Monday, December 20, 2021

Lost in Translation

In relying on the usage of “unalienable” after Francis Hutcheson, the founders indicated an important difference between themselves and John Locke.


The founders declared we have rights that are “unalienable.” Today, when we discuss those same rights, we generally use a slightly different word; “inalienable” is now the preferred usage.

Does this difference matter at all? After all, your dictionary will tell you that each is a synonym for the other. But what if this difference points toward something important? 

Although both unalienable and inalienable were in use at the time, Jefferson chose to use unalienable in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere in his writings. The other founders preferred unalienable, too. Here, for example, is John Adams in the Constitution of the state of Massachusetts: “All people are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights . . .” To read the founders is to witness them nearly always choosing unalienable. 

There is little doubt about what influenced Jefferson’s choice. It is well known that Jefferson was a devoted follower of the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Francis Hutcheson (and of Hutcheson’s close philosophical follower Dugald Stewart).  It was Hutcheson who invented this demarcation of our rights, so important to the founders, and Hutcheson who set the example for the founders’ choice of “unalienable.” Jefferson, in writing the Declaration and throughout his adult life, consistently relied on Hutcheson’s thinking and used Hutcheson’s terminology. By using the language of Francis Hutcheson, the founders were acknowledging and pointing to the source of their thinking about our rights.

Here is Hutcheson on our rights in his book A System of Moral Philosophy (1755): “Our rights are either alienable or unalienable.” 

There is only one letter of difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable” but the founders’ choice of “unalienable” tells us something important about which thinkers they were reading and which thinkers they were relying on in the great task of the founding. Anyone familiar with the writings of Francis Hutcheson will instantly recognize that the founders were using Hutcheson’s language and relying on his understanding of our rights.

This means that the difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” is actually profound. “Unalienable” provides us with a key to understanding the founders and the founders’ thinking—and America’s drift away from the founders’ usage reflects America’s drift away from the founders’ thinking.

Because Hutcheson’s analysis of our rights was rooted in a brilliant and devastating criticism of John Locke’s account of our rights, the founders provide us with eternal testimony about the true source of their understanding of our rights. They also fortify us against those who try to convince us that the founders were reliant on Locke’s account of our rights.

If you would like to take a deeper dive into this fascinating subject and also explore Hutcheson’s critique of Locke on rights, you might find this of interest.


X22, On the Fringe, and more-Dec 20



Evening. Here's tonight's news:



 

The Freedom Façade

You still hear people talk about individual liberty and the rule of law, but the slogans are shot through with a brittle cynicism.


I have been looking back over Alexis de Tocqueville’s unfinished masterpiece, The Old Regime and the French RevolutionIt is full of piquant observations, for example this from the end of the preface: “a man’s admiration of absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.” How much contempt do you suppose emanates from the apparatchiks who inhabit the D.C. swamp and control our lives? How slavish is their devotion to the unfettered prerogatives of the idol they serve, the state? 

That dialectic between adulation of the sources of power and contempt for those subject to it may in one sense be perennial, a sentiment captured by the old Latin tag: Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris: “it is part of human nature to hate those whom you have injured.” But Tocqueville translated that psychological characteristic into the realm of politics in which the question of liberty is paramount. Like Edmund Burke, Tocqueville was a supreme anatomist of the ways in which power co-opts the passion for liberty in order to counterfeit liberty’s essence. Describing the habit of “governmental paternalism,” Tocqueville notes that “Almost all the rulers who have tried to destroy freedom have at first attempted to preserve its forms.”

This has been seen from Augustus down to our own day. Rulers flatter themselves that they can combine the moral strength given by public consent with the advantages that only absolute power can give. Almost all have failed in the enterprise, and have soon discovered that it is impossible to make the appearance of freedom last where it is no longer a reality.

I think that is more or less where we are now. You still hear people talk about the importance of individual liberty, the rule of law, limited government, and so on, but increasingly, I believe, the slogans are shot through with a brittle cynicism. 

One sign of that decadence is the resignation that now greets every fresh assault on the impartiality upon which the rule of law, and hence liberty, depend. In a recent column for the Daily SignalLarry Elder asks “Why hasn’t Jussie Smollett been charged with perjury?” It’s a good question, and it’s one everyone knows the answer to. Smollett belongs to a protected class (actually, he belongs to several protected classes). As a black, gay, celebrity (“celebrity” for some: like Larry Elder, I had never heard of him until he ran afoul of the law), Smollett is more or less untouchable. True, he was just convicted of 5 out 6 felony counts for staging his own assault, but many commentators are speculating that he will serve no jail time for committing what can only be described as a racially motivated hate crime. 

Or consider Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who, in 2017, helped get the Russia collusion delusion going by altering a CIA email regarding Carter Page, one of the many pro-Trump figures who was harassed by the Justice Department. The CIA had identified Page as a CIA source. Clinesmith, part of the anti-Trump team that staffs the upper reaches of the FBI, changed the email to say that Page was not a CIA asset. This gave the green light for the Bureau to obtain a warrant from the FISA Court to spy on Page and, through him, on the entire Trump Administration. 

