Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Street Thugs and the Intellectual Thugs Who Enable Them

Criminals who endanger our safety should know they are taking their own lives in their hands.


On a Sunday morning two weeks ago, I was riding the F train from Manhattan into Brooklyn when I witnessed an incident that is typical of the kinds of unpleasant interactions to which normal New York City subway commuters are routinely subjected. A large black man got on, hip-hop music with profane lyrics blasting from a speaker hooked up to his phone. Two young gay menone white, one likely Hispanicwho had been carrying on a conversation near where the newcomer sat down looked visibly annoyed and one of them threw a stern look in the new rider’s general direction. The black guy caught the look and immediately sprang from his seat.

“You got something to say?” he shouted.

Met with silence and an averted gaze from the two seated men, he persisted.

“You got something to say, say it, cuz I’ll fuck you up right here, nigga!”

The two men stared forward and downward uncomfortably. The man who had confronted them remained standing, continuing to blast his music, until getting off the train a few stops later. Only then did the two riders resume their conversation.

On May 1, riding a different F train near the Broadway-Lafayette stop in Manhattan, was 30-year-old Jordan Neely, a homeless black man with a history of mental illness who had been arrested 42 times, including for punching a 65-year-old woman in June 2021 and a 67-year-old woman in November of the same year. I should note here that someone who has been arrested 42 times has proven beyond any doubt that he cannot be trusted in society and should be confined either to a prison or a mental hospital for his own safety and ours. But he was out and about and, on May 1, he was aboard that F train threatening riders, up to no good yet again. Witnesses report that he was yelling, tossed down his jacket, was throwing around garbage and shouted that he was “fed up,” that he “didn’t care” if he went to “prison for life” and that he was “ready to die.”

That kind of behavior would make almost anyone on that subway car apprehensive. Fortunately, unlike the incident I had witnessed a few weeks earlier, in which we had to sit silently and hope that the threatened violence would not materialize, in the case of Jordan Neely, a 24-year-old Marine named Daniel Penny happened to be on the train and, with the assistance of other riders, managed to subdue Neely and put him in a chokehold. Unfortunately, the Marine squeezed too hard or held on too long, and Neely passed out and later died.

Neely did not deserve to die, of course. But neither did his death represent some wholly unexpected and shocking turn of events. When you get on the subway and start threatening riders and act like a dangerous lunatic—and, given Neely’s criminal record, engage in such risky behavior repeatedly—the possibility that sooner or later, something bad could happen to you or others around you is necessarily higher than it would be during afternoon tea.

Absent some startling revelations, there would seem to be no doubt whatsoever that Penny did not leave home that day looking to harm or kill anyone. It is doubtful he was itching to partake in some white-on-black violence or expecting to play the role of hero or subway vigilante. Nor is this one of those exceedingly rare cases in which a police officer charged with upholding the law crosses the line and engages in an act of what amounts to state-sanctioned violence against an unarmed citizen. 

Here, instead, what we have is a case of an unarmed civilian acting in reasonable apprehension for the safety of himself and fellow subway riders, and working in concert with others who clearly had the same concern, to restrain an unstable and dangerous man. The unintended consequence was that it resulted in his death. Needless to say, the incidents in which black criminals engage in violence against white civilians—what is more, intentional, malicious violence rather than self-defense resulting in accidental death—are far more common and never garner the sort of publicity that has accompanied Neely’s sad demise.

The way this unfortunate incident has played out since is the reason we cannot have a safe city and subway system in New York. 

CNN story about the incident ran under the absurd headline, “Jordan Neely, the man killed in chokehold on NYC subway, is remembered as an entertainer shattered by his mother’s murder,” and quoted New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who utterly mischaracterized the incident. “I do want to acknowledge how horrific it was to view a video of Jordan Neely being killed for being a passenger on the subway train,” and then irresponsibly concluding that Neely’s family “deserves justice.” The usual outspoken and unrepresentative activists and “journalists” have likewise crawled out of the woodwork to demand that the Marine be charged with a crime. The hate-mongering Black Lives Matter goons have also reappeared on the scene.

