Tag Archives: #Authoritarians

Posted on by

Sarah Longwell and Jennifer Rubin don’t like democracy, not if the rabble don’t kowtow to what they think is right

It was this tweet which caught my eye:

Wikipedia describes The Bulwark as:

an American anti-Trump conservative news and opinion website founded in 2018 by commentators Charlie Sykes and Bill Kristol.[1][2][3] Its publisher is Sarah Longwell.[4] While it launched as a news aggregator, it was revamped into a news and opinion site using key digital staffers from the defunct magazine The Weekly Standard.

Anti-Trump? That’s why Jennifer Rubin likes it! Mrs Rubin has allowed her visceral hatred of former President Trump to change views she previously held:

Rubin has been one of the most vocal conservative-leaning writers to criticize Donald Trump, as well as the overall behavior of the Republican Party during Trump’s term in office. Rubin denounced Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement as “a dog whistle to the far right”, and designed to please his “climate change denial, right-wing base that revels in scientific illiteracy.” Previously, after Barack Obama had approved the agreement, Rubin characterized it as “nonsense” and argued that it would not achieve anything. Rubin described Trump’s 2017 decision to not implement parts of the Iran nuclear deal as the “emotional temper tantrum of an unhinged president.” She had previously said that “if you examine the Iran deal in any detail, you will be horrified as to what is in there.” Rubin strongly supported the United States officially recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Early in his presidency, she criticized Trump for not doing so, saying that it was indicative of his tendency to “never keep his word.” She concluded that Trump “looks buffoonish in his hasty retreat”. In December 2017, after Trump announced that he would move the embassy, she said it was “a foreign policy move without purpose.”[29]

In August 2019, Rubin was a guest on a panel on MSNBC’s “AM Joy” with the premise that Mr. Trump leads “an extreme administration” that is “dangerous.” Rubin said: “It’s not only that Trump has to lose, but that all his enablers have to lose. We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again“. [30]

In a tweet referenced by CNN Media, Mike Huckabee questioned Rubin, writing: “Jen Rubin is WAPO’s excuse for conservative,” and adding that Rubin’s “contempt for all things Trump exposes her and WAPO as fake news“.[31]

In April 2021 Rubin was declared winner of the second annual Liberal Hack Tournament, hosted by the “Ruthless” variety progrum, becoming the first woman to win the title.[32]

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argued that after the 2012 presidential election, Rubin criticized aspects of the Mitt Romney campaign that she had previously praised, with Friedersdorf insisting that she had acted as “a disingenuous mouthpiece for her favored candidate”.[33]

In a November 21, 2013, column, Rubin called on the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to end its campaign against same-sex marriage.[34]

In September of 2020, she announced that she no longer described herself as a conservative, but given he criticisms of Mitt Romney’s positions and support of same-sex ‘marriage,’ perhaps she should have done that a decade earlier.

On to The Bulwark:

Did We Forget Our Democracy Is Still Under Threat?

Complacency is an inherent weakness of democracy.

by Sarah Longwell | April 22, 2021 | 5:30 AM EDT

Old joke: An old fish and a young fish pass each other. The old fish says, “Fine water today, isn’t it?” The young fish replies, “What’s water?”

This, I have learned in hundreds of hours of focus groups, is how many Americans think about democracy—or more accurately, don’t think about it. Democracy is the system we have, and have inherited, but most of our experiences with any of the alternatives are so remote that we view democracy as the default state. As something that just is.

That isn’t to say that Americans don’t think about politics. Oh, do we. Probably more than is helpful. We have, as a people, some pretty out-there opinions and preferences and expectations about politics.

But mostly when we think about politics, we think about the results we want. These choices are often framed in terms of personalities. Certainly, this phenomenon isn’t limited to the United States: Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson, Bibi Netanyahu, Emmanuel Macron—the list of personalities that more or less define political divides in democratic societies is long and diverse.

Sometimes the results we want are framed not as people, but as policies: higher taxes or lower taxes, more environmental regulation or less, strong national defense or retrenchment. Maybe having policy preferences is civically healthier than having preferences merely for certain individuals over others. Or maybe character is destiny and policy is transient, so choosing the better person is the way to go.

Miss Longwell continues on, to tell us about the enormous, enormous! dangers of the Capitol kerfuffle, but somehow manages to forget the definition of the words she uses:

Our freedom and self-government are under threat from domestic authoritarian cults in tacit—if not enthusiastic—alliance with foreign despots who desire that the world’s oldest democracy succumb to corrupt populist autocracy.

Uhhh, populist is defined as:

(noun) a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
(adj.) relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

while autocracy is defined as:

a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Thus, a “populist autocracy” is a contradiction in terms.

