Mental Health Morning 1/6/21

I'll be mostly out this morning but will enable comments when I return.

Who Knew? WuFlu Came From A Lab!

It's OK to call it the WuFlu or the China Flu or whatever. It's even OK to say that it came from a lab--cuz New York Magazine has confirmed it! Like, who would have ever figured that out, otherwise?

It seems that only yesterday--less than a week ago, anyway--this was the public orthodoxy:

A new poll finds 40% of respondents believe in a baseless conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was created in a lab in China.

There is zero evidence for this. Scientists say the virus was transmitted to humans from another species.https://t.co/GDTo2geUng

— NPR (@NPR) December 31, 2020

Zero evidence! Conspiracy theory! Trump! Deplorables! Settled Science--or something--let it speak! Trump, Trump, Trump! Racism!

But now, virtually overnight:

For years, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses to be stronger, deadlier, and more transmissible. The bet was that their work would help prevent a global pandemic. But what if it caused one? @nicholsonbaker8 reports https://t.co/MMhn5Ea21e

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 4, 2021

And it gets worse:

And who was the guy who funded that project over in Wuhan? Oh, yeah: St. Anthony Fauci, patron saint of Lockdowns. Progressivism is never having to say you're sorry. Or admitting that anyone else was right.

And by the way ...

Rate Of Adverse Reactions To COVID Vaccines Already 50x Higher Than Flu Shot

A Political Scientist Ponders Constitutional Legitimacy After A Hoax Election

I've tended to regard The American Conservative as basically a NeverTrump site and rarely go there. Today, however, totally by chance, I came across an article there that I liked quite well:

Memorandum: How The 2020 Election Could Have Been Stolen

A political scientist examines the evidence and concludes that widespread fraud took place.

Claes G. Ryn is professor of politics and founding director of the new Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.

The bulk of the article is a review of why there is every reason to suspect fraud on a massive scale in the 2020 "election." You're all almost certainly familiar with the main outlines of what Ryn presents as indicative of fraud, but you may find it worth reading anyway--it's well presented and presents a broad brush picture. I want to focus on briefer parts of the article that offer food for thought.

First, in explaining why he decided to write this article--despite realizing that he wouldn't be changing any minds--Ryn offers this perspective. It's one which will make sense to most of us, but also one that few have thought about, since we're in a sense wrapped up in details close to home. Thus, the views of non-Americans has its own special value, especially given the generally anti-Trump background of most Europeans offering their views.

Margot Cleveland's Moving Tweet, Plus ...

Margot Cleveland put out two particularly good tweets this morning. The first I found particularly moving in what it says about our country, our courts, our public office holders, and yes, our citizens:

Reading @realDonaldTrump petition for cert in the Wisconsin case brings me to tears. What election officials did in my childhood state is appalling--and unconstitutional. But I fear there will be no remedy. https://t.co/IiGAMng1QF

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 5, 2021

She then followed that up with this:

Everyone is focused on "fraud," but more devastating is election officials intentionally ignoring law established by legislature to prevent fraud. 1/ 

2/2 Criminals commit fraud & will always try to find way; but we entrust election officials to safeguard our vote-not disenfranchise us by giving it away to criminals. 

Post-Twit: After typing this I FINALLY realized this is what has soooo unnerved me since election & why putting fraud down as unproven or not enough to change election (or even some theories as tin-foil-hat nutso) wasn't a satisfactory answer. Fraud wasn't the worst issue. 

I'm not sure whether Margot had Bill Barr specifically in mind, but she captures the astonishing triviality of his statement about the election, coming from a supposedly serious man. Well, anyone who wants to can quibble about what's most devastating about this American Tragedy, but you get her point.

Now, back to my online dictionaries. I can't seem to find out what 'womeningitis' is. Any ideas? Maybe it's, like, a womental disease?

How low will America sink?

