Some other things are not: the police state tactics, masked Federal agents arresting people off the street, foreign prisons that violate the 8th Amendment, censorship of disfavored words. These are not in line with America's best traditions and deserve outright condemnation. Insofar as we have any power -- one of the dearest fantasies of Americans is that we have some sort of power over the Federal government apart from the occasional elections -- they deserve our opposition.
A third class of things is both at once: bringing in aggrieved non-experts to run agencies is a necessary breath of fresh air, but will inevitably lead to amateur errors because amateurs are employed. They're not bad people, but we have to expect mistakes. That's ok, but there will be errors.
Two things so far are clearly wrong, at least to me. The desire to take over Gaza from Israel reminds me of nothing more than JFK's decision to take over Vietnam from the French; that's not our fight and we shouldn't want any part of the decades of war it would entail. There should be no third terms, not for anyone. Washington's standard should hold.
That's how it looks to me, at least, so far.
17 comments:
It looks the same to this Californian.
I would add the attempt to hamstring law firms for supporting the wrong people or causes. That's what lawyers are supposed to do. The executive branch properly has a lot of control over security clearances, but otherwise hands off the law firms.
I'm not seeing any moves toward a third Presidential term by Trump other than Trump trolling the Left and the Progressive-Democrats.
I'm not seeing any hamstringing of law firms beyond rescinding security clearances held by lawyers and by law firms as institutions. No one who's not an immediate employee of the Federal government has any intrinsic right to, or need for, a security clearance, except on a case by case basis. The appropriate start to cleaning that up is a blanket rescission. Let those who need one--not those who want one--demonstrate their need and go through the vetting process. When they're done with the particular case, their clearance should be removed again.
I don't see an 8th Amendment violation from using foreign prisons. Any violation would come from the particular conditions of the particular prison.
With the Left's insistent doxxing of Federal personnel, and their demand for lethal violence levied against Federal personnel, I have no problem with the agents' masking up. They just need to show badges or otherwise identify themselves in the moment. I'm not seeing any evidence that they are not, other than news writers' unsubstantiated claims.
Eric Hines
Are you referring to the Salvadoran Prisons? I was not aware we had sent any US citizens there. Just gangsters from other foreign countries.
Not sure what you mean by police state tactics?
We haven't yet sent any US citizens there, although it's been suggested that we might. As I said the other day, the government should never be allowed to outsource Constitutional violations. If our Constitution forbids our government from doing a thing, they shouldn't be allowed to hire it done by a corporation or another country. Government is always the chief enemy of liberty. We have to restrain them as hard as we can.
As for police state tactics, I mean that you can't expect anyone to surrender to you without showing a face that matches your identification -- and a warrant as well. There's no way you'd pull that off with me without somebody getting killed. Maybe it'd be me. Most likely, sooner or later. But absolutely I'm not going to let you put me in chains without a clear identification of your authority.
I was not aware we had sent any US citizens there. Just gangsters from other foreign countries.
Nevertheless, they were our prisoners, and were they in our prisons, they--and our government--would be subject to our 8th Amendment protections. I think Grim's point there is valid; and were the outsourced prisoners subject to conditions that would violate those protections in our prisons, I'd agree with him on the unconstitutionality of those conditions.
Eric Hines
Some thoughts- no answers.
Our problem is we are coasting on a few hundred years of civilization, and we are out of gas. All the old basic cultural mores are gone.
Remember the old stories about the Mafia- it's business, they might whack a guy but never go after his family? Today, if the scum can ID a cop, they very well might go after his family. And the cartels have the resources to do it, along with inside political support via plata. I am not saying concealing a cops ID is good, but it may be necessary- the old rules of order are gone.
But-
Your response is the same as mine, - somebody kicks down my door without ID and a warrant and it will get exciting.
So what to do? The only thing that stops a criminal is fear. Today that fear seems to be aimed not at the criminal, but against anyone who resists a criminal. Starts young, grade school "it takes two to start a fight", classic BS of the first order. Along with "violence never solves anything". Another line of BS proving stupidity is infinite.
So criminal gets resisted, now a elected prosecutor has to decide who is the "victim", and most importantly, which of the possible outcomes will help his re-election. Which of the parties involved has the largest most outspoken support group? Where do his election funds originate?
When a criminal gang gets big enough, it is identical to a government.
It has been said the thing a criminal fears most is an armed victim.
Put these ideas together...and cogitate on gun control .
BTW- Re. offshore prisons- Do non-citizens enjoy constitutional protections? Is this not the same argument used to justify their having ballot access?
And if they do enjoy the protections IF THEY ARE IN OUR CUSTODY-
Does this mean if they are NOT in our custody they do not have those protections?
