justice Department alleges discrimination not just against Asians, but also against Whites. And its complaint, after describing how Yale instructs its admissions officers to treat certain minority statuses as a plus at each stage of the admissions process, focuses on the cold numbers to prove that Yale engages in “racial balancing” of its admitted classes.
According to the complaint:
Each year for 18 consecutive years, from 2000 to 2017, data on domestic applicants and admits. . .show that the percentage of Black and Hispanic applicants admitted to Yale College was higher than the percentage of Black and Hispanic applicants to Yale College. Each year for 18 consecutive years, from 2000 to 2017, data on domestic applicants and admits. . .show that the percentage of Asian applicants admitted to Yale College was lower than the percentage of Asian applicants to Yale College. From 2010 through 2017, Yale engaged in racial balancing of domestic admits by keeping the annual percentage of Black admits within approximately one percentage point of the previous year’s admitted class. . . . From 2010 through 2017, Yale engaged in racial balancing of domestic admits by keeping the annual percentage of Asian admits within approximately 1.5 percentage points of the previous year’s admitted class. . .Indeed, in most years the range was only one percentage point or less.
(Emphasis added)
Most successful applicants to Yale College receive a rating of a 2 or 2+ on the “first reading” of their application. First readers are instructed to take race and ethnicity into account in assigning a score. Thus, Yale uses race significantly when it determines who will receive a rating of 2 or 2+.
Having already granted Black and Latino applicants an advantage, Yale then uses race significantly to determine whether to extend offers to applicants who have been rated 2 or 2+. The admit rates of Asian and White applicants with an overall rating of 2 are significantly lower than the admit rates of Black and Latino Hispanic applicants with an overall rating of 2. Similar differences exist for applicants with a 2+ rating.
Yale also uses an academic index in deciding whom to admit. The complaint analyzes, by race, how applicants in the different deciles of the academic index fare in the admissions process. (By way of illustration, the tenth decile includes applicants to Yale with approximately the top 10 percent of academic index ratings, i.e., greater than the academic index ratings of approximately 90 percent. The first decile includes applicants in the bottom ten percent.)
According to the complaint, which is based on the DOJ’s lengthy investigation of Yale’s undergraduate admissions process, Blacks in the tenth decile (the top one) are admitted to Yale at a rate of 60 percent. By contrast, Whites are admitted at a rate of 20 percent and Asians at a rate of only 14 percent.
Because Yale is a highly selective college, few applicants of any race or ethnicity are admitted from the third decile or below. However, in the fourth decile, Blacks are admitted at a rate of 12 percent — about the same rate at which Asians in the tenth decile (the top one) are admitted. The admission rates for Whites and Asians in the fourth decile are just 2 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively.
In the fifth decile, Blacks are admitted at a rate of 21 percent — about the same rate as Whites in the tenth decile. For Whites and Asians in the fifth decile, the admission rates are just 4 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.
The pattern is the same in all ten deciles.
The Justice Department’s allegations present a compelling case that for the last few decades, Yale has intentionally discriminated on the basis of race and national origin in determining admissions to its college. Because the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit, and given the likely composition of the Supreme Court (assuming no court packing), the chances of success are excellent.
However, if Joe Biden is elected president, the DOJ surely will drop the case. In that event, Yale will continue to discriminate on the basis of race indefinitely, unless private plaintiffs intervene.
This is yet another reason to rally around the cause of reelecting President Trump. And it’s another reason to view with disdain conservatives who don’t back Trump’s reelection.


powerlineblog--2020-10-12--The Partisan Split on Coronavirus Is Extraordinary

To recast an old formula , it appears that Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus .
I don ’ t know how else to explain the deep gulf that separates Democrats from Republicans when it comes to the Wuhan flu .
Check out these numbers , from Gallup : I gave a speech on the politics of the coronavirus at Hillsdale College ’ s Constitution Day in northern Virginia a few weeks ago .
They haven ’ t made it embeddable , but you can see it , along with the rest of the presentations at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I argued , among other things , that Democrats tend to be clustered in institutions and occupations that have been relatively lightly impacted by the coronavirus shutdowns , while Republicans predominate in the areas ( e.g.
, small business ) that the shutdowns have hit the hardest .
But Gallup is measuring something different : not self-interest , but fear .
It has been true for a while that political alignment has less to do with traditional factors like regional economic interests and more to do with personality types .
Reactions to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this reality .

