Month: April 2025

Even though I have not done this before, I felt that doing a piece on “Audrey’s Children” was appropriate for a Sunday. “Audrey’s Children” is a bioptic about British-born chief of pediatric oncology, Dr. Audrey Evans, who recently passed in 2022, at the age of 97.

From Epoch Bright:
In 1969, Dr. Evans joins the world-renowned Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, pioneering treatment for neuroblastoma. This is a lethal form of cancer that killed 90 percent of patients, many of whom were young children, before her revolutionary treatment advancements.
Dr. Evans was also one of the founders of the Ronald McDonald House, the mission of which is to support and provide housing and resources for families while their sick child receives treatment.

Dr. Evans accomplished an incredible amount during her lifetime, and “Audrey’s Children” attempts to cover all areas.
“Audrey’s Children” attempts to cram in all of Dr. Evans’s formidable achievements like Santa packing presents for a three-generational New England clan on Christmas Eve. There’s her research, conducted old school, in basements, on scribbled index cards taped to cinder-block walls. There’s her wonderful bedside manner with her young patients. There’s the fact that she’s the pediatric oncology version of the Unsinkable Molly Brown—she displays tireless passion and tremendous, discerning intelligence.

While not a stellar biopic, “Audrey’s Children” is sure to inspire good deeds in medical profession aspirants and is definitely worth a watch for everyone.
4/6/25

I just came upon something that suggests that the FBI is diverting resources to where they are needed most. So instead of hassling silent abortion protestors and those who spoke up at school board meetings, the FBI will now shift focus where the unsolved crimes are.
From Elkhorn Media Group:
The U.S. Justice Department announced yesterday it will “surge FBI assets across the country to address unresolved violent crimes in Indian Country, including crimes relating to missing and murdered indigenous persons.”
The FBI will send 60 assets, rotating in 90-day temporary assignments over a six month period for Operation Not Forgotten. In addition to Portland and Seattle, the assets will be deployed to field offices in Albuquerque, Denver, Mississippi, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City. They will partner with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal law enforcement agencies across those jurisdictions.

At the beginning of the fiscal year 2025, the FBI’s Indian Country program had approximately 4,300 open investigations including over 900 death investigations, 1,000 child abuse investigations, and more than 500 domestic violence and adult sexual abuse investigations.

We are all familiar with the saying: “Robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is,” and so it makes sense to send the FBI to places where the unsolved crimes are, and thus Operation Not Forgotten.
4/5/25

We are all probably aware that the prior administration believed in open borders … but that’s not all! We were not aware of the extent to which the prior administration was doing way more than just letting supposed refugees into the U.S.
The following is from a whistle-blower who lets us know what was really happening with the refugee resettlement program.
Initially these “refugees” were given Social Security Numbers. But that’s not all!
Next these “refugees” were interviewed to see if they perhaps had any hint of chronic medical problems. No exam. No documentation. If these “refugees” stated that they did have some chronic health issue, then they could qualify for long term social security disability, which would almost guarantee benefits for life.
But that’s not all!
The next unbelievable step in the process was to process them for a U.S. passport.
But that’s not all!
If these states to which these “refugees” were sent objected to taking any more, then they could federal government then bypassed these states such that they were then subsequently totally out of the loop, and other “charitable” organizations, such as Catholic charities were put in charge.

Even though I was shocked when I read about these unbelievable above noted tactics, my guess is “that’s not all!”
4/4/25

How many times have I disagreed with the present Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson? The answer is very few, but I do disagree with his stance on the so-called “Luna amendment.”
For those not aware of what I am referring to …
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduces a bill to allow new mothers in Congress to vote, arguing it’s discriminatory to prevent them from representing their constituents.

