Arizona’s Department of Child Safety is Out of Control

In Arizona at the end of February, a family lost custody of their 3 children to the Department of Child Safety, or DCS, because of a fever. And now in late March they still don’t know when or even if they will regain custody. That will be decided by the DCS and the state’s court system. Not by the children’s parents.

This is about the state’s (in both the general and the specific sense of the word) treatment of parents who do not abide by their rules and regulations. And yes, it’s also – tangentially – about anti-vaxxers.

Let me be clear. My 8-year old son has been vaccinated thoroughly. As a child in Venezuela in the oil fields way back when, I along with my brother and sister used to get big mutha booster shots every year (with a bar of chocolate afterwards if I didn’t kick the nurses – imagine what happens today in our militarized world if a 7 or 8-year old kicks at a nurse). While my ability to do statistics or differential calculus is to be polite, limited, I don’t seem to have developed autism.

Are there some children who may be more vulnerable to conditions like autism, and who are affected by vaccinations, which might be a factor amongst others in their developing the condition? Perhaps yes, although that’s a debate that’s still ongoing. Should parents vaccinate their children? Yes, at least from some fairly serious diseases.

Like meningitis, for example.

Last February 25, a family brought a young child to a doctor in Tempe, Arizona because of a fever. Here’s azcentral.com with the story:

On February 25, the mother took her 2-year-old boy to the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine clinic in Tempe, according to Chandler police records.

It was dinner time. But the toddler’s fever had spiked to over 100 degrees.

The doctor asked if the child had his vaccinations.

The mother said no.

Concerned that a lethargic child with a fever and lacking vaccinations could have meningitis, the doctor instructed the mother to take the child to the emergency department at Banner Cardon Children’s Medical Center in Mesa, according to attorneys at a March 7 court hearing following the removal of the children.

The child reportedly improved while at the doctor’s office and the parents took the child home and took its temperature and found the fever had gone. They called the doctor to say they wouldn’t take the child to the hospital, but the doctor insisted they should.

What followed was a staged escalation going back and forth between the DCS who had been informed presumably by the doctor and the family and the police. It ended like this, as azcentral.com reported:

It was after 1 a.m. when officers kicked down the family’s door. One officer carried a shield, while another was described as having “lethal coverage.” Officers pointing guns yelled, “Chandler Police Department,” and entered the house.

The father came to the door. Officers placed him in handcuffs and took him and the mother outside. Inside, they found a juvenile who said she was sick and had thrown up in her bed.

Officers said the home was “messy” with clothing piles and concrete floors. In the parent’s room, a shotgun lay next to the bed, according to police records.

The caseworker spoke with two of the children without their parents present. He told officers it was “necessary to obtain a temporary custody order” for the parents’ two other children, according to police records.

Since there was no “criminal incident” and because the mother refused, no photos were taken inside the home, according to the police records.

Neither of the parents was arrested.

Officials took the parents’ three children to Banner Cardon Medical Center.

Next stop for the 3 kids: foster care, as in 3 separate foster homes for them. Separated with strange people in a strange home because their sister or brother had had a fever (and apparently had RSV, a respiratory disease which can cause serious problems … like most minor infections can).

According to the parents’ attorneys the DSC is out to punish the parents because of their lack of cooperation with the bureaucracy that indeed has the power to remove and hold your children. And they can and will use a SWAT team to achieve that.

But the problem is far deeper and broader. It’s the fact that the DSC exists at all. That a government agency has extensive powers which it can and does abuse by reaching into homes and tearing apart families. Arizona passed legislation requiring warrants before this type of home invasion by DSC officials and police could be done, but it hasn’t helped much. Here’s azcentral.com again:

DCS placed 4,649 children into the foster-care system in the six-month period that ended December 2018, according to DCS data. In the six-month period prior to the July law, DCS removed 4,887 children.

That’s down from a high mark of 6,815 in fall 2015, when nearly 19,000 children were in the foster-care system and families and child-welfare advocates began pushing for a warrant law.

Is the anti-vaxxer movement a conspiracy-ridden fringe group? Maybe in some eyes, like that of the family doctor or the DSC officials, or the police officers or even the judge. But when you read the facts of this story, it’s hard not to think that anti-vaxxers’ paranoia is sometimes justified.