Dyer's Latest Update On The 'Key Supporting Effort'

Just yesterday the question of "Whatever happened to DNI Ratcliffe's report?" came up in the comments. That's Trump's Executive Order 13848, requires the DNI to submit an assessment of any foreign interference in US elections within 45 days of an election. That deadline has come and gone. Ratcliffe did indicate at one point that he was not getting all the cooperation he needed from some unnamed agencies of the federal government, but there's been no further word, except that the assessment is in process.  In light of some recent developments--as explained in Jen Dyer's latest very thorough article--it may be worth wondering whether Ratcliffe's assessment is now being deliberately withheld by the Trump administration for use at the proper time. As we'll see, not only Dyer but George Eliason at Creative Destruction Media offer good reason to believe that Trump is aware of such foreign interference--and that China may be one of the foreign actors involved.

The best way to start may be with Eliason's article, which Dyer cites. It's a long, technical article, but the title will give you at least an idea of what it contains.

GA’s SoS Raffensperger Gave Hackers Roadmap To Infiltrate Machines A Year Before Election

Eliason details some of Raffensperger's illegal shenanigans, but for our purposes this brief excerpt tells us what we want to know--the national security angle to the story of the Big Steal is very real:

In short, there is no security on the Dominion system at all. Most importantly, you’ll see how the election is being stolen from the inside. 

The stories about the election tallies being sent overseas to Germany, Rome, the UK, Canada, and other exotic places to be processed are true. Inside Dominion’s contract is a use of temporary foreign worker’s clause for the GA general election. This is Dominion’s contract with the State of Georgia.

Dominion hired workers in foreign countries to service the 2020 election. Dominion uses 3 or 4 levels of access keys to operate the Democracy Suite system. Just to be able to work from outside the United States, these foreign nationals working with the ballots need have master tech keys. With the tech keys every part of the system is open and every election file is available and changeable.

Obviously Trump knows all that, too--and undoubtedly lots more.

UPDATED: Kevin McCarthy Signals Support For Election Challenge

Kinda.

Per Breitbart, Minority Leader McCarthy today stated:

“I think it’s right that we have the debate. I mean, you see now that senators are going to object, the House is going to object — how else do we have a way to change the election problems?”

No, not the strongest statement. Nevertheless, to me it signals that McCarthy is getting the message from polling that Trump voters are both very numerous and very POed. With McCarthy joining the challenge, even in such a lukewarm way, other waverers may follow the 140 who have already come out in support of Trump's challenge. 

UPDATE: Yes, Kunstler is eloquent:

A US election has never concluded under such an enormous cloud, and with such a show of weakness by the putative winner. Joe Biden is but a ghost in the machine, and the machine is infernally corrupt, and now just about everybody knows it, including the figures fighting so hard to pretend that it isn’t so. Something like a war is underway both within the USA and from without. Mr. Trump is a war president and he’s not shirking his duty. War goes where it will and a genuine leader goes out to meet it where it comes.

Archbishop Viganò's Exhortation To Americans

Thanks to TGP for the transcript of Viganò's interview with Steve Bannon. It's an eloquent and timely discussion:

INTERVIEW OF MR. STEPHEN K. BANNON WITH HIS EXCELLENCY, CARLO MARIA VIGANÒ, ARCHBISHOP

Don Surber's Case Against A GOP Senate

I'm having trouble finding anything worth writing about today, however ...

Don Surber makes a strong case for conservatives voters in Georgia to give up the Senate to the crazies:

The case against a Republican Senate

It's a longish blog, with Surber riffing off Senator Tim Scott's appeal to Georgia conservatives to get out and vote, and then running through the many ways the GOPe has betrayed conservatives generally and, in the last few years, Trump specifically. However, Surber's argument can be boiled down to two quite brief paragraphs:

A Republican Senate amplifies the power of Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and other Never Trumpers. This will enable them to sell their swing votes to the highest bidder in the name of principle.

And they dare ask for our votes while allowing Democrats to steal the presidential election uncontested!

I'm normally one to argue that a bird in the hand is most likely worth two in the bush, but ... It's hard to gainsay Surber. The Senate should be made to pay for their betrayal of Trump--if they aren't held to account, then what will ever change? What other options are there?

