Constitutionally Mandated Federal Funding

House Progressive-Democrats have unveiled their “police reform” bill, a proposal crafted explicitly without Republican input. That last is neither here nor there for this post’s purpose. What matters is this claim in Eliza Collins’ Wall Street Journal article describing that bill and its alleged purpose:

The bill doesn’t provide any new federal funds for police departments, except where constitutionally mandated for data collection, according to Democratic aides.

This is an amazing claim. Maybe those Progressive-Democratic aides—or even Reporter Collins—would like to point to that clause in our Constitution that mandates Federal funds to police departments for any purpose, let alone “data collection.”

Censoring the Media

The censors have expanded their operation from the Facebooks, Alphabets, Twitters of our nation to our newsroom simulacra. Daniel Henninger noted the latest examples of the invasion:

In the past week, the editorial page editor of the New York Times, the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the editors of Bon Appétit magazine and the young women’s website Refinery 29 have been forced out by the staff and owners of their publications for offenses regarded as at odds with the beliefs of the current protests.

It’s more than mere censorship, though. It’s George Orwell and Franz Kafka in the press room collaborating on the press’ editorials.

The…news…outlets and the society gossip magazines cited by Henninger are canonical examples.

Henninger, though, is mistaken in one respect. These editors may have been forced out by the institutions’ owners, but staff played virtually no role—it was those editors’ abject cowardice in the face of opprobrium from their subordinates that assumed that character’s place in the tragedy.

A Misunderstanding

In an article centered on reports that President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw 9,500 troops from Germany—relocating at least some of them to Poland—Bernd Riegert had the following:

[T]he US personnel [to be removed from Germany] essentially work within the framework of NATO for the Pentagon’s European and Africa Commands. They operate the Ramstein airbase, a military hospital and a military training facility. They are important pillars of NATO infrastructure, but they do not, strictly speaking, contribute much to Germany’s national defense.

Wow.

At least some of those reassigned soldiers would be sent to Poland. Shoring up Polish defenses, militarily and politically (as that reallocation also would signal), against Russian aggressions doesn’t contribute to Germany’s defense? Again, wow.

If the troops allegedly to be removed work in important pillars of NATO infrastructure, but they’re not supporting Germany’s national defense, if those important pillars—Ramstein AB, European Command, Africa Command, training, hospitals—don’t contribute to Germany’s national defense, then in what way does NATO contribute to Germany’s national defense?

It’s already clear that Germany has chosen to not fulfill its obligations to NATO and therewith to not support the (mutual) defense of the other member nations. If Germany does not believe that NATO contributes to Germany’s defense, then what’s the point of any NATO forces in Germany?

So Much for a Free Press

The editors of The Wall Street Journal call it simply a milestone in the march of identity politics and cancel culture. It’s much worse than that. It marks the beginning of the end of a free press in our nation.

The long-time editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer…was pushed out over a headline, Buildings Matter, Too. … Staff members deemed the headline an offense to Black Lives Matter.

And

At the New York Times, editorial page editor James Bennet resigned Sunday after a staff uproar over an op-ed by a US Senator [and his deputy, James Dao, reassigned]. … A staff revolt deemed the piece fascist, unconstitutional, and too offensive for adults to read and decide for themselves.

There is only one correct viewpoint, and that’s all that’s fit to publish. There are not two sides to every issue; some have only one, and that one is the only one that’s fit to allow into the public square.

Irredeemable, Deplorable

That’s not the Progressive-Democrat Hillary Clinton. This time it’s the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Do we really think this is as good as we can be as a nation? I don’t think the vast majority of people think that. There are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there who are just not very good people, but that’s not who we are.

Ten to fifteen per cent of us Americans just aren’t very good. Between thirty-three million and fifty million of us Americans are just beneath contempt.

Biden’s contempt for Americans generally is an expansion of his contempt for, his outright bigotry toward, black Americans, which he exposed when he said to a black interviewer,

I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black[.]

This is the second Party campaign in a row where the Progressive-Democrats demonstrate such utter contempt for Americans.

This is the Party that wants to rule over the United States.

What kind of government can we expect from a ruling organization that so hates the subjects over whom it would rule?