What is the situation like now?

On March 15, the father told The Republic that DCS had placed their three children with his parents.

“We get to see them again,” he said. “Thank God.”

He still can’t shake the night police kicked down their door and entered his home with guns drawn. He still can’t believe they took all three of their children.

He said he has asked DCS why the caseworker never presented himself and showed a warrant for removal, but he hasn’t received a clear answer.

“I know people have the right not to let the police into their home,” he said. “But if the caseworker had called me or knocked, and shown me their warrant, I would’ve let them in.”

He said home security video showed police had stated they had a DCS warrant for removal, but the family didn’t hear them because they were sleeping in the back bedrooms with their sick children.

The judge’s approval of DCS’ request for psychological evaluations has created another barrier to regaining custody of their children, he said. The wait for an evaluation is months, he said.

Just to be clear, the psychological evaluations will be done on the parents to ensure they are “fit” to have custody of their children. This is Gestapo/Soviet tactics. Break down your door in the middle of the night. Take away your children. Evaluate you and your spouse psychologically to see if you answer the right way and then decide if you can have your kids back.

This is an out-of-control bureaucracy acting in conjunction with a police force in a state that has something of a reputation for heavy handedness in its police departments (the exterminator from out of state that was shot in an apartment or hotel hallway as he crawled on his belly towards heavily armed policemen, as he was trying to satisfy the psychotic instructions of an unseen sheriff, for example). The result has been a nightmare for those parents.

There’s another story about anti-vaxxers in Oregon whose son came down with tetanus (lockjaw it used to be called because that’s what happens when muscles clench uncontrollably in your body) after getting cut playing in the yard. Here’s Alex Berezow of ACSH (American Council on Science and Health a sort of activist pro-all-things-chemistry/science group that does some interesting work) on his opinion of the parents of that boy who came close to dying a horrific death and who still reportedly hasn’t had a tetanus shot:

In my opinion, this is a clear-cut case of child abuse. There’s no moral difference between this case and that of parents who for bizarre religious reasons decide not to provide medical care to their children. The parents should lose custody of the boy, and they should do time in prison.

If you’re an anti-vaxxer, there should be consequences for your irrational, self-centered, destructive behavior.

In other words, the traditional weight of a family has zero valence here. And even in the case in Arizona, I suspect. That’s the thinking that leads to the DSC ripping 3 kids from their home.

Yes, perhaps at some point authorities have to intervene to protect children. But the possibility of abuse, as illustrated in Arizona but not in Oregon, is an unintended consequence we should all be wary of.

I’m sorry, that’s not right. The abuse of power by agencies like the DSC in Arizona is not an unintended consequence. It’s the raison d’etre:

To “rationally” deconstruct the family rather than only interfere in clear-cut cases of abuse.

There was Black List first, then Black Mirror, and now we have a hot show coming to you straight from the Ukraine. A reality show, of course, because it involves yet another angle on the 2016 presidential election and campaign. The new show is called:

“Black Ledger.”

Or at least it should be, if it ever gets made into a documentary and then into an international, ostrich-coated, man-of-mystery spy thriller.

From tragedy to farce. But please this actually is interesting and could be quite important. The basic premise, based on a newly opened investigation with a new prosecutor, is that the DNC and Hillary campaign and even the Obama administration colluded with the Ukraine, and the investigation and prosecutor are Ukrainian, not beltway veterans.

I remember blogging here a couple of years ago on a strange event in the basement of Capitol Hill, I believe, that was set up to appear to its audience as the proceedings of the House or Senate. It was actually a meet and greet information session between some members of Congress and Ukrainian politicians. And the intended audience was Ukrainian of course. As the article had said, “Welcome to the strange world of Ukrainian politics.”

This latest investigation deals with the so-called black ledger detailing multi-million-dollar payments to Manafort which reportedly was found in an empty safe apparently belonging to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who was a close ally of Putin. The accusation seems to be that the ledger was leaked by Ukrainian security officials in order to push back against and discredit Yanukovych’s Russia-friendly policies. And also to help Hillary Clinton win the election.

