25 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-12-21

  1. Another win for religious households in Cali., but that won’t stop the overreach.

    And once again, Roberts shows he’s not conservative at all, and sides with the losing libs to keep the lockdown in place.


    “Supreme Court lifts California’s COVID ban on household religious gatherings

    A 5-4 vote with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting.”

    “This February, Professor Jacobson reported that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order partially enjoining California’s total ban on indoor church services, but leaving in place restrictions on “singing and chanting” during services.

    The Court was busy this week, once again, trying to protect religious liberty in this state. This time, the order focused on restrictions related to household religious gatherings.

    For the fifth time, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious adherents and against California’s COVID-19 restrictions. This time, the court barred the state from enforcing a rule that for now limits both religious and non-religious gatherings in homes to no more than three households.

    The court’s unsigned order came on a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts cast his lot with the dissenters, but failed to join their opinion. He noted simply that he would have left the lower court order intact.

    The order blasted the 9th Circuit for its repeated rulings, which have supported limitations on religious activities beyond those established for secular ones.

    “This is the fifth time the court has summarily rejected the 9th Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise,” they said in Tandon vs. Newsom. In the most significant of the rulings, the court in early February said churches in California may open for indoor worship services, so long as they enforced limits on how many people gathered together.

    Repeatedly in these cases, judges in California and the justices in Washington have disagreed over how to compare, for example, people gathering in a restaurant or hair salon to people gathering for a worship service. The state has enforced stricter limits on indoor gatherings such as in theaters or churches where people sit together for an hour or more while allowing retail stores where people go in and out to remain open.

    In the latest order, the conservative justices again noted that the state has opened public businesses while restricting religious gatherings. And they said the state regulators are violating the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion “whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.”

    “California treats some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, permitting hair salons, retail stores, personal care services, movie theaters, private suites at sporting events and concerts, and indoor restaurants to bring together more than three households at a time,” they said in an unsigned order. “The 9th Circuit did not conclude that those activities pose a lesser risk of transmission than applicants’ proposed religious exercise at home.”

    The order spoke for Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

    Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for herself, Breyer, and Sotomayor, asserting that the court’s majority was hurting state officials’ ability to address a public health emergency.”


  2. I waited on this one. Too often on these stories the press rushes to blame police.

    Well in this case, the press got it right. These officers need to fired, charged with assault, and sued for every last penny they have.

    “Army officer sues Virginia police over violent traffic stop”


    “Police in the small town of Windsor, Virginia, found themselves in the national spotlight after being hit with a lawsuit from an Army officer, who is Black and Latino, after a traffic stop last December.

    In body camera and cell phone video, Army Second Lieutenant Caron Nazario, still in his uniform, can be seen with his hands visible out of the window of his new car.

    “I’ve not committed any crime,” Nazario said.

    When two Windsor police officers, guns drawn, ordered him to get out, he said, “I’m honestly afraid to get out.”

    “Yeah dude, you should be,” one officer responds.

    In the video, Nazario repeatedly asks why he was pulled over, and one of the two officers pepper sprays and kicks him. He is then handcuffed while police search his car.

    Nazario asks, “Why am I being treated like this? Why?”

    “Because you’re not cooperating,” an officer responds.”


    “The incident report said that Nazario was initially pulled over for not having tags displayed on his SUV, but the temporary dealer plate is visible in the officer’s body-camera video.

    Nazario was released without being charged.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Let’s just stop with the lies right now. There’s only one side that partakes in this type of behavior, and it’s not the right. The LA Times is gaslighting. Again.

    “As protesters on left and right target public servants at home, one city pushes back”


    “For government officials from Los Angeles to Seattle and beyond, 2020 was the year that political protests literally came home to roost.

    Demonstrators repeatedly ditched traditional venues, such as government buildings and big commercial streets, to chant, fulminate and sit-in outside the front doors of officials including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and the county’s director of public health, Barbara Ferrer.

    When Sacramento’s mayor and city manager got the same treatment in 2020, the city responded like many of its peers nationally: quietly letting the protesters have their way, in the hope of avoiding violent encounters with police.

    That approach ended on the last Sunday of March in California’s capital, at a planned protest outside City Manager Howard Chan’s suburban home. It triggered a massive police response and denunciations from civic leaders, business organizations, a statewide federation of civic officials and even civil rights groups.

    “No more,” said an open letter signed by Mayor Darrell Steinberg, his eight fellow City Council members and about 60 other individuals and organizations. “A small group of people willing to embrace violence to advance their ill-defined agenda cannot be allowed to put our city leaders and their families at risk in their homes. Protest at City Hall, not outside someone’s bedroom.”

    The subsequent protest drew only about 30 people and petered out without any serious confrontation. None of the demonstrators, upset at the city manager’s handling of police abuses and winter sheltering of homeless people, were arrested. Chan’s home went undamaged, in contrast to a February rampage in which police said demonstrators tore up Steinberg’s front yard, pelted his door with rocks, trashed a garden sculpture and stole a security camera.

    Over the last year, groups on the left and right have taken protests to officials’ front steps, targeting not just thick-skinned career politicians but more obscure appointed bureaucrats. Last year, conservative antimask protesters showed up at the home of Dr. Nichole Quick, Orange County’s chief health officer, displaying a banner depicting her as Adolf Hitler. The doctor resigned days later.

    In Sacramento, the more restrained outcome outside Chan’s house felt like a victory to the city’s establishment, allowing reasonable dissent and perhaps taking a small step toward restoring a more traditional notion of what constitutes “the public square.”

    Yet friends of the protesters called it an overreaction and said “home visits” will remain a tool in their arsenal. Skyler Henry, a Sacramento musician sympathetic to the “Sactivists,” said two-faced public officials are fair game for such tactics, whether they are city managers or Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a moderate Democrat from Arizona who recently voted against a minimum wage increase.

    “You should be terrorized for the rest of your life. You should never be able to leave your house, if that is how you are going to use your position to govern,” Henry said of Sinema. “The same thing sort of applies with the mayor and city manager of this city.”

    Some city officials are countering such rhetoric with strong language of their own.

    “If you look up the definition of terrorism, it says it’s using violence or intimidation for political gain,” Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn said. “In my opinion some of these incidents, the way they are trying to provoke fear, are domestic terrorism.””


  4. “Victor Davis Hanson: 10 ‘Radical Rules for Post-America’ Most Americans Now Publicly Accept”


    “Frightening, almost surrealistic, headline, isn’t it? And it’s not even close to clickbait. As is usually the case when I read or listen to conservative author and commentator Victor Davis Hanson, his bottom-line analysis and admonitions are straight-up; no punches pulled, no hyperbole necessary.

    Such was the case with VDH’s recent piece at American Greatness, Radical New Rules for Post-America, in which he says many Americans who privately fear the “radical rules” of the left are now “appearing to accept them publicly.” He begins with a startling line:

    “There are 10 new ideas that are changing America, maybe permanently.”

    Americans privately fear these rules, while publicly appearing to accept them. They still could be transitory and invite a reaction. Or they are already near-permanent and institutionalized.

    “The answer determines whether a constitutional republic continues as once envisioned, or warps into something never imagined by those who created it.”

    That an intellectual conservative like Victor Davis Hanson comes right out and says that our constitutional republic — America as we know it — is at a crossroad where one direction leads to protecting it while the other direction leads to America “warping into something never imagined by those who created it” is sobering — and I believe he’s right.”

    “I’ve selected several of the “radical rules” VDH wrote about, the first of which is stuck in our faces by the left on a daily basis — “bigly.”

    Hypocrisy is passé. Virtue-signaling is alive.

    Climate change activists fly on private jets. Social justice warriors live in gated communities. Multibillionaire elitists pose as victims of sexism, racism, and homophobia.

    “The elite need these exemptions to help the helpless. It is what you say to lesser others about how to live, not how you yourself live, that matters.”

    We are told — and I choose to be careful, here — wouldn’t want to anger the omniscient social media gods, you know — we are told that this is “existential” and that is “factual,” and more, and we best not question it — all which proves VDH’s reference to instilled fear.

    Laws are not necessarily binding anymore.

    Joe Biden took an oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But he has willfully rendered federal immigration laws null and void.

    Some rioters are prosecuted for violating federal laws, others not so much. Arrests, prosecutions, and trials are all fluid.

    “Ideology governs when a law is still considered a law.”

    When illegal immigration is, um, illegal — and swarms of illegal-alien-wannabes show up at the southern border decked out in “Biden 2020” campaign T-shirts, to which has been added “Please Let Us In!,” all but demanding that Biden keep his campaign promises — to them? And why would they do that? Oh, I don’t know —maybe because Biden spent most of his incoherent campaign telling them, “Come on over when I’m president!”? Just a hunch.”


  5. Awkward….


    Biden opposed it as recently as 2019.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Remember folks, they’re only cages if a Republican President puts you in one.


    Liked by 1 person

  7. A virus with a 99.7% survivability rate is somehow more dangerous than an erupting volcano? Discrimination based on a medical choice? Can’t our US Navy be of assistance here?

    They are now treating people as commodities. Shades of 109 years ago, when those below deck on the Titanic could not board the lifeboats. The expendables.

    Madness. Beware of the Elites, who now believe they should be in charge of the world…



  8. Interesting video — not sure why the guns were drawn in the first place, if it was just a traffic stop over expired plates? The gentleman may have driven a little further down the road than the police appreciated since he smartly parked in a well lit place on a dark night. A young black man has to thing strategically when pulled over by cops. One thing I’ve always noticed in these videos is the contradictory orders — get out, keep your hands out, open the door, turn off the engine. No wonder he just froze. And finally, I know very little about hand guns but the officier on the left was definietely holding it wrong — did he thing he was a gangsta?

    Both left and right protesters do protest at people’s homes. If you count pro-life and anti-maskers, both groups have gone to politician’s home. Or in the case of some pro-life groups they would protest in front of a doctor’s home.

