Critical Race Theory

We really shouldn’t go around criticizing and demanding that things should not be taught to our kids or forced on us without understanding what they are. That’s pretty much common sense. So what is Critical Race Theory that has led the President to uncompromisingly condemn it? The best explanation I have seen comes from Sargon, and it’s easily worth 20 minutes of your time.

 

I think he is spot on correct. The whole thing is not so much anti-white as it is anti English and American. Why? Because for the last 500 years the English and the Americans have led the world in freedom, in prosperity, in almost any measure that indicates a better life than any other, at any time in history.

The only place where I mildly disagree with him, and its a matter of degree, nothing more, is that all these characteristics are more emphasized in Americans than they are in the English.

There are several causes of this, one is that when our first founders came over they were the generation of English who most adored freedom, to the point that it wouldn’t be long before they fought a war against the King, and executed him. Many of those first and second generation proto-Americans returned to England to take their place in the Parliamentary ranks. The situation of the frontier from then until at least 1900 also shaped us to understand that these characteristics were the way, and the only way, we were going to survive, let alone thrive.

And his example towards the end is very illustrative. Do you know anybody who would want to associate let alone consider her (I guess) a friend? Sorry, I’m not even close to being egalitarian enough to have any interest in being equal to that individual in anything at all. I choose not to run around demeaning myself or any other person, as long as they are doing their best. The only equality I care to share with this person is equality under the law.

Another place where Sargon is correct is when he reminds us not to let the enemy define the terms we use.

Sunday Funnies; The Nomination and More

And so, now we know

Keep this in mind, it is not Ginsburg’s seat nor is it a liberal seat. It belongs to the American people, and we long ago gave the President the power to nominate and the Senate to advise and consent on whom we allow to sit in it. They are doing what we said.

 

The Redhead of the week will never be as beautiful as this one. Right, Jess? Although I can think of one candidate.

Heh! My kind of Governor

But be careful fishing!

And of course

Poker 101

So Danang Dick Blumenthal, America’s leading proponent of stolen valor, thinks he’s in a position to make threats, saying, “Nothing is off the table. If Republicans recklessly & reprehensively force a SCOTUS vote before the election — nothing is off the table,” in a Tweet. In itself a cowardly way to make a mealy-mouthed threat. I think that should be taken as a challenge, myself.

Cause you see, when he tells me that the Demonrats have everything on the table, that tells me that it’s the last hand, and when we win, they’ve gone bust, been taken to the cleaners, any of the similar phrases you prefer. And it’s true, although they’ll flip the card table and try to destroy the parlor, just as four flushers always do. Evidently, while he was enjoying those deferments, he never learned to play poker with men.

We probably shouldn’t blame them too much though, after all, they’re playing with scared money they can’t afford to lose. Something both my dad and Brett Maverick taught me not to do. See they actually thought that after all the good stuff that has happened to almost all Americans during President Trump’s term, that the Wuhan Flu would force the country to its knees, and give them a victory. Whoops again, The Atlanta Fed is projecting third-quarter growth at an annualized 31 % (4% is considered good).

But who is not sharing in it? Why those poor souls who haven’t escaped from the blue cities and states, who are still locked down. Especially California which is simply suicidal. New York, Portland, and Seattle are looking at losing their federal funds. It’s going to get nothing but worse

All the threats aren’t really directed at the President though. Mostly because even the Dems have probably figured out that he ain’t gonna cut and run. They’re directed at the Senate, which has some pretty week spines. I’m not much of a fan of Mitch McConnell, but he has set his career on getting conservative judges confirmed, and he’s done a heckuva job of it. He’s not going to throw it away now.

I happened to reread the Book of Esther recently. You remember the story, Esther was a queen in Xerxes harem when Haman convinced Xerxes to let him kill the Jews. The law said she could only go to the king when summoned. To go without that summons usually meant death. Her uncle Mordecai convinced her that this is what she was born for, to save her people. She did and did save her people. And we gained a new expression, As high as the gallows of Haman. This is why we elected the Republican majority to the Senate.

That’s what the Dems see in the distance. When Trump wins, and he will if fraud can be kept at reasonable levels, then comes the rest, the attempted coup, the Durham indictments, even the prosecution of the mayor of Seattle, not to mention rolling up using even sedition charges BLM/Antifa, right up the chain to their financiers, who also finance the Democratic Party. With a conservative Supreme Court.

See, the President is all in too. Opposing the Dems, threats of violence are the law, federal law enforcement, Barr’s DOJ, not to even mention the Federalized National Guard. And he’s not playing with scared money, because he knows a winning hand when he sees one.

It’s a bad year to be a Democrat, 2020 is. 2021 may well be worse.

Blackstone, Marshall, Court Packing, and RBG

So, we expect the President to nominate a Supreme Court justice within a week. This is news but it should not be an earthquake in Washington, yet it is. Why?

In large measure, it harks back to Marbury v Madison, the case that established judicial supremacy over the constitutionality of a bill. Thanks, Chief Justice John Marshall. I’m actually fairly well persuaded by his reasoning that he got the meat of the argument correct. Yet in a curious reversal of normal procedure, after he heard the arguments and found for the plaintiff (A Justice of the Peace in DC William Marbury) whom Jefferson declined to send his commission to, a clear duty of Secretary of State James Madison.

Then and only then, did Marshal by finding the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, violating Section III of the Constitution by giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction where the Constitution gave it only appellant jurisdiction, Interestingly, in something current readers will recognize this was a case of a Writ of Mandamus, just as the revocation of the FBI’s charges against Lieutenant General Flynn is.

A Writ of Mandamus is sort of a catch-all for when there is no other relief available. Blackstone says in the third volume of his Commentaries, quoted by Marshall that:

‘In all other cases,’ he says, ‘it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.’And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, ‘I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.