Look, we’re dealing with a Ukrainian prosecutor – Yurii Lutsenko – who may have political axes to grind. Like the Russian intel sources for Steele’s dossier almost certainly had a disruptive agenda in mind when an ex-MI6 spy came a begging for some electoral dirt on Trump. Seeing many of them were former or current Russian intelligence officials themselves. So, skepticism is in order here. But here’s The Hill’s John Solomon back on Thursday:

We now have strong evidence that retired British spy Christopher Steele began his quest in what ultimately became the infamous Russia collusion dossier with a series of conversations with top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr between December 2015 and February 2016 about securing evidence against Manafort.

We know the FBI set up shop in the U.S. embassy in Kiev to assist its Ukraine–Manafort inquiry — a common practice on foreign-based probes — while using Steele as an informant at the start of its Russia probe. And we know Clinton’s campaign was using a law firm to pay an opposition research firm for Steele’s work in an effort to stop Trump from winning the presidency, at the same time Steele was aiding the FBI.

As well, we also have an interesting nexus between major American intel players and some foreign officials that may have been involved in a Democrat-Ukraine scheme to discredit Manafort (not a very tough objective to achieve, admittedly) and prevent Trump from winning the election.

The Atlantic Council.

The Atlantic Council is a Washington-based think tank with a clear interest in America’s relationship with Europe, both West and East. It in fact has an initiative promoting Ukraine’s move from a Russian ally to a Western European ally, in itself a good if somewhat tricky goal to have. So with Putin’s invasion of Crimea and it’s hybrid warfare in the Donetsk region in the east of Ukraine, suddenly the tension between NATO-led ambitions and Putin’s Kremlin became explicit and far more dangerous.

Enter Trump as a candidate who still professes a rather puzzling admiration for Putin, a distasteful authoritarian who likely has far more blood on his hands than is evident at first glance, and you can imagine alarm bells going off in places like the Atlantic Council. Guess who is a key member?

James Clapper.

As well a Ukrainian billionaire named Victor Pinchuk is or was also a member of the Atlantic Council. He’s also been a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation in the past. Here’s Elizabeth Vaughn at Red State:

Pinchuk serves on the International Advisory Board of a Washington-based think tank called the Atlantic Council. This group is “connected to Ukrainian interests through its “Ukraine in Europe Initiative,” which is designed to galvanize international support for an independent Ukraine within secure borders whose people will determine their own future.”

As well, as claimed in Dan Bongino’s book Spygate, Vaughn affirms:

Bongino discovered that the Chief Technology Officer of “the only company that investigated the hacking of the DNC’s servers and quickly determined it was the Russians, is a nonresident senior fellow in cybersecurity” at the Atlantic Council. His name is Dmitri Alperovitch.

Now it may be that Alperovitch turns out to be a Ukrainian (if he indeed is Ukrainian) well-versed in Russian hacking techniques, and just be a coincidence he happens to have been the perfect hire to investigate the DNC server hack.

There’s at least one more key player.

Alexandra Chalupa.

She’s an American-Ukrainian lawyer with ties to the DNC where she worked as a staffer/consultant from 2004 to 2016, as well as with the Clinton administration where she worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison. Apparently, as Elizabeth Vaughn tells it, she hated Manafort for his role in getting President Yanukovych re-elected in 2010 as well as for doing work for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party. Here’s Vaughn writing at Red State:

In the spring of 2016, she worked feverishly to destroy Paul Manafort and to promote the theory that Trump was colluding with the Russians to win the presidency. Chalupa’s smear campaign involved journalists and diplomats as well as contacts inside the DNC.

Apparently Chalupa emailed a colleague at the DNC back in the summer of 2016 where she wrote:

they put me on the program specifically to speak about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff who I’ve been working with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in the next few weeks.

This provides a fascinating backlight to America’s intel community and its role in the Russia probe. And it may have been driven in large part by Ukrainian pro-Western activists and their sympathizers in DC. Because if the world was a little less crazy right now, maybe we’d realize that the old Berlin Wall now runs through Eastern Ukraine and just West of the Crimean Peninsula. Of course, it’s also true that Putin is no Brezhnev nor a Khrushchev, never mind Stalin. And Russia is a far cry from the Soviet Union. So we don’t focus on the conflict in the Ukraine the way we did for example during the Berlin Airlift in the late 40’s. Or when the wall went up at the start of the 60’s.

