Biden’s original sin

The New Neo Posted on by

Biden says some mighty strange things, but this was one of the strangest:

President Joe Biden appeared to criticize Ron DeSantis on his handling of transgender youth and floated the possibility of a nation-wide transgender law in an interview clip released Monday.

“What’s going on in Florida, is as my mother would say, ‘close to sinful.’ I mean, it’s just terrible what they’re doing,” Biden said while speaking with actor Kal Penn.

“It’s not like … a kid wakes up one morning and says, ‘you know, I decided that I want to become a man or I want to become a woman … I mean, what are they thinking about here? They’re human beings, they love, they have feelings, they have inclinations,” Biden continued. “It’s cruel.”

“And the way we do it is we make sure we pass legislation like we passed on same-sex marriage. You mess with that, you’re breaking the law and you’re going to be held accountable,” Biden added…

“I just think it’s wrong,” Biden added. “I feel very, very strongly that you should have every single solitary right, including, including use of your gender identity bathroom in public.”

What’s strange to me is not Biden’s desire to make it impossible for states to ban any part of the leftist agenda, or his desire to nationalize that agenda by making something a right that never was a right. No, that’s just business as usual for our oh-so-moderate kindly old uncle president (and/or the people who advise him).

What’s strange is the use of overt religious language for this agenda. Now it’s a sin – or “almost a sin” – for people to oppose treating minors with hormones or surgery for a condition that might be quite temporary? Seems to me that most religions – perhaps all religions – would consider what the left is advocating here to be the sin, “almost” or not. But the use of the word “sin” by Biden is telling, because leftism is a religion-substitute and treats doctrinal and behavioral non-believers quite harshly.

There’s also this, speaking of sins:

Even in Europe, they’re backing away from this. The vast majority of Americans are against it, too. But the left doesn’t care.

Life imitates art: The Snake

The New Neo Posted on by

An Australian women found a venomous snake in her bed [hat tip: Instapundit]:

Zachery Richards of Zachery’s Snake and Reptile Relocation posted photos to his business’ Facebook page showing the 6-foot eastern brown snake stretched out on a Maroon woman’s bed.

“When I arrived, she [the resident] was waiting outside for me, and I went inside to the bedroom that the snake was in, and she had the door shut with a towel underneath, so it couldn’t get out,” Richards told CBS News. “I pushed the door open, and it was lying in bed looking at me.”

Richards said the snake likely came in through an open door to escape the heat.

Or perhaps it talked its way in:

My brother had that record when I was quite young, so I’ve known that song for ages. It also used to be one of Trump’s favorites to recite at campaign rallies, likening it to policies on allowing illegal immigration. Make of that what you will.

What’s up with the Trump grand jury?

The New Neo Posted on by

No one seems to know the answer to the above question. But there’s been a bit of a pause, perhaps for Bragg to re-group after Costello’s testimony undermining whatever case he had presented, which had depended on the testimony of the extremely dubious witness Michael Cohen.

Speculation abounds; you can read some of it here:

As I reported on Monday, witness Robert Costello said he thought that he’d gotten through to some of the members of the grand jury when he was telling them that Michael Cohen was not a reliable witness, but was a serial liar.

Now the word is the grand jury will also not be meeting today (Thursday) on the case, a source has confirmed to Fox News.

Since they don’t meet on Friday, that means that they won’t be making any kind of a decision on the matter until at least next week…

Looks like they’re having some difficulty indicting that “ham sandwich.”

There’s also a House invegestigation going on involving Bragg’s possible use of federal funds.

Speaking of the House, there’s this response from Bragg:

House GOP members demanded Bragg give them answers about probing into President Donald Trump’s alleged hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Bragg responded…:

“Your letter dated march 20, 2023, (the ‘Letter’), in contrast, is an unprecedented inquiry into a pending local prosecution,” wrote Bragg’s office. “The Letter only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene. Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.”

Bragg’s office claims the investigation, which started before Bragg took office in January 2022, has been consistent with his “oath to faithfully execute the laws of the State of New York.”

The office also told the members that Bragg would “publicly state the conclusion of our investigation- whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment.”

“And if charges are brought at the conclusion, it will be because the rule of law and faithful execution of the District Attorney’s duty require it.”

Sure thing.

Various elected New York officials have been trying to get the Great Orange Whale since his presidency, often campaigning on such a vow. But Cohen is such a bad witness that it might not be possible, once again, even with a jury pool like New York’s.