    Here’s the new rules listed by Hanson;

    Some have always been the case others are plain funny. For example; money is a construct has always been true — money has value only if people have confidence in it, even gold. Laws are not necessarily binding — been true throughout history, the dominant group always got a slighly more tolerant version of the law. More blacks than whites per capita are imprisioned for simple possession despite similar rate of usage. Forget race, even nieghbourhoods are treated differently. Racialism is now acceptable is just funny as is the immigrant is more preferable than the citizen. Hypocrisy is passe virtue signalling is alive — this has been true in the US since Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence and then went to his plantation to check on his slaves and have non-consenual sex with Sally Hemmings. Nobody wants to ignore homelessness — they just have different solutions and almost everyone has a NIMBY problem. etc.


  9. Tychicus — you’ve cited a 99.7% survival rate before; where are you getting the number? The coronovirus tracking site I look for data has 3% death rate of closed cases which is similar to the Spanish Flu.


    by the way, Canada is now doing worse than the US in new covid cases.. The US had 47 000 yesterday Canada had 7,700. A rough per capita calculation is to take 10% of the US rate so 4,700 to 7,700. I blame the conservative premiers of Alberta and Ontario. Onatrior alone contributed more than half that total.


  10. I have to say, this is not looking good for the prosecution. They’ve about wrapped up, the defense hasn’t even started, and there’s reasonable doubt galore.

    The rioters won’t care about the truth though….


    “Chauvin Trial Day 10 Wrap-Up: Defense Raises More Reasonable Doubt with State Witnesses

    Floyd’s Health & Drug Problems Alone Would Be Reasonable Causes of Death”


    “When asked on direct if any of the other notable factors everyone knew the defense would raise on cross—the existing cardiovascular disease with 75% to 90% occlusion of all three major coronary arteries, the hypertension-induced enlarged heart, the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, the adrenaline induced by Floyd’s poorly made decision to fight four police officers for 10 minutes—could any of that have been the cause of Floyd’s death.

    The answer was a flat no, period. Floyd’s death could only be attributable to asphyxia complicated by law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression.

    Good for the state, right?

    On cross examination, however, both Thomas and Baker agreed that every single one of those factors, by themselves, even in the absence of any police involvement, or any of the other factors, if viewed in isolation could be an entirely reasonable cause of death for an official death certificate. (I’m amalgamating the responses of both Thomas and Baker, as they were so similar—video of their individual cross-examination testimony is embedded below for those wishing a more granular sense of what each said.)

    In other words, had Floyd been found dead at home and autopsy revealed the 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries, would it have been reasonable for a medical examiner to attribute cause of death to that heart condition? Yes.

    You’ve signed thousands of death certificates listing cause of death as atherosclerotic disease in patients with similar levels of occlusion as Floyd? Yes.
    You’ve signed death certificates listing cause of death as hypertensive cardiomegalopathy in patients have a similar degree of enlarged heart as Floyd? Yes.

    Did you tell investigators when interviewed that cardiovascular disease was a significant contributo rto Floyd’s death? Yes.

    If Floyd had been found dead at home, and toxicology had revealed 11 ng/ml of fentanyl in his system, would it have been reasonable for a medical examiner to attribute cause of death to fentanyl overdose? Yes.

    Have you signed death certificates as overdose deaths in cases where fentanyl levels were at 11 ng/ml? Yes. Below 11 ng/ml? Yes. As low as 3 ng/ml? Yes.

    Would the presence of a combination of drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, make overdose a more likely cause of death? Yes.

    Could asphyxia of the heart be induced by methamphetamine creating a higher demand for oxygen by the heart than Floyd’s body could deliver? Yes.

    However low the level of methamphetamine in Floyd’s system, is there any level which is safe? No. Would you recommend methamphetamine or even prescription amphetamine for a patient with Floyd’s cardiac status? No.

    Would this the demand for oxygen of Floyd’s heart, and the inability of his body to deliver on that demand, be worsened by adrenaline resulting from Floyd’s physical confrontation with the officers? Yes.

    So, even if we don’t consider Floyd’s exertion in fighting police, take the police out of the question entirely , pretend there was no impact made by the illicit drugs in Floyd’s system, a reasonable call on cause of death was simply Floyd’s existing cardiovascular disease and hypertension? Yes.

    What percentage of restriction of the coronary arteries would be potentially fatal? 70% to 90%. What was the restriction of the coronary arteries in Floyd’s heart? 75% to 90%. Does a 90% stenosis of a carotid artery limit blood to the heart? Yes. Does adrenaline increase the heart’s demand for blood? Yes. Does meth increase demand for blood? Yes.”


  11. Yep.

    Straight up.


    I think I see the problem….


  12. Again……….. Yep.


  13. —-

    Double bonus.


  14. Sad that this horrific accident will now be used to justify rioting and destruction.



  15. Petty tyrant sounds about right.


    And just a reminder….


  16. You’d think so, but you’d be wrong. These people have no shame.



  17. ———–

    Here’s the thread.


  18. hwesseli:

    COVID-19 Survival Rates (from CDC data):

    Ages 0-19: 99.997%
    Ages 20-49: 99.98%
    Ages 50-69: 99.5%
    Ages 70+: 94.6%

    With early treatment, the rates are even better…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.