But to people like Alexandra Chalupa, and perhaps even people like James Clapper, Russian aggression against the Ukraine is almost the equivalent of the Soviet Invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia back in 1956 and 1968. And that made them willing to destroy Paul Manafort and attempt to discredit and even destroy Candidate Trump. And President Trump.

Elizabeth Vaughn will be blogging more on this at Red State. We should all pay attention and perhaps buy Bognino’s book. It adds a possible motivation to the Trump Resistance that hasn’t been directly talked about, beyond comments on his seemingly strange admiration for Putin. But this has more to do with the goal of a politically and culturally Western Ukraine.

And it has to do with a global, NATO-led and US-led world order. The kind that Bush 41 envisioned and worked quite skillfully to achieve as the Berlin Wall came down. And the kind that President Trump has little patience for.

No wonder they still want to destroy him in places like The Atlantic Council.

In the first few months or even weeks of the Trump administration there was a slight scandal about somebody’s comments regarding Kellyanne Conway and the article’s accompanying photograph showed Conway splendidly texting on her iPhone with a wry grin on her face while seated on a sofa of some sort in the White House. I remember looking at the photo and thinking:

Who’s she texting with?

Back in late January, Vanity Fair published a few choice excerpts from Team of Vipers by former aide Cliff Sims – a pollster like Conway and one who founded his own firm, just like Kellyanne as well – that laid into President Trump’s special counsellor and described how she was a double-faced survivor who trashed most of her colleagues to members of the press in private while professing loyalty to Trump in public. Here’s one of those excerpts:

Kellyanne was sitting at her desk texting away. Over the course of 20 minutes or so, she was having simultaneous conversations with no fewer than a half-dozen reporters, most of them from outlets the White House frequently trashed for publishing ‘fake news.’ Journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Politico, and Bloomberg were all popping up on the screen. And these weren’t policy conversations, or attempts to fend off attacks on the president. As I sat there trying to type, she bashed Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon, and Sean Spicer, all by name.

Conway, who according to Sims, did and said things that seemed poll-tested by a focus group that existed inside her mind, responded in kind:

The real leakers, past and present, get much more positive press than I do. While it’s rare, I prefer to knife people from the front, so they see it coming.

Was that statement in response to the Vanity Fair excerpts poll-tested in Conway’s mind? Was Sims’ book poll-tested in his own mind? And is saying that merely stating a truism in today’s political world, driven in large part by social media? Or is Conway truly untrustworthy and in fact a dangerously disruptive force in Trump’s White House? And if so, isn’t that kind of the way President Trump likes things?

Which brings us to good old George Conway, Kellyanne’s husband, a lawyer with lots of beltway experience who has been attacking his wife’s boss with a crazed gusto that makes one wonder what the hell is going on. Conway’s Twitter rants against Trump essentially claim President Trump is mentally unstable and presumably deserves the 25th. Although George Conway hasn’t quite spelled that out in such an explicit way but merely left large gooey drops of crapola to be connected by a hopefully disgusted public, in his view.

President Trump has ignored Conway’s attacks for the last couple of years, but he swung back a few days ago with this Tweet:

George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife’s success & angry that I, with her help, didn’t give him the job he so desperately wanted. I barely know him but just take a look, a stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!

The speculation around George Conway’s motives centers on an appointment to run the DOJ’s Civil Division that never came to fruition. And ever since, so the theory goes, George has been on a vengeful tear because of what he supposedly feels was denied him.

In a town like Washington D.C. this sort of thing is assuredly trite, given the ambitions and ruthlessness of many who inhabit the marshy lowlands near the Potomac. It’s even fairly trite in that it involves a power couple, one of whom ended up far more powerful than who had been presumably the more powerful member of the team. Again, a rather common thing in the beltway.

What’s different about this spat, of course, is that it’s being played out on Twitter and it involves the husband of a close counsellor to the president. And it makes one wonder if Kellyanne Conway shares her husband’s ruthless ambition even as she sits in the White House and is gladly leaking left, right, and center in order to undermine other members of the executive. Again, this happens in D.C. but not at the scale seen, especially early on, in Trump’s administration.

