Paid Shills and coming to grips with reality and all it means

Jazz Shaw: Out: It’s a grassroots movement! In: So what if the protesters are paid? – “We may finally be seeing the first, tentative waving of the white flag when it comes to the question of whether or not these “massive” protests against the Trump administration which the media fixates on are a legitimate grassroots uprising or corporate sponsored theatrics organized by George Soros and his friends.”

I suppose there should be some credit given where due here. Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery, after all. But there’s a bit too much denial of reality going on.

What we’re seeing now is something entirely different. The authors can try all they like to summon up the ghost of Rosa Parks (who, as they point out, was an NAACP staffer and activist) but that doesn’t change a thing. When you have mailing lists numbering in the millions summoning hoards of people who apparently have no day jobs to hinder them, and you’re paying for their transportation, lodging and signage, you are essentially just a wing of the Democratic Party. The “sacrifice” is less, and as such it simply doesn’t carry the same impact.

Shaw has another on the disease in California: California’s latest move to “fight the wall” is truly something out of La La Land – “ It wasn’t just the Republicans who were alarmed over the probably illegal measure either. One representative of the Southern California Contractors Association asked the obvious question, saying, “What next unpopular project would be blacklist?” [sic]

Stop and think about the implications of this legislation for a moment. At both the federal and state levels, governments bend over backwards on a regular basis to ensure that private sector companies are given equal access to government jobs when they come available. This is to ensure both a chance at the taxpayer getting the best price and to promote equal opportunity for such opportunities, with particular incentives offered to companies owned by minorities or small business entities who might otherwise have trouble competing with the big boys.

Now California is hoping to take a huge leap in the opposite direction. They would be effectively shutting out companies from the competitive bidding process for the crime of bidding on a different and (by the time it happens) presumably legal infrastructure project which was funded by the federal government. This is absolutely unheard of.

That would open up the floodgates to states using such arm twisting maneuvers to essentially blacklist any unpopular proposals requiring civilian contractors out of existence. Such blacklisting is a favorite tool of the Social Justice Warriors in the private sector, but if it suddenly receives the imprimatur of the government then all bets are off.

Andrew C. Mccarthy explains A Ruling about Nothing – “eight years of Obama’s phone and pen have made it easy to forget that the president is not supposed to make law, and thus that we should celebrate, not condemn, an E.O. that does not break new legal ground.” The issue at hand is the credibility of the judiciary.

Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case? Why the judicial theatrics?

Of course, the peer branches of government are supposed to presume each other’s good faith in the absence of a patent violation of the law. But let’s put aside the unseemliness of Orrick’s barely concealed contempt for a moment, because he is also wrong. The proper purpose of an executive order is to direct the operations of the executive branch within the proper bounds of the law. There is, therefore, nothing untoward about an E.O. that directs the president’s subordinates to take enforcement action within the confines of congressional statutes. In fact, it is welcome.

Given that courts are supposed to refrain from issuing advisory opinions, the Constitution is actually more aggrieved by Orrick than by Trump.

It is not enough to say Orrick mulishly ignores the clear text of the executive order. Again and again, Justice Department lawyers emphasized to the court that Trump’s order explicitly reaffirmed existing law. Orrick refused to listen because, well, what fun would that be?

Such niceties matter only if you’re practicing law, though. Judge Orrick is practicing politics.

Cal Thomas has a rundown on the Trump meeting with conservative journalists: Talking right – “Americans get a different view when Trump meets with conservative journalists.”

What differed from the crowd of liberal journalists who ask questions during formal news conferences — and those who toss questions at his spokesman, Sean Spicer, at the daily press briefing — is that our group asked questions with the intent of getting information, instead of the accusatory tone and “gotcha” questions that often characterize what has come to be known as the mainstream media.

Conservatives should not be lapdogs for a Republican president. No one asked the types of softball questions the media usually toss at a Democratic president. The president told us he doesn’t expect to be free of criticism, but appreciates fairness. He allowed that conservative journalists are likely to be fairer to him than those his strategist, Steve Bannon, has called “the enemy” and “opposition party.” A side note: Mr. Bannon stood off to the side at our meeting with the president, frequently smiling.

The New York Times on Tuesday provided a useful service. It carried a story noting how differently conservative and liberal reporters and commentators have treated Mr. Trump and his administration. Reading these suggests not just different perspectives, but different realities.

While some reporters have groused about this exercise in ideological pluralism, the public is getting more information and a different perspective than what they are used to. That can only be good for the country, for conservative journalists who are often ignored by the major media, and for the president.

Different realities. Definitely. But what do you do about that?