I include this mostly as a reminder on how US law grew out of the English Common Law. In any case, Madison v Marbury is really an insignificant case involving not very much, except for the rendering invalid of  The Judiciary Act. This is where the Court obtained the power to invalidate a law duly passed and signed.

Not much else bears on the subject until we get to the 1930s. The Supreme Court was deluged by a huge number of cases contesting the constitutionality of almost all the New Deal legislation, and nearly always finding it unconstitutional. The old conservative federal courts at work, as usual. But Franklin Roosevelt was incensed, he wanted to run the economy centrally from Washington, because he was smarter than the average citizen and knew what was best for them, and what was best was a cradle to grave welfare system. He basically owned Congress, with supermajorities subservient to his every whim, but the Court was blocking him.

This is the point where in 1937 he threatened to pack the court. The Democrats in Congress, to their credit, were aghast at the effrontery and the threat to the Consitution, but he submitted his bill to the House (as was customary), if I recall it never came to a vote, then he submitted it to the Senate with the same result. And so he was stymied, as designed by the founders.

But the threat scared the Court, and suddenly it changed course and we got the New Deal which made the Great Depression both longer and worse than it had been. To the point that the man that ended it was a guy by the name of Adolph Hitler.

From that time on, the Democrats have used the Court as a super legislature, doing things that the American people would never approve of. The two things we speak of most are abortion and gay marriage, neither things that would pass in any American Legislature, other than California, maybe.

In short, we live in what can be fairly termed a kritarchy, a regime ruled by judges.

And that makes the next Supreme Court Justice a matter of life and death both for the Republic and for the Democrats.

Monday Thoughts

I’m not going to talk much about the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, may she find justice in the afterlife. I will say this, if the Democrats and their controlled terrorists think that a threat of riots will deter the President and Senate, I suspect they will have a surprise coming and another big one on November 3d. This is not a time when we can tolerate a bunch of 4-4 decisions on matters that so strongly affect the future of the United States. I’m reminded that two of those terrorists, BLM lawyers in New York, are looking at life sentences in federal prison for torching an NYPD squad car. Yes, there is a lesson there. Make of it what you will.

Along that line, Bruce L Hartman at American Thinker has taken to calling these people we see destroying our cities, and yes, their enablers in the left and the media, the E (for entitled) Generation. It’s an acute observation. They always have been, how many times have you seen a parent give in to a four-year-old’s tantrum in the grocery store, then seen that same kid get a wall full of participation trophies. Read his article, he’s not wrong, but he’s much kinder than I am, I simply call them “spoiled brats who need a good lesson in deportment”, and yes in many other things too. Until they get it, there going to ruin many peoples’ lives, including their own.

Clarice Feldman, also at American Thinker has a three-part article this week, and it’s outstanding. She quotes David Goldman saying this.

The President, defying the conventional wisdom of decades of big thinkers in foreign policy establishments here and in Europe, offered the Palestinians their last best hope for peace. Since peace was never their objective, they turned it down and now they are like the petunia in an  onion patch of the  children’s song — standing alone among its neighbors.

That’s spot on and again Clarice carries the ball admirably, as usual. But there’s something else lurking in the shadows here. I wonder how many jobs, American, and in other countries are dependant on peace not being brought to the middle east. Obviously, John Kerry amongst others has built his entire career from the day he threw his medals from the Vietnam War over the White House fence all those years ago to last Friday on it. I strongly doubt he’s the only one. That’s worth some thought on other issues facing us, as well.

She also talks about that beautiful piece of legal jiu-jitsu that Betsy DeVos executed on Princeton’s  President Christopher Eisgruber asking him bluntly under threat of $75 million in Federal Aid in the last seven years whether “Do these admissions mean Princeton’s non-discrimination and equal opportunity assurances and representations to the Department and/or to students, parents, and consumers in the market for education… have been false and misleading? If not, why not?” Virtue signaling may have just gotten rather expensive. Better late than never.

She also talks intelligently about replacing Justice Ginsburg. I said all I care to about that above, but it’s worth reading as well.

A short take to wrap this up. There’s a fairly long article in The Tablet, that you need to read on how what the author calls America’s China class came to so dominate so much of American life. I think you will find it quite illuminating, so do read it. I’ll quote a couple sentences to whet your appetite.

American political and corporate elites didn’t choose decline. They chose to get rich.

Yep, and they sold out Americans, perhaps unknowingly but I doubt it, to do so. Now they are trying to destroy the President as they have for almost 5 years now.

Love the Soldier, Distrust the General

Almost everyone who reads here knows that no one had more admiration for the prowess of American warriors than I do.  I always will. What I have no admiration for, in fact, no tolerance for is insubordination from those chosen to lead those forces, and that is exactly what I’m hearing now from far too many members of the former and present leadership.

Almost 50 years ago, our President and one of our greatest generals, who was most unlikely to disrespect our military, said his farewell to us. President Trump’s words, I think, make President Eisenhower’s words look prescient. Here is what he told us, the emphasis is mine.

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we which to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII

So-in this my last good night to you as your President-I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I-my fellow citizens-need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing inspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Transcription courtesy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum.

You will, I am sure, note, as I have, that there is absolutely nothing here but respect and admiration for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of the republic. Such a view would be inconceivable from Eisenhower who had led us through some of our darkest hours. Neither has President Trump ever said anything that even a semi-reasonable person could take to be disrespect for our service people.

His warning, like Trump’s, is about generals who owe (in their minds) more to the defense contractors than they do to their subordinates, in short, a politicized military high command, and now we are definitely seeing signs of that, as we see general after admiral, after intelligence officer publicly make statements that are not in keeping with the constitutional subordination of the military to the civilian president.

It needs to end abruptly and very soon.

%d bloggers like this: