Judicial Integrity, Fake Civility, and a Corrupt and Dangerous Agenda

The Broward County Superintendent’s Corrupt and Dangerous Agenda by M. Catharine Evans – “in the classroom and out of the courtroom,” and the deeper you dig, the worse it gets.

“Runcie’s plan served as an exemplary model for 50 participating school districts across the country, affecting 6.35 million children. In a July 2015 White House conference attended by Runcie and his former boss in Chicago, education secretary Arne Duncan, the superintendent received high praise for leading the nation in reducing student arrests.

But according to many outside reports, by 2015, the Obama-directed school discipline guidelines were creating chaos in the country’s classrooms. After Oklahoma City instituted the new discipline policies, teachers referred violent students to the administration, only to have them returned to the classroom a short time later.

The superintendent’s silence on the issue is deafening.

Federal Judge Rules Trump DACA Program Elimination Appropriate and Authorized – Full Judicial Ruling by sundance – “It is likely SCOTUS will take the same position on DACA as they did on DAPA; overrule the state challenges and determine the program unconstitutional.”

“Federal judge Roger W Titus (Maryland) has ruled that President Trump acted appropriately and within his authority by announcing his intent to rescind the Obama-era executive order surrounding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). However, the Judge Titus order does not stop the previous blocks by activist judges currently working through the courts.

Eventually the state challenges to the recension of DACA will work through the appellate courts and arrive at the Supreme Court.

Here’s the back-story to the parallel executive action around DAPA.

Judge issues surprise ruling on withholding funds for sanctuary state by Jazz Shaw – “If you are a noncompliant jurisdiction in terms of cooperating with immigration enforcement and you take the White House to court, demanding that you receive your Justice Department grant money anyway, be careful what you wish for.”

“Judge Orrick is not only a District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but he’s an Obama appointee to boot. If he’s concerned about the “weighty and novel constitutional issues” raised by California’s claim then the case is in serious trouble.

Of course, as I’ve opined here from the beginning, it’s difficult to imagine the Supreme Court siding with California or any of the sanctuary cities. We’re not talking about money appropriated specifically for individual states and cities which they’re “entitled” to. This is money appropriated for the Justice Department to issue in the form of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants. And the word “grants” is key here. As with any other grant program, there’s an application process with the applicants needing to meet certain criteria established by the agency issuing the funds. And not everyone who applies wins a grant, even if they meet all the qualifications. If the Justice Department decides that one criteria is that you must cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officials to protect your citizens, that should really be the end of the conversation.

In any event, it wasn a pretty good week for Trump in the courts. (Not that you’re likely to hear a lot about it on cable news.)

Media can’t get over the FLOTUS citizenship question by Jazz Shaw – “One might have thought that such a boondoggle would be the end of that particular trainwreck.” Meanwhile, they are still after Trump for citing an Obama birther story.

“Last month we looked at the Washington Post’s jaw-dropping attempt at “fact checking” the details of the immigration status of First Lady Melania Trump and her parents. That was a true tour de force in the fact-checking world since they asked a variety of questions and then proceeded to list a number of possible answers, basically ranked by people who wanted to try guessing, while finally admitting that they had no answers to either prove or disprove the original claims. …

One would be wrong. The WaPo is back at it again this week, delving further into questions of how the First Lady scored an EB-1 visa (known as an “Einstein visa”), replete with plenty of insinuations about how she and the President must have gamed the system.

In the end, I think what really drives the WaPo batty about Melania Trump is that they can’t find any easy route to tear her down.

And what the Washington Post probably hates the most about her is the fact that people really seem to like her.

Socialized medicine: Almost a century of failure already by Ed Morrissey – “Progressives plan to make a big push for single-payer health care in the midterms, hoping to force Democrats even harder Left than in the past four Congressional election cycles.”

“Before they start creating new single-payer systems, though, perhaps they should fix the broken single-payer systems already in place.

