ResCon1

Why 14 GOP Congressmen Voted Against Juneteenth National Independence Day

Why 14 GOP Congressmen Voted Against Juneteenth National Independence Day

By John R Guardiano on June 20, 2021

The media suggest that it’s all about “racism” and “white supremacy.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 14 Republican congressmen who voted against making Juneteenth a national holiday ought to be recognized as profiles in political courage. They took a principled stand to make a legitimate and much-needed point that will be ignored and dismissed by progressive critics eager to demonize anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist” and a “white supremacist.”

The legitimate and much-needed point: that by calling Juneteenth “National Independence Day,” we detract from the longstanding July 4 Independence Day holiday and create, in effect, two independence days: one for caucasians and non-blacks (July 4) and one for blacks (June 19).

Thus we risk aggravating racial tensions and racial divisions when, instead, we should aspire to do the exact opposite: bring Americans together as one people and one nation.

Founding Principles. All Americans, after all, are heirs to the Declaration of Independence and the independent republic that the Declaration established or at least initiated.

That’s why, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King Jr. famously appealed to the Declaration of Independence, as well as as the Constitution of the United States.

In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, King declared:

When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

True enough, as King noted:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

Similarly, as President Obama famously declared in his 2004 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention:

There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Political Courage. For this reason, thoughtful GOP congressmen, such as Chip Roy (Texas) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) urged Democrats in Congress to change the name of Juneteenth from “National Independence Day” to something more fitting and appropriate, such as “National Emancipation Day,” “National Freedom Day,” or “National Liberation Day.”

“I fully support creating a holiday to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our nation’s history,” Massie explained. But “I think this day is misnamed.” Why “push Americans to pick one of these two days as their independence day based on their racial identity?” he asked.

“As a country,” Roy said, “we must stop dividing ourselves by race and unite in our common pursuit of the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.”

Democrats refused to change the name of Juneteenth; and so, 14 Republican congressmen cast a protest vote to make an important political point. This, obviously, doesn’t make them “racists” or “white supremacists.” Instead, it makes them principled and courageous.

As for Juneteenth, despite being inappropriately named, the holiday need not divide us. In fact, quite the opposite: all Americans, obviously, can celebrate the triumph of America’s founding principles brought about by the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

It’s just that, by misnaming the holiday, Congress has made the task of racial reconciliation and national unity more difficult. Fortunately for us and for posterity, 14 brave Republican congressmen have drawn attention to Congress’ error through a rare act of political courage.

Good on them.

Feature photo credit: GOP Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) is a profile in courage for voting against Juneteenth even though he supports a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America, courtesy of Mediaite.

Follow the Science and Burn Your Mask

Follow the Science and Burn Your Mask

By John R Guardiano on June 6, 2021

After more than a year of mask mandates and mask fetishization, the results of Uncle Sam’s latest scientific experiment are in. Masks failed.

Now that mask mandates have been lifted just about everywhere in the United States save for airlines, trains, buses, and other forms of public transportation, it’s a good time to revisit whether masks ever made much sense, did any good, or caused any harm.

The rationale for masks was always weak to begin with. Masks failed to stop the spread of the influenza virus during the 1918 pandemic and they fared no better in the subsequent decades. The New York Times reports that, according two Nancy Leung, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong:

There has been no clear evidence from randomized controlled trials—the gold standard in scientific research—that masking reduced transmission of influenza viruses in a community.

The evidence for the efficacy of masks to stop or slow the spread of the coronavirus is also sorely lacking.

“There are several case studies of Covid-19 outbreaks in confined spaces despite good mask adherence, reports Connor Harris in the City Journal. Marine Corps recruits in 2020, for instance, suffered an outbreak of COIVD despite wearing cloth masks almost constantly.

Michigan v. Texas. When Texas rescinded its mask mandate March 10, 2021, COVID cases fell by 17 percent two weeks later. In Michigan, meanwhile, where masks continued to be required, COVID cases spiked by 133 percent during that same two-week period, reports Philip Klein.

Michigan did not (mostly) lift its mask requirement until June 1—almost three months later than Texas. Yet, comparative data does not show that Michigan benefited as a result.

