Dumb Dems delivering articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Another moment in the farce they’ve tried so hard to turn into a “solemn,” faith-filled, Founders-invoked event. This from the party of faith-hating, Founding Fathers disparaging, Constitution-defying hypocrites.
HIGHLIGHTS: The craziest media commentary as the articles of impeachment were walked to the Senate pic.twitter.com/0a9k6bjapG
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 16, 2020
Waleed Shahid, pictured, is a Justice Democrat spokesman. In a pinned tweet, he heralds the coming “death of the old America, and the birth of a new America.”
Among their policy objectives, Justice Democrats count penal abolition, and universal everything, including the right of the universe to live in the USA, to enjoy a federally guaranteed job, universal healthcare and education. (Some of the aims of Justice Democrats, like a cessation to recreational wars and drug decriminalization, comport with libertarianism.)
To hasten that goal, Shahid targets voters in districts that are “majority non-white and economically diverse.” Justice Democrats like him hope “to mobilise infrequent voters in the less-white and less-rich parts of the district to vote,” so as to, presumably, bring about the desired change. The JD has the “experience, the infrastructure, the people and the coaching” to achieve transformative results.
Jamaal Bowman: Green New Deal, Medicare for All.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another familiar Justice, “death of the old America, and the birth of a new America” Democrat.
Ayanna Pressley among the SQUAD, all Justice Democrats:
Morgan Harper:
The Economist contends, however, that mainstream Democrats are still in control, do not seek to challenge Democratic incumbents, and that “the freshmen representatives who gave the House its Democratic majority were mostly moderates from swing districts.”
Argument, Britain, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Critique, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Political Philosophy
NEW COLUMN is “The Punishing Agenda of the Anti-Punishment Movement.” It is now on WND.COM and The Unz Review. The column first appeared on American Greatness.
And excerpt:
On November 29, 2019, a man now called the London Bridge terrorist slaughtered British student Jack Merritt.
While the cutthroat has been named for a famous London landmark; his victim has been all but forgotten.
The killer’s family was quick to condemn the London Bridge terrorist’s actions.
The family of his victim—not so much.
David Merritt, the late lad’s dad, got busy condemning those who wish to condemn that killer and his ilk to life in a cell.
By December 2, Merritt the elder was already penning op-eds about clemency and leniency for criminals like the man who murdered his son.
Such minute-made forgiveness would have been Jack’s wish, asserted Merritt senior rather presumptuously—for how can the living speak for the dead?
David Merritt, then, proceeded to minimize what was murder with malice aforethought, by dismissing what his son’s killer did as a mere “tragic incident.”
Just how obscene is the progressive mindset can be gleaned from what Mr. Merritt wrote:
“If Jack could comment on his death – and the tragic incident on Friday 29 November – he would be livid. We would see him ticking it over in his mind before a word was uttered between us. Jack would understand the political timing with visceral clarity.
He would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against. … What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.
That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences … Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge.” [Emphasis added.]
Anti-punishment ideologues like Merritt, incorrectly and condescendingly conflate punishment with “hate” and vengeance, and justice with restitution and “rehabilitation.”
They typically treat us to facile flimflam such as that the desire for vengeance cannot become the foundation of jurisprudence. By this verbal manipulation, these ideologues disingenuously advance a definition of justice that precludes incarceration and instead equates that object with restitution and rehabilitation alone.
Compared to David Merritt’s woke sentiments, the family of the London-Bridge Killer was mundane in its proper and civilized expiation:
“We are saddened and shocked by what Usman has done,” said the family. “We totally condemn his actions and we wish to express our condolences to the families of the victims that have died and wish a speedy recovery to all of the injured.”
But there was apparently no need to apologize, Mr. and Mrs. Khan. Speaking for his dead son, David Merritt appears to have already made peace with Jack’s ripper.
In their extreme versions, anti-punishment ideologues like David Merritt often plump for complete penal abolition.
Driven by parental and pedagogic progressivism, Jack, of blessed memory, had “devoted his energy to the purpose of a “pioneering program” called “Learning Together,” which aims “to bring students from university and prisons together to share their unique perspectives on justice.”
The imperative to offer up young lives to this or the other manifestation of Moloch is a progressive impulse—an obscene one, at that. …
… READ THE REST. The complete COLUMN, “The Punishing Agenda of the Anti-Punishment Movement” is now on WND.COM and The Unz Review. The column first appeared on American Greatness.
Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Ron Paul, War
NEW COLUMN is: “Should The U.S. Be The Globe’s Judge, Jury & Executioner?” It’s currently on The Unz Review, WND and “The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom.”
An excerpt:
Qassim Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was assassinated by a U.S. drone air strike, at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). Soleimani was traveling with one Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Al-Muhandis was an Iraqi, born and bred. He was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament, in 2005, until the U.S. intervened. (Yes, we intervene in other nations’ elections.)
Iraq’s caretaker prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was furious, denouncing “What happened [as] a political assassination.” Unanimously, Iraqi lawmakers “responded to the Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq.”
Yes, it’s a complicated region. And America, sad to say, still doesn’t know Shia from Shinola.
The consensus in our country is that “Soleimani deserved to die.” That’s the party-line on Fox News—and beyond. It’s how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their “positions” on the Jan. 3 killing of this Iraqi-born, Iranian general.
Even Tucker Carlson—the only mainstream hope for Old Right, anti-war, America-First columns like this one—framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys:
“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can’t kill them all, it’s not our job.”
However you finesse it, the premise of Tucker’s assertion is that the American government, and the smart set who live in symbiosis with it, gets to adjudicate who’s bad and who’s good in the world.
The debate is only ever over whether the U.S. government should or shouldn’t act on its divine rights as transnational judge, jury and executioner, never over what’s right and what’s wrong.
Stateside, the only inquiry permissible is a cost-benefit calculus. Will the assassination of Soleimani, a military official of a sovereign state, and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic State terrorists—pay strategic dividends for America in the long run?
This is crass pragmatism bereft of principle. It’s currently on display everywhere, even surfacing on BBC News, where a female analyst, an American, was deploying the childish “bad man” meme to outline America’s Disneyfied foreign policy.
This angels-and-demons production always starts with the prototypical evil dictator who was alleged to be messing with his noble people, until the avenging, angelic empire sent a drone to the rescue.
Again, even Tucker, whose antiwar credentials in recent years have been impeccable, conceded that this Soleimani guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America’s destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.
So, who’s right? Or, is blind patriotism predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world? …
… READ The Rest. The complete column, “Should The U.S. Be The Globe’s Judge, Jury & Executioner?“, is currently on The Unz Review, WND and “The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom.”
UPDATED I (1/16): “Mercer has written one of her best and most well balanced …” on Soleimani and US foreign policy.”
UPDATE II:
“The reverend name is Ibrahim Naseir. His church in Aleppo was destroyed by NATO-sponsored fundamental Jihadists. The same terrorists who almost ethnically cleansed Syrian Christians from their towns and cities. General Soleimani crushed those Jihadists.”
The reverend name is Ibrahim Naseir. His church in Aleppo was destroyed by NATO-sponsored fundamental Jihadists. The same terrorists who almost ethnically cleansed Syrian Christians from their towns and cities.
General Soleimani crushed those Jihadistshttps://t.co/pb48Mn8f1x
— ???? ??????? (@HadiNasrallah) January 7, 2020