Category Archives: Russia

There’s No Russia Scandal; But There Are Improprieties Media Prefer To Ignore

Donald Trump, Ethics, Etiquette, Family, Foreign Policy, Russia

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt pulled political strings to help daughter McKenna Pruitt get into law school. Pruitt wanted to get her an internship at the White House, but it had already been taken by … Ivanka Trump.

Seriously, there’s no Russia scandal; but there are improprieties the media prefer to ignore, nepotism both in the case of the Pruitt daughter and in the case of the first daughter and her husband comfortably ensconced in the White House.

Filings show that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Earned More Than $80 Million Last Year.

AND, “Jared Kushner Backed Qatar Blockade a Month After Qataris Wouldn’t Finance His [failing] Property.”

Whodunit? Who “Meddled” With Our American Democracy? (Part 2)

America, Conservatism, Constitution, Democracy, Government, Russia, States' Rights

THE NEW COLUMN is “Whodunit? Who “Meddled” With Our American Democracy?” (Part 2). The unabridged version is on WND.com. A slightly abridged version is on Townhall.com:

Not a day goes by when the liberal media don’t telegraph to the world that a “Trumpocracy” is destroying American democracy. Conspicuous by its absence is a pesky fact: Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

One of the ways in which the republic was destroyed was through the slow sundering of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The 10th was meant to guarantee constitutional devolution of power.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The de facto demise of the 10th has resulted in “constitutional” consolidation.

Fair enough, but is that enough? A perceptive Townhall.com reader was having none of it.

In response to “Whodunit? Who ‘Meddled’ With Our American Democracy” (Part 1), the reader upbraided this writer:

“Anyone who quotes the 10th Amendment, but not the 14th Amendment that supplanted it cannot be taken seriously.”

In other words, to advance the erosion of the 10th in explaining who did our republic in, without mentioning the 14th: this was an omission on the writer’s part.

The reader is admirably correct about Incorporation-Doctrine centralization.

Not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to concede that the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine have obliterated the Constitution’s federal scheme, as expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment.

What does this mean?

You know the drill but are always surprised anew by it. Voters pass a law under which a plurality wishes to live in a locality. Along comes a U.S. district judge and voids the law, citing a violation of the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

For example: Voters elect to prohibit local government from sanctioning gay marriage. A U.S. district judge voids voter-approved law for violating the 14th’s Equal Protection Clause.

These periodical contretemps around gay marriage, or the legal duty of private property owners to cater these events, are perfectly proper judicial activism. It flows from the 14th Amendment.

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be.

Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of a judiciary. Yet not even conservative constitutional originalists are willing to cop to this constitutional fait accompli.

The gist of it: Jeffersonian constitutional thought is no longer in the Constitution; its revival unlikely. ….

Into the Cannibal's Pot
Order columnist Ilana Mercer’s polemical work, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”


 

… READ THE REST:  THE NEW COLUMN is “Whodunit? Who “Meddled” With Our American Democracy?” (Part 2). The unabridged version is on WND.com. A slightly abridged version is on Townhall.com.

American ‘Experts’ Call You Crazy If You Mention Our ‘Deep State.’ But Russia, Says US ‘Expert,’ Certainly Has One.

Left-Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Political Economy, Propaganda, Russia, The State

To be accepted into polite company, we Americans are instructed to denounce the very concept of a Deep State (the unelected, extra-constitutional, entrenched, state apparatus).

Oddly, I first heard this eloquent, apt term  from Bill Moyers, considered an august force on the Left.

But now, leftists in the era of Trump, joined by neocons and cuckservatives insist that the concept is all the product of Deplorable minds gripped by conspiracy.

Except when it comes to Russia. The American state apparatus they consider virtuous, but Russia certainly has a Deep State.

The Russian Deep State one American “expert” calls: “the natural state.”

Yes, the same kind of American experts who denounce Deep State when applied to the US government, have a term for the Russian Deep State: “the natural state.

Douglass North, an American political economist, alludes to what sounds like Deep State reality, only it pertains to Russia.

[Putin] presides over the sort of power structure that Douglass North, an American political economist, has called the “natural state”. In this, rents are created by limiting access to economic and political resources, and the limits are enforced by “specialists in violence”. In Russia these are the siloviki of the assorted security and police forces, serving the system as they did in Soviet times. …

Our government goons may not kill us in the name of compliance, but they certainly marginalize us.

MORE: “Gorbachev’s grandchildren: A new generation is rising in Russia: Vladimir Putin’s election victory does not mean that there is no hope.

Nikki Haley’s Dangerous, Mushroom-Cloud, Hearsay Hysteria

Britain, Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Russia, UN, War, WMD

If the US didn’t go to war with Iraq, RIP, the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud, warned the insane Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor. Now another blood-thirsty screech is inciting the same against another people. Airhead Nikki Haley is warning that “Russia could use chemical weapons in New York.”

Who told the harridan? The manta that “17 intelligence agencies say so” is not proof, it’s hearsay.

She and mad Rachel Maddow likely agree.

Washington Examiner:

“If we don’t take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used,” Haley told the United Nations Security Council. “They could be used here in New York, or in cities of any country that sits on this Council. This is a defining moment.”
Haley raised the specter of new attacks during an emergency council meeting, held at the request of British officials who have accused Russia of using “a military-grade nerve agent” to target a former military intelligence officer who committed treason. Russian diplomats have denied responsibility for the incident, but British investigators say they have identified the poison as a chemical weapon produced by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
“Time and time again, member-states say they oppose the use of chemical weapons under any circumstance,” Haley said. “Now one member stands accused of using chemical weapons on the sovereign soil of another member. The credibility of this council will not survive if we fail to hold Russia accountable.”
“A hysterical atmosphere is being created by London,” Russian Ambassador Visaly Nebenzia told the Security Council. “We would like to warn that this will not remain without reaction on our part.”

Russia faulted the United Kingdom for taking action before submitting to a formal investigation brokered by Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. “Those experts will not be convinced by their argument,” he predicted.

Does this irresponsible idiot know what evidence means? Does anyone in the West care about evidence? Or is assertion all it take to take the Anglo-American Idiocoracy to war?

Those who object to launching wars for Israel, should abhor the idea of doing the same for the “Perfidious Albion,” aka Britain.