The strongest argument against Surber's view may be contained in Monica Showalter's blog on So what did Nancy Pelosi promise The Squad? Showalter explains that the vote was actually much closer than even the final tally of 216-209 would suggest. She then argues that to get the Speakership certainly had to give away the house to the Squad crazies. This will have results:

What did Pelosi offer them in exchange for their votes? What did she offer that would disgust other Democrats and put them in an even more desperate position for re-election? Why did she throw moderation away? 

It comes as a red wave is building in the House, what with Democrats losing more than a dozen seats in the November presidential election, and traditional U.S. political patterns suggesting the Republicans are on track to win anyway. Kowtowing to the Squad and buying them off is going to make the red wave ahead much bigger.

There are a number of things that can be said. Has Pelosi ever been "moderate"? Not by my lights. That other bird, the one in the bush, the coming "red wave"--how red will it really be? 

But perhaps the most important consideration is in the question that Showalter left unanswered: "Why did [Pelosi] throw moderation away?" Is she really desperate to hold on to the Speakership for the prestige alone, or do the Dem power brokers believe that only Pelosi can guide their radical agenda through the House and on to what may well turn out to be a Dem Senate? Would Dems really go for broke in what may be only a two year window, counting on their agenda being cemented in place, never to be repealed by the typically feckless GOP and the Roberts judges? It's possible. It's also out of our control at this point. It was within the control of the GOP, if they had chosen to fight for Trump.

The American Republic's Crisis Of Authority And Legitimacy

Just yesterday in Who Would Rule A Post-Constitutional America? I raised the issue of rule in a post-constitutional America--an America ruled by a regime lacking authority and legitimacy. It may be well to expand on that a bit, and today at American Greatness I found two articles that may help.

First, however, I'll try to be more explicit about what I mean by the terms 'authority' and 'legitimacy'. Authority derives from the degree that a regime reflects the truth of human nature. Legitimacy refers to the degree that a regime reflects the views of the population it purports to represent. A bit of reflection will suggest that a given regime may be legitimate, yet lack authority--and vice versa, unfortunately. In an imperfect world, authority and legitimacy will normally be imperfect, as well. However, I take it as given that the regime established by our written Constitution had sufficient authority and legitimacy to command the consent of the population. The imperfections inherent in the American Founding, of course, have contributed to the recurrent crises of our constitutional order, as is the case with all regimes.

The current crisis is twofold. The crisis in authority is occasioned by the fact that our ruling class rejects--whether implicitly or explicitly--even the concept of human nature itself, let alone the idea of a truth of human nature. This revolutionary attitude of our ruling establishment was memorably lampooned by Justice Scalia in referring to the Libertarian views of Anthony Kennedy as (here quoting from Scalia's dissent in Lawrence):

The Court's claim that Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra, "casts some doubt" upon the holding in Bowers (or any other case, for that matter) does not withstand analysis. As far as its holding is concerned, Casey provided a less expansive right to abortion than did Roe, which was already on the books when Bowers was decided. And if the Court is referring not to the holding of Casey, but to the dictum of its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage, ("'At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life'"): That "casts some doubt" upon either the totality of our jurisprudence or else (presumably the right answer) nothing at all. I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one's "right to define" certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined "concept of existence, etc.," it is the passage that ate the rule of law.

As Scalia suggests, a constitutional 'jurisprudence' that purports to leave to each individual the privilege--or burden--or defining "one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life'" is no jurisprudence at all. It is, as he notes, a jurisprudence that has eaten the rule of law. A regime whose civic philosophy is expressed in such a parody of a jurisprudence lacks authority. And that's where we are as a nation.

The legitimacy of our constitutional republic is fundamentally defined and grounded in the concept of free and fair elections. Thus, the Constitution itself contains a "Guarantee Clause":

California's Bad Flu Season

We have commenters and readers here from California who have been weighing in on conditions in their state. I've been wondering when we'd get some transparency from California--not on strictly political matters, which is hopeless, but on the nearly related issue of Covid. We still don't have that transparency, but Steve Hayward at Powerline has offered some interesting perspective--Covid Bed Check. Read this excerpt in conjunction with the reports we've seen recently of Covid "defeating" the Flu:

Politico noted a few days ago that California, which has tried to impose some of the most stringent lockdowns in the nation, is not doing so well. This paragraph especially jumps out:

America’s most populous state has become one of the nation’s worst epicenters for the disease, setting new records for cases, hospitalizations and deaths almost every day. Things are so bad in Southern California that some patients are being treated in hospital tents, while doctors have begun discussing whether they need to ration care.