But President Trump seems to view Kellyanne Conway as an essential part of his team, especially because she often is the one who hits the media circuit to defend Trump’s policies in front of a hostile crowd, or to rationalize some of his impulses. Is she therefore willing to trash even Ivanka and Jared if she feels it will provide Trump with some breathing room? Or is she just knifing competitors in the back, despite her insistence that she only does full-frontal knifings?

Because if Trump decides she’s the latter – only out for herself – then her husband’s Tweets may cause the President to view Kellyanne Conway as too much of a liability. If Trump, however, sticks with her despite husband George’s rants, then we can assume that she is indeed a key, and trusted, member of the West Wing.

Either way, look for her to sign a yuge publishing deal for a tell-all when she does eventually leave.

He’s reportedly Australian, almost thirty. He wanted to show that gun control laws are absurd by legally buying 5 or more weapons that are not banned in New Zealand and slaughtering worshipers in their mosque on Friday prayers and therefore ensuring the 2nd amendment is overruled/banned or something. Thus, starting a race war in America which, in his crazed mind, would:

• Liberate the white race, and
• Crush America’s world dominance

How do you spot a fiendish madman before he commits an atrocity?

You have 3 main ways of responding to that impossible question:

• Somehow find a way to monitor and identify potential shooters, who may be sociopaths who are very adept at concealing who they really are and what they are planning to do. Or incur enormous costs by establishing monitoring forces, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter’s platforms, in order to monitor all of us and track our every move and every word typed into sites from 8chan to Facebook and therefore use AI to ensure not that we become a hi-tech paradise but rather that we stop killing each other, But what do you do when a killer livestreams on social media as apparently he did?

• Ban and then confiscate most (or all) weapons not in the hands of state-sanctioned security forces without detaining or actually having security forces shooting at millions of gun owners in the process, or

• Affirm that in a free world, it’s next to impossible to predict and identify mass shooters and therefore most people should be armed in order to minimize the effects of an attempted shooting.

All are sub-optimal choices to put it mildly.

Australia placed fairly severe limits on gun ownership in 1996 after the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The results, according to a study by Chapman, Alpers, Agho, and Jones were positive:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

Some other studies supposedly say the effect of the gun laws has been quite limited. New Zealand’s gun laws, on the other hand, seem to be focused on owners rather than types of weapons the way Australia’s gun laws are and instead rely on local police vetting. They didn’t vet Brenton Tarrant – the reported suspect – sufficiently but perhaps the fact that he was an Australian who was either living or visiting in New Zealand meant the shooter could slip through the cracks.

Beyond the fact it was a shooting this was a hate crime and it will raise the issue of islamophobia everywhere and will also be used to silence any criticism of Islam by some. It doesn’t matter. Right now, it’s more important than ever to find a way – or for each society to find a way – to put an end to mass shootings. However sub-optimal the choices appear right now.

It’s worth noting, for example, that in Australia their gun control laws seem to have overwhelming public support. But it’s also worth noting that Australia has less than 10% of America’s population while being an enormous country. So, whether Australia’s solution works elsewhere depends on where that else is.

New Zealand and America, and other nations, will each have to find their own way. Hopefully one that doesn’t invovle far more violence than the horrors unleashed in Christchurch.

I remember writing about the young girl in grade school who thought her parents were sleeping and was worried about getting to school and getting her homework in to the teacher on time. Her parents weren’t sleeping of course.

They were dead of an opioid overdose.

How do you deal with that? How do you try and prevent the opioid crisis that is killing tens of thousands of Americans every year?

It seems you DON’T do what the government has done over the past year or so. Especially the decisions that were taken by ex-AG Jeff Sessions who basically decided that the DEA would be the best qualified agency to ensure that a severe, chronic-pain sufferer’s dosages are adequate. Here’s why the former AG and the government in general have created unintended consequences as a result of their policy prescriptions for the opioid crisis.

They believed the myth that opioid abuse – the heart of the crisis – is essentially a case of patients abusing their pain medication.