Or perhaps this is just a slight speed bump. I see this possible prosecution as having four main purposes. The first is to show the base they’re trying. The second is to hurt Trump further with moderates. The third is to elevate him with his supporters, who might then nominate him as a very tainted GOP candidate for president in 2024 to oppose the also-tainted Biden. And the fourth is to remind any other wannabee swamp-clearers that the left will relentlessly pursue them by all means necessary. Neither an indictment nor a conviction is necessary for any of those four goals to be accomplished.

Leftist law schools

The New Neo Posted on by

The so-called top law schools are nothing like they were when I attended one. There was already a leftist element back then, but it probably consisted of less than a quarter of the faculty. The courses were relatively non-political, too, even in fields that would be likely to attract mostly people on the left.

No more:

Elite law schools have become training academies not so much for effective and competent lawyers, but instead for militant transformational radicals with a law degree.

Mainstream consumers of legal services, otherwise known as paying clients, would be shocked by the evolution that has taken place in the nation’s elite law schools. Instead of producing lawyers capable of helping clients, these schools now turn out leftist activists who are most competent at using transformational designs to upend centuries of legal traditions and institutions, including, ultimately, the U.S. Constitution itself.

And the following was already true when I was in law school, and everybody there knew it:

Simply, lawyers from so-called “lesser” law schools are likely to be better trained to practice law in court and represent clients than the ones graduating from elite law schools.

The article goes on to describe course after course at Yale with a solely leftist bent:

Don’t think there are conservative counterparts to the avalanche of leftist curriculum at Yale that I am cataloging here. There aren’t, period. And only a tiny minority of the courses relate to the actual practice of law — the real challenges for which people hire lawyers. But even those appear to have a deconstructionist bent.

This change got going in the 1980s, and by the late 1990’s it was well on its way. Just as in colleges or any other institution, once a critical mass of leftists takes the reins, the process accelerates and the takeover is just about complete. It has affected our entire legal system and is responsible for the disparity between the number of lawyers willing to fight for leftist causes versus the number of lawyers willing to oppose them.

DeSantis versus Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

At Powerline:

In an interview with Piers Morgan that will be broadcast on Thursday, Ron DeSantis finally takes aim at Donald Trump. Until yesterday, he had remained silent in the face of Trump’s usually childish attacks on him. No more

But I see the attacks from DeSantis as very mild – things such as the charge that Trump kept Fauci on too long.

Of course, some people are going wild. For example, this guy:

As Bonchie points out:

Those are the same people who have been spreading lies about DeSantis for months, calling him stupid names and suggesting he’s a globalist RINO cuck who is bought and paid for by George Soros. So forgive me if I don’t think their whining is justified. If you throw punches, expect to get punched back.

I wouldn’t even describe what DeSantis said about Trump as “punches.” They just weren’t love taps.

As far back as I can remember the GOP has been split between what used to be called the Rockefeller Republicans and the Goldwater conservatives (I’m showing my age here). The split is along somewhat different lines now, both demographically and ideologically, but there’s still something familiar about it. But I see nothing “Rockefeller Republican” – or GOPe, or Romneyesque, or McCainish, or whatever you want to call it these days – about DeSantis. He tough and he’s conservative. The thing that most separates him from Trump is his temperament and presentation.

Thinking about this, it strikes me that one of the things the Trump diehards who hate DeSantis very much like about Trump is his audaciousness. It’s certainly not the only thing they like about him, of course. But the way he gave the middle finger to the press, his opponents, and even his fellow Republicans at times, was very satisfying to a lot of people. And they want that to continue. In a way, you might say they got addicted to the thrill of the Trump battle, to the excitement of wondering what bold outrageous thing he’d say next.

That makes DeSantis, who is absolutely no Jeb Bush, appear to be a bit Jeb-like in contrast. That’s one of the favorite charges against him by the EverTrumpers: he’s another Jeb, whether they actually believe it or not.

To illustrate, here are a few of the comments from the Powerline post I linked and quoted at the outset.

Commenter A: Good for DeSantis. Trump is one step away from either jail or a nervous breakdown. He is an odious fat head and a cancer on the Republican Party.

Commenter B responds: If you believe that, then I think the 74 million Americans who supported Trump should stay home in 2024. Let’s see how your Republican Party (TM) candidates do then!

Commenter C responds: Not all of us who voted for Trump in 2020 will be voting for him this time. There will be many defectors.

And then over and over, you can see the equivalent of this comment: DeSantis is an establishment shill.

Who benefits from all of this? As far as I can tell, it’s the left.

I’m in the process…

The New Neo Posted on by

…of switching cellphones.

This doesn’t affect the blog, but any technical change stresses me out. Wish me luck!

I find more and more that modern “conveniences” have become awfully complicated. I probably barely scratch the surface of what my cell phone can do. In fact, I probably barely scratch the surface of what my cell phone’s camera can do.

