The Governor sends a muddled message.
January 20, 2022
Sisolak vs. Sisolak on School Closures.
Few things get on voters’ nerves more than when a politician tries to be on both sides of a single issue.
Enter Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak.
Last week, the Clark County School District announced it was shutting down schools from last Friday until this past Tuesday, in an effort to “stop the spread” of COVID. And Governor Sisolak’s response to the announcement prompted a deservedly scathing column from the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Victor Joecks.
"The most head-scratching reaction to the school closures came from Sisolak.
“'I am absolutely committed to keeping schools open for in-person learning and keeping our students, educators and staff safe,' he said in a statement.
"That’s strong, direct verbiage. You’d expect him to immediately follow it up with a demand that the district reverse course. After all, he claims to be 'absolutely committed to keeping schools open,' and the district just closed schools for a five-day weekend.
“'I hope this long weekend will allow staff, students and our hardworking educators to get healthy so they can return to work ready to provide high-quality instruction for our children,' he continued."
In other words, the Governor is “absolutely committed” to keeping schools open … but unwilling to push back against efforts to close them. What leadership.
Joecks goes on to provide a detailed recap of how badly the Governor has botched the school-closure issue throughout this mess, and you can read his full piece here.
As for this latest episode, it’s simply astonishing that here we are, nearly two years into this crisis, and Governor Sisolak still can’t manage to bring an ounce of coherence to his COVID response.
Looking for blame in all the wrong places.
Of course, if it’s coherence you’re looking for, you won’t find much these days on the national scene, either.
After President Biden’s desperate and disastrous push for his “voting rights” agenda in Georgia only further cemented the consensus that said agenda is dead, countless left-wing pundits have offered their hysterical takes on why the President is stumbling so badly on this front.
Naturally, they’re all variations of the same theme: It’s because our country is awash in racism.
But Drew Ferguson, writing for Fox News, sees a simpler explanation: Americans aren’t buying what Biden’s selling, because what he’s selling is a heap of lies.
Read Ferguson’s full piece for yourself, but here’s the money passage:
"Biden and his far-Left cronies in Congress are weaponizing our election process with the same nonsense and overreaching legislation they attempted to pass multiple times over the past few years. All Democrats really want is a safe Democrat stronghold — and this is how they're trying to get it.
"The American people aren’t falling for Democrats' trap, and it’s time for them to address the real and urgent crises created by this administration that are plaguing Americans every single day."
Black Voters for Jim Crow
Democrats never tire of claiming that Republican-backed election-security measures — chief among them, voter ID — are nothing but racist tactics designed to silence the voices of black voters. “Jim Crow 2.0,” as President Biden likes to call such laws.
Yet as John Solomon, writing for Just the News, reports, a recent poll in Michigan found that, “Three-quarters of the battleground state voters supported ballot ID requirements, with black voters expressing the highest support at 79%.”
As Solomon notes further:
"Those findings have been confirmed in national polls as well, exposing a dilemma for Democrats in Washington who are making a last-ditch effort to pass legislation gutting many state and local controls of elections in favor of federal standards. ...
"In Rasmussen's latest national poll on the issue, 78% of African-American voters supported voter ID."
A dilemma, indeed. Democrats find themselves in the awkward position of essentially arguing that the vast majority of black voters support, for some unexplained reason, election policies that are racist and oppressive … against themselves.
Kings of hypocrisy
Millions of Americans on Monday honored the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Yet sadly, there are many today who pay lip service to King’s ideals, while simultaneously working to undermine them by advancing racially divisive ideas like Critical Race Theory in our schools. And all too often, it’s those who are most guilty of promoting such bilious ideas who also claim most loudly to be the heirs to King’s mantle.
In an excellent piece for the Washington Examiner, Christopher Tremoglie spells out how so many of today’s Democrats pose as champions of racial justice ... while consistently betraying the principles that Dr. King fought and died for.
“While King wanted unity, Democrats have sought division. While King wanted integration, Democrats now yearn for a return to segregation. While King championed the greatness of the United States despite its flaws, Democrats claim the exact opposite, proclaiming the nation as irredeemably racist and destructive.”
“For the country to live up to the standards of Dr. King's dream, judgments of individuals based on their skin color should be eradicated from society. Seeing each other as equals, honoring everyone's life, allowing equal opportunity to pursue their dreams is what King stood for. It is what he gave his life for. The Democrats' myopic obsession with people's race is dishonoring Dr. King's legacy, of which their ideology of critical race theory is an open rejection.
“Out of their lust for political power, they are shattering his dream and attempting to shatter the nation.”
The entire piece is well worth your time. You can find it here.
You’ve likely heard by now that the U.S. Supreme Court last week blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees.
There have been a lot of insightful takes offered on the Court’s decision, and we wanted to leave you this week with an especially trenchant one from Adam Carrington, an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.
We encourage you to read Carrington’s full analysis, but here’s his chief takeaway:
“[W]e saw the Court willing to draw a line and make a stand to defend the people who should decide and the document through which they do — our Constitution.”
Indeed, by reining in our national bureaucracy, whose actions had undermined the separation-of-powers principle not only as it relates to federalism but also to the diffusion of authority within our federal government, the Court delivered a much-welcome victory — not only for the cause of freedom, but for our constitutional system itself.