It’s been revealed that the person who leaked President Trump’s father’s old tax records to the New York Times was the President’s niece, Mary Trump, the daughter of his late brother, Fred Trump Jr. There’s reportedly been bad blood in the family for years, since Donald and his two siblings cut off her and her brother's family medical benefits after they challenged their grandfather’s will to get a bigger cut of the money. It's a convoluted tale recounted here, if you're interested in the family squabbles of the wealthy.
It’s the kind of family drama over money that those of us who were lucky to inherit a tackle box from our dads consider ourselves lucky not to have had to deal with. Word is that Mary Trump is planning a tell-all book that will detail “harrowing and salacious” stories about her uncle, the President. She obviously has no motive to make up dirt to sell books, right? I have a feeling the only thing this will prove is that no amount of money can buy you class.
You don’t hear much about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus anymore. That’s largely because news stories trumpeted an alleged massive study that showed it was ineffective and linked to higher death rates and heart problems. But the media muted their trumpets when the Lancet issued a rare full retraction and a humiliating apology for publishing such a worthless, biased and misleading study. But that study was the reason why clinical trials were suddenly stopped and patients taken off the drug. (A similar study has since come out, but also found to have major problems with the data.)
Now, the FDA has revoked its emergency use authorization, which means that stocks of the drug obtained by the federal government will no longer be distributed to state and local health authorities for use against the coronavirus.
Doctors will still be able to prescribe it for “alternative uses,” but they can’t obtain any of the 150 million doses stockpiled by the government for coronavirus patients. This in spite of the fact that a survey of over 6200 doctors in 30 countries by the health care polling company Servo found that it was rated as the “most effective therapy” for COVID-19, with 37% of the doctors choosing it from a list of 15 choices. (This is when it's given early on as a cocktail with other drugs, not given to late-stage patients, as in the misleading studies.)
The FDA’s decision might not be the last word, though. The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) is suing the FDA to end its “arbitrary interference” with the use of the drug. They say the Trump Administration has sent two million doses of it to Brazil with no strings attached, while the FDA has limited American doctors to giving it only to “hospitalized patients for whom a clinical study is unavailable.” The restrictions are so tight that some hospitals are simply returning it to the government instead of using it.
The AAPS’ attorney said, “There is no legal or factual basis for the FDA to limit use of HCQ,” and blamed the restrictions on “entrenched, politically biased officials at the FDA.”
As I always remind you, I am not a doctor, so I can’t personally endorse this drug. But it seems to me that the decision of whether to try it should be between patients and their doctors. It seems strange that liberals will staunchly defend that concept if you’re talking about aborting a baby, but they are just as adamant about not letting you try a coronavirus drug that many doctors believe is safe and effective but that now has political connotations. So, do you still want to trust the government with your health care?
Want to see video proof that Miami is not run by the addlepated Mayor of Seattle? Watch how their police force deals with protesters who turn violent and smash the windshield of their police car. Warning: foul language and serious Antifa rump-kicking at the link.
Monday, the Supreme Court not only rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act to redefine the ban on job discrimination by sex to include “gender identity” (setting the stage for endless nuisance lawsuits targeted at religious institutions), but they also rejected a number of cases in which citizens were appealing government interference with their Second Amendment rights.
For instance, the SCOTUS rejected an appeal by a New Jersey man who services ATMs and carries a lot of cash who understandably wants to carry a gun, but the local government requires that he name a specific threat to justify his need for one (as if he knows the name of the person who will eventually pop up and try to rob and likely kill him.) If you read the Second Amendment, you’ll notice that nothing in it says that citizens must justify their specific need for a gun to the government before they’re allowed to keep and bear one.
As the (sadly only) three Justices who dissented from the gay rights ruling noted, this Court is only too ready to pull new rights out of the ether when they involve abortion or LGBTQ issues, but they refuse to defend the clearly-enumerated Constitutional right that the Founders listed second in the Bill of Rights. It’s especially disappointing that alleged “conservative” Justices such as John Roberts and even Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch went along with the liberals in these activist rulings.
Why is it that so many so-called “conservative” Justices morph into liberals after just a short time on the SCOTUS (or as the media call it when a judge goes from respecting the text of the Constitution to rewriting laws from the bench, they "evolve”)? Some of it might be peer pressure, or just living inside the upper-crust liberal DC bubble. Some of it might also stem from the fact that ALL of our Supreme Court Justices attended the same handful of Northeastern Ivy League colleges (every one of them spent time at either Harvard or Yale) and were taught by the same liberal professors. While a few were able to resist the indoctrination, there is no real “diversity” on the Court. For instance, there’s not a single Justice who was schooled in the South or West, and can understand the needs of farmers or ranchers who bring cases to the Court.
Law Prof. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit sums up the problem in a recent book called “The Judiciary’s Class War.”
Reynolds argues that the problem with the judiciary isn’t political but a class divide. Since the judiciary is the only branch of government that requires members to attain elite schooling, it’s dominated by people from upper middle class, elite backgrounds. Once they’re on the bench, they tend to favor things that people of their class embrace (abortion, gay rights, birth control, open borders, etc.) and even invent new “rights” to promote them, while marginalizing the real rights that working class Americans care about, such as freedom of religion, property rights, gun rights and honest apportionment of legislators to represent legal citizens.
Victor Davis Hanson also has some related thoughts about how “class, not race, divides America”…
SCOTUS decisions like Monday’s will make many conservatives despair of ever being able to get America back on the right track of respecting the Constitution and laws as written by elected Representatives of the people. But if you give up and stop voting, then you’ll guarantee the election of people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who will put their lead feet on the accelerator to take America over the cliff.
A Republican majority in both Houses and the reelection of President Trump would at least set the stage for passing legislation to replace the legislation concocted by the courts, and to keep allowing Trump to nominate conservative judges to lower courts who might someday be on the Supreme Court. And of course, to nominate SCOTUS judges who will actually defend the Constitution. So far, he’s batting .500 on that, which is .500 more than we’d ever get under Joe Biden.
VERY DIFFERENT CASES
Some people are trying to draw an equivalency between the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, even though they were very different situations. But there’s one they might have in common that a lot of people will not be happy to hear, and that is that the cops will have a defense for their actions in court, and it might be effective. Here’s how the defense of the Atlanta cops might play out…
And here is how Minneapolis officer Derek Chavin might escape the murder charge that even state Attorney General Keith Ellison admits is going to be a hard case to win.
Say what you will about the mercurial leadership of North Korea, but they certainly know how to get attention when they’re ticked off. Does this mean the Cold War is back on? Ask again in 24 hours.