Last week’s tweet was deleted (Twitter did not suspend his account; after all, he’s not a Republican or President of the United States). Raja had 54 articles published under his byline at CNNbetween September 1, 2014, and September 15, 2020, all focusing on Pakistani news. CNN apparently didn’t mind relying on an open anti-Semite for news analysis until the latest tweet caused the issue to be raised.
After initially saying that it didn’t recognize Raja’s name, CNN released a statement that “he will not be working with CNN again in any capacity.”
2. The latest strategy in the Left’s plot to keep American masked forever. By “Left” I also mean “the news media,” since they are virtually identical. Digression: Judge Silberman’s brave and accurate confirmation of this provoked fear and horror among the AUC. I wrote about it here, but in case you missed it, here is his entire dissent in a recent libel case. He wrote in part,
“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. “[The New York Times and the Washington Post ] are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction…Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet.”
USA Today, a lesser trumpet to be sure, more like a kazoo, gave us this:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s announcement Thursday that fully vaccinated people largely no longer need to wear a mask has left many Americans wondering: If there are no enforcement measures, won’t people just lie about their vaccination status? Public health officials admitted that the honor system will play a large role in the new rules. “I mean, you’re going to be depending on people being honest enough to say whether they were vaccinated or not and responsible enough to be wearing … a mask,” Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease doctor, told CNN Thursday.
The whole idea, apparently, is to make certain Americans don’t trust each other, just like women can’t trust men (who are all rapists or want to be), blacks can’t trust whites, and nobody can trust the police. This, naturally, leaves the government as the one force in society that must be trusted, because Big Brother knows best.
Society has always had its cheats, fools and sociopaths. We trusted people not to come to work with dread diseases long before the Wuhan virus, and sometimes suffered for it. We trust drivers not to be drunk, and workers to know what they are doing. Sometimes, too often, society is betrayed. Remove that trust, however, and we have no society: just a lot of single units, fearful of everyone and everything, looking to the beneficent government to protect us.
3. More on the “birthing people” madness. Matthew Walther writes in the New York Post, “Sorry, but they’re called ‘mothers’ — not ‘birthing people'”:
“The ludicrous phrase is becoming ubiquitous, not just in activist circles but in the medical profession. On the Web site of Harvard Medical School, you can read about how advancing something called “maternal justice” is “essential for all birthing people.” The National Institutes of Health, the New York State Department of Health, the apparently real California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, the Hawaii Department of Human Services and even the city of Milwaukee all present helpful information about this hitherto-unknown category of human beings. Countless state legislators across the country have introduced bills or resolutions that include the preposterous terminology….The rise of “birthing people” and “chestfeeding” follows a well-established pattern: Universities carry the terminology from once-fringe activist groups to the professional classes during what passes for their education. Graduates bring it with them to hospitals, law firms, big business and, of course, politics. A new consensus about apparently settled questions such as the definition of motherhood is established before ordinary Americans are even aware that new terms exist, much less that the liberal establishment wants to mandate their use.”Birthing people” should be a line in the sand for all decent and rational Americans. It is not a question of so-called “political correctness,” which is often a simple matter of politeness. The phrase is not only an insult to mothers everywhere; it is an attack on reason itself. Everyone knows that women who give birth to children are mothers. Those who suggest otherwise are either living in a fantasy world or the kind of people who get their jollies by forcing others to say that 2+2 = 5, which is the ambition of every totalitarian.“
I agree, but “birthing people” should be no more (or less) of a line in the sand than the many self-evidently terrible ideas that have proliferated from the left side of the political divide of late., including no jail time for “all non-violent crimes,” defunding the police, and open borders, and “believe all women,” just to name a few.
4. Speaking of law vs ethics: The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will will review Thomas Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, specifically focusing on Question 1 in the petition for the writ of certiorari: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Since 1973, when the Court declared abortion to be a Constitutional right, science and medicine have learned a great deal about the unborn. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that the Constitution protected abortion up until the point of an unborn baby’s viability outside the womb. Mississipi Attorney General Lynn Fitch asked the Court to consider whether or not the state’s 2018 law banning abortions after 15 weeks gestation is constitutional in light of current knowledge that an unborn baby has unique DNA, a detectible heartbeat and can feel pain early in a pregnancy. Apparently the Court is willing to wade into the controversy over when a fetus becomes a human being that the law protects. A majority of Americans, according to polls, have said that the question of when life begins is central to the ethics of abortion.
Of course it is, but the pro-abortion lobby will never concede that. Nonetheless, despite the passions on all sides of the issue, it is high time the highest court dealt with the issue.