Wednesday, 30 June 2021

Daily Digest

Daily Digest

Link to Power LinePower Line

The more I learn about Ron DeSantis,

Posted: 30 Jun 2021 11:52 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

the more I like him. My visit to Florida in April also left me with a good feeling about its governor. How refreshing to experience life in a state comparatively free of excessive covid restrictions.

Now comes word, via Stanley Kurtz, that DeSantis has vetoed a stealth protest-civics bill, S.B. 146. Stanley reports:

Ostensibly, S.B. 146 was designed to forward "civic literacy education." In fact, it was a quiet effort to gain money and state sponsorship for protest civics (aka "action civics"), a practice that grants course credit for student political protests and lobbying, almost invariably for leftist causes. Although DeSantis has moved to bar Critical Race Theory (CRT) from Florida's schools, S.B. 146 could very easily have allowed CRT to creep back into Florida's education system.

I think Stanley deserves some credit for the veto, as do grassroots education groups in Florida. He flagged the fact that, unbeknownst to many of the legislators who voted for S.B. 146, the legislation would facilitate protest civics and CRT. Writing at NRO, he urged DeSantis to veto the bill.

However, Stanley thought the likelihood of such a veto was low, inasmuch as S.B. 146 passed unanimously and was backed by powerful political forces. Yet, once DeSantis learned the truth about the bill, he courageously vetoed it.

In his veto letter, DeSantis explicitly notes that S.B. 146 would further politically biased "action civics." Just as Stanley warned.

DeSantis seems to be that rare Republican with an antenna capable of detecting what the left is really up to.

Stanley believes that DeSantis’ ability to pick up on and nix “actions civics” has national implications. He writes:

The DeSantis veto of S.B. 146 marks a turning point in the national battle over protest civics. Heretofore, states have passed stealth action-civics bills with bipartisan support. Similarly misguided bills are pending in Congress. It's unlikely that Republicans in Florida would have supported S.B. 146 if they'd heard about protest civics and understood its nature. The same goes for Republicans unknowingly supporting protest-civics bills in other states.

Time and again, however, Democrats approach naïve Republicans and ask them to support "bipartisan" legislation on "civics." The Republicans may notice some bits in the bills about "civic engagement," yet no alarm bells ring. It sounds all red, white, and blue, but the "civics" involved has more to do with Saul Alinsky than with teaching about the three branches of government, checks and balances, or the principles of federalism. Once Republicans sign on as co-sponsors of these stealthy protest-civics bills, it's tough to back down. The bills pass, and presto, a state school system has effectively mandated extra-curricular leftist political protests as part of "civic education." . . . .

The DeSantis veto of S.B. 146 shows that the push-back against protest civics has truly gained traction. It can't have been easy to veto a bill that passed unanimously. But knowledge of the troublesome practice of protest civics is spreading, and surely this helped to sink the bill. Grassroots education groups in Florida called on DeSantis to veto S.B. 146, and even a short time ago conservatives wouldn't have known enough about protest civics to even notice a bill like this. With the grassroots rebellion sweeping the country on education issues, all of that has changed. This veto is every bit as much a tribute to the parents across Florida now fighting against politicized schools as it is to Governor DeSantis.

Now, we’ll see whether South Dakota governor Kristi Noem matches DeSantis by aggressively moving to block protest civics in her state.

How Low Can Hollywood Sink?

Posted: 30 Jun 2021 10:22 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

I think it is Glenn Reynolds who came up with the observation that the demand for racism exceeds the supply, which explains the proliferation of Jussie Smollett-style racism hoaxes.

And Hollywood is happy to do its part to reinforce this narrative. The Daily Wire reports that the CW network has greenlit a series based on Jane Austen novels that will:

update a number of Jane Austen classics for the "modern" viewer, is reportedly in production at the CW network, to air over the next several years. The series, which appears to be taking a "woke" approach to the classic author's works, is "expected to adapt a different novel with the first season adapting Pride and Prejudice and taking place in San Francisco," and will offer a "a kaleidoscopic look at love and family in our time of inequality," according to Bounding Into Comics. . .   Austen, the Daily Wire reported earlier this year, is currently undergoing a "BLM-inspired 'historical interrogation' over her family's links to the slave trade, and over her love of tea — a beverage that came to the United Kingdom courtesy of British colonial efforts in India.

