Debate, disaster, and dilemma (2024)

Extinctionism – older than you think

0 0

Reply

Whose dignity deserves protection?

0 0

Reply

“Resident” Joe Biden has decided to stay in the race, though even he knows he performed disastrously in The Debate. Or rather, his family – his venal and power-hungry family – has decided for him. Only a cynic can explain their conduct – for a cynic knows what most on the left want you to forget. Which is that every person on Earth acts in his or her self-interest. They might try to hide it, but a close-enough examination of their drive reveals the self-interested motive. Every other analysis of this appalling situation is pretense, and pretentious. The only way those making that decision can keep an ounce of respect from anyone, is to drop all pretense.

How the Cynic school got its name

Our English word cynic comes from the Cynic School of Greek philosophers, which Antisthenes, contemporary with Plato, founded. (His name, incidentally, translates as “a replacement for vigor.”) Antisthenes taught at a gymnasium (literally, place of physical training, or place of nudity) called the Kynosarges – a name meaning “dog flesh.” How the Dog Flesh Gym got its name, no one knows. But decades after Antisthenes came Diogenes of Sinope, who declared that anything natural and easy should be allowed. In other words, Diogenes did not care where he did what he did. His fellow Greeks called him ho kyōn (Ho KOO-own) – The Dog.

Thus, Cynic came to mean “one who lives like a dog and doesn’t care who sees it or how they see it.” But more important than Diogenes’ in-your-face lifestyle was his declaration that no one is ever completely honest. His “search for the one true honest man” is proverbial. Diogenes laid it on the line: everyone acts in his own self-interest.

Centuries later, Robert J. Ringer would articulate Cynicism as no one else did before or has done since. In Winning Through Intimidation (1977) he described “Screw U.”, the School of Experience. He also described “Three Unforgettable Professors,” each of whom exemplified three types of people he met in “the business world.” Three years later, in Looking Out for Number One, he expanded on that thesis. Those Three Types are in fact Three Types of people you meet in all of life. To quote:

Type Number One understands, and lets you know up-front, that he acts in his own self-interest.

Type Number Two also understands that he acts in his own self-interest, but tries to make you believe otherwise.

Type Number Three either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that he acts in his own self-interest. His blandishments, which happen to be sincere, will then put you off guard.

In short: Type Number One tries to deceive no one; Type Number Two tries to deceive you, and Type Number Three deceives himself first and tries to deceive you second.

Is everyone, then, a cynic at heart?

No. Type Number Three is not a cynic; he is simply naive. Type Number Two is the worst kind of cynic, because he pretends to be your friend. Type Number One won’t pretend – so you know where you stand with him at all times. Ringer, in Winning, announced he had found, in Type Number One, Diogenes’ truly honest man:

Not only is Type Number One not crooked, but he is the most honest (by my own standard: “straightforwardness”) of the three types of people you meet in the business world.

Or in other areas of life. Type Number Two – there is the crook. He is the virtue signaler, and that’s part of his act. Type Number Three signals virtue also, but in one way he is more dangerous – he means what he says. (At least until Decision Time.)

Self-interest manifests in two goals: money and power. Capitalism harnesses the money self-interest, by setting up a system of honest trade. Thereafter, “those who stand to gain from your earning and receiving income” won’t stop you, and might even support you. Those who do not so stand to gain, will oppose you, openly (Type Number One) or secretly (Type Number Two/Three).

The power interest is the most dangerous. George Washington was right:

Government is a fearsome servant and a dangerous master.

Power comes with trappings and privilege, and that might be enough for some people. But power is also a means by which either to:

1. Steal large sums for oneself, or

2. Revenge oneself against the world, certain types of people in it, or even specific enemies, real or imagined.

A cynic is a dog barking at society, warning against power seekers and thieves.

Arf, arf. Or increasingly: Gr-r-r-r!

Explaining the decision to keep Biden in the race

Once again, everyone in this drama has a self-interest to serve. Yesterday, the Biden family convened at Camp David, the official publicly owned Presidential retreat, to talk about The Campaign. Everyone at that confab knew that Biden had hurt himself badly. The only question for the family was: could he recover from that?

But that’s not the question any of them asked. Someone – probably a member of Camp David staff – has tattled on that conversation already. This source told The New York Times that Hunter Biden raised the loudest voice: “Daddy, please run!” First Lady Jill Biden echoed that refrain – and then told her husband that his poor performance was not his fault. She lays the blame on his advisers.

A top donor to the campaign shares that last sentiment – blaming the advisers and preparing to fire them all.

https://x.com/JohnMorganESQ/status/1807453402282004543

Other prominent Democrats do not share the family’s attitude. CBS News’ latest poll of the rank-and-file shows their fear. Democrat voters, citing Biden’s age, want a younger man to carry their standard. (Age is never a factor if a President can perform. The problem for Biden is that he can’t perform.)

Among the leadership, dissension is growing in the top rank. Tucker Carlson reported early Monday morning that Barack Obama wants “an open convention.”

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1807682297862172999

Only if Biden releases his delegates will that happen. But another influencer, replying to the above, left two posts explaining something else: Obama is running the country.

https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807685260530102342

https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807684488295850415

Numbers behind the discontent

Laura Loomer, over the weekend, shared several posts showing the attitudes of various Democrats at different times. Here are some posts and reposts:

https://x.com/ajc/status/1807151882785444184

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807188005611831549

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807257771953266773

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807400905014231430

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807660203220836468

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807581829303579057

William Stevenson, Jill’s ex, gave an interview to The New York Post over the weekend, according to Fox News. He told the Post that he doesn’t recognize his ex-wife anymore, that she’s a completely different person. The Jill Stevenson Biden of today is a driven woman – driven by ambition. It’s as if she “wants to be … President now,” Stevenson said. He also said Jill let Joe Biden steal her away from him, beginning in 1972. The Post covered that four years ago. Still, Stevenson supported Democratic candidates and causes – until 2020. Now he supports Trump all the way.

For all the considerations of Biden’s failing health, the family announced yesterday morning that he was staying in the race. Yesterday afternoon the Democratic National Committee decided to stand by Biden. They now want to nominate Biden on July 21 – in the Credentials Committee.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1807865101095166119

That could solve some ballot access problems – but not the basic health problem. Big-money donor Bill Ackman – famous for refusing to hire anyone from Harvard who signed onto a letter blaming Israel for the atrocities its people suffered on October 7, 2023 – observed that the Democratic Party is now destroying itself.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1807867087173374072

Analysis

Gr-r-r—there go, my heart’s abhorrence!

Robert Browning, from Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister

Ask any cynic: everyone acts in his own self-interest. Barack Obama’s interest is power, and so is Jill Biden’s interest. But Barack Obama knows that, if Joe Biden stays in the race, he (Obama) will lose his power. Jill Biden knows that, if Joe drops out of the race, she loses power – perhaps immediately. Dare she breathe the phrase lame duck? And Hunter knows that, once his father is out of office, he goes to prison.

The Democrats know they’re stuck with Biden; it’s too late to put another name onto the ballot. It was all very well for New Jersey Democrats, in 2002, to replace Robert G. Torricelli after the ballot deadline with Frank Lautenberg after Torricelli got into a scandal he couldn’t spin away. But New Jersey was and still is Democrat country, and Democrats controlled the Secretaryship of State and Division of Elections. This year the Democrats have to deal with Republican State Departments of State and Divisions of Elections. Riff Raff Raffensperger might agree to that double switch, but not any other Republican Secretary of State. Or at least not every other Republican Secretary of State.

So the Democrats are going to nominate Biden early, in the Credentials Committee. Barack Obama must be doing a slow burn.

Biden should release his delegates and open the convention. But he won’t, because his wife, and his own bitterness, say not to. That combination of venom and ambition might kill him – if someone else doesn’t. (And we know who.)

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/07/02/news/cynic-only-explain/

Video:

Video: Jill blaming Joe’s advisers:

John Morgan saying the Bidens ought to fire everybody:

https://x.com/JohnMorganESQ/status/1807453402282004543

Tucker Carlson’s scoop:

https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1807682297862172999

Two replies:

https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807685260530102342

https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807684488295850415

Biden, step aside! – Atlanta Journal-Constitution

https://x.com/ajc/status/1807151882785444184

Laura Loomer’s posts:

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807188005611831549

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807257771953266773

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807400905014231430

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807660203220836468

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807581829303579057

Collin Rugg: DNC plans to summon the Credentials Committee:

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1807865101095166119

Bill Ackman: the Democrats are destroying themselves:

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1807867087173374072

Robert Browning, Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister:

https://poetryconnection.net/poets/robert-browning/soliloquy-of-the-spanish-cloister/

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Read full Article

0 0

Reply

Today the Supreme Court wrapped up the 2023 Term by deciding, definitively, the question of Presidential immunity. They held that Presidential immunity does exist for certain things a President does while holding office. Those acts touching on a President’s core Constitutional and (as authorized) statutory powers, are absolutely immune from prosecution. Acts within the “outer perimeter” of a President’s authority are presumptively immune. As common sense dictates, not all acts are official, and Presidents do not enjoy immunity for their unofficial acts. This case already is causing howls of anguish, but none as strident as the two dissenting opinions. Happily, the Court has a majority of Justices who understand what the Constitution and law are and ought to be.

How the Presidential immunity question arises

The very reason the Court had to consider Presidential immunity is that Special Counsel Jack Smith saw fit to prosecute President Donald J. Trump for certain things he did toward the end of his term in office. (United States v. Trump, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan presiding.) Smith obtained an indictment from a D.C. grand jury, alleging a “conspiracy” to “overturn” the Election of 2020. The Supreme Court took due cognizance of the indictment and its specifications, which were that Trump and/or his associates:

1. Tried to persuade certain States to change election results, based on allegations of election fraud Trump allegedly knew were false,

2. Organized the appointment of alternative slates of electors in the States involved, which slates the indictment called fraudulent,

3. Tried to have the Justice Department investigate those State Presidential elections for fraud,

4. Tried to have then-Vice-President Pence disallow the election certification and send seven lists of electoral votes back to their States, and finally

5. Raised a group of supporters to come to Washington on January 6, 2021, a significant number of whom then breached the Capitol.

Trump moved to quash the indictment, asserting Presidential immunity. Judge Chutkan denied the motion, and a D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted 3-0 to affirm that denial. So Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to review the question of Presidential immunity. The Court granted that petition, and effectively stayed all proceedings pending that review.

Argument

On April 25, the last Argument Day, the Court heard argument on the case. Trump’s lawyer probably could have argued the inherent power of any executive to enjoy immunity from prosecution for his acts. Instead he cited the Executive Vesting Clause (Article II Section 1 Clause 1) and multiple precedents. Key to understanding the opinion, Trump’s counsel conceded that some Presidential acts were private to him as a person. Such acts, he conceded, would not enjoy Presidential immunity.

The opinion

The opinion the Court released today conformed to every reasonable prediction of the Court’s ruling, after the argument session. As anyone would expect, the Originalists sided with Trump, and the Liberals with Smith. The Moderates also sided with Trump – with one exception Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have made.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court. Justices Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas – the Originalists – all joined it in full. So did Moderate Justice Brett Kavanaugh – and again, Justice Barrett joined the opinion in part. All opinions come with case-specific orders – and in this case the Court:

• Vacated the D.C. Circuit panel’s affirmation of Judge Chutkan’s denial of the motion-to-dismiss, and

• Remanded the case to that Court of Appeals for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence that called the very appointment of Jack Smith into question. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing – and off-the-rails – dissent in which Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan joined. In addition, Justice Jackson wrote a dissent of her own.

Carefully delineating Presidential immunity

Chief Justice Roberts never once treated the questions of Trump’s mens rea (state of mind) on his last Presidential days. Neither did he pass judgment on anyone’s Election of 2020 claims. That’s because the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. That’s why Roberts also left careful and extensive instructions for the District Court to develop a more complete factual record.

