Tag Archives: politics

More Press Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

The notoriously strongly Leftist, and commensurately biased, news outlet The Associated Press now is promising to instigate what it’s pleased to call a nonpartisan news initiative and to have it up and running before the coming national elections. The opening paragraph in the news outlet’s announcement:

The Associated Press today announced five new content sharing agreements with US nonprofit news outlets: CalMatters, Honolulu Civil Beat, Montana Free Press, Nebraska Journalism Trust, and South Dakota News Watch.

Never mind that these five outlets are themselves solidly on the left side—some farther left, some less so—of our nation’s political spectrum. Here are a couple items of interest concerning the balance we can expect from the AP‘s construct. These two new partners are openly proud of their bias.

The CEO and Publisher of Honolulu Civil Beat is Pierre Omidyar who made billions as one of the creators of eBay. Omidyar donated considerable funds to create The Intercept, and in 2016 personally donated “$100,000 to NeverTrump PAC, a political action committee dedicated to making sure New York businessman Donald Trump never becomes president of the United States,” according to Honolulu Civil Beat.

And

CalMatters is a nonprofit news organization that was cofounded by Austin resident Simone Coxe who personally donated $100,000 to a pro-Joe Biden super PAC back in 2020, according to a report from The Washington Free Beacon. Coxe and her husband Tench collectively donated $2 million to Beto O’Rourke’s 2022 presidential campaign, the Texas Tribune reported.

We’re supposed to take this new construct as balanced.

Whether the AP is making this claim of “nonpartisan-ness” deliberately or from its having gone so far Left it no longer can recognize the center of American politics, much less what’s center-right in our political spectrum, this is the news outlet gaslighting us all.

Continued Betrayal

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has decided to allow Ukraine to use artillery and to fire range-limited HIMARS rockets (but not the long-range HIMARS rockets) against command posts, arms depots, and other assets on Russian territory that are being used by Russian forces to carry out its attack on Kharkiv in northeastern Ukraine.

Oh, the magnanimity.

But nowhere else. Not in the east, in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts which also border on Russia, opposite which in Russian territory, there also exist command posts, arms depots, and other assets preparing to attack, or actually attacking. Not against the Kerch Bridge which connects Russia with occupied Crime and allows reinforcement and resupply of the barbarians operating in Crimea, in Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts, and in Donetsk Oblast through Zaporizhia. Most especially not in Kyiv Oblast where Russian assets exist in Belorussia, in preparation for a renewed invasion from the north.

Instead, Biden continues to require Ukraine’s soldiers to only shoot back. Biden still is trying to deny Ukraine the ability to preemptively fire against shooters preparing to shoot, or shooters gathering in preparation to prepare to [sic] shoot.

Other targets in Russian (and Belorussian) territory that Biden will not allow American-supplied weapons to be used against: road and rail links connecting those Russian ammunition and fuel dumps; food and water accumulations; and soldiers, armor, and artillery being massed in staging areas, all of which then will move to enter Ukraine.

Biden’s rationalization for this:

The narrow geographic scope represents an effort by the Biden administration to help Ukraine better defend against Russia’s continuing offensive while limiting the risk that the conflict in Ukraine could escalate into a direct clash between Washington and Moscow.

“Better defend,” not seize the initiative and win.

Biden isn’t interested in an actual Ukrainian victory over the barbarian. He isn’t interested in Ukraine actually being able to preempt the forces enroute to joining Putin’s offensive, either in the Kharkiv Oblast or the coming ones into Donetsk and Luhansk, or the one currently being set up in Belorussia into Kyiv Oblast. No, Biden still is requiring Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back; he’s only untied the little finger.

Biden still is kowtowing to Putin and his threats, or he’s still siding with Putin in the barbarian invasion of Ukraine.

The Trump Conviction

Posted on by
1

Manhattan Prosecutor Alvin Bragg campaigned on his explicit promise to get former President Donald Trump (R), not to uphold the law generally. His campaign was to target the man and then find a crime. He did list, though, a broad number of violent crimes that he would not prosecute at all. Now Bragg has gotten his 34 counts of guilty on a case that wouldn’t have been a felony case at all but for his claim that the 34 counts on which Trump was tried were done to cover up another crime.

Here’s what the 6th Amendment to our Constitution says on criminal trials:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor….

Here are some tidbits regarding that trial. It’s not an exhaustive list, just a few of the larger, more obvious ones.