These, undoubtedly, are many of the same people who rose up in protest at Mayor Eric Adams’ plan to do more to institutionalize mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves or others. Now, hypocritically, they accuse the city of having failed to give Neely the mental health assistance he needed. Ever more concerned with the rights of thugs and miscreants than with the rights of everyday New Yorkers, these people resist all calls to have dangerous nutjobs institutionalized and treated. When the predictable result is 1) an incident in which an innocent person gets hurt or killed, they react as if there’s nothing to see here, or 2) an incident in which the miscreant himself is hurt or killed, they invariably blame the police officer or, as in this case, the concerned citizen who intervened to stop the madness.

And this why we find ourselves at the mercy of thugs, bums, and psychos who threaten and bully us with impunity. Like the two guys on my F train, we are scared to stand up to the boors who endanger us, and on those few occasions where someone like the Marine on Jordan Neely’s F train exhibits the bravery necessary to confront the miscreants, the intellectual thugs swoop in to defend the street thugs with whom they have an obvious affinity. The intellectual thugs’ message is clear: if you dare stand up to the street thugs, we will finish the job and beat you back down.

Just like the street thugs, the intellectual thugs are far outnumbered by ordinary citizens of the sort who have still not lost their fundamental moral compass. Like all bullies, however, the activists succeed in keeping the majority silent through intimidation and fear. We face the threat of physical violence from street thugs. Then, if we dare to raise our voices or our fists in protest, we face the threat of intellectual violence—pressure campaigns, smear campaigns, threats to have critics fired and deplatformed, and so on—from the intellectual thugs.

If we have any hope of reclaiming our cities and our nation from these malefactors, it lies in collective action, using the strength of numbers in our favor by presenting a united front against the civilization-destroying mob. To accomplish that, however, we will need to send a very clear message that seems positively revolutionary in today’s hijacked political environment. 

That message is this, and it must be stated without reservation or apology: The rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens—people who work and commute and support families and communities and generally make our cities healthy, productive, and vibrant metropolises—are worth more than and must be prioritized over the rights of the parasites, idlers, vagrants, junkies, thugs, bums, hoodlums, and criminal miscreants who value neither themselves nor anyone else, who befoul our public spaces and make our daily lives more difficult and unpleasant than they need to be.

That sound, sane principle used to be so universally accepted and uncontroversial that it went without saying and did not need to be stated explicitly. But it can no longer be taken for granted in a society in which governments accord convicted criminals first priority in applying for coveted commercial licenses, tolerate known open drug scenes, and even enable illegal drug users (without regard for the toll on local communities and businesses) by providing free injection sites in the guise of cutting down on overdose deaths, while rogue prosecutors refuse to pursue misdemeanors or impose cash bail and let serial offenders roam the streets so that retailers can do little to curb an epidemic of shoplifting and the general public must endure more dangerous streets and subways.

In the end, we as a society have to ask ourselves the simple question of what message we want to send. If the intellectual thugs’ demands are met, and Daniel Penny is charged with causing Jordan Peely’s death, we will be sending a clear message that we must let the dangerous street thugs in our midst threaten and endanger us as they please while we sit in silence, avert our gazes, tremble in fear as crazy incidents like this occur on a daily basis and hope for the best. Woe be to us if we lift a finger against them. But if brave people stand on principle and reject the intellectual thugs’ clamor today, we will be sending a very different message every street thug among us needs to hear: when you threaten us and endanger our safety, you take your life in your hands.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- May 9

 



My (hopefully) last major prediction for NCIS LA's ending: Hetty will plan the big reception party, and Nell and Eric will be there.

I have clues and possibly some helpful hints that just might work in my favor this time. (as long as the co writers of both episodes were actually using their heads when they wrote both parts.)

The War on Boys and Girls

Fractured American families and disturbed children. What—and who—is behind it?


Over the years, a cause for teen angst, suicide, etc., has reportedly been the media. But there is no definitive evidence to corroborate that. In fact, every recent generation has traditionally pointed to the media or some other cultural factor as damaging to youth. In the 1920s, it was the Charleston, and in the 1940s, the bogeyman was radio crime dramas. Then in the 1950s, it was shoot-’em-up westerns on TV and the advent of rock ‘n roll. But at the end of the day, most kids grew up normally.

