Tag Archives: culture

Charging Assange

Posted on by
Reply

Julian Assange, of Manning and Wikileaks infamy, has been indicted on violations of the Espionage Act in addition to the existing charges pending against him.

Naturally, the NLMSM is in an uproar over this putative attack on a free press.

…reignited debate over whether pursuing Mr. Assange for publishing classified information could lead to other cases against journalists who receive government secrets.

There are a couple of things on the NLMSM’s artificial dudgeon, though.  One is that a free press also has to be a responsible press—which includes respect for the law and acceptance of the consequences where the press engages in civil disobedience.  We’re all big boys and girls, though, the press’ and the Left’s contempt for us notwithstanding.  We’re fully capable of recognizing irresponsibility when we see it and disdaining pseudo-journalism when it’s presented.

The larger thing, though, is the role of law in our nation.  We’re either a nation of laws, or we are not.  We’re all equal under law, or some of us get special treatment—descending us into rule by law instead of rule of law.

The laws regarding receiving stolen goods are quite clear: that’s a crime, and the recipient(s) on conviction go to jail.  Except when it’s a journalist who receives the stolen property.  See, for instance, the news outlet that received and published the stolen Ellsberg papers, along with the hue and cry over holding Julian Assange—who’s not even a journalist, for all that he pretends to be—to the consequences from his having received the documents Manning had stolen and sent to him.

A free press requires journalists be allowed to break the same laws the rest of us must obey?  What’s the value of a press that cannot be trusted, that demonstrates its lawlessness by freely receiving stolen goods and profiting from the receipt by publishing the stolen material?

Here’s an alternative—a bare minimum of movement of the NLMSM back within the reach of the same laws the rest of us must obey.

Upon receipt of the stolen material, the news outlet and the receiving journalist must immediately return the originals of the material to the robbed entity and identify to law enforcement the person(s) and/or entity from which the material was received.  Upon return, the news outlet would be free to publish based on its copies of the stolen material.

Should the journalist or news outlet refuse, the journalist (or the news outlet’s chief editor, if the receiving journalist cannot be clearly identified) should be jailed until the originals are returned and the delivering person/entity identified.

Of course, overriding the above is whether the stolen material is classified (the Manning theft, for instance).  In this instance, the material and the receiving news outlet and its personnel would be subject to laws pertaining to (mis)handling classified material.

Yewbetcha

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Clarence Thomas, on the matter of judicial precedent, as quoted by Myron Magnet in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” Justice Thomas observes in [Franchise Tax Board v] Hyatt. He has said elsewhere: “I think that the Constitution itself, the written document, is the ultimate stare decisis.”

What he said.

An Ill-Informed Candidate

Posted on by
2

On Fox News‘ Claremont, New Hampshire town hall with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg Sunday, Buttigieg had this to say about abolishing our Electoral College.

“States don’t vote, people vote.  …if we’re going to call ourselves a democracy,” the US should move to a popular vote system.

When the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked further about that, particularly comparing the voice of small States like New Hampshire with large States like California, Buttigieg gave an unresponsive answer about how New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed by abolishing the Electoral College because New Hampshire is one of the first-to-vote-in-primaries States.

There are so many things wrong with Buttigieg’s remarks; here are a couple biggies.

We don’t call ourselves a democracy.  We don’t call ourselves that because we are not a democracy; we are a republican democracy consisting of a federation of States.  As a republican democracy, States do, indeed, vote, doing so alongside citizens (not just “people”), and that’s by design.  The Great Compromise in the final agreement on our Constitution was the creation of the Senate as a separate house in our Congress, which body would give equal representation to the States as States—the two Senators per State structure.

This was intended to produce a number of outcomes.  Two of these were a guarantee that our nation’s member States all would be on an equal level among each other within our central, federal government; large population States would not dominate small population States.  Thus, we would not be a popular democracy with its inevitable devolution through a tyranny of a majority into mob rule.  We would, instead, be a republican democracy with greater protections for and balance of the rights of the minority along with the rights of the majority.

Associated with that is the Electoral College, which functionally extends the protection of small States from domination by large States to the election of our President and Vice President.  States are allocated a number of Electors equaling the sum of the number of Representatives a State has, which is based on that State’s population, and its two Senators.  Thus, States vote as States for these candidates alongside the citizens, with the citizens represented, in addition to their individual votes, a second time, indirectly through their State’s Electors.

Within that, Buttigieg’s facile answer that New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed because it’s an early primary voter ignored similarly small States like New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and others—none of whom are early voters.  Rather, his answer was (how to put this delicately) dismayingly ignorant.

Anyone who paid attention in eight grade Civics knows all of this.  A man so ignorant of the structure of our republican democracy and the reasons for that structure simply is unqualified for the office of President.

The Supremes, Liberals, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications.  The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits.  I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.

Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.

[L]iberal Justices warn that conservatives by overturning Hall will “encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases.”

This actually is an unqualified Good. Error should be corrected whenever it’s discovered.

That Liberal wing bellyached further:

It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question[.]

This makes no sense, though. It took only five members of the prior Court to make the mistake in the first place, for all that other members might have agreed with it.

And the NLMSM weighed in, showing the Liberal wing’s worries about abortion.

“Clarence Thomas Just Showed How Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v Wade,” declared one columnist. [Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast]

This, though, is just another bit of Liberal disingenuosity. Roe is technologically-based. The circumstances under which States are permitted to regulate abortion to the extent of banning them are based on viability of the baby, which the Roe Court suggested began around the third trimester. Modern medical technology makes babies viable much earlier, and so abortions can be restricted much earlier—wholly within Roe.

