.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
I wake up many mornings thinking of the hostages in
Gaza. It would be interesting to drive one of those
sign trucks with a good sound system around the
Upper West Side for a few days playing the raw 10/7
video.
A good meme would be side/side pics of little kids
training with rifles and anti-tank weapons in the early
2000's and the savages coming over in powered
parachutes: "It's the same picture..."
https://x.com/karol/status/1782382667289301433?
s=46&t=UKXO38RhBpK5y4MY5xV34g
++++
HOOVER DAILY REPORT
| by Chester E. Finn Jr. via Thomas B. Fordham Institute How about a ceasefire in the civics wars? Possibly even a peace treaty? This could turn out to be easier to achieve than pausing the conflict in Gaza (or Kashmir or Sudan or…). The world’s big fights generally arise from opposed interests and disputes over fundamentals ++++ |
The NYT's reported Biden had accepted the challenge to debate Trump. The White House staff must be cringing. Perhaps, instead of debating Trump, Biden will carry out his threat to take Trump behind the school house yard and beat him up like a youthful school boy that he ain't.
+++
The Counter-Revolt Finally Begins
Columbia, Yale and NYU camp out while the rest of the U.S. flees from wokeness.
By Daniel Henninger
Wonder Land: Columbia, Yale and NYU camp out while the rest of the U.S. flees from wokeness. Images: AFP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
Before this column ends, we’ll get to the unmissable fact that anti-Israel, often antis-Semitic, protests are proliferating at what we amusingly choose to call our most “selective” universities—Columbia, Yale, New York University, Stanford, Berkeley. For the moment, add these North Face tent protests on $75,000-a-year campus quads to the sense among the American public that their country is running off the rails.
A list of the phenomena laying us low includes: wokeness, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), defund the police (a depressing subset of wokeness), conspiracy theories, head-in-the-sand isolationism and a self-centered political polarization typified—from left to right—by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert.
Ironically this time of year is associated with hope, amid spring and college graduations—except at the University of Southern California, which, fearing trouble, canceled its commencement speakers and told honorary-degree recipients not to show up.
Setting silenced USC aside, a hopeful note one hears at college commencements is that the American system is self-correcting, that despite recurrent stress, it always rights itself. Opinion polls suggest few believe this anymore but—happy spring—it looks as if we may be on the brink of a real counter-revolt against the craziness.
Last week in the hopelessly gridlocked House, Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, facing threats to his job from the chaos caucus, cast his lot with the enough-is-enough caucus. The House passed bills to sustain allies in Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Congress isn’t dead—yet.
Blue states and cities that looked willing to collapse rather than defend their citizens have begun to push back against progressives’ pro-criminal and antipolice movements.
At the urging of Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York’s just-passed state budget includes measures to crack down on shoplifting. Assaulting a retail worker will be a felony. Larceny charges can be based on the total goods stolen from different stores. Progressives in the state’s Legislature opposed the measures. Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker, elected in January on restoring law and order (yes, it can be a Democratic issue), last week announced a plan to support policing in the most crime- and drug-plagued neighborhoods.
March seemed to be a tipping point. The hyperprogressive Council of the District of Columbia, in a city that had become an embarrassing carjacking hellhole, passed an array of anticrime measures. Oregon’s Legislature voted to reverse the state’s catastrophic three-year experiment with drug decriminalization. San Francisco voters approved two measures proposed by, of all people, Mayor London Breed, to ease restrictions on policing and require drug screening for welfare recipients. The results in Los Angeles County’s primary for district attorney strongly suggest progressive George Gascón will be voted out in November.
In all these places, the reversals by elected officials are driven by the prospect of voters’ turning them out of office. That is the U.S. political system trying to right itself.
In California, a safety coalition has collected about 900,000 signatures to reverse parts of Proposition 47, the state’s now-notorious 2014 decision to reduce some theft felonies to misdemeanors. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to overturning a Ninth Circuit decision that bars cities and towns from enforcing vagrancy laws. Though the case emerged from Grants Pass, Ore., which is trying to ban homeless encampments, about three dozen elected officials and organizations in California filed briefs arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling made cleaning up the streets almost impossible.
News stories since the start of the year have noted that many private companies are rethinking policies on DEI, partly under legal pressure, such as the Supreme Court’s decision last year to strike down the use of race in college admissions.
Some in the corporate DEI movement thought they were immune to restraints. No longer. Companies are rediscovering that the constituency most needing inclusion is their customers. The loudest shot across the bow came last week, when Google fired 28 employees after some staged sit-in protests at its New York and California offices over a contract with Israel’s government. Google’s firing statement describes “completely unacceptable behavior.” No one saw that coming.
All this adds up to a nascent counter-revolt against America’s lurch toward self-destruction. The exception is elite U.S. universities. Their leadership has seen itself as answerable to no one and politically immune.
