Some recent court decision are surprising but welcome. Via Jonathan Turley:
* “Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Unanimously Requires Warrant To Search Cellphones.”
* “Federal Court Rules Government’s No-Fly List Is Unconstitutional.”
Bill Clinton Correct About Cheney
Just as I was beginning to harbor some hope that Mark Levin would ditch neoconservatism, the broadcaster galvanized rhetorical firepower to defend Dick Cheney, this week, from Bill Clinton’s coruscating attack. Levin went so far as to scold Genghis Bush for not helping Cheney out. After all, said Levin, Cheney was a sickly man battling the administration all alone over Iraq.
Hopeless.
Admittedly, Bill Clinton has given voice to the truth late in the day, but everything he said about Cheney is correct.
Meet the Press’s David Gregory had asked “Bill Clinton about the current crisis in Iraq and whether Dick Cheney is a ‘credible critic’ in going after the Obama administration for ISIS taking over major cities there. Clinton chuckled and said, ‘I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening.’”
A no-brainer.
How, however, will Bill cover for wife Hill, who has “refused to atone for her role in the prosecution of an unjust war.” As detailed in “Confess, Clinton; Say You’re Sorry, Sullivan”:
During the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, Clinton was asked whether she regretted “voting to authorize the president’s use of force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the national intelligence estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time.” Her reply: “I feel like I was totally briefed. [Expect the “I-feel-like” locution to proliferate if a woman is ensconced in the White House.] I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Defense Department, the CIA, the State Department were all saying. And I sought dissenting opinions, as well as talking to people in previous administrations and outside experts.”
Back to the humdrum truth Bill uttered to Gregory about Cheney:
Gregory brought up Syria, which Clinton didn’t deny is a problem all on its own, but “what happened in Syria wouldn’t have happened in Iraq” if the Bush administration hadn’t taken the country to war and Iraq wouldn’t have been so “drastically altered.”
Clinton also found it “unseemly” that a former vice president is “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job for not cleaning up the mess that he made,”
News Blackout For Barack
It looks like CNN might have been shamed fleetingly into fulfilling its mandate: covering current news. Yesterday, out of the blue, Wolf Blitzer conducted an interview not entirely friendly with that piece of detritus, IRS Chief JOHN KOSKINEN. By contrast, a day prior, reporter Dana Bitch ran a smarmy, lighthearted and facetious segment about the Internal Revenue scandal, suggesting it was a figment of the minds of Republicans. Perhaps the stark data of the sparse coverage of this and other Obama scandals, gathered by Media Research Center senior news analyst Scott Whitlock, and presented to large audiences by Bill O’Reilly, did something to create oscillation in the closed media circuit (“circus” is a better word).
… A grand jury is investigating whether members of Mr. Christie’s staff sabotaged traffic on the bridge to get revenge on a political opponent. The story is valid and the network news went wild with it, devoting 112 minutes to the situation in the first week, 112 minutes.
But when the VA scandal story broke, there was no coverage on the nightly network news broadcast for almost two weeks. No coverage.
When the lost IRS email story broke, just three and a half minutes combined on all the network newscasts. Unbelievable. That is a news blackout.
On the newspaper front, the big three liberal papers – the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post – printed fifty-six stories and commentaries about Governor Christie in the first week. Fifty-six.
First week of the V.A. Scandal, two stories. First week of the IRS scandal, three stories. You want media bias, there it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
UPDATED: Desperately Seeking Desperadoes in Diapers
Business, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Nationhood
“Desperadoes in Diapers” is the current column, now on The Quarterly Review. An excerpt:
“First they came: thousands of unaccompanied illegal minors rushing the South-Western border. Then came the theories as to why they came. Determined not to miss a trick, America’s traitor elite—open-border interests and enemies of private-property rights—called the arrivals refugees, victims of nativist Know-Nothings who want invaders turned away. The desperadoes in diapers were also said to have fallen victim to a sudden deterioration in conditions in Central America. No proof has been advanced for the claim that, all of a sudden, things in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have worsened. Because they reason in circles, no-border advocates deploy no logic to justify their claims. Only this did these Aristotelians say:
That Central American minors are arriving, hat-in-hand, is in itself proof that their homes have become uninhabitable. Quod erat demonstrandum (as Erik Rush likes to say); Q.E.D.; case proven.
Having been given the go-ahead by media mogul Rupert Murdoch—he came out for de facto limitless importation of third-world immigrants—his employees at Fox News cued the violins. Shepherd Smith was weeping and gnashing his teeth: “Not politics, but the disgusting conditions in their countries have sent these kids to our shores,” he asserted. “What is a caring nation to do? Their parents love them so much; they gave them to smugglers for a better life.”
However poor, this here mother would never have handed over her daughter to a smuggler. But what do I know about parental love? No more than the nation’s first president knew about the glue that was meant to keep America together.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington presented what historian Paul Johnson calls “an encapsulation of what [he] thought America was, or ought to be, about.” America, said Washington, “is a country which is united by tradition and nature. ‘With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles.’”
What a dummy!
“The children, the children,” wailed Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “It’s all about the children. We are the United States, what do we do about the children?” Such showy “humanitarianism” invariably means the following: Working people in the U.S., with children of their own to mind, will be roped into supporting the children of the world. Enslave one set of people to whom American politicians are beholden by law, for the benefit of another.
Where’s the humanity for the non-consenting host population? …
Read the compete column. “Desperadoes in Diapers” is now on The Quarterly Review..
Our German readers can now follow this column and other worthy writers in the JUNGE FREIHEIT, a weekly newspaper of excellence.
Editors wishing to feature the “Return to Reason” column in their publications, pixel or paper, please contact Bookings@ilanamercer.com. Or, ilana@ilanamercer.com
UPDATE (7/3): Myron Robert Pauli: “I liked the quote of John Quincy Adams. Historian David McCullom said he was the most intelligent of our Presidents. His nickname was Old Man Eloquent. When one plots the trajectory from John Quincy (‘America does not go around in search of monsters to destroy …. She might become the dictatress of the world’) Adams to Bush-II and Obama, it makes me want to cry. – – – Arguably, I am a classical liberal but not a libertarian anarchist OR a welfare-socialist. I do not want foreign mobs taking $$ and turning the country even more socialistic nor do I want to have to turn my own home into a personal fortress to keep out the horde. The reality of modern America is that Washington and Adams would essentially be intellectual outcasts in America of 2014.”