Meme of the Day — Part 2
UK: Chest Milk is Best Milk
Ah, England, where you can be harassed by cops for sitting in your car to smoke a cigarette because it *squints* “breaks lockdown rules.” It’s stunning that the land that gave us Magna Carta, representative democracy, and Queen Anne style furniture has sunk so low. It couldn’t possibly sink lower, could it? Sadly, it can. Via the Washington Examiner:
“‘Human milk,’ ‘breast/chest milk,’ or ‘milk from the feeding mother or parent’ are the more acceptable terms for midwives to use at the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust in lieu of using the traditional ‘breast milk.'”
Excuse me, what? Chest milk? Milk from the feeding parent? Wait…there’s more. The nanny goats (excuse me, child-rearing quadrupeds) at Britain’s state-run National Health Service helpfully remind us that these “guidelines support trans and non-binary birthing people.”
Non-binary.
Birthing.
People.
Why not just call them a “baby chute” or “human hole” or “birth canal havers?” And how does this “support” anyone? I’m all for using someone’s preferred pronouns as a matter of personal courtesy, but for the love of Judy Garland why is a health service bothering with this foolishness in the middle of a pandemic?
Why does the left hate women so much?
House Democrats and the “Goldfinger” Exception
The trial of the 45th President begins tomorrow and the Trump legal team has put out a spirited, sometimes fiery, but well-reasoned defense. One matter that they vigorously push back on is the House’s assertion that a government official, in this case the President, is not afforded the same First Amendment protections of ordinary citizens. I call this the Goldfinger Exception after the famous scene in the classic Bond film. And just like in that film, a Mr. Bond saves the day! The House Managers say:
“Most fundamentally, the First Amendment protects private citizens from the government; it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office…Regardless, even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements.”
This is a breathtaking assertion. It is also directly contradicted by Supreme Court precedent, which the defense brilliantly points out. Indeed, Trump’s lawyers note that the House doesn’t even bother to quote court opinions — they instead rely on blog posts to back this mangling of our most cherished freedom. One of the relevant cases is Bond v. Floyd, which involved the GA state legislature voting to prohibit the seating of Julian Bond because he spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Bond sued in federal court, and won. As the Trump legal team explains:
“When the state argued ‘that even though such a citizen [Bond, elected to GA’s House] might be protected by his First Amendment rights, the State may nonetheless apply a stricter standard to its legislators[,]’ the Supreme Court responded tersely, ‘We do not agree[,]'”
And citing the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, Justice Brennan (of all people) went on to conclude:
“The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude toexpress their views on issues of policy. The central commitment of the First Amendment…is that ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”
So there we have it. Bond, Julian Bond, shows us just how the House’s assertions are “malarkey.”
Welcome to Zuckerberg-burg
If you thought the worst thing to come out of Nevada was the movie Showgirls then you’re not paying attention to Dem Governor Sisolak and his insane proposal to allow tech companies to form their own governments within the state.
While he calls them “Innovation Zones” they’re really miniature feudal domains run by our emerging masters in Silicon Valley. As the AP reports:
“The zones would permit companies with large areas of land to form governments carrying the same authority as counties, including the ability to impose taxes, form school districts and courts and provide government services.”
Surely the democratically-elected local governments would have the final say in how these zones are run? Nope.
“The zones would have three-member supervisor boards with the same powers as county commissioners. The businesses would maintain significant control over board membership.”
How much is “significant?” The governor isn’t saying. And just how can a company get these rotten boroughs? Money, of course. If a company promises to “invest” at least a billion dollars in the next ten years the state will sell your sovereignty to the highest bidder.
This is a disaster for democracy and for the American experiment. The holier-than-thou types in the media and government keep telling us “democracy is fragile.” It is. But their unholy alliance with big tech is actively undermining the only acceptable basis for their exercise of power: the consent of the governed.
A Carnival of Corruption
Last month, Steven Nelson at The New York Post detailed the alarming number of Big Tech executives who are staffing the Biden transition and White House.
At least 14 current and former senior executives at major tech firms are in positions of tremendous influence and minimal oversight with access to the highest levels of our federal bureaucracy. That includes at least four from Facebook and the head of Amazon Web Services, best known for shutting down Parler.
It reminds me a bit of the Grant Administration — called the “Carnival of Corruption” in its day. Although everyone around Grant was taking bribes (including his VP, members of Congress, and nearly the entire cabinet) even Grant wasn’t corrupt enough to bring the likes of James Fiske and Jay Gould onto the government payroll!
Now, I’m not suggesting that anyone is bribing our leaders. Why would they have to? They’re getting all the power without spending a dime. The fusion of government and big tech is happening before our eyes. Are you scared? I am.
I’ll say much more about this in future posts.
Introducing Jay Collinwood
Admiral Stockdale (google him, Zennials!) famously asked, “Who am I? Why am I here?” They’re good questions.
So who am I? What kind of blogging will I be doing? I’ve been around politics all my life. In my BabyGay™ days I was an activist and politico in Washington, D.C. working on Capitol Hill and for gay rights groups. Although my views have always been pro-liberty, pro-markets, and anti-communist it was easy to fall in line with DC groupthink, if only to get the free booze at cocktail parties. I hope to give the reader some perspectives that smash the accepted narratives that we’re bombarded with daily. No idea is too sacred to question vigorously, and disagreement will always be welcome.
I have a background in the western classics, a love of history, three cats, and a brilliant engineer husband of more than 12 years. These themes will probably show up in my writing, and you’ll hear a lot about history and the frame of reference it can bring to our modern (mis)fortunes. I can’t wait to get started! Thank you, Gay Patriot for this wonderful opportunity!