Remember what happened to Mike Flynn? He was set up by the FBI and then lost his job as national security advisor and was bankrupted trying to defend himself. What happened to Kevin Clinesmith? In 2020, he pleaded guilty to doctoring the email and was sentenced to—are you ready—12 months probation. What Clinesmith did—altering an official document in order to get a warrant to spy on an American citizen so that the FBI could secretly surveil the Trump Administration—is a felony. Usually, a lawyer who is convicted of a felony is disbarred. Clinesmith got probation. Compare that to the multi-year prison sentences being meted out to several of the 700 people arrested for protesting at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. (As Julie Kelly has reported in scarifying detail, scores have been moldering in a D.C. political gulag for months, many in solitary confinement.) 

According to a story in Just the News, “Five months after Clinesmith initially pleaded guilty, the D.C. bar temporarily suspended his license pending a review and hearing.” The review was completed in September and Clinesmith has been reinstated as an “active member” in “good standing.” Nice work if you can get it, and if you are part of the nomenklatura that rules the country, you can be sure of getting it. 

Still, there is a small silver lining to this tale of corruption. Clinesmith was also a member of the Michigan bar, which automatically suspended him and imposed a small fine when he pleaded guilty. The Michigan tribunal was considerably more forthright about Clinesmith’s actions than the D.C. bar or the media, which treated the story with a big yawn. Clinesmith’s behavior, they said, was “contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals; violated the standards or rules of professional conduct adopted by the Supreme Court; and violated a criminal law of the United States.” Yes, but is anyone paying attention? 

To repeat Tocqueville’s warning: “it is impossible to make the appearance of freedom last where it is no longer a reality.”


Europe Certifies Crickets, Worms, And Grasshoppers As Edible Food Amid Soaring Food Prices

 

Across the world, households are experiencing an exponential rise in food inflation. This holiday season, from Brazil to China to European countries to the US, households will pay near-record prices for food, which begs the question: Are households able to afford traditional food, or will they resort to substitutes to save money?  

"You might be able to trade down on some things; instead of the high-priced turkeys or steaks, you might consider something less expensive on that side of the dinner table," Curt Covington, senior director of institutional credit at AgAmerica Lending, which lends money to farmers, told Bloomberg

"But there's no escaping it: Everything on the holiday table "is just going to be more expensive," Covington said. 

For example, working poor Americans have had trouble affording essential goods amid rapid inflation. A staggering 6.8% surge in consumer costs is the highest in four decades, making things like food unaffordable because wages haven't kept pace with inflation. The same is happening for households worldwide   


With that in mind, households are likely to substitute popular holiday foods with low-cost items. There's even a chance that some might resort to eating bugs and worms.

European member states certified house crickets, yellow mealworms, and grasshoppers as food fit to be sold at supermarkets. 

The bugs will be sold in frozen, dried, and powdered forms and will be packed with nutrients and low-cost, according to Bloomberg. Earlier this month, the World Economic Forum published two articles explaining how people must get used to eating bugs. Those who can no longer afford meat, such as ham or turkey, and other traditional holiday foods will come to find a new substitute. Bloomberg provides examples from across the world of how food inflation crushes holiday cheer. 

Brazil: Amazon Fish Replace Pricey Imports

Fatima Santos describes her family's planned Christmas Eve supper in 2021 in one word: lean. Neither cod nor turkey—traditional centerpieces in many Brazilian homes for the holidays—will make the cut this year, the 41-year-old unemployed hairdresser said while combing the shelves for deals in a Rio de Janeiro supermarket. "Egg is the new steak in our home. Even rice and beans are super expensive," she said. That's hardly a seasonal specialty, but the staple dish might grace more holiday tables like hers as meat prices become increasingly hard to stomach.

Although the country is one of the world's largest producers of agricultural commodities, soaring demand abroad and a weak local currency are making exports more profitable, leaving less Brazilian-grown food for Brazilians at home. At the same time, this year's extreme weather—the worst drought in a century followed by an unprecedented frost—severely damaged the nation's crops, stoking inflation. Think tank Getulio Vargas Foundation calculates beef prices are up about 15% in the last year, while chicken costs have soared more than 24%.

Grocery chain Zona Sul has been trying to stock its shelves with more local products so families can avoid the worst of the inflation. Traditional Norwegian cod is still available in the weeks leading up to Christmas, but the store is also pushing Amazon fish pirarucu for half the price. With sparkling wine imports delayed due to container shortages, the chain is discounting regional alternatives. "As purchasing power diminishes, people are looking for secondary brands," said the chain's executive director, Pietrangelo Leta.

Priscila Santana, a professional chef, usually sells rabanadas—a dessert resembling French toast—around the holidays. But she's had to boost prices this year by more than 10% on rising costs for bread, milk and eggs, plus the gasoline required to even get to the store. Despite starting sales several weeks earlier this year and accepting both credit cards and company-issued meal tickets, she's still seeing lower demand. "I expect to sell 20% less this year. Some of my clients had to give up the rabanadas to buy their lunch instead.  