Clearly this must be a new development, one on which advocates have not yet been briefed … right? Wrong. As Andrew Siddons notes, that report first came to Congress ninety years ago — and it’s been true every year since then as well

In other words, nothing has changed in ninety years in this single-payer system, nor in the nine years that have passed since the Associated Press offered a very similar exposé on IHS. That’s because the same basic structure remains — a single-payer system in which government has to ration care based on allocated funds rather than a free-market system in which providers are incentivized to expand to meet market demand.

Two Op-Eds Draw a Stark Portrait of Left vs. Right by Andrew Klavan – “Last Friday, two op-eds, one in a leftist newspaper, one in a paper that leans right, drew the starkest possible portrait of the difference between our two political cultures.”

“On the left was The New York Times, a former newspaper, which now reads like a cross between Pravda and a cluster of six-year-old girls who have just seen a mouse. On the op-ed page I like to call Knucklehead Row, David Brooks delivered himself of the opinion that the left is winning the culture war. How? By brute force.

Note the field on which Brooks thinks the culture wars are being fought: “decent society,” “elite campuses.” It does not occur to him that what Brooks considers decent and elite are precisely what is currently coming under question.

Witness the fact that the left cannot actually win a political argument but can only, by Brooks’ own account, use raw power to force those who oppose them to shut up. There are many words for this, only some printable, but decent isn’t one of them and neither is elite. Culturally fascist seems as good a term as any.

Now consider another Op-Ed, over at the grown-ups’ table, also known as the . There, on the same day, Annafi Wahed, who describes herself as “a tiny, talkative South Asian woman who spent four months on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff,” relates the tale of her visit to CPAC, the annual gathering of the conservative base.

Suppression of opinion, or free discussion? Which way forward do you think Americans will ultimately choose?

Against Fake Civility by Kurt Schlichter – “They tell us that our uppity refusal to quietly submit to abuse and subjugation, both figurative and literal, makes us bad people.”

“Civility, once properly understood as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself, has morphed from an aspiration into a political/cultural gimp suit designed to prevent you from effectively asserting your interests and your point of view.

For liberals, civility is a grift – they think it’s a punchline and they’re waiting to laugh at you for embracing it. It’s a way to keep you from interrupting their non-stop attacks on your rights, your faith, and your dignity by convincing you that it’s somehow wrong to get upset when, say, some Astroturf Tot backed up by a bunch of leftist Red Guard orgs like Planned Parenthood and Move On starts shrieking that you have blood on your hands.

Bush was not just attacking Trump. He was attacking us Normals for daring to elect Trump. Many of us defended him when he was busy being oh-so-dignified and civil. And when we defied him and his class, he turned against us. Like a true gentleman.

Civility is a component of a system of reasoned debate, not its end product. Civility is necessary in a system where people reason in good faith in order to come to the best solution to the policy challenges facing them. Civility lubricates that process, and allows people of good faith to disagree without engendering unnecessary and destructive discord.

People of good faith. See, that’s key.

The problem is that progressives are not people of good faith.

This country is in grave danger of real chaos as the Normals confront an elite that seeks to rule it without accountability or challenge.

Civility is not a sign of weakness when a system of reasoned debate is in effect. But it is a sign of weakness, and will be taken as such by our enemies, when we cling to civility because we are too weak and afraid to admit the awful truth, that we are no longer a society ruled by reason but by power.

Ace: “FBI: No, We Will Not Turn Over Information About Secret Meetings Between Barack Obama and James Comey Because The Liberal Media Isn’t Super-Interested In It” The corruption resists being pulled out of the darkest corners of the fetid swamp.

“This is the meeting that prompted Susan Rice to write an email to herself claiming Obama had told her to do everything “by the book” — including concealing the existence of the probe from the soon-to-be Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.

No, that doesn’t raise questions about the integrity of the FBI at all.

Dawn, March 6, 1836, Siege of the Alamo – Day 13 by By Elvis Chupacabra Posted on March 6, 2012 by WeeWeed – a dramatic telling of the siege of the Alamo and the birth of the Texas Republic. The story indicates that historical research has uncovered a lot of the story in the last 50 years.

Comments are closed.