Biden Admin Rejects "Protect Life Rule"
The Biden Administration Department of Health and Human Services announced it will reverse the Trump Administration's "Protect Life" rule for receiving federal family planning aid, calling it "not in the best interest of public health." The rule barred the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions and did not require "no kill" family assistance organizations to refer patients to abortion providers.
Secretary Xavier Becerra explained that "the entities the Trump rule protected are not entitled to the consideration he mandated. Fetuses have no rights which the government is obligated to respect. The assertion that they are unborn people is debatable. Since Roe v. Wade, courts have upheld the position that their existence can be terminated at any time the mother opts to do so."
The Secretary characterized the Trump rule as "an aberration, a 'wrong turn,' so to speak, from the path of almost 50 years of enlightened thinking on this issue. Women are conscious, breathing, living human beings. We need to protect them from intrusions into their reproductive choices. This is what the Biden Administration is determined to do. Sites that do perform abortions will be eligible for federal aid. Sites that do not must provide information on where to get an abortion for patients who prefer this option. This is what our democracy decided in the November 2020 election."
Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Adora Slaughter praised the reversal, calling it "a great day for women's rights, especially women of color. The Trump policy was especially harmful for minorities. Without the guidance of family planning agencies on how and where to get an abortion too many unwanted children were born. Now, with the Biden rule, minorities will enjoy the same opportunities to terminate their offspring as their better educated and more financially secure white peers."
"Equitable Math" Fights Racism
The crusade to entrench "equitable math" as THE way to teach math is gaining steam in California. A training manual training manual funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation lays out the critical "problems" with unwoke mathematics. These are (1) a focus on getting the right answer, (2) independent thinking and problem solving, (3) grading students based on their performance and knowledge, and (4) requiring students to show their work.
California Department of Education Superintendent Tony Thurmond described traditional math as "extremely intimidating and, frankly, of dubious value in our modern world. Let's face it, not everyone can handle dealing with numbers. I mean, even the government can't balance a budget or distinguish a wise use of funds from a foolish waste of money. Why then should students be pressured into understanding math?"
"Take, for example, the notion that each and every student needs to learn how to handle numbers," Thurmond said. "Individualized work and grading is cruel and unnecessary. Since collective action is a more humane way of organizing society shouldn't we start in the schools? Equitable math allows students to be grouped together into a team for grading purposes. This permits the brightest to solve the math problems, while those less bright merely have to go along with whatever they're told. We feel this mirrors real life where the vast majority of people are basically just following orders. Collective grading fosters the kind of unity that a progressive democracy requires. Further, why bother asking students to 'show their work' when their 'work' consists of copying or acquiescing in the work done by the most intelligent student in their group?"
"In the grand scheme of things, what does it matter if the average person has no grasp of math?" Thurmond mused. "As Bill Gates has said many times, 'in the future computers will answer all the difficult questions. Ordinary people can relax and enjoy the ride knowing that those smarter than they will take care of them.'"
Debate on Liberty Riles Committee Hearing
In a hearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the coronavirus, Chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Biden Administration health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci shared conflicting views. The issue under discussion was what criteria will determine when life can return to normal.
After Fauci gave his opening remarks, Rep. Jordan asked "when will Americans get their First Amendment liberties back?" Fauci responded saying "my recommendations are not a personal recommendation. It's based on the CDC guidance."
"Well, what criteria will you or the CDC use to decide when it's okay to stop wearing masks, when businesses can fully open, and when citizens can stop spying on each other?" Jordan asked. Fauci said "when the number of vaccinations is high enough and the number of COVID cases is low enough." "How high is high enough and how low is low enough?" Jordan inquired. Fauci responded "we don't know yet."
Jordan countered that Fauci's answers were "vague and evasive. In essence you are saying that there is no established scientific criteria we can turn to to objectively know when personal freedom can be fully restored, that we must wait an indeterminate passage of time and hope that somehow the government will stumble upon the 'right conditions' for allowing the people to get their freedom back." Fauci asserted that "this isn't about freedom. It is about public health. One is a luxury. The other is a necessity."
Waters ended the debate by chastising Jordan for "disrespecting the Chair" and demanding that he "shut your mouth!"