Indeed, the incidence of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths either roughly corresponds with the difference in population between these two states or is clearly in Texas’s favor.

Texas’ population is about three times that of Michigan, and the state has had 2.9 times as many COVID cases and 2.5 times as many COVID deaths. As of June 5, Texas is averaging about twice as many COVID hospitalizations and 3.1 times as many COVID cases in the preceding two-week period.

As Michael Betrus reports at Rational Ground:

California issued a statewide mask mandate in June 2020. Rhode Island issued its mandate back in May 2020, as did neighboring Connecticut in April 2020. What else do these states have in common?

They were among leaders in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths long after implementing their mandates. Were they infected by nearby states? New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and many counties in Nevada and Arizona also had mask mandates.

Florida did not have a statewide mask mandate. Nor did Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, or Oklahoma. Other states like North Dakota, Arizona, and Indiana issued short-term mask mandates.

These states fared no worse and in most cases fared far better than states with mask mandates. Why would this be, if face masks work?

“It would be an overstatement to say that cloth and surgical masks are unambiguously ineffective or harmful,” Harris writes. “But neither is there a firm case that they provide any meaningful benefit.”

The harmful effects of masks are typically ignored or downplayed; but these harmful effects are real and should give us serious pause when, during the next pandemic, government officials try to enforce new mask mandates—especially on children, who are less able to cope with mask-induced problems.

Face rashes, headaches, bacterial infections, dental problems (cavities and gingivitis), and fiber inhalation are all problems, Harris notes, associated with masks during this pandemic.

“Potential harms to children,” he adds, “deserve special mention.

Two Italian professors of plastic surgery, for instance, have hypothesized that the pressure of elastic ear straps may give children permanently protruding ears.

Some child development researchers also worr y that widespread mask-wearing may hamper children’s linguistic and emotional development.

There may even be ways by which masks might worsen Covid-19 itself. The basic reason is simple: germs caught by a mask do not simply disappear.

The evidence for these is spotty or speculative but concerning enough to merit attention. In any case, the evidence justifying mask mandates is often equally speculative.

Children. One thing that is not speculative is the educational and social damage that masks inflict on children. Non-verbal communication involving facial expressions—especially in the classroom—is one of the primary ways that teachers communicate with their students.

Social interaction between and among students, likewise, is integral to a child’s development. Yet, masks induce in children social isolation.

They signal, clearly, that social interaction is risky because it can result in contraction of the coronavirus. But the data has shown all along that children are at extraordinarily low risk of getting COVID and at even less risk of suffering serious ailments even if they do.

In short, if we are, indeed, to “follow the science,” then we must abandon the fetishization of masks. They never made much sense to begin with; they demonstrably did not do any good; and they actually inflicted serious harm on people, especially children. Good riddance.

Feature photo credit: Americans, free at last of the onerous and counterproductive mask mandate, celebrate their newfound freedom and independence, courtesy of MedPage Today.

Democrats Veer Left on Israel, Gaza, and Hamas

Democrats Veer Left on Israel, Gaza, and Hamas

By John R Guardiano on May 23, 2021

Democratic criticism of Israel show their party is increasingly illiberal and left-wing.

If there was ever any doubt that the Democratic Party is no longer a center-left party, but increasingly, a far-left “progressive” party, that doubt was erased in recent weeks by the reaction of Democratic pols to Israeli self-defense efforts in Gaza.

New York City Democratic Mayoral candidate Andrew Yang, for instance, was forced to walk-back his support of Israel after his remarks caused an uproar on the campaign trail.

What did Yang say that ignited the furor?

I’m standing with the people of Israel who are coming under bombardment attacks, and condemn the Hamas terrorists. The people of N.Y.C. will always stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel who face down terrorism and persevere.

Such a comment, 35 years ago, when Ed Koch was mayor, would have been standard fare and utterly unexceptional. Koch, after all, was a Democrat, a proud Jew, and an unabashed supporter of Israel.

Not so the new breed of “progressive,” left-wing pols who, increasingly, dominate the Democratic Party in New York and beyond.