“(D)omestic authoritarian cults”? It isn’t the Republicans who have held themselves in thrall to Democratic Governors exercising apparently unchecked power to issue orders regulating our lives under the pretext of protecting us from the China virus.[1]See this to explain why I have started to, occasionally, refer to COVID-19 as the China virus or Wuhan virus.

It isn’t the Republicans who are trying to control every aspect of our lives, to define other people’s beliefs as “hate crimes,” and to “cancel” people with whom they disagree from public life. Miss Longwell is upset, very upset, that we are now “debating corporate tax rates, Dr. Seuss, and trans bathroom access, like nothing ever happened,” as though she hasn’t come to grips with the fact that, though conservatives might not like it, we recognize that Joe Biden is President, that the Democrats control both Houses of Congress, and that we have to do everything we can to fight back against the leftists’ agenda.

But here’s where Miss Longwell really goes off the reservation:

Our democracy is under attack, for real, by a large portion of a major political party which seeks to utterly transform the relationship between the government and the governed.

Well, yes, we are trying to change the relationship between the government and the governed, because the government has become far, far, far too powerful. When a state Governor says that he can order us not to have too many people in our homes, and sets up ‘snitch hotlines’ so officious little Karens can tattle on us, when the Mayor of our largest city says that he can send the gendarmerie into your homes if you’ve traveled from the United Kingdom, then yes, we want to change that.

But, more than that, if a large portion of a major political party seeks to change that relationship, is that not democracy? If a large group of people want to change things, well doesn’t the First Amendment, which (supposedly) protects our freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, protect our right to seek change, to ask for change, to demand change?

For Miss Longwell and Mrs Rubin, it appears that democracy is all well and good . . . as long as it produces the results they want. But people, acting in concert, to change things away from what they want? Now that’s a threat, and cannot be tolerated.

References

References
↑1 See this to explain why I have started to, occasionally, refer to COVID-19 as the China virus or Wuhan virus.
Posted on by

Rights delayed are rights denied

Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY)

We had already stated that the courts in the Bluegrass State would try to give Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) time to run out the clock on legal decisions concerning his executive orders, because that was the pattern from the past. Now comes the evidence that we were right. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Kentucky Supreme Court will consider Beshear’s COVID-19 orders in light of new laws

By Jack Brammer | April 16, 2021 | 11:08 AM | Updated: April 16, 2021 | 1:12 PM

The Kentucky Supreme Court has decided to take up two legal cases involving Gov. Andy Beshear’s powers to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and other emergencies and hear them at the same time June 10.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. signed orders Thursday night for the state’s highest court to consider cases from Franklin and Scott circuit courts. He said a time for the June 10 hearing will be set later.

The Franklin case involves Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s appeal of Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd’s decision to temporarily block four legislative measures the General Assembly enacted this year that curb Beshear’s emergency powers.

The Scott case involves Beshear’s appeal of Circuit Judge Brian Privett’s ruling to temporarily block the state from enforcing some of Beshear’s executive COVID-19 orders against several restaurants and breweries

There’s more at the original.

Note the date of the hearing: June 10th. That’s eight weeks away, effectively another two months before the state Supreme Court will even hold oral arguments for and against the Governor’s executive orders and the laws passed by the state legislature to curtail them. A previous story in the Herald-Leader stated:

As of today, Kentucky is about 900,000 short of reaching the goal of 2.5 million vaccinated. More than 1.55 million Kentuckians have received their “first shot of hope,” said the governor.

With the current supply of the vaccine, Beshear said Kentucky could reach the 2.5 million goal in 3½ weeks, but said it most likely will be between four and six weeks.

So, if the guesstimates of four to six weeks are accurate, and if the Governor them lifts some, but not all, of his executive orders as promised, oral arguments eight weeks from now would make the case in Judge Privett’s case moot; and the Justices would almost certainly simply dismiss it.

But the Governor still wants that visible sign of subservience to his decrees:

Even with the easing of the restrictions, Beshear said, Kentuckians still will have to wear masks until there is more control of the virus. He also said he will address larger venues later.

We noted the previous pattern: Several lawsuits were filed in state courts to stop the Governor’s emergency decrees under KRS39A. On July 17, 2020, the state Supreme Court put a hold on all lower court orders against Mr Beshear’s orders and directed that “any lower court order, after entry, be immediately transferred to the clerk of the Supreme Court for consideration by the full court.” Three weeks later, the  Court set September 17, 2020, another five weeks later, to hear oral arguments by both sides.

The Court then waited for eight more weeks to issue its decision, until November 12, 2020, which upheld the Governor’s orders.

If the Kentucky Supreme Court, officially non-partisan but in practice controlled by the Democrats, follows the same pattern, a second eight week delay will mean a decision around the first week of August! Even if that decision supports the duly passed laws of the General Assembly, the state courts will have given the Governor half a year to exercise power that the General Assembly restricted.