It’s not. As Henry Miller and Josh Bloom write in their article in the Washington Examiner:

“True addiction in pain patients is rare. Many scholarly reviews have concluded that the addiction rate is less than one percent even in patients who have required long-term opioid medication for severe pain due to injury or illness. The current death toll from opioid use is largely the result of abuse, not medical use, of these drugs. And yet, as of last October, 33 states had instituted laws that restrict opioid prescribing in some way.”

And this misguided belief has led to true pain sufferers to be deprived of the medication that makes their lives bearable. As Miller and Bloom write:

“Enter the law of unintended consequences. Opioids, including fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone, some of our most important and potent analgesics, which are commonly used in patients with advanced cancer and for pain control after surgery, are now in shortage, according to the Food and Drug Administration. All of these drugs had their manufacturing quotas reduced by the feds
.
Thus, the feds’ actions have succeeded not in ameliorating the scourge of opioid abuse and overdoses, which results from drugs made in China and elsewhere abroad smuggled across our borders, but in unnecessarily causing several other problems. These include a shortage of critical drugs produced by legitimate manufacturers and expanding the market and boosting the street price for illegal, dangerous imports.”

The real problem is twofold:
• People who for a number of reasons are already substance abusers turning to illegally-made, smuggled opioids to get high, and often dying as a result.
• A flood of those illegally-produced and smuggled opioids entering America with China bearing much of the blame as well as both ports of entry in general and the southern border also being responsible for the crisis.

By having the DEA decide what the level of prescription opioids should be, the government is ignoring the complex nature of painkillers and how each individual patient reacts differently, not only based on weight and body mass index but also on other factors like their metabolism which affects how they absorb the painkiller. You can’t impose standardized dosages on patients. And because the DEA is effectively doing that, real pain sufferers are going without sufficient painkillers. Their lives are literally unbearable in many cases.

As Miller (a physician and molecular biologist) and Bloom (a PhD in organic chemistry) argue:

“The decades-long war on drugs, which has never succeeded in controlling abuse or addiction, has now mistakenly declared American drug companies and doctors to be the enemy. In the name of addressing a crisis, we are focusing on the wrong targets and sacrificing freedoms in a new, dangerous way. That’s a prescription for disaster.”

Yes Mr. ex-AG Sessions, there is a moral problem here that’s also a societal problem. Healthy, happy and reasonably fulfilled people don’t take opioids for the fun of it. They have a problem. But the blunt instruments you and the DEA put together don’t even target the real culprits (who are also the victims of this crisis of course). They go after honest patients trying to deal with unbearable pain and the doctors and pharmacists who help them – a few notorious over-prescribers excepted.

Sessions and the DEA mis-diagnosed the problem. But of course, they would. They’re lawyers, bureaucrats and cops. Not doctors. What do we call that?

Quacks, I seem to remember was the term.

As the House passes a resolution condemning a fought-over list of bigotries – including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and white supremacy – with reportedly 23 GOP members voting no because of the inclusion of Islamophobia and white supremacy in what was originally supposed to be a Democrat-controlled response to Representative Omar’s remarks, there is an interesting idea for a further resolution.

Supreme policy wonk Mark Jacobs (who has burrowed deep and wide into the details of healthcare policy for the GOP) suggests in The Federalist that the GOP use a Motion to Recommit (a procedure whereby the minority in the House gets a final shot at amending a bill brought forward by the majority) to force a vote on the Green New Deal. This would be the flipside of the tactic used last week when the GOP used a motion to recommit to get moderate Democrats to agree to notify immigration authorities when illegals try to purchase guns. Supposedly we all want less guns because they say that means less violence, right? What’s not to like about that?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blew a gasket at a closed-door meeting, according to the Washington Post:

Ocasio-Cortez, the unquestioned media superstar of the freshman class, upped the ante, admonishing the moderates and indicating she would help liberal activists unseat them in the 2020 election. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, said she told her colleagues that Democrats who side with Republicans ‘are putting themselves on a list.’

‘She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,’ Trent said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

So now by using a Motion to Recommit which entails a vote on the Green New Deal the GOP would be appealing to radical progressives in the Democratic Party to vote for the enormously expensive and poorly thought-out plan, and force moderate Dems to decide if they would really vote for this sort of top-down ecological Maoism.