These days cell phones and social media are supposedly culpable, but scientists still don’t know to what extent they are responsible for the rising mental health issues among teenagers and whether it is the primary cause. Alexey Makarin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, opines, “It seems to be the case—like it’s a big factor, but that’s still up for debate.”

What do we know?

A report from the CDC in February found that teen girls are experiencing “record high levels of violence, sadness, and suicide risk.” The data show that 57 percent of U.S. teen girls felt “persistently sad or hopeless in 2021—double that of boys, representing a nearly 60% increase and the highest level reported over the past decade.” About 30 percent had seriously attempted suicide. These numbers are dramatically higher than they were 10 years ago.

Boys are suffering too. One of the main culprits for young males’ problems is the ongoing stress on so-called toxic masculinity, where feminists and the Left take normal male behavior, exaggerate it, and then vilify it.

Toxic masculinity is a counterproductive term, to say the least. Boys are unlikely to react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that needs to be exorcized, especially as most of them identify quite strongly with their masculinity. Almost half of men said their sex was “extremely important” to their identity.

As Brookings Institution fellow Richard Reeves reports, “Half of American men and almost a third of women (30%) now think that society ‘punishes men just for acting like men,’ according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute.

Who specifically is behind the problems being experienced by the young?

While COVID-related social isolation certainly exacerbated girls’ problems, things were not good before we overreacted to the pandemic. Before COVID, the reason typically given was the advancement of social media, which cut back on personal bonding, but, as noted above, that is questionable.

With boys, it’s certainly institutional. In 2019, Scientific American posted an article entitled “How to Fight Toxic Masculinity,” and the American Psychological Association declared that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful.” In fact, the APA is front and center in the war on boys. 

Christopher Ferguson, a psychology professor at Florida’s Stetson University, writes that a few years ago, the APA released practice guidelines that state, “Conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health.” The guidelines also claim that “traditional masculinity leads to violence.”

Who else is behind our culture’s malevolent turn toward young people?

Many school districts have decided to take over the traditional role of parents, and this, I believe, is a very important factor in the alienation of the young.

The Escondido Union School District in California is all too typical. Under the current policy, “teachers must refer to students by their preferred pronouns or gender-specific names during school hours but revert to biological pronouns and legal names when speaking with parents.” And once a teacher learns of a child’s social transitioning, he or she has an obligation to ensure that parents do not discover this.

What a policy like this does is lead a child to live a double life, splitting allegiance between school and family. Not a recipe for happiness. It’s worth noting that Escondido is anything but a one-off. In fact, this cultural rot extends beyond blue states.

In Idaho, for example, Parents Defending Education submitted 14 public records requests to school districts requesting documentation and correspondence regarding the creation of these gender policies. PDE discovered that districts were working closely with the Idaho School Boards Association to “implement policies to deliberately withhold information from parents about the gender identity of their own children.”

In Montana, Missoula County Public Schools worked with a group called “IVALUE” to propose including “members of the LGBTQIA+ community” in “all future work around diversity, equity and inclusion.”

School counselors in Mississippi’s Tupelo Public School District shared guidance with each other that encourages staff to keep parents in the dark regarding the gender identity of their children.

Needless to say, the teachers unions have been leaders in promoting the chasm between parents and their children. The National Education Association and likeminded groups have released a guide that, among many things, suggests “schools effectively keep two sets of records for students who express interest in a transgender identity—one set that is used within the school setting, and a separate set provided to parents or other entities outside the school district.”

State governments also have a role in causing pernicious rifts in families by taking over the traditional role of moms and dads. California’s AB 1184, a bill cosponsored by Planned Parenthood, which became law in 2021, is a prime example. This atrocity “prohibits insurance companies from revealing to the policyholder the ‘sensitive services’ of anyone on their policy, including minor children (starting at age 12), even though the policy owner is financially responsible for the services.” The term “sensitive services” refers to all health care services related to mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender affirming care, etc. The bill doesn’t detail the kindly sounding “gender affirming care,” but as defined by the University of California, San Francisco, it’s hormone therapy and a laundry list of surgeries including vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, voice modification, etc.

Also, California’s SB 107, which became law January 1, erodes parents’ rights by allowing minor children to travel to California for trans procedures. Citing the Protect Child Health Coalition, Katy Grimes explains, “Even more shocking is the law actually authorizes parental kidnapping (when a non-custodial parent illegally takes a child from the parent who has legal custody) if the purpose of the kidnapping is to subject the child to radical gender transition procedures.”

Washington State is no better. It passed SB 5599, which also allows the state to legally take children away from their parents if they don’t consent to their child’s gender transition surgeries.

At the end of the day, it is not the schools, the media or the APA who is in charge of children’s well-being. Parents must step up and reclaim their children. Homeschool if at all possible, or send your child to a private school that shares your values.

For parents who send their children to public schools, Congress passed H.R. 5 in late March. Among other things, the bill, which prevailed in a 213-208 vote, would give parents the right to inspect the books and other reading materials in the library of their child’s school. It would enable them to know if the school operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities that permit an individual whose biological sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for individuals whose biological sex is female. The bill also enables parents to know if their child’s school allows an individual whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or changing rooms designated for individuals whose biological sex is female.

Sadly, however, H.R. 5 seems to be dead in the water; chances are slim that it will make it through our divided Senate.

The good news is that as of mid-March, proposed parental rights legislation has emerged in some 32 states, up from 18 states in 2022, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In some states, legislators are considering two or more pieces of such legislation. It’s worth noting, however, that not all the laws are really pro-parent. Conservative legal scholar Joanna Martin, J.D., recently published an article titled “A Massive Transfer of Power Over Children from Parents to Governments,” in which she writes that SB 49, the bill passed by the North Carolina Senate, “ . . . transfers power over children from parents to governments. Parents’ rights consist of the privilege of being notified of decisions made respecting their children by governments, and they are granted specific rights to challenge some of the findings.”

It’s a tough time to be a parent, as many busybodies, groomers, and evildoers are fighting for the control of America’s children. As such, parents, more than ever, must do what they can to maintain responsibility for their offspring. The “It Takes a Village” mentality hasn’t worked out too well.



Punishing Rioters Is Wise. Bogus 'Seditious Conspiracy' Charges Are Not.

Punishing Rioters Is Wise. 

Bogus 'Seditious Conspiracy' Charges Are Not.

Politics ruin everything, including the criminal justice system.

Violent pro-Trump protesters clash with law enforcement on the steps of the Capitol, January 6, 2021.

(Brian Branch Price/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

The problem with convicting members of the "western chauvinist" Proud Boys on seditious conspiracy charges is that it wrongly elevates a violent tantrum by a bunch of thugs to the level of an insurrection, and it lets officials who prosecute them puff themselves up as saviors of the republic. Worse, the case took liberties with a statute that is probably best forgotten to arrive at its conclusion when normal criminal law could have punished rioters without putting the criminal justice system through contortions.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

Prosecutors High on Their Own Supply

"A jury in the District of Columbia today returned guilty verdicts on multiple felonies against five members of the Proud Boys, finding four of the defendants guilty of seditious conspiracy for their actions before and during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021," the Department of Justice trumpeted last week. "According to the evidence at trial, in the months leading up to Jan. 6, the defendants plotted to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and to prevent the Members of Congress, and the federal law enforcement officers who protect them, from discharging their duties."

"At my Senate confirmation hearing just over a month after January 6th, I promised that the Justice Department would do everything in its power to hold accountable those responsible for the heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government," huffed Attorney General Merrick Garland, a man who gives every impression that he tremendously enjoys the smell of his own emissions. "Today's verdict is another example of our steadfast commitment to keeping those promises."

And so, we're told, the republic is safe from those who would rise against it in insurrection. But before we consign former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and codefendants Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl to the history books alongside Mosby and Quantrill, Confederate guerrillas of the sort who inspired the seditious conspiracy statute to begin with, let's consider an important obstacle: There's sparse evidence of a meaningful conspiracy "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States" as required by law.

Shouldn't a Conspiracy Be Better Organized?

"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result," Reuters noted in August 2021. "'Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,' said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. 'Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.'"

That said, if anybody was among those "more closely organized," it was the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers of the earlier case. But still, prosecutors and the judge had to get creative to arrive at a verdict.

"The sedition trial…was characterized by frequent delays, frayed relations between the defense and prosecution and several decisions by the presiding judge, Timothy J. Kelly, that tested the boundaries of conspiracy law," reported Alan Feuer and Zach Montague for The New York Times. "Judge Kelly's rulings allowed prosecutors to introduce damning evidence about the violent behavior and aggressive language of members of the Proud Boys who had only limited connections to the five defendants. The rulings also permitted jurors to convict on conspiracy even if they found there was no plan to disrupt the certification of the election, but merely an unspoken agreement to do so."

"Mr. Tarrio was not even in Washington on Jan. 6, having been kicked out of the city days earlier by a local judge presiding over a separate criminal matter," they added.

"The Justice Department's take, of course, fits the narrative favored by Democrats who reflexively describe the Capitol riot as an 'insurrection.'" Reason's Jacob Sullum observed. "But that term implies a level of planning and organization that does not fit the chaotic reality of what happened that day."

There's no easy way to portray the resulting conviction as anything other than a stretch. In fact, less-loaded criminal charges could and did serve to penalize the defendants for their disruptive actions in Washington, D.C., on January 6.

Normal Criminal Charges Would Have Done the Trick

"The four defendants and co-defendant Dominic Pezzola, 45, of Rochester, New York, were also found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress and federal law enforcement officers from discharging their duties, civil disorder, and destruction of government property," the Justice Department added in its press release. "Pezzola was also found guilty of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and robbery involving government property."

These are charges grounded in the defendants' own conduct. They don't require an "unspoken agreement" or "limited connections" to other people that can tendentiously be converted into a plot against the republic if you squint just right and have a cooperative judge. But destruction of property, impeding Congress, and assaulting police officers, while crimes, don't allow prosecutors and their political allies to portray themselves in heroic terms. Rioters are violent troublemakers, but seditious conspirators can be portrayed as part of a larger movement that intends harm to the whole country.

When Seditious Conspiracy Was "Paranoid and Dictatorial"

The Trump administration floated pulling this same stunt with seditious conspiracy charges (often incorrectly framed as just "sedition") against rioters during the civil unrest of the summer of 2020.

"Attorney General William Barr told the nation's federal prosecutors to be aggressive when charging violent demonstrators with crimes, including potentially prosecuting them for plotting to overthrow the U.S. government," The Wall Street Journal's Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman reported at the time.

"Sedition charges require proof of efforts to overthrow the United States Government," Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe responded. "Talking in these terms based on what's happening is grotesquely irresponsible. It's way beyond monarchical. It's paranoid and dictatorial. Opus Dei, anyone?"

Likewise, the ACLU called Barr's proposed seditious conspiracy prosecutions "a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress our demands for racial justice and an end to police violence."

Now the shoe is on the other foot, with a new administration wielding seditious conspiracy charges as weapons against another set of rioters with a different flavor of politics. Again, the rioters' actions would justify prosaic criminal prosecutions if their partisan loyalties weren't at odds with those in power. But why just punish political opponents for bad behavior when you can smear them and their associates as dangers to the nation?

In a country as divided as ours, everything becomes a bludgeon against hated others. Politics ruin everything, including the criminal justice system.


Small Victories, Big Battles: Populist Republicans and Progressive Democrats Unite Against Endless Wars


Can a bipartisan group of lawmakers make progress in ending America’s involvement in unnecessary wars? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is indicating that he and some of his colleagues have not given up on trying.

Populist Republicans and progressive Democrats have been making attempts for years to halt U.S. involvement in military entanglements overseas to various levels of success. However, thanks to the establishment forces on both sides of the aisle, they have not yet achieved all of their objectives.

During an interview with the Daily Caller, Gaetz expressed his support for greater cooperation between left-wing Democrats and populist Republicans in the House on foreign policy issues. Despite his previous criticisms of the left-wing group known as “the Squad,” the lawmaker acknowledged the contributions of Democratic representatives Ro Khanna, Jamaal Bowman, and Ilhan Omar to his recent War Powers measure, which aimed to remove U.S. troops from Somalia.

“[W]hile we disagree strongly on a variety of issues, I think there should be greater connectivity between the anti-war right and the anti-war left,” Gaetz said, referring to his alliance with progressive antiwar Democrats. “I am grateful for the advice that I’ve gotten from [them on] war powers bills.”

Gaetz emphasized the need for connections between anti-war factions from both sides of the political spectrum. However, the broader opposition to Gaetz’s views, including within his own party, suggests that his position remains largely unpopular. He criticized the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and called out Republican representatives Mike McCaul and John James as leading opponents of his stance.

The coalition’s efforts to remove troops from Syria and Somalia have faced consistent rejection in Congress, and it is uncertain how much support it will gather with future attempts. “I sometimes feel as though I’m waging a forever war against forever wars,” Gaetz said.

However, the bipartisan group of lawmakers has won some small victories over the past few years. In 2019, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Mike Lee, Rep. Ro Khanna, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, urged Congress to defund unauthorized U.S. military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen. The group, consisting of 44 lawmakers, called for an amendment to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 that would end U.S. participation in offensive strikes in the Saudi-led campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.

In a statement, the lawmakers highlighted the humanitarian crisis caused by the conflict, with 80 percent of Yemen’s population, or 24 million Yemenis, in need of humanitarian assistance. They argued that including the amendment in the NDAA would ensure that U.S. military personnel are not involved in a war that has not been authorized by Congress and does not advance U.S. national security interests. The amendment was passed along with the rest of the package.

In 2021, the bipartisan group passed an amendment proposed by Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Matt Gaetz to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with a vote of 251-170. The amendment aimed to prevent federal funds from being used for any military force in or against Iran without congressional authorization.

The amendment also clarified that the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) cannot be invoked to justify military action against Iran. The passage of the amendment is seen as a historic moment, signaling Congress’s efforts to assert its war-making powers and avoid costly wars.

The bipartisan support, with over 25 Republicans voting in favor, indicates that opposition to war with Iran transcends partisan politics.

Nevertheless, taking on the warmongering establishment in both parties remains a daunting endeavor. Too many of our lawmakers are deeply invested in ensuring that the U.S. remains involved in these foreign entanglements even if it places members of the military in peril for a conflict that has nothing to do with defending our rights. One of the issues is that most regular folks are not aware of the extent to which forces in the federal government are meddling in foreign conflicts. Perhaps by exposing more of this, people might be moved to demand an end to “forever wars.”



Biden, Yellen Won’t Rule Out Declaring Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional

 Biden, Yellen Won't Rule Out Declaring Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional


Can President Joe Biden declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional?

(Chris Kleponis - Pool via CNP // Newscome/RSSIL/Newscom )

Can the president declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional? 

If Democrats and Republicans don't reach a resolution on raising the government's borrowing limit, the U.S. could have to start defaulting on some payments as soon as June. Rather than compromise with their conservative counterparts to resolve this situation, some Democrats want to declare the debt ceiling itself unconstitutional.

Unilaterally casting aside government borrowing caps like this would have profound and disastrous effects. But that's the sorry point we've reached in these negotiations.

In April, House Republicans passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling—which already stands at $31.4 trillion—in exchange for freezing spending at 2022 levels for a while and rolling back some Democratic initiatives. President Joe Biden and his allies would prefer to raise the debt limit without conditions.

To resolve the standstill, some progressives are now pinning their hopes on the 14th Amendment. It says "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

"Some legal scholars contend that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit," The New York Times reported last week. And some in the Biden administration are buying this argument:

Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.

On Friday, Biden said he wasn't ready to invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid disruption in government payments. But he didn't rule it out entirely, instead saying that he had "not gotten there yet" (emphasis mine).