Rights delayed are rights denied. But we will be lucky if our rights are only delayed; it isn’t difficult to picture the state Supreme Court coming up with some convoluted reasoning to invalidate the laws passed by the General Assembly. I can hope that the state legislature impeaches and removes our dictatorial Governor in the 2022 session, but, in reality, our best hope is for the voters to kick him to the curb in the 2023 election.

Posted on by

Impeach Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd! He thinks the General Assembly doesn't matter

We knew that this bovine feces would happen!

Judge rules in Beshear’s favor, blocks laws limiting governor’s COVID-19 powers

By Jack Brammer | March 3, 2021 |3:31 PM EST

Franklin Circuit Judge and Authoritarian Enabler Phillip Shepherd. Photo: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts.

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd temporarily blocked Thursday three new laws that limit the governor’s powers to deal with emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic.

In a 23-page order that is a legal victory for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and a defeat for the Kentucky General Assembly, the judge granted Beshear’s motion for a temporary injunction and partially stayed the effectiveness of the three new laws the legislature approved earlier this year.

Besherar spokeswoman Crystal Staley said, “We appreciate the order. The ability to act and react quickly is necessary in our war against the ever-changing and mutating virus.

Apparently, according to Judge Shepherd, ‘need’ defines the Governor’s powers, not the General Assembly. What powers wouldn’t the Governor have, if he declares a state of emergency, under this kind of standard?

Shepherd said the court “is mindful that the challenged legislation seeks to address a legitimate problem of effective legislative oversight of the governor’s emergency powers in this extraordinary public health crisis” but “is also mindful that the governor and the secretary (Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander) are faced with the enormous challenge of effectively responding to a world-wide pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kentuckians and over 500,000 people in the United States.”

Republicans campaigned against the authoritarian use of power by Governor Beshear in last November’s elections, and the voters rewarded the GOP with 14 additional seats in the state House of Representatives, bringing their majority to 75-25, and 2 additional seats in the state Senate, bringing their majority to 30-8.[1]Only 19 of the 38 seats were up for election in the state Senate.

The judge said all parties in the case “are acting in good faith to address public policy challenges of the utmost importance” but “the governor has made a strong case that the legislation, in its current form, is likely to undermine or even cripple, the effectiveness of public health measures necessary to protect the lives and health of Kentuckians from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Oh, so as long as the Governor is “acting in good faith,” he is exempt from legislative oversight?

The Judge stated that the Governor has been ‘adjusting’ his executive orders to be less restrictive as time passes, as current conditions warrant and public health concerns decrease, but that “the court believes those decisions should be made based on medical and scientific evidence, not on arbitrary deadlines imposed by statutes irrespective of the spread of the virus.” Since when does a judge have the authority to decide what motivates the legislature or whether the legislators have taken their decisions based on the right things?

The governor’s general counsel, Amy Cubbage, recently noted that the current executive orders dealing with COVID-19 would expire March 4 unless the legislature extends them or the court rules in Beshear’s favor.

Did the Governor ask the General Assembly to extend them? The Governor filed suit as soon as the General Assembly overrode his vetoes, but if he attempted to work with the legislature, as Judge Shepherd had “strongly urged” him to do, I found no story in the Lexington Herald-Leader telling us about it. All I could find was an article entitled “‘See you in court,’ Beshear tells legislative leaders on taking up his vetoes this week.”

One hopes that the legislature and Attorney General Daniel Cameron immediately appeal the decision to the state Court of Appeals, which has been friendlier to restraining our authoritarian Governor, but we can count on the Governor then taking it to the state Supreme Court which, though officially non-partisan is in practice controlled by Democrats.

It may be time for a little revolution!

References

References
↑1 Only 19 of the 38 seats were up for election in the state Senate.
Posted on by

Big Brother is watching you, and the left think you need to be watched more closely

In George Orwell’s 1984, every home was fitted with a Telescreen.

The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. . . . .

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.

After nine months now of increasingly draconian controls of our society and our economy in the huge governmental response to COVID-19, we are now being told that the one place into which government cannot reach, our homes, is the place in which our leaders need to exert the most control.

Where COVID-19 spreads most easily, according to experts

The most likely place to contract the virus is not at work or at school.

By Dr. Adjoa Smalls-Mantey | December 24, 2020 | 6:08 AM

COVID-19 is a highly transmissible disease, but evidence shows that small indoor gatherings and households are where the novel coronavirus is spreading the fastest.

For nearly a year, public health officials across the globe have grappled with how to reduce the spread of COVID-19. At times, travel has been restricted, schools and gyms have closed, and some cities, such as San Francisco, are under lockdown. But despite these restrictions, the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths continue to reach record highs.

“I think we want to be careful about blaming one particular environment and scapegoating one particular setting for generating transmission,” said Dr. John Brownstein, an ABC News contributor, epidemiologist and chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital.

However, there are some settings where COVID-19 is more easily spread. In New York, for example, contact tracing has shown that 70% of new cases come from small gatherings and households.

“Informal gatherings may have played even the biggest role,” Brownstein said, “because they are harder to police, they’re harder to enforce, and people are probably more lax when it comes to recommendations of mask wearing and social distancing.”

I will admit to some amusement at Dr. Adjoa Smalls-Mantey’s, the author’s, choice of language, that informal gatherings, meetings between friends and family, “are harder to police, (are) harder to enforce” restrictions. In the end, of course, policing things, enforcing rules, is precisely what Our Betters want to do.

Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health, Dr Richard Levine[1]Dr Levine is a mentally ill male who thinks he’s somehow a woman, calling himself ‘Rachel.’ The First Street Journal does not go along with such foolishness, and always refers to … Continue reading issued orders that individuals must wear masks and practice social distancing inside their own homes if guests are present. The credentialed media were also full of similar recommendations.

When people gather in small groups with friends and family, they are more likely to let their guard down, not wear their masks and stay together indoors for longer periods of time, which makes it easier to transmit the virus.

In a recent study at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, researchers found that for children and adolescents who tested positive for COVID-19, it was small social gatherings — not school — that was the most likely place they were exposed to the virus.

The children who tested positive in the study were more likely to have attended social gatherings outside of their homes, had playdates or had visitors at their home where mask wearing and social distancing precautions were not taken.

Gladys Kravitz

As we have noted previously, various officials know that they can’t just send the gendarmerie into your house, so they want your neighbors to peer into your windows and snitch on you. Of course, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) does seem to think that he can send the sheriff’s deputies to your home, so perhaps other of our government officials will try to make my statement that they can’t send the police to your homes a false one. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that Dr Smalls-Mantey’s article is just something to condition the public into thinking that such is regrettably necessary, so that the sheeple will simply accept it, at least if it only happens to their neighbors and not themselves.

Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) issued executive orders limiting gatherings in your home of more than eight people, from more than two separate households. I am happy to say that we didn’t obey the Governor’s restrictions any heed on either Thanksgiving or Christmas. Three households, no masks.

If only the government had those telescreens, they wouldn’t have to depend on those Gladys Kravitzes to peer into your windows![2]I had to put a descriptive link to Gladys Kravitz in the article, because my good friend Donald Douglas pointed out that you have to be older than dirt to get the reference.

If we allow authoritarianism to continue for this emergency, in what other emer-gencies will it be used?

Am I just being paranoid here? In 1984, sexual activity is regulated by the government, and Winston Smith’s and Julia’s sexual life is a form of rebellion. And in 2020, Dr Levine issued ‘guidance’ about your sex life, ‘suggesting’ that you must ‘limit’ your number of sex partners, and always ‘discuss’ COVID-19 with any new potential inamorata. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-Washington, DC) did the same.[3]The left had always claimed that it was evil reich-wing conservatives who wanted to regulate sex, even referencing 1984, but it doesn’t seem to have been conservatives doing this now, does it?

People with actual governing authority have been telling us how we must live our lives, interfering in our jobs, our businesses and trying to impose their authority even in our homes, justifying it as an emergency, of course. But if they are allowed to get away with this for the COVID emergency, just what other ’emergencies’ can they use to justify restricting our rights? The September 11th attacks wound up justifying the PATRIOT Act, and, sadly, that was done by Republican congressmen and senators, and signed into law by a Republican president.

Benjamin Franklin put it best, saying, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We have surrendered some of our essential liberty, and far too many of our people have agreed with this, because it’s just so necessary, or, as the law would put it, “a compelling government interest.”

This is where we must say, nay, scream, that government cannot do this, and the people will not allow it. More than just scream, we must protest, we must take political action, to unseat the would-be tyrants and petty dictators. If we do not do this, now, we insure that it will happen again, and again, as those who believe they should run our lives for us can always find something to justify it.
_________________________________
Cross-posted on RedState.

References

References
↑1 Dr Levine is a mentally ill male who thinks he’s somehow a woman, calling himself ‘Rachel.’ The First Street Journal does not go along with such foolishness, and always refers to ‘transgender’ individuals by their birth names and sex.
↑2 I had to put a descriptive link to Gladys Kravitz in the article, because my good friend Donald Douglas pointed out that you have to be older than dirt to get the reference.
↑3 The left had always claimed that it was evil reich-wing conservatives who wanted to regulate sex, even referencing 1984, but it doesn’t seem to have been conservatives doing this now, does it?