Everyone has agreed that Presidents enjoy immunity from civil suit for monetary or other damages. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. This case involves criminal prosecution, and is the first such case on historical record.

A President does what he does under the authority of statute, Constitution, or both. Furthermore, Constitutional authority is considered conclusive and preclusive. Therefore, says Roberts, neither Congress nor the courts may examine a President’s conduct under Constitutional authority. (If Congress does want to examine a President’s conduct in this area, Congress has the means: impeachment.)

When a President acts under statutory authority, then he shares that authority with Congress. Under those circ*mstances, a court might examine some of his actions, in addition to the Congressional impeachment power. But a President is entitled to presumptive immunity for such acts. The prosecution then has the burden of proof that the acts were of a kind Congress never authorized. Furthermore:

Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

But a President’s private acts are subject to examination and prosecution. Thus when Bill Clinton asserted “temporary immunity” from a lawsuit by Paula Jones, the Supreme Court rejected that notion.

About that indictment

Roberts turned to the indictment and found every reason to vacate the blanked judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Then he went over the indictment, point by point, to decide which of those points could even stand.

Point 3 falls immediately. Presidents have the authority to decide which crimes to investigate, and to decide on Justice Department leadership. He may fire an Attorney General, with the understanding that his replacement must pass Senate muster. Conclusion: a President enjoys absolute Presidential immunity from prosecution for the acts under Point 3 above. (Point 2 might be a private act, but so far not every prosecution over so-called “fake electors” has succeeded significantly.)

Point 4 involves a Vice-Presidential duty under Article I, not II. This point falls in the “outer perimeter,” so Roberts instructed the District Court to inquire whether a prosecution under this point “would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Points 1 and 2 might be official or unofficial. Roberts concluded that the Court did not have enough facts before it to determine that. Developing a factual record to answer those questions became another instruction on remand.

Point 5 covered Trump’s invitation to his Twitter (now X) followers to come to Washington, and his speech to the crowd. Here Roberts charged that the indictment selected certain X posts and speech excerpts out of context. So he instructed the District Court on remand to provide, and examine, that context.

Authority of the Special Counsel’s office

Justice Thomas, in concurrence, sees a worse problem. He questions the very existence of the Special Counsel’s office, because he finds no statutory authorization for it. In Thomas’ view, no specific law creates an Office of Special Counsel. Unless and until the Justice Department can show which statute creates the office, Jack Smith is a private citizen. As such he has no authority.

Such statutes have existed in the past. Congress wrote the first such statute after the Teapot Dome scandal broke. But all such statutes have lapsed. Nevertheless, Attorney General Merrick Garland created a Special Counsel’s office under highly dubious authority. Worse, he appointed Jack Smith to head that office without any input from the Senate.

• Under the Constitution (Article II Section 2), Congress must by law:

• Establish any office other than a few the Constitution names, and

• Specifically vest the appointment of inferior officers of any kind, in:

  • the President alone,

  • the law courts, or

  • heads of departments.

Congress has done none of these things in Jack Smith’s case. Therefore Merrick Garland acted illegally, or at least extralegally.

In fact, three prominent legal theorists briefed the Court on this very issue. They did so when Jack Smith sought (and lost) a writ of review before judgment. They did not re-brief the Court in the present case, but Justice Thomas did not let that matter rest.

Concurrence and dissents on Presidential immunity

Justice Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part. The Opinion of the Court says that the private notes and testimony of a President or his advisers would be inadmissible in evidence. Roberts ruled that way to protect those private notes and recollections as part of Presidential privilege. Amy Coney Barrett disagrees. Concerned as she is with institutional and especially judicial integrity and prerogative, Barrett wants that evidence admitted. In fact she appears to want motive to come into any evaluation of a President’s conduct. Of course, she cannot prevail on that point. Four Justices joined the Chief Justice’ opinion in full – and that makes for five votes.

Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson both dissent here. They hold that a President rates no immunity for his acts. Their treatment of the indictment is the key to their writings. While Roberts properly refuses to rule on the guilt or innocence of Trump as President, Sotomayor and Jackson assume guilt. It never occurs to them that a President more to their liking might face the same treatment. (The only reason no Democrat has come in for such treatment, is that Republicans are polite to a fault and won’t begin such a campaign.)

The Court saved the Republic!

More to the point, the dissenters don’t realize that The Supreme Court has just saved the Republic. Recall again the dilemma that faced the great Julius Caesar. In 49 B.C., junior consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus introduced an emergency resolution against the intercessory powers of Tribunes of the Plebs. Mark Antony shouted, “I forbid that!” (In literal Latin, Veto!) Lentulus Crus ordered the sergeants-at-arms – the lictors – to eject Antony and another angry tribune from the Senate meeting hall. Antony led his friend to the Well of the Comitia, and made an angry speech protesting the ejection. The two then left Rome – but sent a fast horseman to take a message to Caesar, waiting just across the Rubicon. That is when Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

He crossed the Rubicon because the Senate of Rome clearly were setting up a prosecution of him. Today the Supreme Court removed any excuse for a President to “cross the Potomac.” With Presidential immunity extending after he has left office, he has no legitimate reason so to act.

Other cases besides Presidential immunity

The Supreme Court released two more opinions, including one in two consolidated cases involving States’ efforts to require social-media moderators to act more like Constitutional judges. In essence, Florida and Texas are trying to write Fifth and Sixth Amendments for social-media users. A company called NetChoice challenged both laws – on their face. Two District Courts entered preliminary injunctions against the Florida and Texas laws. Their respective attorneys general appealed. While the Eleventh Circuit sustained the Florida injunction, the Fifth Circuit reversed the Texas injunction.

The Court – unanimously – vacated both Appeals Court judgments and remanded their respective cases. In doing so the Court criticized both Appeals Courts for failing to evaluate their cases for what they were: facial challenges to the respective State laws. A facial challenge is a challenge to the entire law, not merely its applicability in one set of circ*mstances. Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton.

Separately the Court held that the clock doesn’t start ticking on the six-year statute of limitations for suing a regulatory agency until final agency action against a particular plaintiff. Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The vote on that was 6-3, and again the Moderates gave that victory to the Originalists. Amy Coney Barrett wrote that opinion. The Liberals raised a curious lament: this is yet another wing-clipping of the Administrative State. This case shows that the Moderates do not like quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial executive agencies that usurp legislative and judicial powers.

Summary

This case shows one line of deep division of the Court. Clearly members of the Liberal Bloc now suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. This bias prompted the Chief Justice to remind them, in his Opinion, that the Court must treat what might happen to all Presidents. Making law to cover one person, however egregious might be his alleged offenses, is worse than bad law. It is unconstitutional – on its face.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

Article I Section 9 Clause 3

In that spirit, no one can criticize Chief Justice Roberts with any justice for the opinion the Court released today.

Clarence Thomas raised a more serious objection. Jack Smith shouldn’t be in business. As far as Thomas is concerned, Smith’s office is unlawful and his appointment is still less lawful. Again, Thomas brought up a question Biden’s media allies would just as soon forget. Namely that Merrick Garland took it upon himself to create Office of Special Counsel, and to appoint Smith.

Ironically this means that only the Florida Documents Case against Trump remains at all viable. The problem for Jack Smith is that Judge Aileen M. Cannon has different judicial temperament from Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. She is also made of sterner stuff than Smith or his team bargained for.

All of which means that Trump will remain free – and likely win reelection. Then he can continue to improve the national judiciary, one appointment at a time, from the Supreme Court down.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/07/01/news/presidential-immunity-exists-scotus/

Video:

The opinion:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

The other two opinions:

NetChoice:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf

Corner Post:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Read full Article

0 0

Reply

James Carville, adviser to two Democratic Presidents, was always more partisan than most leftists. This month he has shown himself more vindictive – and maybe more paranoid in his ideas – than Biden. That’s a tall order, because Biden has governed as a bitter, vindictive old man from his first day. But now James Carville says that if his favorite candidates lose, America becomes a theocracy. Either he is not serious – that is, employing deliberate hyperbole – or his soul has entered a very dark place.

What did Carville say about theocracy?

Louisiana’s new law mandating a large and easily legible display of the Ten Commandments in every government-funded classroom, from kindergarten all the way through university, seems to have pushed him over the edge. The Daily Caller shared video of him, wearing a Louisiana State University semi-turtleneck, holding forth about theocracy in America. In addition to the Ten Commandments controversy, he worries about the precarious health of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1805336642703573239

In a separate article The Daily Caller provided a partial transcript. Here is the full transcript:

I can assure you, if Trump wins and he names a replacement for Sotomayor, it’s game, set, match. There’s no more Constitution, there’s no more religious freedom. We’re now going to officially move into a theocracy. And so, I hear young people say, “Well I don’t feel like I have a stake in this.” Well. you got a h*** of a stake coming up. So let’s everybody remember what’s really really at stake here. What this is really really about.

And it’s about imposing a theocracy on other people and the fools and tools that are being used for this opening salvo, this Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, whatever you want to call it, is in Louisiana and they’re being exploited by people who really have, which I think is an odious and insidious agenda for the United States of America. So let’s fight this thing like our country depended on it because it does. Let’s remember the words of Roger Williams, and let’s team up and have George Washington in our huddle.

James Carville should mind whose names he is invoking. Roger Williams did flee to the place that became the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. He did so to get away from the Puritans who ran the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Most notably, he founded America’s first Baptist Church in the colony he founded. Baptists are famous for separating church and state – but that means only that the government ought not actually run the church, appoint bishops, etc. (In fact, Baptists recognize no such office as “bishop,” but only pastors and deacons.) But James Carville makes Roger Williams sound like an atheist!

And George Washington? Carville has evidently forgotten how Washington prayed earnestly at Valley Forge for ultimate victory. Neither man would want anything to do with the modern Democratic Party or the secular humanist state they plan.

Typical Carville of today?

This is only the latest appalling and sick “Carville-ism.” On June 6 – the 80^th anniversary of Operation Overlord (“D-Day”), Carville encouraged news organs to abandon objectivity in reporting.

Now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor or publisher, whatever he is at The New York Times, saying, “We’re just going to cover this down the middle. We’re going to cover what it is.” I don’t think that’s the role of the news media at a time when the entire Constitution is in peril. I don’t have anything against slanted coverage. I really don’t … I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. [Forget] your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not.

And everything else, from Hunter Biden’s gun application to Judge Merchan’s, I don’t know, $35 contribution to all of the [useless drivel] that the professional center feels like they got to put out. I can’t tell you that these are bad people. They’re extremely naive people who have no idea what’s at stake in this election. So I think we need slanted coverage, more slanted coverage and I think we got to recognize the threat that this guy and the MAGA, not just him, the entire MAGA movement, from Alito and Trump on down is a serious, clear and present danger to the existence of the Constitution in the United States. And I mean that.

Shades of Saul Alinsky – or else galloping paranoid ideation. One would expect his wife, Mary Matalin, to smooth over his rough edges – but he seems incapable of listening to her now.

But more recently he has told the country what he means – except maybe he doesn’t know what theocracy means. Theocracy means “rule by God,” and that will not happen until Christ returns to Earth. Nor do more than a literal handful of people want a “Church of America”; that wouldn’t even remain stable.

Nor can we guarantee that replacing even the rudest, most contentious member of the Liberal Bloc will change the Court. Expanding the Moderate Bloc from three members to four would place them firmly in control. Replacing Sotomayor with another Originalist might work better – but would be far from Carville’s “game, set, match.” The Court would, instead of 6-3 decisions either way, produce 7-2 Originalist or 5-4 Liberal decisions most of the time. Only if Trump manages to replace two Liberals could he cement a permanent Originalist majority. Justice Sotomayor is indeed in poor health, but Justice Elena Kagan is in better health. And Ketanji Brown Jackson only recently joined. The only way she is getting off the bench any time soon is on impeachment for, and conviction of, infidelity to the Constitution.