China: Stockpiling Sends Costs Soaring

There's plenty of food to go around in the world's most populous country, the Ministry of Commerce insists. But that hasn't stopped Chinese households from stocking up—and in some cases, hoarding—following a confusing advisory from the government in early November that encouraged people to restock essentials ahead of winter, stoking fears of travel restrictions, virus outbreaks, extreme weather or worse.

"Usually one family only needs to store one bag of flour, but now they're buying two or even three bags. Of course prices will increase," said one shopkeeper who's been selling noodles, dumpling wrappers and Chinese pancakes for almost 30 years. Speaking from behind his stall in a market in Beijing, he asked to only be identified by his family name, Zhou. "The more families hoard flour, the higher prices will go."

The 25-kilogram (about 55-pound) bags of flour he buys from his supplier are about 30% more expensive than a month ago, now costing more than 90 yuan ($14). But Zhou has raised his own selling price by less than 20%, even as the winter solstice—Dongzhi—nears, boosting demand for traditional delicacies like dumplings and noodles. "My costs have risen, but I can't really increase prices or I'll lose customers," he said.

UK: Turkey Farms Pay Up for Labor

"There isn't a product that we use on this farm that hasn't gone up," said Becky Howe, a third-generation farmer, as she watched workers guide a flock of turkeys to an open barn on the last day of slaughtering at the John Howe turkey farm outside Kent. That includes the cost of steel used to construct the barns, chopped straw for bedding, corn feed, gas, packaging cartons and even wax for the automated plucking line. The farm wasn't anticipating such inflationary pressure when it boosted the size of this year's flock by 25% and, for the first time ever, started rearing geese, too.

The greatest headache has been finding enough workers during November and December, the farm's busiest time of the year. Most of its employees are foreigners, who come to the country on temporary visa permits; the farm has boosted pay this year to retain staff. It has raised the price of its turkeys by 8%, but its own costs have gone up more. "The price increase hasn't covered everything and we've had to absorb as much as we possibly could," Howe said. "We don't want to pass on too much and scare people away from buying our turkeys."

Worried about rising prices—plus a shortage of UK truck drivers that will only exacerbate the squeeze—grocers say some families in London started buying their Christmas turkeys as early as October this year. The demand for smaller birds is particularly high as virus fears temper optimism that extended families will be gathering again this year after a 2020 in lockdown   


Romania: Priced Out of the Pig Slaughter

In the Romanian countryside, the Orthodox celebration of Saint Ignatius on Dec. 20 has followed a traditional script for centuries: Buy a pig from a trusted farmer, slit its throat, burn the skin, and clean the carcass with help from friends and family at the break of dawn. Every part of the animal—from the legs to the fat to the intestines—are then transformed into dozens of dishes to feed a household's extended family at Christmas, New Year's and every meal in between.

At least, that used to be the custom. This year, more families will just snag some supermarket sausages on their way home from work and call it a day, said Adi Rusu, a 40-year-old farmer from the village of Posta Calnau. Rusu's family has been growing pigs for 40 years, but with feed and electricity costs through the roof, risks of a deadly swine fever outbreak and customers increasingly opting for easier options, his family's talking about whether it's even worth the hassle. It's hard for neighbors to justify paying as much as 1,500 Romanian lei (about $340) for a local pig, a 50% hike over the last four to five years. At the same time, Covid travel restrictions that keep many working Romanians abroad mean downsized dinners—and little incentive to cook enough pork to eat for at least seven straight days.

"It's becoming obvious we can't eat three times more than in a regular week at Christmas," said Marioara Mihalcea, the director of meat company M&R in Iasi. "You know you can always find fresh meat on the shelves."

Rusu only had six pigs on offer this year, about a fifth of what he'd normally sell, after many of the piglets died at birth, but he decided supplementing with more piglets from commercial farms to turn a profit of only 400 lei (about $90) apiece just didn't make economic sense this year. Would-be customers are "not buying from someone else; they're going to the supermarket," said Rusu, who picked up animal farming from his father. "Those who know how to prepare it are slowly passing away, and the young are not interested in learning." 


US: Cookie Season Takes a Hit

Americans, eating more butter than ever before, will find it costs them more than their waistline this holiday season. Once vilified for saturated fat, butter has become popular again as shoppers embrace high-fat diets, driving per capita consumption to 6.3 pounds in 2020, the highest in data going back to the Ford presidency. Butter consumption typically peaks in the fourth quarter, thanks to all the holiday cookies, mashed potatoes and other full-flavored traditions that grace the table. It's also soaring in price.

Spot wholesale prices for Grade AA butter are up about 40% from this time last year to more than $2 a pound. There's plenty of milk to make it, but packing and shipping have been a challenge amid widespread labor and materials shortages. Grassland Dairy Products in Greenwood, Wisconsin, recently raised its prices for supermarkets for the first time in four years. President Trevor Wuethrich cited rising cardboard expenses, trucking issues and its own decision to hike hourly wages in September in order to retain trained employees.