Though I wouldn’t mind the question coming to court so that the technological aspect can be better emphasized.

A Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Je Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia Saturday at his first official rally.

I have some comments on excerpts from his speech—excerpts because he repeated a few themes time after time after time for 30 minutes.

Instead of debating our opponents, we demonize them.  Instead of questioning judgments, we question their motives.  Instead of listening, we shout.  Instead of looking for solutions, we look to score political points.  …  This politics is pulling us apart, ripping this country apart at the seams.  Our politics today traffic in division, and our President is the Divider in Chief.

This is textbook projection; it’s almost like he was looking in a mirror.  It’s been, after all, Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM who’ve smeared Tea Partiers as teabaggers; who’ve expressed their deep contempt for bitter gun and religion clingers in flyover country; who insist that Conservatives aren’t capable of the nuance of their Betters on the Left; who’ve expressed their hatred for millions of Americans as irredeemably deplorable homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, misogynists; who’ve called Republican Congressmen in discussions over the budget, national debt, and other topics hostage takers and terrorists (it was Biden, after all, who said it was like dealing with terrorists when working the debt ceiling some years ago).  It’s been Progressive-Democrats who smeared a Supreme Court Justice nominee and who currently are attacking an Attorney General.

Although there are exceptions, neither Conservatives nor Republicans have engaged or are engaging in these naked, baseless attacks on the character of those who disagree.

And

He’s just the worst practitioner in politics, that singles out, scapegoats, and demonizes. Holds out the other as the source of all our problems.  You hear it: the immigrants, the Muslims, anyone different in creed or color or conviction.  They’re the problem.  …  That’s been the scheme used by unscrupulous politicians for decades.

See above.  Add to it some additional facts.  It’s the Progressive-Democratic Party who’ve been pushing the modern segregationist policies of identity politics.  It’s members of the Progressive-Democratic Party in Congress—Omar and Tlaib, for instance—who actively spew anti-Semitic slurs, and it’s that same Progressive-Democratic caucus who flatly refused to censor those bigots and who, instead, pretended to express their opposition to bigotry with a deliberately watered, saccharine “condemnation” of bigotry generally.  It’s Party leadership who say no one can be a Democrat and oppose abortion—solidifying Party’s willingness to kill babies in the womb.

And

America guarantees everyone—and I mean everyone—will be treated with dignity.  America gives hate no safe harbor.

Indeed, we try.  It’s why we fought WWII, it’s why we resist the PRC’s assaults on our economy and its sub rosa assaults on the nations surrounding the South China Sea, it’s why we’re in the Middle East—so all of those folks could, and can, be treated with dignity in their own lands, however clumsy our efforts often are. It’s the Progressive-Democrat Party that wants us to retreat from our responsibilities.  Domestic dignity? It’s the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage that traps minorities; the rest of us want everyone—and I mean everyone—to have the chance to see to their own ends, their own prosperity, rather than having to hold their hands out for Party alms.

And

Folks, I’m running to offer our country—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—a different path.  Not back to a path that never was, but to a future that fulfills our true potential as a country.

Because, like another Progressive-Democrat, his BFF New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, says, we were never great.  This is a sentiment, a disdain for our past, that’s held also by Eric Holder.  It’s a position actively pushed by the Left in our schools, as they move to purge our Founders, removing monuments to them and erasing names and murals.  All because our Founders had feet of clay; they didn’t measure up to Progressive-Democrat purity.

And

[F]olks say Biden just doesn’t get it.  You can’t work with Republicans anymore.  That’s not the way it works anymore.  …  I know how to make government work.  …  I’ve worked across the aisle to reach consensus.  Helped make government work in the past.

Now he’s also living in his past.  It’s not that Progressive-Democrats can’t work with Republicans today—it’s that they refuse to work with Republicans.  They reneged on a deal that would stabilized the status of DACA recipients plus an additional million similarly situated aliens, then they refused even to discuss DACA in later efforts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss spending cuts, refuse to discuss permanentizing individual income tax cuts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss border security in any serious fashion.

His past?  It’s a past of fighting for ever higher taxes, ever higher spending.  It’s a past of pushing through Obamacare—there was consensus—and then bragging about what a big…deal it was.

Then Biden launched into a litany of his Progressive-Democratic Party progressive goals.  Recall, by the way, that he said some weeks ago that he was more Progressive than anyone else in the race.

Let me be real clear.  Everybody listen. Democrats and Republicans.  If I’m elected your President, I’m going to do whatever it takes to make progress on the matters that matter most: civil liberties; civil rights; voting rights; women’s right to choose; national security; personal security; health care; an economy that rewards work, not just wealth; a climate change policy that will save our children and grandchildren and this planet.

Like the pen and phone he’ll borrow from his mentor, Barack Obama, “whatever it takes” can only mean he’ll rule by fiat if he can’t get Congress to rubber stamp him.  Get Congress to bring our economy to ruin with the Green New Deal; destroy citizens’ votes by eliminating voter identification requirements so anyone—and I mean anyone—can vote; push abortion-on-demand, even at birth; reduce our national security with open, undefended borders and reduced defense spending; one-size-fits-all Government-run health care provision and health care pseudo-insurance; redistribution of hard-earned income through expanded welfare caging.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s leading candidate for President.