Speaker Johnson was opposed to this and was po-ed when eight Republicans sided with Rep Luna. To my way of thinking this was a boneheaded stance by Speaker Johnson.
First off, it appears sexist to the casual observer as only females can have babies.
Second, those pregnant soon to be mothers who are also Reps obviously did not get an abortion. Why punish them for carrying their fetus to term?
Third, in the future it could be that the House will be equally divided and by not allowing new mothers to vote by proxy, it would encourage a female Rep on either side to have an abortion rather than having her party lose by one vote. Come on Speaker Johnson, think about it!
Lastly … and I have no inside info on whether or not Rep. Luna is considering having another child. She presently has one child and at only thirty-five years old, could she be considering having another? Certainly, Speaker Johnson should have thought about this possibility as Anna Paula Luna is a sure Republican vote and is 100% behind President Trump.
4/3/25

When is it okay for district judges to issue universal injunctions?
I am not a lawyer, but to me the answer would be found in the Constitution or from rulings by the Supreme Court.
Senator John Kennedy (R, Louisiana)is one of my favorites and on 3/31/25 while questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.

From PJ Media:
Kennedy asked, “What’s the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?”
“I’m not aware of a statutory basis, Senator,” Shumate admitted.
“There is no statutory basis, is there?” Kennedy reiterated.
“No, Senator,” Shumate confirmed.

Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.
“Can you name me that case?” he asked.
“I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate responded.
“There isn’t one, is there?” Kennedy pressed.
“I’m not aware of one, Senator,” Shumate repeated.

Kennedy then laid out the fundamental issue: “You have a plaintiff and a defendant, and the plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal court. The judge has jurisdiction over those parties. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else outside of that courtroom?”
“Uh, it shouldn’t be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time,” Shumate admitted.

“I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren’t in court, you had to file a class action,” Kennedy countered.
“That’s correct, Senator,” Shumate agreed.
Kennedy pointed out that instead of filing class-action suits, plaintiffs often seek universal injunctions, which have no legal foundation. 

“The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not?” Kennedy asked.
“Yes,” Shumate affirmed.
In his closing remarks, Kennedy highlighted the constitutional issue at hand: “Tell me the basis for universal injunction in Article III. Where does it mention universal injunction?”
“It does not, Senator,” Shumate said. “It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case.”
Kennedy concluded, “So Congress could act and say, ‘Look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant, but you can’t impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action.’ That’s why God created class actions, isn’t it?”
“Yes, Senator,” Shumate agreed.

So there it is! All laid out quite nicely by Senator Kennedy.
Universal injunctions have no statutory basis, no affirmation by the Supreme Court, and have been used as a weapon against President Trump with no apparent legal basis.
Why is the Supreme Court sitting on their hands?
4/2/25

The following certainly seems to be a pattern. First in San Francisco and now in Seattle.
From Hot Air:
“Progressive educators attack tracking and advanced math courses on the grounds that equity demands everyone be in the same classroom. Somehow this was supposed to improve things for the mostly black and Hispanic students who were falling behind without doing any harm to the mostly white and Asian kids who had previously been in the advanced classes.

Eventually, San Francisco figured out that it didn’t work. Apart from making life much harder for the advanced kids, some of whom had to take a year of math in summer school to keep up with their college-bound peers in other cities, getting rid of Middle School algebra did nothing for the students on the other end of the achievement gap. The city eventually reversed course once the failure of de-tracking became undeniable.

In Seattle many parents were not happy when certain classes were cancelled in the guise of DEI.
After some back and forth, the district’s chief of equity, partnerships, and engagement, Keisha Scarlett wrote, ‘I also fundamentally believe that we don’t advance racial equity as a measure toward racial and education justice through a focus on increasing access and inclusion. These are band-aids to camouflage institutional racism.’”

First of all what is a “chief of equity, partnerships, and engagement” other than a poppycock spewer?
Anyone with a frontal lobe could explain to Keisha Scarlett that this would not work. The lower end students would not benefit, and many of the higher end students would transfer to private schools that offered the advanced classes that are necessary to compete for college admissions.

Again from Hot Air:
“All of this was predictable and was in fact predicted by parents who warned the school system in advance that it was a bad idea to tear down the current system without coming up with a solid replacement and putting that in place first. The city didn’t listen (just as it didn’t when it jumped on the “defund the police” bandwagon” in 2020).
Finally, it seems the city is coming around but only after losing a bunch of its best students and taking advanced classes away from many more. This was always a terrible idea. The fact that DEI made it seem not just positive but necessary should be cause for some much needed reflection on the value of DEI in education.”
4/1/25