What does he mean by theocracy?

As mentioned, theocracy strictly means “rule by God.” Christian prophecy, still outstanding, states that this will come eventually (and perhaps very soon, but that’s for another day). Carville probably is defining theocracy in the more common sense: rule according to religious precept.

Because Carville cited the Ten Commandments (and Louisiana’s law), these become the best reference point.

You shall have no other gods before Me.

Exodus 20:3 (all citations from NASB)

Carville might answer that he wants no gods at all. One can only infer his political positions, because he has never stated them for the record. Nevertheless one may easily infer his atheism, secular humanism, or Earth-worshiping environmentalism, from his historical client list.

In any case, everyone has a god, even if it’s merely self, or “all of humanity,” or the Earth herself. Where exactly he comes down, is difficult to say. “Progressive” policy (see We’re Right, They’re Wrong: a Handbook for Spirited Progressives, 1996) encompasses all these things. (Yes, even self, as in “pleasures and desires of the moment.” Regarding the net worth of oneself or others, that touches on covetousness, a persistent Progressive ailment.)

What does God ask of one believing in Him, except fair treatment of fellow humans, and stewardship of the Earth? What could be wrong with that? Those who oppose theocracy won’t say.

Actually God asks one other thing: that we not place mere human knowledge above Him. But as CNAV recently noted, we do that all the time, by elevating modern medicine to Divine status.

Concerning idolatry and false swearing

You shall not make for yourself [any] idol, [nor] worship them or serve them.

Exodus 20:4-5, partial paraphrase

Modern American society has idolatry as its middle name. America creates idols all the time, and it’s unhealthy. These are typically movie, TV, and popular music stars. (Classical music does not lend itself to idolatry. Even Van Cliburn, the great classical pianist, didn’t have a fawning entourage to rival that of Taylor Swift.) The anti-theocrats, for their part, want to substitute their idols for the ones now strutting and preening and bragging. Christians – and observant Jews – want to abolish idolatry.

You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.

Exodus 20:7

James Carville earned the nickname Ragin’ Cajun by his foul mouth and his Louisiana background. (Though whether he actually descends from the Acadians whom the British transported from Nova Scotia in 1755 is not established.) In any event, the Third Commandment is as much a prohibition against perjury as against profanity. (That’s why the rest of that verse speaks of God not acquitting someone who swears falsely in His Name.) How could anyone object to that prohibition?

Concerning the Sabbath

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [roomer, boarder, or lodger] who stays with you.

Exodus 20:8-10

The Sabbath involves two very salient issues:

1. Regular rest from one’s labors, and

2. The origin of the universe, the Earth, and life.

During the French Revolution, Joseph Lagrange’s Revolutionary Committee on Weights and Measures redesigned the calendar, along with much else. Relevant to this discussion, the Republican Calendar sported three ten-day intervals per month – ten days, not seven. (Lagrange rounded out the year with five specially named days – six during leap years – before the Autumnal Equinox.) That calendar didn’t last, because human beings could not adjust well to a ten-day work-rest cycle. Seven days – God’s favorite number – provide the best such cycle. Accordingly, Emperor Napoleon I reinstated the Gregorian Calendar shortly after taking his crown. The Paris Commune would experiment with the Republican Calendar toward the end of the nineteenth century. All such experiments ended with the Paris Commune.

But God explained to Moses the real reason for the seven-day interval:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Exodus 20:11

That goes to James Carville’s real grievance against what he calls theocracy – in addition to having to mind his language. More than any other passage, this tells us that God exists, and created everything. Thomas Jefferson, “deist” that he was, admitted – in the Declaration of Independence – that humans had a Creator. Perhaps in Carville’s mind, the alternative to theocracy would be sanitizing the Declaration to remove all references to “nature’s God,” “their Creator,” “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and “Divine Providence.” But he might want to consider an increasing body of hard evidence for creation, like these three examples.