On This Week With George Stephanopoulos yesterday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen would not say outright that this option was off the table. "We should not get to the point where we need to consider whether the president can go on issuing debt. This would be a constitutional crisis," Yellen said when first asked.

"I don't want to consider emergency options," she added when pressed. "What's important is that members of Congress recognize what their responsibility is and avert…an economic and financial catastrophe."

The idea that the debt limit might be unconstitutional isn't new—"a group of legal scholars and some liberal activists have pushed the constitutional challenge to the borrowing limit for more than a decade," the Times points out. But "no previous administration has taken it up. Lawyers at the White House and the Justice and Treasury Departments have never issued formal opinions on the question. And legal scholars disagree about the constitutionality of such a move."

If such a move were allowed, the federal government could keep borrowing indiscriminately, which would eventually lead to all sorts of financial troubles.

"No matter what the merits of the debate are, Biden officials fear that investors would demand much higher interest rates to buy government debt that the courts could throw out, since prospects for repayment would be unclear," writes Jeff Stein at The Washington Post:

That could lead federal borrowing costs to spike, as well as drive up rates for other loans, and it could still lead to the same broader panic in financial markets that it is intended to avoid.

"You have to worry about the interest rates, the market reaction, the effect on financial markets that rely on Treasurys. There's no way to avoid potentially significant economic damage given the debate that would ensue," said David Kamin, who served as deputy director of the White House National Economic Council earlier in the Biden administration.



Latest Polling Shows Commanding Trump Lead + Team Trump Organizing Ballot Harvesting Operations


Several recent stories give an updated status on the current political dynamic.   Despite the continued onslaught of media, lawfare and professional political institutions trying to tear down Donald Trump and the American restoration insurgency he represents, the large poll data shows President Trump gaining strength [ABC POLL]

In a head-to-head matchup against Biden, Trump now leads 44% to 38%, and the shift in the polling continues favoring Donald Trump.

Why?

Two main factors. First, people are seeing the lies and manipulations created by aligned systems against Trump. Second, perhaps more importantly, because peace, stability and economic prosperity were already demonstrated by President Trump’s policies.

There is a factual reference to Trump outcomes that eliminates the guesswork.

The corporate media are still trying to weaponize any issue in their attempt to remove support for Donald Trump, but their efforts are not working.  Now, you are beginning to see reports of President Trump putting systems into place.

The Washington Times has a story about President Trump organizing ballot harvesting operations [SEE HERE], and Politico notes Team Trump is making background moves with key delegate contacts [See Here].

Most of the pearl-clutching about possible Trump legal issues are stimulated by people, media and donors who are supporting Ron DeSantis.  The motive for the effort is transparent.  Yes, the United States Government, DOJ and FBI are conducting weaponized operations against Donald Trump in order to remove the financial threat he represents to the owners of the institutions.   However, as with the leftist arguments, most of the lawfare constructs are weak and built on fraud.

There is also a growing acceptance amid the DC chattering class that Donald Trump is not only going to win reelection, but he’s also going to come back to Washington DC with a double-sided battle axe to rip out the heart of the administrative/bureaucratic state.  You see this increasing sensibility via endorsements from political operatives that are deeply enmeshed in the apparatus.

WASHINGTON DC – […] During that time, the former president has picked several prominent endorsements in Congress, including the support of National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Steve Daines (R-Mont.).

Republican senators and GOP strategists say Daines’s endorsement is a sign that Trump is viewed as the favorite to win the party’s presidential nomination in 2024.

They say the leader of the Senate Republican campaign arm wants to have a good working relationship with him to maximize the chances of winning back control of the Senate.

“I just think that his nomination is inevitable. I really do. He’s going to be the nominee. I’d be stunned if he’s not,” said one Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss the primary and hasn’t yet endorsed a candidate.

“You’ve seen the numbers. I’ve talked to voters. People are beginning to recognize that. Steve Daines’s endorsement reflects that reality. He’s going to be the nominee, we want him to work with us,” the senator added. (read more)