Leftists Attack Israel. Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), for instance, have been outspoken in their criticism of Israeli self-defense efforts in Gaza.

Ocasio-Cortez condemned what she calls Israel’s “occupation of Palestine,” while denouncing Yang for his “utterly shameful” statement of support for the Jewish state.

Sanders, meanwhile, blasted the government of Israel for allegedly cultivating and legitimizing “an increasingly intolerant and authoritarian type of racist nationalism” to oppress the Palestinians.

Ocasio-Cortez is rumored to be mulling a 2022 primary challenge to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York). So it is telling that she apparently sees no political downside to loudly beating the drums against Israel.

It is also telling that, last week, Schumer signed onto a Congressional call for a ceasefire—apparently because he takes seriously the threat of being primaried by Ocasio-Cortez.

Rise of the Left. Schumer has reason to worry. Ocasio-Cortez, after all, was a little-known 28-year-old bartender and organizer for the Democratic Socialists of America when she knocked off 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic Party primary.

Two years later, another leftist, Jamaal Bowman, upset 16-term incumbent New York City Rep. Eliot Engel in the 2020 Democratic Party primary.

“Jamaal Bowman proves Ocasio-Cortez was no fluke,” reported the Times. His election

looks more like an indicator than an anomaly: He is one of three younger, insurgent Democrats in New York who seem poised to tilt the state’s, and the party’s, congressional delegation further to the left.

So-called progressives “want the Democratic Party to rethink its relationship fundamentally with Israel,” reports National Public Radio.

“At least half [of the Democrats in Congress] are hostile to Israel,” while the other half of the party’s Congressional caucus is “afraid of those who are hostile to Israel,” explained Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

The Future. The far left hasn’t yet forced the United States to renounce its steadfast ally, Israel. President Biden has been careful to say that Israel has a right to defend itself while also urging the Jewish state to recommit to the so-called two-state solution.

However, given the political currents and the current political trajectory, we may only be a few election cycles away from the break with Israel that the progressive left demands.

“We are seeing the rise of a new generation of activists who want to build societies based on human needs and political equality,” Sanders exults.

“We saw these activists in American streets last summer in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. We see them in Israel. We see them in the Palestinian territories.”

“With a new president, the United States now has the opportunity to develop a new approach to the world—one based on justice and democracy.”

Feature photo credit: Three of the most anti-Israel members of Congress: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), courtesy of Robert J. Hutchinson.

Bernie Biden and Joe Warren

Bernie Biden and Joe Warren

By John R Guardiano on May 2, 2021

Biden’s moderate public persona channels the political agendas of socialist Bernie Sanders and government-knows-best enthusiast Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Biden campaigned as a moderate who pledged a “return to normalcy.” But what’s become frighteningly clear during his first 100 days in office is that, despite his relatively relaxed and reassuring public persona, Joe Biden is no moderate, and what he is pushing legislatively is the antithesis of normal.

Mr. Biden seeks the biggest and most far-reaching expansion of the federal government in American history.

The dollar figures alone are staggering and defy all historical precedent: some six trillion dollars in new spending and an additional $3 trillion in new taxes, including a near-doubling of the capital gains tax for successful investors.

In short, the American people may have voted for normal and moderate Joe Biden, but what they got instead, policy-wise at least, was socialist Bernie Sanders and government-knows-best enthusiast Elizabeth Warren.

If Mr. Biden simply were proposing to spend a lot more money, that would be bad but reversible. Unfortunately, what he is trying to do is much worse.

The president seeks to legislate a slew of new entitlements that will exert government control over parts of our lives which, heretofore, have been relatively and blissfully free of state manipulation—pre-school education, childcare, and community college attendance, for instance.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board explains:

The cost, while staggering, isn’t the only or even the biggest problem. The destructive part is the way the plan seeks to insinuate government cash and the rules that go with it into all of the major decisions of family life.

The goal is to expand the entitlement state to make Americans rely on government and the political class for everything they don’t already provide.

The problem is that entitlements, once established, become ticking financial time bombs that are immune to reform and modernization. Witness Social Security and Medicare, two badly-designed programs which consume an increasing share of the federal budget, and which are now politically sacrosanct and, sadly, untouchable.