To recast an old formula, it appears that Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus. I don’t know how else to explain the deep gulf that separates Democrats from Republicans when it comes to the Wuhan flu. Check out these numbers, from Gallup:
It is amazing but I suspect these numbers will converge after the election. https://t.co/Dn9OyVORqH — Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) October 11, 2020
I gave a speech on the politics of the coronavirus at Hillsdale College’s Constitution Day in northern Virginia a few weeks ago. They haven’t made it embeddable, but you can see it, along with the rest of the presentations at that event, here. In my speech I argued, among other things, that Democrats tend to be clustered in institutions and occupations that have been relatively lightly impacted by the coronavirus shutdowns, while Republicans predominate in the areas (e.g., small business) that the shutdowns have hit the hardest. But Gallup is measuring something different: not self-interest, but fear.
It has been true for a while that political alignment has less to do with traditional factors like regional economic interests and more to do with personality types. Reactions to the Wuhan virus offer a stark instance of this reality.


powerlineblog--2020-10-12--CRB: The election to end all elections

CRB: The election to end all elections

The Claremont Review of Books has just published its new ( Fall ) issue .
Thanks to the editors , I reviewed the issue in galley to pick out four or five pieces to roll out for Power Line readers this week .
As always , I encourage readers to become subscribers ( subscribe here ) for the absurdly low price of $ 19.95 and get online access thrown in for free .
We led off our preview of the Summer issue with Michael Anton ’ s essay “ The Case for Trump.
” Subhead : “ There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump couldn ’ t solve.
” The essay was adapted from Anton ’ s The Stakes : America at the Point of No Return , then forthcoming and now published by Regnery Publishing .
Anton is the author of the influential 2016 CRB essay “ The Flight 93 election ” and former Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications on the United States National Security Council .
To lead off our preview of the Fall issue I chose Angelo Codevilla ’ s review of Anton ’ s book : “ The election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the author of the recent American Mind essay “ Revolution 2020.
” He summarizes one of Anton ’ s key points near the top of his review : [ Anton explains ] what is really radically new about the 2020 election : should the Democrats win , the ruling Left—which includes just about everyone who controls American government and society ’ s commanding heights—is ready , willing , and eager to implement plans that would make it virtually impossible for conservatives ever to win national elections again .
These plans include the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elections by mail would shift power from voters to those who count the votes , just like in Venezuela .
Though reelecting Trump makes the republic ’ s survival possible , and preserves all manner of good options , it guarantees nothing .
Trump ’ s defeat guarantees disaster—like in 2016 , only much more so .
This is a perceptive review of a timely book on the critically important issues before us .
Please read the whole thing .

The Claremont Review of Books has just published its new (Fall) issue. Thanks to the editors, I reviewed the issue in galley to pick out four or five pieces to roll out for Power Line readers this week. As always, I encourage readers to become subscribers (subscribe here) for the absurdly low price of $19.95 and get online access thrown in for free.
We led off our preview of the Summer issue with Michael Anton’s essay “The Case for Trump.” Subhead: “There’s little wrong with President Trump that more Trump couldn’t solve.” The essay was adapted from Anton’s The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, then forthcoming and now published by Regnery Publishing. Anton is the author of the influential 2016 CRB essay “The Flight 93 election” and former Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications on the United States National Security Council.
To lead off our preview of the Fall issue I chose Angelo Codevilla’s review of Anton’s book: “The election to end all elections.” Professor Codevilla is the author of the recent American Mind essay “Revolution 2020.” He summarizes one of Anton’s key points near the top of his review:
[Anton explains] what is really radically new about the 2020 election: should the Democrats win, the ruling Left—which includes just about everyone who controls American government and society’s commanding heights—is ready, willing, and eager to implement plans that would make it virtually impossible for conservatives ever to win national elections again. These plans include the importation and counting of non-citizen voters. Elections by mail would shift power from voters to those who count the votes, just like in Venezuela. Though reelecting Trump makes the republic’s survival possible, and preserves all manner of good options, it guarantees nothing. Trump’s defeat guarantees disaster—like in 2016, only much more so.
This is a perceptive review of a timely book on the critically important issues before us. Please read the whole thing.