In related news, infectious disease expert Dr. Steven Hatfill charged that Fauci's and the CDC's opposition to hydroxychloroquine therapy led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. "When used in the early onset of COVID this therapy has had a good rate of success in preventing the disease from progressing to a serious case," Hatfill asserted. Fauci defended his stance on hydroxychlorine by pointing out that "our primary concern was expediting the development of a vaccine for COVID. A vaccine might never have been produced if a cheap alternative therapy had been widely permitted. Now we have vaccines that can be administered every year to millions of people. So, I'd say that the sacrifices made were worth it."
Congresswoman Calls for End to Policing
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) called for an end to policing, claiming that "it is inherently and intentionally racist. Police cruising high-crime neighborhoods and enforcing arrest warrants disproportionately impacts minorities. Police know that minority suspects are far more likely to resist arrest and that in an effort to subdue resistance great bodily harm and/or death may result."
Tlaib denied that the reform she wants entails abolishing police. "We can still have police, but they don't have to be armed and invade minority areas," she argued. "They don't need guns to make traffic stops. If they're afraid to make traffic stops without carrying firearms they can stay in the office and issue citations through the mail. As for more violent crimes like robbery, rape, and murder, detectives can wait at the precinct until such crimes are reported to them and then visit the crime scene after the dangerous felon or felons have already left. This would avoid deadly confrontations. Once they figure out who committed the crime they could send a letter or make a call requesting that the perpetrator turn himself in."
"As we saw in the case of Daunte Wright, confronting criminals is dangerous," Tlaib pointed out. "Someone almost always gets hurt. And for what? We all know that sending criminals to jail only makes them worse. They make new dangerous friends and learn more ways to break the law. Wasn't it Jesus who advised to 'turn-the-other-cheek?' What if we make a heroic effort to implement a new 'forgive-and-forget' approach to dealing with misbehavior? We could save the expense of housing people in prisons. We could forestall the resentment that brews in the minds of prisoners when they see worse people, like Trump, walking around free. How do we know that a new approach won't lead to fewer crimes being committed? I think it's worth a try."
Fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) agreed, saying "Daunte's killing is not a random, disconnected 'accident.' It was the repeated outcome of an indefensible system that grants impunity for state violence against those who disagree with government policies." Daunte's disagreement with government policies was manifested by his attempted armed robbery of a female acquaintance. Authorities had issued a warrant for his arrest for this disagreement. He was accidentally shot while resisting arrest for this prior crime.
"Maybe we should follow the lead of police in Atlanta," Ocasio-Cortez suggested. "Instead of wading out into the dangerous streets to confront killers they are issuing a series of PSAs asking street gangs to stop shooting each other. My favorite ad is the one saying 'Anger + Guns Adds Up to Nothing Good.' I think it'll make people stop and think before they pull the trigger. I'll get to work on a piece of legislation that mandates this type of strategy nationwide."
BLM Marxist Buys Mansions
Self-proclaimed Marxist and Executive Director of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation Patrisse Cullors owns multiple high-value houses in white neighborhoods. She denied there was any hypocrisy, saying that "for one thing, using the capitalist system to extract money from capitalists and then use it to support myself and my family is a revolutionary act. If you take a look at what great Marxist leaders like Stalin and Castro did you'll see that they lived wellâ€”as heroes of the revolution deserve to live."
As for living in white neighborhoods, Cullors declared that "living among those we intend to dispossess puts us closer to those we have marked for extermination. These low-crime areas are safer for us. We can concentrate on overthrowing the bourgeois system without having to worry too much about break-ins or street crime like we would if we lived in ghetto neighborhoods."
Pelosi Justifies Secret Surveillance
In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, lawyers representing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) defended Congress' secret surveillance of American citizens. The case stems from the actions of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) who secretly subpoenaed the phone records of private citizens from telephone companies without providing notice to these individuals.
"As the highest lawmaking authority in this country, Congress has an unlimited right to do as it pleases," the brief contended. "It's called 'sovereign immunity.' This means that no one has the right to object to Congress' actions. Over the years, Congress has explicitly exempted itself from many laws it has imposed on the common people. This pattern is so well established that an implicit exemption should apply in cases where explicit exemption hasn't been enacted."
Schiff defended the absence of notice to those being spied upon as "pure common sense. As the raid on the Capitol last January showed, there are uncounted numbers of traitors among the population. Congress' ability to suppress these disloyal elements would be seriously impaired if they had a right to know what we are doing. Secrecy protects the element of surprise that is essential to defending the government from these dissident malcontents."