Yes, it’s theatrics and it’s meant to prod and provoke and reveal the divisions within the Democratic Party. But the fascinating question is, how would AOC react? I have an idea it might go something like this:

If you think I’m letting a bunch of old white guys get to decide when and how we save America by banning the internal combustion engine and slaughtering farting cows and selling Amtrak to the Chinese so they can build high-speed trains where our highways once stood, you have no idea who you’re dealing with! This resolution is immoral because of who you guys are. Not because of what it contains! Don’t you guys get it?

That’s the thing about intersectionality. Hypocrisy disappears because it is now irrelevant. You see you can change an idea, or a policy stance perhaps based on evidence that has convinced you to shift your position. Or on the polls and the fact that now your party has the majority. But changing who you are is much harder (and more expensive) to do. And we the identity police will decide who you are. Not you. You don’t even have control of who you are. We do. Ha. Ha.

So, as delicious as Mark Jacob’s idea is, it won’t work. The Democrats who would actually have the decency to be uncomfortable with the blatant hypocrisy of not voting for a Motion to Recommit on the Green New Deal (which will supposedly save us from destruction) are now cowed into silence. It will be AOC and her Gang of Three who will explain why hypocrisy is gone, dead, vanished, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible.

When identity is everything, then hypocrisy is nothing.

Of course, AOC would vote against such a Motion to Recommit without a trace of guilt or discomfort. She’d in fact do it in a bout of righteous rage. It’s all about who she is and the crazed paradises she’s pointing towards, not what she says or how to get there.

It has been suggested that the Speaker of the House is not Nancy Pelosi, it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And if you could measure the role of Speaker by the amount of words unleashed while actually speaking (or tweeting to be a little more accurate), then it ain’t even close. AOC is House Speaker, threatening moderate Democrats with primary opponents if they ever vote for a GOP measure or add-on to a bill, tweeting furiously and unapologetically and gathering up her cohorts Tlaib and Omar in a sort of Gang of Three who are absolutely and completely and self-righteously sure of the supreme truths of their radicalism.

And it’s working for AOC.

Look at the recent flap over Omar and her supposed tropes about Benjamins (that would be the smiling face of Franklin surrounded by the number 100 on a crisp green surface) and dual allegiances. They were going to have a House vote to condemn anti-Semitism and by extension Omar’s words on the matter, which are not figurative but quite literal in intention and effect.

What did Nancy do?
• Say that she didn’t think the comments were: intentionally anti-Semitic, AND
• Express her doubt that a vote on the resolution to condemn anti-Semitism would actually take place

Here’s what AOC did.

Equate ICE with racism with a tweet that said: If we’re so concerned about implied tropes, why aren’t we concerned about this one? Where was the concern last week when 26 Dems voted for a GOP amendment to expand ICE powers rooted in the racist + false trope that Latino immigrants are more dangerous than US born citizens?

Then she aimed her bazooka at white people in general: When you don’t address them as a system and attempt to pick them apart as though they are distinct and separable issues, eventually the thing that gets advanced is white supremacy + classism.

Come on Nancy, when are you going to get control of these kids? They’re leaving you in the dust of delayed resolutions and broad-tent coalitions that used to bend to your will. Not anymore it seems. When AOC, Omar, and Tlaib (AO²C + T?) go out on a limb and saw it off they don’t worry about what’s below, unlike your own rather timid soul.

You have been exposed Nancy. You are not the sweet assassin like your daughter claims you are. You’re an older (I’m being old-fashioned and polite here) out-of-touch leader who’s desperately trying to figure out how to contain the rabid base that so loves AO²C + T without driving moderates into the GOP camp.

Not an easy task with honorary Gang-of-Three’er Linda Sarsour calling you a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men.

Maybe you should consult the Southern Poverty Law Center for some advice. Because it will take a miracle to get AO²C + T to shut up for just long enough to convince voters in rural Pennsylvania or Ohio or moderates anywhere that you still value their views, so you might as well join them, right?

Maybe Pelosi is an assassin and will exact revenge on them. Or maybe Pelosi is becoming like President Paul von Hindenburg outmaneuvered by the Gang of Three’s furious and radical oratory, seeing that Nazi analogies are so useful to the left nowadays, and is about to effectively concede the rule of her party to that radical fringe.

If she hasn’t already.