Trump’s team was denied by the presiding judge the opportunity to call all of the witnesses they wished to call, including an expert witness who could have explained to the jury the election law that Bragg’s team made a key part of its case. The judge reserved that explanation for himself, and he testified as an expert in the guise of his jury instructions after both sides had rested their cases.

Trump’s team—and Trump himself—were never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation bringing him to trial. At no time did Bragg’s team say what the covered-up crime was, not in the indictment, not in the charge sheet initiating the trial, not at any time during the trial. Not even the jury’s sheet on which they were to mark their Guilty or Not Guilty verdict for each count indicates what that other crime was.

In the judge’s jury instruction, the judge identified three potential covered-up crimes—not the prosecutor, the judge—that the jury could find was the covered up crime that made the 34 actually charged counts crimes of which they could convict Trump. The judge’s instruction further said the jury did not have to be unanimous in its selection of that covered up crime: they could pick and choose among the list, and so long as one juror chose one (or more) from the list, that would be sufficient to convict.

As far back as 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in Thompson v Utah that

a defendant enjoys a “constitutional right to demand that his liberty should not be taken from him except by the joint action of the court and the unanimous verdict of a jury of twelve persons.”

The Court’s 1940 ruling in Andres v United States expanded on that:

Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues—character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment—which are left to the jury.

Trump was denied that unanimity.

But this wasn’t a political hit job. Not at all.

School Choice, Public Schools

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Wednesday Letters section is opposed to Educational Savings Accounts that Texas parents could use to send their children to private schools.

School choice in Texas will benefit no one except those who already pay for private school. Moving to public funding of private schools will also tend to resegregate society. Our state-level elected officials are doing the bidding of billionaires in- and out-of-state who have other agendas than excellence in our public schools.

School choice will greatly benefit the children, especially those in families on Texas’ lower economic rungs, by letting them escape from failing public schools. Nor is it an either-or choice; the one leads to improvements in the other. School choice, from that competition, will greatly benefit those children remaining in public schools.

That success, far from increasing segregation, will contribute to decreasing it. The majority of those kids on the lower rung are from minority families. Being increasing their ability to compete academically, they’ll be better able to compete for jobs, and for promotions once employed, as adults. That more even competition is the stuff of desegregation.

The idea that no one but a few billionaires will benefit is just so much irrational hype.

He concluded with:

Let’s put public funding of private schools to a statewide vote.

We just did. In the Republican primaries and the runoffs in some of those primaries, public funding won very widespread support. We will again soon: school choice will be on the ballot again this November. Those State-level elected officials, elected in the primaries and will be elected in the general election, having campaigned on the matter, are much more likely to do the bidding of those who hired and will hire them—their constituents—than were Texas to maintain the status quo with its politicians in November.

Gerrymandering

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court a few days ago ruled 6-3 that a US House districting map in South Carolina was not an illegal racial gerrymander but was an entirely legitimate political gerrymander and so beyond the reach of courts to intervene in. Political gerrymanders are entirely political matters and the sole province of a State’s legislature, the Court held.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent,

This Court has prohibited race-based gerrymanders for a reason. They divide citizens on racial lines to engineer the results of elections.

I suggest that Kagan has, by mistake, hit upon the larger problem that any gerrymandering creates. Political gerrymandering divides citizens on political lines explicitly to engineer the results of elections. How is that any more acceptable?

The idea of barring racial gerrymanders is to prevent the exclusion of racial minorities in a district from electing government representatives who will represent them.

Yet political gerrymanders, which set districts along purely political party lines, are a legitimate means of excluding political minorities, even major parties in a State’s legislative minority, in a district from electing government representatives who will represent those parties’ members.

How is that in any way different from racial gerrymanders? The group that’s in power is allowed, through gerrymandering, to perpetuate its power by permanently reducing the power of those not in power.

Better to draw House districts—or at least US House districts—as rectangles of substantially equal populations, without regard to race or politics.

The first article of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution includes this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….

Article I, Section 4, of our Constitution is this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Congress has some (not absolute) authority over the States’ political decisions regarding the Regulations for holding elections, and that would seem to include districting rules.

Finally, surely among the privileges of an American citizen is the privilege—the right—to vote. Every voter should be on an equal footing with every other voter rather than some voters, by dint of their inclusion in a particular race or political bent, having political advantage over other voters. Disadvantaged voters most assuredly are seeing their voting privilege abridged.

In fine, either all American citizens are equal under law, or we are not.