It was bad enough when the feminists went after Austen a couple decades back, reinterpreting her works through the lens of “patriarchal oppression and heteronormativity” (yes, there are actual bipeds among us who talk this way). But now we have to get Austen as understood by CRT.

But this is minor league compared to a new movie called “Karen” that will apparently run on BET whose story line is “A racist, entitled white woman in the South terrorizes her new Black neighbors.” When I saw this trailer for the movie I thought it was some kind of parody of how the left thinks about the whole matter, but no! It’s real! See it if you can stand it:

The movie is ironically correct in one way: this is how the left understand racial matters right now. And yet, Census data show that northern blacks are moving back to the South in large numbers. Why is that? Perhaps because they are better off in these Republican states than in northern states run by Democrats? I shared this chart, produced incidentally by a left-wing academic outfit, last week about integration (showing Alabama and Mississippi comparing very favorable to the northeast), and it suggests that if the South were even 1/100th as bigoted as “Karen” assumes, we wouldn’t see this.

P.S. It seems this trailer is even too much for USA Today, which wrote: “A new film trailer has many Twitter users wanting to speak with Hollywood’s manager.”

Coronavirus in one state (162)

Posted: 30 Jun 2021 06:10 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

The divided Minnesota legislature appears to have ended the one-man rule of Governor Tim “tear down this” Walz overnight. It is perfectly fitting that Walz (I believe falsely) presents himself setting aside his crown as a matter of his royal grace (press release at 11:40 p.m. last night):

After reaching a deal with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to protect monthly emergency food payments for Minnesotans, Governor Tim Walz today announced a plan to end the COVID-19 peacetime emergency on July 1 while ensuring an orderly transition. Following the Governor's agreement with the federal government, Minnesota House Democrats introduced an amendment that allows for an orderly transition of the state's current COVID-19 emergency response…The Walz-Flanagan Administration's agreement with the USDA ensures that the state will continue receiving emergency food assistance funds, benefitting grocers, farmers, and truckers who work in the food industry. Without this agreement, the Senate Republicans' plan would have been devastating for individuals, families, and entire communities who need and deserve healthy food. The House Democrats' amendment enables the Governor's agreement, while also allowing the Governor to continue to vaccinate Minnesotans and ensure that Minnesotans receive timely access to unemployment benefits.

(Republican) Senate Majority Leader Senator Paul Gazelka commented:

Ending emergency powers is a legislative prerogative. The Governor has held onto these powers far too long and used them far too broadly. We've been clear that we were going to end these powers, so I'm not surprised Walz tried to outmaneuver us – but he does not get to say he let them go. The emergency is over because the Senate and the House said so.

(Republican) House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt commented:

The peacetime emergency has finally come to an end, and the legislature has once again taken back its place as a co-equal branch of government. This move is long overdue and we should now turn our attention to a permanent rewrite of the Chapter 12 statute to make sure that no governor can ever again abuse emergency authority like Gov. Walz has for the past year. House Republicans are thrilled that the peacetime emergency has come to an end, but it’s clear that emergency powers are in desperate need of reform to strike a proper balance between the executive and legislative branch.

The Star Tribune wraps the apparent legislative termination of Walz’s one-man rule in the fog that has characterized its unrelenting cheerleading for Walz. This morning the Star Tribune reports “Gov. Tim Walz proposes end to COVID-19 emergency powers Thursday.”

Over the past few weeks I have submitted questions to the Minnesota Department of Health seeking to clarify the factual basis of Walz’s one-man rule under the terms of his most recent executive order extending the “emergency” (i.e., Executive Order 21-24). I have yet to receive a response to these questions.

