Reps Clash on Economic Policy
A recent exchange of views between Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) revealed starkly different visions for America's future.
Boebert initiated the debate by sharply criticizing the Biden Administration's policy of "incentivizing laziness. As it now stands, the Biden plan seems to be to ensure that people can receive more money for staying unemployed than they can make by taking a job. Small businesses are hurting for workers because of this. Coming on top of the severe restrictions imposed by the pandemic lockdown and social-distancing rules, businesses that barely survived are put in further danger."
Ocasio Cortez dismissed Boebert's argument, calling it "out-of-sync with the 'build-back-better' aims of our vision. The businesses that Rep. Boebert defends are the very ones that the government determined are not essential to the economic health of America. The individuals that she wants to force back into the capitalistic rat race are the very same ones that our policies have liberated from wage-slavery. We should be celebrating and extending this breakthrough rather than allow the enemies of freedom to put these people back in chains."
"No one should be forced to work in order to live," she added. "This is the key difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans would cruelly and needlessly compel everyone to work to support themselves. We are at a point in history where the government has the resources to support everyone regardless of whether they choose to work. The unemployment benefits we pay enable the average person to exercise the purchasing power necessary to keep the economy humming."
Boebert called AOC's reasoning "childish and absurd. Wealth has to be created by effort. The idea that everyone can be freed of this basic fact of life is impossible. All the government subsidies in the world can't produce prosperity if the incentive to work is obliterated."
AOC called Boebert's focus on incentives "nonsense. As we already discovered during the pandemic, the government can prohibit essential workers from quitting their jobs. The necessary production will be accomplished by the chosen few at the direction of government experts. The output will be distributed on the basis of need. The masses will be better off than they've ever been before."
DOJ to Sue Georgia
US Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justice will be suing the State of Georgia to block the implementation of voting reforms passed by the legislature because "it was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color."
While the legislation itself does not mention any racial tests or restrictions, Garland insisted that "the seemingly unbiased requirement that voters must present an ID of some form to be allowed to vote is racist. Everyone knows how hard it is for minorities to obtain an ID. Most of them received an inferior education in the state's faltering public school system. Many are too ignorant or unmotivated to get and hold a job, much less get and hold a proper form of ID."
Gov. Brian Kemp (R) called Garland's characterization of the situation "a gross distortion of reality. First, almost every adult in the state has a driver's license. Those who don't can obtain a photo ID card from the state at any county registrar's office free of charge. Second, our reform legislation permits in-person voting to individuals who show up with a photo ID and vote-by-mail ballots that are accompanied by a copy of a photo ID. Further, several other forms of non-photo ID are also permitted. Third, IDs are routinely required to purchase alcoholic beverages, cash checks, lease rental properties, and many other types of transactions. There is ample proof that persons of all races use IDs on a regular basis in their normal interactions. Mr. Garland's assertion that Blacks cannot obtain and use IDs is a lie and a smear."
Garland pointed out that "obtaining an ID does require some effort. Even if this effort is minuscule it still makes an unreasonable demand on the citizen trying to exercise his human right to vote. Inasmuch as our elections are by secret ballot, I question the fundamental premise of requiring any ID to vote. The simpler solution outlined in the 'For the People Act' is to just count every ballot without regard to who might have cast it. Imposing any constraints on this human right is obviously intended to suppress the vote."
Meanwhile, public support for voter IDs is strong. A Monmouth University poll found that 91% of registered Republicans, 87% of registered independents, and 62% of registered Democrats favor requiring photo IDs to vote. Further, 77% of white voters and 84% of minority voters (Hispanic, Black, Asian or others) support requiring IDs to vote. Garland said he "isn't surprised to find that a majority of Americans favor IDs" and blamed "systemic racism" for the poll results. "This shows why we can't just do what the majority wants. Those of us who are wiser and more fully in sync with evolving ethical standards must overrule the masses on this issue."
Biden Mocks Right to Bear Arms
Unwilling to support measures that would suppress crime by focusing on the criminals, President Biden is making another stab at disarming law-abiding gun owners. Statistics show a strong upswing in the criminal use of firearms—over 300 people have been shot to death in Chicago since the start of the year and murders are up by 95% in Los Angeles County compared to the same time period in 2020—since he took over as president. Both Chicago and Los Angeles have strict gun-control laws.
"The irrefutable fact is that there are too many guns in the hands of private citizens," Biden said. "The half-measures of waiting periods, magazine limits, and 'buy-backs' are not enough. We need to start taking these weapons away."
The President went on to ridicule the self-defense argument for gun ownership, calling it "a recipe for mayhem. It bad enough that criminals have guns, but the notion that victims can protect themselves by carrying their own guns is poorly thought out. First of all, the intended victim is likely already facing the barrel of a gun before he knows he needs protection. Second, with both sides armed the casualty count is bound to be higher than if the victim simply surrendered whatever his assailant is demanding. The better strategy is for all guns to be outlawed. This will simplify law-enforcement's job and make it easier to identify who they need to take out."
Having disposed of the self-defense argument, Biden moved on to the contention that an armed population is the last line of defense against government tyranny and pointed out that "as my good friend Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif) reminded us all, the government has so much firepower—nukes, aircraft, hundreds of thousands of heavily-armed and well-trained troops—that a private citizen would be foolhardy to try to resist such overwhelming force. Rather than being annihilated wouldn't it be more prudent to just obey? Do as you are told—pay your taxes, get vaccinated, internalize the authorized views and opinions—and you'll have nothing to fear from us."
Not everyone agrees that Biden's "benevolent" tyranny is something to look forward to. Due to actions taken at the state and county levels more than 60% of the counties in America are now Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions.
Biggest Public Health Mistake in History
A study by economists from the University of Southern California and the RAND Corporation examined the effectiveness of pandemic lockdowns and concluded that the measures taken to try to stop the spread of COVID did not save lives. In fact, every week these policies were in place an extra 2.7 deaths per 100,000 persons was recorded.
The mechanisms by which the added fatalities were enabled included increased unemployment and poverty, increased stress and anxiety leading to increased drug use and suicides, increased child abuse and domestic violence, and reduced access to medical care for other serious diseases. Countries and US states that implemented the strictest lockdown policies suffered more fatalities than those with laxer lockdown policies.
Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, called the COVID lockdowns "the single biggest public health mistake, possibly of all history. The policy went against both logic and previous experience. Dr. Fauci's claim that his recommendation in favor of the lockdowns was following the science is simply false."
Fauci criticized the study "for overlooking the value of our grand experiment in behavior modification. We learned that a presumed severe health threat was sufficient to achieve an amazing degree of conformity to government directives. Skeptics who predicted that Americans are too independent to simply yield to government control over their lives were shown to be wrong. By cultivating an appropriate level of fear we can accomplish an appropriate level of obedience. We have shown that the transformation of this country promised by President Obama has been attained."
In related news, even though the masks that were mandated virtually everywhere are almost completely useless for impeding the spread of COVID, Dr David Nabarro of the World Health Organization recommends that "we continue to wear them indefinitely to protect against new variants of the virus because even though virus particles are tiny enough to easily pass through the masks, wearing them gives people the impression that they are participating in the collective battle for better health and bolsters their commitment to follow the directives government gives them."