But I often scratch the surface of my actual cell phone in the physical world, despite protective coatings and cases.

The distinction between intersex and transgender

The New Neo Posted on by

This article by Colin Wright, “Understanding the Sex Binary,” may seem somewhat esoteric, but it deals with an important distinction in the trans debate. Here’s how Wright puts it:

The “sex binary” refers to the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female—and that these categories refer to individuals whose primary sex organs are organized around the production of either sperm (male) or ova (female). The “sex binary” does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are.

This is an important distinction, because adopting the second framing is inaccurate and plays into the hands of activists who seek to debunk the existence of only two sexes by calling attention to the existence of rare edge cases (i.e., “intersex” conditions). But the first framing (“there are only two sexes”) is both biologically accurate and ensures that two distinct concepts—transgenderism and intersex—remain distinct. It also puts to rest the false notion that the existence of rare edge cases necessarily entails that sex is a “spectrum” and that we are all therefore intersex to some degree.

Crafting effective policy therefore requires treating transgenderism and intersex as the distinct concepts that they are. It also requires not falling into activists’ trap of conflating intersex with transgender.

I have noticed before that the existence of rare intersex people is often used, illogically, to bolster the pro transwomen-in-female-sports argument. This article is useful if you ever find yourself discussing the issue with someone intent on blurring that distinction.

The problem is lawfare, not Trump, and no one on the right is immune to it

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Bauxite” writes:

So Trump had never seen Daniels before in his life except for a picture from a golf tournament? Then she shows up claiming to have had a tryst/affair with Trump during the same golf tournament and Trumpworld hands her $130k, maybe on Trump’s instructions and definately reimbursed by Trump?

It’s theoretically possible that Trump is the completely innocent victim in this one, I suppose. It is also a certainty that no other conceivable Republican nominee would have this kind of problem.

But the problem is not Daniels, nor is it the hush money, nor is it a possible affair that may or may not have occurred. The problem is twofold. The first is that there is great publicity and power to be had through false charges, as we can see from the Kavanaugh hearings. Then there was Roy Moore, who may or may not have been guilty of sex with a minor long ago but whose campaign was destroyed by charges that he was. Not to mention Herman Cain – remember him? They tried it against John McCain close to the 2008 election.

The press amplifies such charges against anyone on the right, of course. So that’s one weapon, and a potent one it is. But it’s not limited to sexual matters. Remember Romney and the dog on the car roof? Or Romney, tormentor of gay high school students? No, it really doesn’t matter who it is, the left will find something and in fact many things. And yes, some people give them more to work with, like Trump. But even with someone squeaky-clean, the press and the left will rise to the challenge.

The deeper problem is political lawfare by the left against the right, and/or the threat of it. Given the correct blue venue, it’s not all that hard to get a conviction even on ridiculous charges (Mike Flynn, anyone?). That’s what’s going on with Alvin Bragg and Trump, and whether the case ultimately goes forward or not, the publicity about the charges is part of the punishment.

This is not new. I refer you to the history of the persecution/prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, which ended up changing the Senate balance of power from Republican to Democrat in Obama’s first term and enabled so much that followed, and the prosecution/persecution of Tom DeLay, then Majority Leader of the House. It effectively ended his career, although the verdict was ultimately overturned. Although neither case had anything to do with sex, both cases involved campaign finance rules – the same sort of thing they’re trying to pin on Trump. It’s also the same sort of thing – complete with novel legal theories – that was tried in Israel with Netanyahu.

The left will try this with anyone. And campaign finance laws are a very handy and flexible tool in that endeavor. Those on the left who are guilty – Hillary Clinton, for example – get the wrist slap of a fine. Those on the right are more likely to be prosecuted, if the left feels a prosecution would serve its purposes.

This is still true:

In his famous speech titled The Federal Prosecutor, then-Attorney General, and later Justice Jackson said, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America… While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

Indeed.

DeSantis addresses the possible Trump indictment

The New Neo Posted on by

Many of those on the right who seem to detest DeSantis have been extremely critical of the fact that he didn’t address the iffy news of a possible Trump indictment immediately. I saw this phenomenon on various websites that seem to draw a lot of commenters of that ilk. Whether they be real or leftist trolls trying to stir up trouble on the right I don’t know, but my guess is that at least some of them are bona fide.

Anyway, DeSantis has spoken up:

“If you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, you know, that’s an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office. And I think that that’s fundamentally wrong.”

DeSantis pointed out that the problem isn’t just Bragg; all Soros-funded district attorneys are following the playbook. “They ignore crime and they empower criminals, and that hurts people, hurts a lot of people every single day,” DeSantis said before calling these district attorneys “a menace to society.”

Indeed.