Under the terms of my settlement agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health, the obligation to respond to my questions continues until Walz’s original executive order declaring the emergency (i.e., Executive Order 20-01) “is lifted or otherwise terminated.” I asked the department this morning whether they will respond to my pending questions. I hope to wrap this series up with a finale now that the end has arrived.

UPDATE: Here is the evolution of the legislation that terminated Walz’s one-man rule. The final version of the amendment that passed in the House (below) was adopted by the Senate. The Star Tribune nevertheless found itself unable to report the end of the “emergency” in anything approaching straightforward terms. Unbelievable (but also par for the course).

NSA vs. Tucker: An update [updated!]

Posted: 30 Jun 2021 04:50 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

Just before his show was aired last night, the NSA issued a statement responding to Tucker Carlson’s charge that the agency is monitoring his electronic communications. As anyone familiar with the ways of Washington knows, however, the NSA statement requires close reading. Techno Fog gives it a close reading and concludes:

Those who look closely will see something else: that the NSA, while stating that Tucker "has never been an intelligence target," does not categorically deny having his electronic communications.

Something is up.

The NSA statement is below. Despite its tenor, Mr. Fog finds the statement to be ambiguous.

Just for good measure, the psickening Jen Psaki contributed her own bafflegab to the story (included at 1:15 in the video below). Her comments represent a classic Washington non-denial. She seems to be toying with us. As I say, psickening.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty throws cold water on the story in his NR Morning Jolt “Tucker Carlson vs. the NSA.” Among other things, he observes that elsewhere on Fox News this isn’t a story.

Another botched Republican Supreme Court nomination?

Posted: 29 Jun 2021 08:57 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

I fear that Justice Kavanaugh is on his way to becoming another Chief Justice Roberts, but without the years of quality conservative jurisprudence Roberts produced before he “grew in office” into his current, more moderate incarnation. Kavanaugh appears to have been almost fully “grown” before he took office.

Today, Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the Court’s three liberals in a ruling that keeps in place the federal eviction moratorium. Kavanaugh voted to keep the moratorium in place even as he agreed that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) overstepped its authority in imposing it.

Say what?

John Sexton provides the background of the case:

Originally the moratorium was put in place by Congress last year. That moratorium wasn't renewed so last August President Trump asked the HHS Secretary to see what he could do. In September the CDC issued its own moratorium which was set to expire at the end of the year. Congress then got involved again and passed a one month extension which would last until the end of January. Then the CDC extended it again until the end of March and then again until the end of June. Last week the CDC extended the moratorium again for an additional month, saying it would be the final extension.

Meanwhile lawsuits had been brought to end the moratorium and over the past several months three different federal judges have ruled that the CDC has no authority to order an eviction moratorium. The first was a judge in Texas back in February. Then in March a judge Ohio said the same thing. Finally in May a judge in Washington, DC reached the following conclusion: "The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not."

Kavanaugh said he agrees with that conclusion. However, he voted not to lift the illegal moratorium because the CDC says it will end the ban in a few weeks. Kavanaugh explained that the extra weeks will "allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds."

But it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to promote the orderly distribution of federal funds pursuant to an order the government has no authority to issue. I agree with Sexton:

Either the CDC has the authority to create and extend this moratorium or it does not. If Kavanaugh agrees it does not then he should have voted with the other four Justices who also felt likewise and that would be the end of it. Instead he's allowing an extension to remain in place which he should never have been issued in the first place.

That's the motivated reasoning you'd expect from a liberal judge who is looking at the preferred outcome rather than the law. And what happens if the CDC reverses course and issues another two month extension next week? Will Kavanaugh suddenly switch sides and if so on what basis?

I hope I’m wrong, but Brett Kavanaugh’s selection is starting to look like another botched Republican Supreme Court nomination.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

BREAKING: North Carolina automotive group acquires 7 Upstate dealerships

Breaking news from GSA Business Report Click here to view this message in a browser window. ...