I don’t doubt that hospitals are badly strained at the moment. But is this really unprecedented? Check out this Los Angeles Times story from January 2018:

California hospitals face a ‘war zone’ of flu patients — and are setting up tents to treat them

. . . The huge numbers of sick people are also straining hospital staff who are confronting what could become California’s worst flu season in a decade.

Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients. . .  Many hospitals also say they’re too full to accept any more patients or ambulances.

 

ADDENDUM: In other California related news:

Human Sacrifice Devin Nunes: His Final Exit Interview

As noted at Big Scoop News:

At the time of this writing, no one from the Biden team or from Nunes’ Russian handlers has disputed B.S. News’ potentially accurate report, so it must be true.

 

Good For Ted Cruz

I like Senator Ted Cruz's idea of establishing an Electoral Commission, involving a "10 day audit." This idea is patterned on the Electoral Commission following the disputed presidential election of 1876. You can read about that election and the resulting dispute and resolution at Wikipedia: Electoral Commission. Here's a key paragraph:

Facing an unparalleled constitutional crisis and intense public pressure, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate agreed to formation of the bipartisan Electoral Commission to settle the election. It consisted of fifteen members: five each from the House and the Senate, plus five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his electoral victory by a margin of 185–184. Congress, meeting in a joint session on March 2, 1877, affirmed that decision, officially declaring Hayes the winner by one vote.

Cruz's idea has garnered support from 11 Senators so far, but I wouldn't be surprised to see additional Senators get on board with the idea. So far supporters include:

Ron Johnson (WI), James Lankford (OK), Steve Daines (MT), John Kennedy (LA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), and Mike Braun (IN), and Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (WY.), Roger Marshall (KS), Bill Hagerty (TN), and Tommy Tuberville (AL).

Below, per Zerohedge, is the statement from the Cruz led group. No doubt Cruz is responding to Senator Josh Hawley's initiative, and that's fine. Both have their eyes on 2024 and, in this constitutional crisis, the time is now for these two senators--both of them fine constitutional lawyers. The main point is that this is a good idea for the country:

Who Would Rule A Post-Constitutional America?

Right. I understand that we're pretty much in post-constitutional territory already, and actually have been for some time. Nevertheless, for most people the Constitution still matters--there's an idea that with a few tweaks of personnel, on the Court, in Congress and the White House, our fundamental constitutional institutions could resume functioning and governing as intended. That notion is increasingly delusional, in the very literal sense of being divorced from reality. We cling to the delusion because we're afraid of what a future ruled by those who openly call for the Constitution's definitive demise would mean.

If there's one cardinal rule of politics, it would have to be that Power abhors a vacuum. That means that, once exposed, the illusion of authority and legitimacy will eventually be replaced by the reality of power. As Glenn Greenwald recently wrote, The Threat of Authoritarianism In The U.S. Is Very Real, And Has Nothing To Do With Trump. The Lefty Greenwald points out that, in actual fact, Trump has struggled to preserve and restore our constitutional order, rather than attempting to establish authoritarian rule. Far from Trump being a threat to the rule of law, the last 4 years have exposed for all to see who the real enemies of our constitutional order are, who the people are who want to wield power in an America freed of its constitutional trammels.

One major group would be the people with lots of money and crazy ideas of transforming human nature. These are people who think their influence in politics should be commensurate with their wealth and their supposed genius. People who read their press clippings and are surrounded by sycophants who want their help, mostly in monetary form. Those sycophants, of course, include the elected representatives of We The People. These would be leaders of America are Globalist visionaries, but their focus is largely on what could be termed domestic policy--controlling the intimate details of day to day human life. Their great delusion is of extending that control to the entire world through 'soft power' means.