Some households may make the switch to vegetable-oil spreads, like margarine, to cut costs, though those are rising in price, too. Dina Cimarusti, owner of newly opened Sugar Moon Bakery in Chicago, just paid 40 cents per pound more than usual for butter in early December. For her, subbing it out isn't an option: It's an important ingredient for many of her home-style pastries including scones, cookies and cakes.

"It's not just butter," she said. "Even my produce prices have gone up significantly since I opened," said 36-year-old Cimarusti, whose storefront debuted in September. "Unless I raise my prices, I'm obviously losing money." For now, she's holding pat. "I was just going to wait it out," she said, clad in a green apron and jeans, weighing pound-blocks of butter before dumping them into a large steel mixer for molasses cookies. "I just try to keep it affordable."

Simply put, inflation increases food insecurity that will dramatically reshape traditional holiday dishes. Some may resort to eating bugs and worms this year.   




https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/food-inflation-grinch-spoils-christmas-cheer

Who Poses the Real Threat to Democracy?


The long running campaign to paint Republicans 
as a threat to democracy has backfired.


Approximately a week after voters shocked Democrats by electing Donald Trump as president, Democratic donors and high-ranking officials met to discuss “taking back power,” from Trump. As noted by Politico, “if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One.” The attendees included House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. In mid-December the speaker’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, one of the electors appointed to cast a vote in the Electoral College, helped launch one of the most audacious efforts to reverse an American presidential election in history. She and many of her co-conspirators had a plan to defeat Trump by flipping the electors who performed the little-noticed but crucial task of representing actual voters to the Electoral College.

Christine Pelosi and her co-conspirators wrote the director of national intelligence to demand a “briefing” on the “intelligence” supposedly showing collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. She wrote, 

The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States.

We know now that Pelosi was referring to the Steele dossier, the original source of the Russia collusion hoax. Steele wrote it while in the pay of Hillary Clinton herself. She commissioned it to smear Donald Trump with a whispering campaign meant to distract from her own legal problems and kneecap her political rival. The Steele dossier was a work of fiction and a fraud. Although the Pelosi plan did not influence the final outcome in the Electoral College, it did result in two Trump electors disregarding thousands of lawfully-cast ballots to substitute their own judgment. 

Last month, the Washington Post finally acknowledged the failure of the long running campaign to paint Republicans as a threat to democracy. Like so many other political messages, it was carried out by multiple supposedly independent news outlets. Business Insider recently wrote a headline typical of the genre, “The GOP has proven to be an even greater threat to democracy than Trump in 2021.” What’s really being said is that the very existence of a party in opposition to the Democrats “threatens democracy.” 

Yes, we could be so much more democratic if we had only one party like that Jeffersonian paradise in the People’s Republic of Korea. Business Insider went on to repeat verbatim the official talking points justifying a one-party regime. 

But are Republicans actually seeking to shut down democracy? No. Instead the article equates opposition to the highly partisan election-related legislation now pending in Congress with opposition to “saving” democracy from the bogeyman of “voter suppression.” Opposition to the bill, in the logic of the Business Insider author, is exactly the same as opposition to democracy itself. Neat trick.

The Heritage Foundation, which maintains a database recording more than 1,000 incidents of confirmed voter fraud, has challenged the central claim of this pending legislation, i.e. that it will “save democracy.” Instead, Heritage argues, “H.R. 1 is an 800-page monstrosity that would usurp the role of the states. It would not only eliminate basic safety protocols, but mandate new, reckless rules and procedures.” These new procedures include a provision that would 

force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.

While Democratic Party leaders seek to eliminate, or at least disable the opposition party to “save” democracy, that message has failed to persuade independent and Republican voters. As noted by the Washington Post, “Republicans are also more likely to see fraud as a threat to fair elections than they are to see voter suppression (that is, efforts to keep certain groups from voting) in that way. More than half of Republicans identify either fraud or ‘vote tampering’ by Democrats as the biggest threat to fair elections.” The Post adds, “It’s important to point out that there is no evidence of rampant fraud in American elections. There are unquestionably isolated incidents of fraud, individual people arrested for casting votes illegally. There is no evidence of that occurring on any significant scale.” How does the Post justify its minimizing terms, “rampant,” “isolated,” and “significant scale”? The story contains a clear admission that fraud and vote tampering have been confirmed. But the Post isn’t worried because the fraud remains at an acceptable level and, in any case, helps Democrats. In the old days, the acceptable level of voter fraud was be zero. 

But the really bad news for the Democrats and others supporting the anti-Republican campaign is that the poll cited by the Post shows independent voters, by a slight edge, see the Democrats as the greater threat to democracy. 

What makes the messaging even more confusing is that Democrats are demanding COVID passports and IDs as a condition of workingdining, and traveling. Yet they remain adamant that voter ID requirements “suppress” legitimate voter participation by minority voters.