Consider the implications.
"...censorship of disfavored words."
Oh? Did I miss something?
These are excellent questions. I don't have good answers either.
I do think that we can't have "law enforcement" wearing masks and not presenting ID. That's not workable. If the cartels are so aggressive that we have to ask ICE agents to be bachelors, or orphans, well, we've done that before.
We can also hit the cartels harder at home than we do. I don't think they have the whip hand against us.
In the end, though, the government is always a bigger danger to its citizenry than any of its enemies: other governments or criminals. Russia killed a lot of Germans in WWII; the Germans themselves killed more Germans, and the Russians themselves killed more Russians. The Japanese killed a lot of innocent Chinese people, even with horrors like plague bombs; but the Chinese government under Chairman Mao killed a whole lot more.
Their only reason to exist is to protect the natural rights of the people. They are, at the same time, the chief danger to both our rights and our lives. We must always keep that in mind.
https://smokymountainnews.com/news/item/39304-silenced-307-words-phrases-and-acronyms-trump-doesn-t-want-you-to-use
The censorship is mild so far — extra scrutiny— and it is of the sort as the post above about banning monuments and statues. But it’s a violation of the principle all the same.
Grims said "Their only reason to exist is to protect the natural rights of the people. They are, at the same time, the chief danger to both our rights and our lives. We must always keep that in mind".
Yes- and anything that must be taken from one, to give to another, is not a right. This is one place we have gone off the rails.
Is this censorship? I mean, the lead paragraph is dramatic enough:
Whether you’re Black, Hispanic, Indigenous or White — LGBTQ+ or cisgender — if you’re thinking about promoting equity and inclusion in historically marginalized communities by combating institutionalized discrimination, racism and sexism, congratulations! You just committed thoughtcrime, because some words are more equal than others.
Wow. A 1984 reference as well as an Animal Farm reference. What kind of dystopian nightmare have we walked into!? Let's find out:
That’s the message getting out to municipal and nonprofit administrators across the country after a leaked email from a National Science Foundation program officer revealed a list of hundreds of terms that will send your federal grant application straight to the trash bin — or at the very least, draw increased scrutiny.
Oh. So, if you use these terms in your application to get free money from the federal government, your application will at least get extra scrutiny, and might just be denied outright. And that is somehow equivalent to 1984/Animal Farm-esque censorship?
Let's step back a minute. When did getting free money from the federal government become a right? Censorship is the government denying you a right because of the language you use. What right is involved here?
“I think it's absurdity at its best, not being allowed to say certain words because they find them offensive,” said Waynesville Town Council Member Anthony Sutton. “It’s the epitome of being a snowflake.”
No one is saying you can't say these or any other words, even on your application for free money. In fact, you can use those words in any way you want. You can spray paint them red all over town, publish them in your paper or your blog, use them in public speeches, whatever. They're just saying if you want free money from the federal government to pursue far left causes, and you say that in your grant application, they'll probably say no.
Grants, Sutton explained, are an important part of any municipal budget — essentially, free money. Screwing up a grant application has financial implications ...
On March 4, Asheville released a draft plan for community development block grants related to Hurricane Helene recovery that included priority funding for women- and minority-owned businesses. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner took offense and told the city the plan was unacceptable. The town revised the plan a week later.
So, they wanted free money and they felt it was essential that they be able to discriminate against white men with that money. When the feds wouldn't indulge their bigotry with free money, they felt discriminated against. Why, they had to edit their application to get the money! Editing! The horror! It's just like Orwell predicted in 1984! Of course, they can still informally discriminate against white men with that money, and probably will.
Nah. This isn't even mild censorship. This is just setting grant standards. It is also an attempt by the Left to portray themselves as victims and Trump as evil.
Correction: The "On March 4" paragraph was quoted and should be italicized.
I get that it’s a super liberal publication and that it tends to annoy with those typical extravagances of rhetoric.
Look at the list, though. Some of these should draw attention and scrutiny sure; but very many are perfectly valid categories of study. What’s going on here? Why?
Yes, many or even all of them could be in a grant application for a legitimate research project, although they can be flags for far left projects. If they are just used to flag possible far left research, I see no problem at all. But my point is, even if the government denies a grant application just for including a particular term, it does not seem like censorship, i.e., a violation of constitutional rights.
I agree that taking over Gaza would be a grievous error, unless he really can get all of the Gazans relocated. That seems impossible, though.
I also agree with no third term for Trump or any other president. I do suspect he just threw that out there to get a rise from the Left. I guess we'll see.
“ That's how it looks to me, at least, so far.”
So nothing’s changed for the last 20 years. OK.
Post a Comment