Category Archives: culture

Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz, self-appointed “news media” critic and supporter of the NLMSM as gateway to what we’re permitted to know of the doings in the world, is at it again. This time it’s his piece on Attorney General William Barr’s alleged musings about resigning as AG.

Kurtz opened his piece by doing what today’s journalists do: repeating others’ rumors.

As the Washington Post reported, and others have confirmed, William Barr “has told people close to President Trump—both inside and outside the White House—that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations”—that’s according to three administration officials.

Both WaPo and Kurtz only have deliberately unnamed sources for these claims, so we can’t even know whether they exist, much less assess the accuracy of their claims or their motives in making them if they do exist.

There’s more along another axis.

…just as the president is declaring himself the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer….”

Kurtz presented this as though the declaration surprised him. Does he really not understand the position?  Here’s what Article II, Section 3, of our Constitution says:

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….

“He” meaning the President of the United States, that office and officer being the subject of Art II. Does Kurtz really not understand the meaning of that clause? Surely his intern explained it to him when he did Kurtz’ research for this piece. Surely, that intern also explained to Kurtz that the AG is the chief prosecutor, not the chief law enforcement officer.

Indeed, neither the office of Attorney General or the officer exist in our Constitution; these are statutory creations of Congress. The Department of Justice didn’t exist at all for 100 years after our nation’s birth. Surely, that intern explained….

It gets…better:

The press gives him [Trump] plenty of voice, of course, but it’s not unfiltered.

There’s that arrogant, self-important gateway bit again. Which is a major part of why Trump is on social media as much as he is—the media “filters” what he says and does before reporting to us and before opining to us.

Kurtz closed his piece with this:

But those [prior Presidents’ pardons and commutations] were largely treated as isolated incidents, while the press is linking the Trump pardons to a wholesale assault on the criminal justice system.

There’s that filter in action, again.

Party Control

Posted on by
Reply

James Freeman, of The Wall Street Journal worries.

Here’s hoping both reporters and rivals will focus more on the math behind the Sanders proposals—as well as his failed ideology—before allowing him to seize control of a major US political party.

I have no problem with Sanders taking control of that party. After all, the Progressive-Democratic Party is the Party of Herb Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton [sic]. Sanders’ control would be a natural progression and make the situation very clear.

Listen to Those Who’ve Been There

Posted on by
Reply

Escapees—those whom some call defectors—from northern Korea are starting to take an active role in Republic of Korea politics.

…former North Koreans are throwing their hats into the ring to push South Korea to take a harder stand against the latest Kim to rule the North, Kim Jong Un. Among them is a one-time North Korean diplomat, Thae Yong-ho, who is running with Mr. Ji [Seong-ho] for South Korea’s conservative opposition party.

In particular,

Mr Ji will now campaign across South Korea, laying out his objections to the Moon administration, which he says has made too many concessions to North Korea and doesn’t take a strong enough stand on the Kim regime’s human rights abuses.

The rest should listen to those who’ve been there, suffered that, know first-hand what it is that sits just north of the DMZ.

Party Influence

Posted on by
Reply

There is growing concern among some, particularly among the elites and party elders, that our political parties are losing too much power and authority over candidate selection.

[The ascents of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and President Donald Trump (R)] are the latest sign that the nation’s political parties have lost influence in choosing their own presidential nominees….

Tom Rath, ex-Republican National Committee delegate, worried about this:

We’re organized around individual candidates and individual concerns. No one wants to be bothered with the party.

Joe Trippi, ex-Progressive-Democrat strategist and current CNN pundit, also expressed angst:

The parties are powerless right now and have been for a while. With both parties it’s personality- and candidate-driven, not party-driven.

And this:

Several current and former members of the Democratic National Committee said a party that once elevated Governors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to the White House should have found a way to place governors, who have proven electoral records, on the debate stage more often.

Because Party Know Betters should determine voter choices, not the voters. (I’ll elide questions about why a party that once elevated Senators to the White House switched to governors. I’ll also leave aside the Know Betters’ wisdom in choosing Carter.)

And this, from Elaine Kamarck, herself a long-time Democratic National Committee Know Better (as paraphrased by the WSJ):

DNC Chairman Tom Perez should have acted “by decree” to give more visibility to elected leaders such as Mr Bullock or former Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado…. At the same time…Mr Perez had little choice but to adopt neutral qualifying criteria, because “party leaders are no longer expected to have a role in choosing the nominee.”

Wow. Just—wow. The party that claims to be all about democracy and “what people want” should act from diktat.

We can debate the wisdom of personality-driven. However, it’s clear that in order to be personality-driven, or candidate-driven, the process also has to be voter-driven. The nominees, after all, are ours, not the parties’.

And that’s all to the good. Our Constitution, after all, opens with We the People, not Our Parties.

The noise of freedom is growing louder and democracy is growing stronger for it—especially republican democracy.

Somewhat of an aside:

Self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and President Trump rose in politics by developing strong personal brands, while keeping only tenuous ties to—and frequently criticizing the leaders of—the parties they later sought to lead.

I’m not sure of the inconsistency here. What would we expect them to do—say, “These guys are doing a terrific job. Put me in charge instead.”

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.