Democrats are calling for the elimination of the filibuster to pass their election legislation on the theory that they’re championing voting rights that are too important to compromise. The opposite is actually true. If one is going to monkey with election rules, it’s even more important to achieve bipartisanship in order to maintain faith in the election process. And by the way, Democrats might improve their credibility on the issue of election integrity if they had not tried to flip the 2016 election with dirty tricks. 


Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts



Last week the corrupt media’s penchant for spinning all things conservative caused a near-fatal case of whiplash.

The left began by chastising conservatives for supposedly building “its own echo chamber,” but by the next day, when news broke that Devin Nunes was resigning from Congress to serve as the CEO of Donald Trump’s new media company, the complained-of conservative ecosystem merely represented grift. Both narratives are false, however, which is precisely why leftists peddled them so hard.

Axios launched the “echo chamber” accusation with its article titled, “Right wing builds its own echo chamber.” “Conservatives are aggressively building their own apps, phones, cryptocurrencies and publishing houses in an attempt to circumvent what they see as an increasingly liberal internet and media ecosystem,” the Axios article began.

The article then highlighted plans for the YouTube alternative Rumble and Trump’s social media company, Truth Social, to expand their reach by taking the companies public. Also highlighted was the social app Gettr that former-Trump aide Jason Miller launched, as well as conservative efforts to compete in cryptocurrency, phones, cloud storage, and book publishing.

“The bottom line,” Axios closed, was that, “Conservative media has been a powerhouse for a long time, but this phase of its expansion isn’t just about more or louder conservative voices — it’s about building an entire conservative ecosystem.”

The refusal by conservatives to continue “to consume” the product of the increasingly “deranged and unaccountable lefty media” is not about building an echo chamber, however: It is about competition and choice. And branding these new business ventures an “ecosystem” and “echo chamber” merely reveal the left’s panic over their inability to control the narrative.

The corrupt media quickly put a brake on the echo-chamber attack when the day after Axios bemoaned the loosening of the left’s stranglehold over corporate America came news that Nunes would retire in January to serve as the new CEO of Trump’s Truth Social company. No longer was the story about an “ecosystem,” it was now about “grift.”

“How Devin Nunes’s new media job for Trump explains the GOP grift machine,” the Washington Post headlined an op-ed by columnist Paul Waldman. Waldman supported his thesis by pointing out that “with Republicans poised to win the House, Nunes was in line to become the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the nation’s tax laws.”

“There was a time when the Ways and Means chair was considered second only to House Speaker in prestige and power,” the Post opinion piece continued. Leaving behind that likelihood, Waldman reasoned, showed Nunes’s supposed desire to “get in on the grift.”

Leave it to a liberal to think grift is foregoing the second most powerful position in the U.S. House of Representatives to accept a position in the private sector in a fledgling organization.

In reporting on Nunes’s announcement, The New York Times’s Jonathan Weisman likewise focused on the fact that if the California representative continued his congressional career, he would “assume the help of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Republicans took control of the House, as they are favored to do.” This move, Weisman declared, represented a signal by Nunes to “where he thinks power lies in the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

Nunes’s decision to leave Congress to become Truth Social’s CEO does represent a signal—just not the one Weisman claims. To see the reason behind the move, the Times’ congressional correspondent need only have re-read his article, where a handful of paragraphs later, Weisman wrote:

From his perch on the Intelligence Committee, he ran interference for Mr. Trump against accusations that his 2016 campaign had collaborated with Russian intelligence. Mr. Nunes also organized a united Republican front opposing the first impeachment of the president for withholding military assistance to Ukraine to pressure its government to dig up dirt on Mr. Biden.

That a longtime congressional correspondent could pen those lines and The New York Times could unironically publish them shows exactly why Nunes left Congress to lead Truth Social.

Having lived through the heyday of the Russia-collusion hoax, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Nunes fought to expose the truth of the Crossfire Hurricane disaster to the American public. Yet the corporate press fed the lies of the Democrat ranking member to the country instead. The California Republican saw a repeat of this ploy with the Ukraine impeachment proceedings. Hatred for Trump proved the breaking straw to the already biased establishment press.

Then came the censorship, limiting conservatives’ ability to counter the corrupt media. Again, Nunes experienced that firsthand, being shadow-banned by Twitter in 2018.

And if any more proof were needed of corporate cronies’ ability to control information, the burying of the Hunter Biden laptop story that implicated then-candidate Joe Biden in a pay-to-play scandal right before the 2020 election handed Nunes—and our country—the final piece of evidence.

So Nunes had a choice: Stay in Congress and chair the House’s most powerful committee as a Republican, limited by the Democrat-controlled executive branch, or surrender the cozy conclave and create an enterprise to counter the slant and censorship that over the last five years has grown exponentially. The left might not understand Nunes’s decision, but here’s hoping it learns his reason soon—and the hard way.