“The Biden administration and President Biden have exceeded expectations that progressives had,” exulted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) during a virtual town hall. “I’ll be frank. I think a lot of us expected a lot more conservative administration.”

So, too, did many Biden voters—especially middle class wage earners. They, ultimately, will bear the brunt of Biden’s entitlement burden through fewer jobs, slower economic growth, higher taxes, and less opportunity.

Feature photo credit: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders: three Democratic peas in a socialist pod, courtesy of Florida Politics.

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

By John R Guardiano on April 25, 2021

No to ‘Forever Wars,’ but Yes to ‘Forever Forward Deployed’

“It’s time to end the forever war,” declared President Biden in his Apr. 14, 2021, announcement that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan.

No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave…

So when will it be the right moment to leave? …War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking.

Of course no sane American wants to fight a “forever war”—that is, an indeterminable conflict with no end in sight, only a mounting list of U.S. casualties. But the President is wrong when he argues that the only alternative to “endless war” is military retreat and withdrawal.

In fact, there is a third and much better option: forever forward deployed as a garrison force, in country, that works closely with our allies—in this case, the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan—to protect vital U.S. interests in the region.

This was the option strongly recommended to Mr. Biden by his own military advisers, as well as the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group.

A small residual force of 4,500 U.S. troops, they argued, would be enough “for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy.”

U.S. troops, after all, have been forward deployed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than half a century. True, Afghanistan is a far cry from being remotely like any of these three countries; it remains wracked by armed conflict and civil war.

Progress. Nonetheless, with American military help, Afghanistan has made tremendous strides forward—socially, politically, economically, and militarily. U.S. casualties, meanwhile, have steadily and precipitously declined. As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens reports:

Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them—not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced—became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament.

“There have been no American combat deaths in Afghanistan since two soldiers were killed and six wounded on Feb. 8, 2020, in a so-called insider attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province,” reports the Desert News.

“The U.S.,” Stephens notes “has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan since 2015. That’s heartbreaking for those affected, but tiny next to the number of troops who die in routine training accidents worldwide.

“Our main role in recent years,” he adds, “has been to provide Afghan forces with effective air power. It is not an exorbitant price to pay to avert an outright Taliban victory.”

Strategic Ramifications. And preventing the Taliban from winning matters for reasons that extend far beyond Afghanistan. It matters in China, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It matters in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran. And it matters in North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East.

“Our enemies will test us,” warns Bing West.

After Saigon fell [in the Vietnam War], Russia and Cuba supported proxy wars in Latin America and Africa, while Iranian radicals seized our embassy in Tehran.

The Biden administration will face similar provocations. Already, China is threatening Taiwan, Russia is massing troops on the Ukraine border, and Iran is increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“The theory of deterrence relies not just on the balance of forces, but also on reserves of credibility,” Stephens explains. “Leaving Afghanistan now does next to nothing to change the former while seriously depleting the latter.”

Diplomatic Leverage. The President disparages the notion “that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage.” Yet, he offers no evidence to refute this commonsensical and well-proven truth.

Instead, he blithely asserts:

We gave that argument a decade. It’s never proved effective—not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

But the failure to win in Afghanistan is a reflection of an intractable war in an antiquated tribal society; it is not an indictment of the necessary nexus between military and diplomatic power.

Recognizing that the U.S. military has failed to achieve victory in two decades of conflict and likely will never achieve victory in the classic sense does not mean that we must reject wholesale the use of military power in Afghanistan.

This is a colossal blunder and unforced error by Mr. Biden.

The President compounds his error by arguing that “our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way—U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking.”

In fact, we need to understand that a forward-deployed U.S. military presence overseas is a stabilizing force for the good and a critical component of American diplomacy.

False Choice. The bottom line: the choice between so-called endless war and abject withdrawal and retreat is a false choice. We do not have to accept either of these two badly mistaken and extreme options.

Instead, we should choose to be forever forward-deployed militarily in small but strategically significant numbers to protect our interests and put America First. The President’s failure to do so in Afghanistan jeopardizes our national security.

Feature photo credit: President Biden announces that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, courtesy of ABC News.