Concerning parents – and murder

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged on the land which the Lord your God gives you.

Exodus 20:12

The land reference was to ancient Israel – but, given the Mayflower Compact, it could also apply to these United States. In God’s scheme, parents deserve honor – and have certain responsibilities, and with them, authority. Maybe that’s another Progressive problem with God – that He forbids them to substitute the government for the parents, diminish their authority, keep secrets from them – and cause their children to mutilate their bodies and poison themselves with hormones in order to satisfy the Depopulation Agenda. (That’s another thing that God forbids; he tells us to “be fruitful and multiply.”

You shall not [commit] murder.

Exodus 20:13

A prohibition against murder is basic to any civilized society. Western society abolished duelling at about the time it abolished slavery, and on much the same grounds. But to a Progressive, a murderer is an irregular population thinner. That goes double with abortion. Unfortunately, some Justices of the Supreme Court concern themselves more with maintaining existing institutions than with judging them as to whether they endorse or otherwise encourage murder, in this case, abortion.

Let us anticipate James Carville’s objection: “I don’t need a theocracy to tell me murder is wrong!” Why not? How can anyone know, apart from instruction from God, that murder is inherently evil? At best, laws against murder in a Godless society become a mutual nonaggression pact. At worst, no one writes those laws, and murder becomes just another hazard of human company. (To say nothing of the murders of political opponents, inconvenient witnesses, and righteous judges, all in the name of expediency.)

Concerning adultery, larceny, and perjury – theocracy backs criminal law

You shall not commit adultery.

Exodus 20:14

The United States has never executed anyone for adultery – although the witchcraft tribunals in Salem and other Massachusetts cities came close, during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell in England. But until the twentieth century, adultery had legal and other consequences. Typically these included divorce, and forfeiture of assets to the “cheated-on” spouse, usually the wife. James Carville is still married to his once-conservative, now libertarian, wife Mary Matalin. As old as he is, people might not expect him to cheat. But no one, especially no man, is ever too old to cheat. Furthermore, the removal of consequences for cheating – adultery – has brought more of it, with consequent harms. Harms to the cheated-on spouse, and harms to the children, if any. Just because Carville doesn’t appreciate them, doesn’t negate them.

You shall not steal.

Exodus 20:15

Oh, yeah. A thief is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent. Easy question.

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Exodus 20:16

Same thing. Half the Democratic platform since 2020 has been about giving false testimony against Donald J. Trump and all his supporters. The other half has been about fraud, through misinformation – of which they accuse others, another kind of direct false testimony. Furthermore, when James Carville calls for slanted news, he calls for more false testimony against half the country (or more). (And when he calls for more unrighteous judges, like Sonia Sotomayor, now he sacrifices judgment to expediency.)

Concerning covetousness – and summing up

You shall not covet.

Exodus 20:17

Entitlement programs are all about covetousness. “Why should we starve when such-a-one has supplies to last a week?” a Democratic activist, especially a Squad member, asks. If “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil,” covetousness is the root of all kinds of crime. These include all the crimes against fellow human beings mentioned thus far – murder, adultery, larceny, and perjury.

Again, we do need what James Carville calls theocracy to tell us that covetousness is wrong. Otherwise, there never is a law against it, only against acting on it. But eventually one does act on a sinful thought – which is the entire point of taming one’s thoughts. As Jesus Christ said several times on the Mount of the Beatitudes.

Suddenly theocracy – by Carville’s crude definition – doesn’t sound so unattractive. In fact, compared to it, human institutions are sorely lacking. “Resident” Joe Biden in America, and other leftist “leaders” abroad, have brought humanity to the dead end of Godless living. A return to theocracy, if that’s what one wants to call obeying Divine precept, is just what the Doctor, and Chief Architect, ordered.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2024/06/30/foundation/constitution/theocracy-james-carville-serious/

Video:

Video: James Carville fears theocracy:

https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1805336642703573239

Video: James Carville urges slanted news:

Declarations of Truth X feed:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

Read full Article

0 0

Reply