Justice Gorsuch Gives the Pro-Abort Lobby What They Asked for and They Still Aren't Happy


streiff reporting for RedState

The US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a critical abortion case called Whole Women’s Health vs. Jackson earlier in the month. This case comes to the Supreme Court from Texas by way of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The central issue is Texas’ so-called “heartbeat law” that forbids abortion after the baby has a detectable heartbeat. But the case focuses on the enforcement mechanism. To prevent pro-abort judges from summarily striking down the law, the law uses private action via lawsuits as its enforcement mechanism. The abortion industry was trying to find a way to attack the bill, but without an actual case, they couldn’t. As a result, the slaughter of infants has ground to a halt in Texas as abortionists, and their lackeys are afraid of being saddled with massive legal fees even if they avoid being sued into oblivion. Read more about that decision in my post, Supreme Court Humiliates Biden, Refuses to Stop Texas Heartbeat Law, and Gorsuch and the Wise Latina Have a Public Spat.

Usually, the Court waits 25 days before returning a case to a lower court (or so says the Washington Post, so that number might possibly be total bullsh**), here the Supreme Court had remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit.

The abortion industry went nuts. Not only had the Supreme Court case been a devastating defeat for them that seemed to foreshadow the end of abortion as a Constitutional right, but the court that was going to hash out the remaining details was not that of the tame pro-abort federal judge they’d first encountered, it was the very court that had caused the problems for them in the first place. To make matters worse, the 25-day time lag put even more financial pressure on the abortion business in Texas. They were looking a month’s wait before their case was heard in a hostile court. So they appealed. They asked the Supreme Court to send the case back to the lower court immediately, and they wanted it to go to the Obama judge, Roger Pitman, who had initially struck down the Texas heartbeat law. Texas Attorney General asked for the case to be sent back to the Fifth Circuit.

Their calculus seems to have been that they could count on Pitman, whose career highlight, according to Wikipedia, is being the first openly homosexual federal judge in the Fifth Circuit, to strike down the law and give abortion clinics time to have a holiday special or something before the Fifth Circuit hammered them again. This is how the Washington Post describes the strategy.

In October, Pitman, the federal judge in Austin, blocked enforcement of the law, which he characterized as an “unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right.” Less than 48 hours later, the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit reinstated the six-week ban.

A declaration from a federal judge finding the law itself unconstitutional would be an important step and potentially give abortion providers a legal defense to point to in state court if they were sued for performing an abortion after the six-week mark. But it would not be binding on the state courts.

An injunction would prevent state licensing officials from taking disciplinary action against physicians, pharmacists and nurses, but it would not shield them and others from legal liability. Private individuals could still file civil lawsuits seeking at least $10,000 against anyone who helps someone terminate a pregnancy after about six weeks.

On Thursday, they got a response that gave them half of what they’d asked for.

In an order authored by Justice Gorsuch, because John Roberts had made himself irrelevant by voting to protect abortion yet again, Whole Women’s Health was immediately returned to a lower court. The punch line was that the lower court was the Fifth Circuit.

On a side note, it is refreshing to see how a “Thomas” Court goes about doing business as opposed to a “Roberts” Court. Can anyone imagine Roberts not giving the pro-aborts exactly what they’d asked for to protect the “image” of the Supreme Court? Of course not.

The pro-aborts are not happy.

The state’s request means to “indefinitely prevent petitioners from obtaining any effective relief from the district court in the face of a law that is clearly contrary to this Court’s decisions,” wrote Marc Hearron, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing challengers to the law.

With its decision to send the case back to the 5th Circuit and not the district court, he added, the Supreme Court “has let Texas nullify constitutional rights and upend our system of justice.”

“It’s yet another obstacle,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, who was among the lawyers asking the court to return the case to the district judge. “This case is going to be stuck in limbo. Even the narrow path the Supreme Court initially afforded us is now off the table.”

“The reality of the state court litigation and the reality of the Supreme Court’s devastating decision last week to preclude relief against clerks and judges is that there is not a clear way in which to provide the kind of certainty for abortion providers to go forward without the risk of being sued,” said Julie Murray, a senior attorney with Planned Parenthood, who argued the state case against Texas Right to Life.

The Supreme Court’s decision, she said, “threw out the most promising avenue to relief and full restoration of abortion access in Texas.”

The case will go back to the same panel that rendered the decision before the Supreme Court. Not being a lawyer, I am not an authority on how cases are scheduled for action. However, from the pro-abort comments in the Washington Post article, I am left with the impression that the Fifth Circuit panel that first heard the case has a great deal of control on the timing, and the Molochian faction is afraid it will never be reheard. As a decision from the Supreme Court in Whole Women’s Health is expected in June, I would not be shocked to see the Fifth Circuit wait until that decision before acting.



The White House Prepares to Surrender on COVID


Bonchie reporting for RedState

Per a new report, the White House is preparing to surrender on COVID. What exactly the word “surrender” means in this context is up for some debate, but I’ve got some thoughts on the matter.

To get us there, though, the Biden administration is laying the groundwork to make the case for living with the coronavirus. That’s in stark contrast to the lofty promises Joe Biden made during the 2020 election, namely, that he’d “shut down the virus.”

So is the administration actually surrendering to the virus itself? I wouldn’t say that because there was never any reality where we eradicated a virus that is clearly endemic and seasonal. “Winning” against COVID always looked like developing therapeutics that allowed humanity to coexist with it. And given the waning efficacy of the vaccines and the fact that they don’t stop infection, they are basically a type of therapeutic at this point.

But what the Biden administration is surrendering on is the pie in the sky notion that if everyone gets vaccinated, that COVID will cease to exist. We’ve known for a long time that the vaccinated both spread the coronavirus and contract it. In light of that reality, the situation has now become so untenable that the White House simply can’t continue to pretend that their lies about the vaccines and transmission are true any longer. I’ve lost count of how many times Biden claimed in the past that if you got vaccinated, you wouldn’t get COVID. That talking point is dead, and for the record, it was never factual.

Then there’s the political part of this. Biden spent all of 2020 insisting he had the plan to beat COVID. He was going to shut down the virus, stop the spread, and lead us into a new era of prosperity. Putting aside arguments about election security, Biden took office almost solely because he made those promises to a naive public. He’s now broken them, and the president is left having to concede to his critics that they were right.

Those of us that have been saying for almost two years that we needed to stop with the lockdowns and fantasies about eradicating COVID and let people live their lives were right. Those that said we needed to prioritize treatments and not just vaccines because the virus is going to become a seasonal event were right. Joe Biden and all the rest of the COVID hysterics who were too busy accusing people of killing grandma instead of thinking rationally were wrong. All of those who attacked Donald Trump by pretending there was some simple solution to COVID that Biden would enact were wrong.

In short, this entire administration is a sham. They promised heaven and delivered hell. And while you can expect them to once again try to blame others, no one should let them forget how badly they failed here.



Washington Post, Leftist Generals Stoke Hysteria About a 2024 ‘Insurrection’

 


2020 techie insurrection against US Government

 

Article by Robert Spencer in PJMedia

 

Washington Post, Leftist Generals Stoke Hysteria About a 2024 ‘Insurrection’  

The Jan. 6 “insurrection” hasn’t worked out quite the way the Democrats obviously hoped: Trump wasn’t convicted in his second Stalinist impeachment show trial, no one has actually been charged with orchestrating or participating in any “insurrection,” and the witch hunt to demonize and marginalize Trump and his supporters as “white supremacists” who pose an imminent threat to our “democracy” (it’s a republic, folks) has so far been a huge fizzle. But three ferociously partisan retired generals are thinking ahead, publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post Friday, which warns that those dastardly Trump supporters would certainly stage an “insurrection” in 2024, so the military must start preparing now to “preserve our democracy,” that is, destroy our republic.

Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general and senior adviser to the far-Left VoteVets, Antonio M. Taguba, a retired Army major general, and Steven M. Anderson, a retired Army brigadier general, began their manipulative and disingenuous piece by noting that “the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol” is approaching. They didn’t bother to mention, of course, that the insurrection was deadly only for Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter. Nor do they bother to remind their Post audience, which wouldn’t have wanted to hear it anyway, that the supposed “insurrectionists” were unarmed and were let into the Capitol by guards, and that no evidence of some premeditated coup attempt has emerged or is likely to emerge.

Facts, however, are not the order of the day at the WaPo, and so Eaton, Taguba, and Anderson write that “we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.” Lethal chaos is just the warm-up. “In short,” the generals continue, “we are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.”

The Post ought to be ashamed of itself for publishing such incendiary nonsense, but, of course, that would require it to have some journalistic standards in the first place. If Jan. 6 was a coup attempt, it was the most inept, poorly planned and leaderless coup in human history; if Jan. 6 was not a coup attempt, these generals are irresponsible (at very least) to add fuel to the already brightly burning fire of the establishment’s hatred for Trump and his supporters.

And it is Trump’s supporters that the generals want to defame and destroy. “On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name ‘Flag Officers 4 America,’ released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections.” Eaton, Taguba and Anderson show no interest in what might have motivated these military men to be out at the Capitol on Jan. 6. They are blithely unconcerned about the possibility that these veterans and active-duty members of the military may have been deeply concerned about credible evidence of election fraud, and wanted to show their support for a president who was America-First in a way that presidents whom these generals would find acceptable never have been.

Eaton, Taguba and Anderson also go out of their way to criticize an opponent of Biden’s handlers’ mandate tyranny, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged Jan. 6 “insurrection” at all. “Recently, and perhaps more worrying, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the Oklahoma National Guard, refused an order from President Biden mandating that all National Guard members be vaccinated against the coronavirus,” fume the generals. “Mancino claimed that while the Oklahoma Guard is not federally mobilized, his commander in chief is the Republican governor of the state, not the president.”

Such resistance to untrammeled federal power cannot stand, as far as these generals are concerned. “The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the ‘rightful’ commander in chief cannot be dismissed. Imagine competing commanders in chief — a newly reelected Biden giving orders, versus Trump (or another Trumpian figure) issuing orders as the head of a shadow government. Worse, imagine politicians at the state and federal levels illegally installing a losing candidate as president.”

All this is paving the way for any contesting of the 2024 election results to be dismissed and perhaps even prosecuted as another attempted “coup.” It is the sort of thing a person would write if he planned to cheat and wanted to ensure that any challenges to his activity would be ruled out before they ever had a chance to gather steam.

The republic is indeed in peril these days. But the threat is not coming from those who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, or from Trump. Rather, it is coming from those who relentlessly smear their opponents as “white supremacists” and then insist that “white supremacists” constitute the greatest terror threat the nation faces today. That kind of discourse, like this Washington Post op-ed from three Leftist generals, is designed to destroy the mutual respect and consideration on which a functioning republic depends. If Easton, Taguba, Anderson, and the Washington Post really want to find some “insurrectionists,” they should look in the mirror.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/12/19/washington-post-leftist-generals-stoke-hysteria-about-a-2024-insurrection-n1542872 

 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The GOP Needs to Anticipate Leftist Threats to the Electoral College in Coming Years


Sarah Lee reporting for RedState

It should have been obvious during the few moments of lucidity from Joe Biden’s weird ranting lately: the electoral college is in the Democrats’ crosshairs now that the GOP has taken election integrity more seriously and the Dem administration that was supposed to save the country from Trump has turned out to be such a massive failure. Democrat future presidential wins look as likely as Democrat midterms wins.

So how can we tell Democrats will again turn to the unpopular tactic of attacking the electoral college out of desperation? Because Biden himself told us recently.

From the New York Post, and quoting that same speech:

President Biden vowed Tuesday night that Democrats would make gains in next year’s midterm elections, a result that would defy the political odds as the White House grapples with a series of crises.

“We have to keep making the case,” Biden said at a holiday party attended by 400 Democratic National Committee officials and donors in Washington. “And if we do, I believe we’re going to win.

“Let me say this again for the press: We’re going to win in 2022.”

Moments earlier, the president had told Republicans eyeing a return to the majority in the House and Senate next year: “Get ready, pal. You’re going in for a problem.”

Many have pointed out the gut-churning comparison to something Joseph Stalin, bloody Soviet dictator who oversaw the deaths of millions and cared not a whit for Democracy, said about votes and vote counters..

“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how,” Stalin reportedly told his former secretary Boris Bazhanov in 1923.

That’s a point well taken. But he’s also referring to who counts the votes as it relates to the electoral college, as these two academics note in a piece at The Hill.

Some even would have state legislatures select their Electoral College electors, thereby ignoring that state’s popular vote won by the Democratic presidential candidate.

Because Republicans control 30 state legislatures, these efforts obviously are meant to tilt — and likely decide — the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

Under these circumstances, everyone who believes in the popular vote — the bedrock of any democracy — should read and heed the guarantee articulated in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That almost-forgotten constitutional text specifically provides that if state legislatures interfere with the popular vote for the Electoral College electors, such states are to be punished by having the size of their congressional delegation reduced. When a state loses House seats, it thereby also loses Electoral College votes.

You got that? The move is punish the GOP if they “interfere” in how electors are chosen by reducing the size of their delegation in Congress and ensuring a smaller electoral college vote for Republicans.

Democrats have a unique tendency to reveal their plans before enacting them, and then writing entire polemics explaining why those plans were necessary after they’ve disrupted every norm they could (see: the 2020 election and that very strange Time Magazine article about fortifying the election).

But as Jim Inhofe, Republican senator from Oklahoma, and Trent England, executive director of Save Our States, write in National Review, the GOP would do well to pay attention to what the left is trying to do to the electoral college before it happens, and work now to flip the narrative of “interference” in the choosing of electors to where it belongs — back on Democrats.

The Constitution reserves nearly all the power over elections to the states. It requires state legislatures to determine how best to represent their state in the Electoral College. It bars federal officials from serving as presidential electors. The Electoral Counts Act of 1887 reiterates this constitutional design by limiting federal power to interfere in states’ electoral-vote counting — no matter how good the intentions or real the concerns of members of Congress.

Our great American Founders knew what they were doing in constructing a system of government that delicately balances power between cities and rural communities, between coastal communities and inland regions. The Electoral College is a critical part of that system, a guarantee that while political candidates may treat states such as Oklahoma as flyover country, Oklahomans will have as clear and powerful a voice in electing presidents as San Franciscans and New Yorkers. The very future of our republic depends on its preservation.

If the GOP is serious about winning in 2024 — especially after they make the gains everyone thinks they will in the 2022 midterms — they need to get in front of the shenanigans the left has planned instead of playing catch-up as they have so often in the past. A country struggling to buy gas and groceries, and wondering when they can lose the masks for good, is depending on them.