Robert Kraft, a Columbia grad and owner of the New England Patriots, said this week he will no longer give the school money “until corrective action is taken.”
If big donors ever regain control of these so-called selective schools, a suggestion: Firing the president won’t close the barn door. Instead, fire the admissions office. What a tragedy to think how many serious high-school students were rejected by Columbia, Yale and NYU, edged out by non-useful idiots whose chosen major is the political structure of re-education camps.
Someone has to be a lagging indicator, and these schools are it.
++++
Normally, I have an opinion about America's future which may or may not prove correct. Today I am confused about the future but predicting what will happen, in either case, is easy. If the radical haters win, our republic is over. However, if the radicals lose our republic America will never return to what it is was meant to be, and once was, because too much water has been spilled.
It is ludicrous to believe the world will follow our nation as before. The mass media is untrustworthy, education, at all levels, has been destroyed, every institution has either been corrupted or taken over by neo-Marxists. Corporate America has given up on capitalism and America's upbeat attitude has been crushed.
Tornados prove how quickly what takes decades to construct can be destroyed in the blink of the eye. Franklin has been proven omniscient. because we thought we could defy the phrase:
"Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers."
This phrase starkly highlights the modern tendency to expend our energy and potential in the pursuit of material gain. This observation emphasizes how individuals channel their time, effort, and creativity into accumulating wealth. In this sense, Wordsworth showcases the paradox of materialism.
+++
Stay Tuned and Pray I Am Wrong.
Essay By Dick Berkowitz
Normally, I have an opinion about America's future which may or may not prove correct. Today I am confused about the future but predicting what will happen, in either case, is easy. If the radical haters win, our republic is over. However, if the radicals lose, our republic will never return to what it was meant to be and once was, because too much water has been spilled, inflation remains a canker and our deficits will only grow..
It is ludicrous to believe the world will follow our nation as before. The mass media is untrustworthy, education, at all levels, has been destroyed, every institution has either been corrupted or taken over by neo-Marxists. Corporate America has given up on capitalism and America's optimistic attitude has been crushed.
Tornados prove how quickly what takes decades to construct can be destroyed in the blink of an eye. Ben Franklin has been proven omniscient. because we thought we could defy the phrase: "Getting and Spending, we lay waste our powers."
"This phrase starkly highlights the modern tendency to expend our energy and potential in the pursuit of material gain. This observation emphasizes how individuals channel their time, effort, and creativity into accumulating wealth. In this sense, Wordsworth showcases the paradox of materialism."
Consequently, I believe desperate young Americans will drive Democrats to knit together a Biden-Obama Ticket allowing Obama to become president for a third term because there are no constraints on Obama serving as Vice President and then becoming president through the office of the Vice President should Biden win and then resign or succumb to the 25th Amendment.?
Wild? Yes. But Democrats will stop at nothing and with Obama on the ticket he could change the election results by beating Trump. Basically, Obama is already running The White House through his staff surrogates.
Today's youth believe "The American Dream" is dead. Their chance of becoming middle class, owning a home, being able to retire is not within their grasp. They have given up on Capitalism and are naïve enough to embrace Socialism. Consequently, they will demand the government provide them a tax free income which places them in the middle class and what they earn above this income source will then be subject to a tax..
Obama will campaign on a series of attractive "government giveaways" that will appeal to young voters who have already been spoiled by "Covid Munificence." Obama became president, won The Nobel Peace Prize and had a political record of achievements which was thinner than a paper napkin. The man is a charlatan but he is "cool" and young voters have proven they are easily swayed because they are educationally shallow.
Obama also is not above playing the race card and using intimidation to quiet "whitey" and he already has campus discord running amok which he can further manipulate.
When matters get desperate and the cost of food and gas are beyond the reach of millions of families radical change becomes possible. We no longer have the stable foundation upon which our republic rested, when religion was woven into the fabric of our society and law and order reigned., Most of what Trump had as resources so he was able to "Make America Great" have been purposely erased by Biden.
Obama's transformation of America was successful. The "Manchurian Candidate" won.
Now will he be allowed to return through the back door?
Stay tuned and pray I am wrong.
+++
Women and the entire world should be outraged but most remain silent and/or parade in support of Hamas.
Has the world become inhabited by human animals?
Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader:
+++
These Ugly, Little Schmucks Need to Face Consequences 
++++
Just received my 2024 Social Security Stimulus Package.It contained a monthly benefit increase of one dollar and four cents.
A Biden "Build Back Better” bumper sticker.
A prayer rug.
A Kamala Speech Decoder Ring.
A solar powered machine to blow smoke up my a**.
A coupon for a free oil change on my Tesla
And a “Blame it on Trump” sign for my front yard.
The instructions were in Spanish.
Yours Should Be Arriving Soon.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JOE ROGIN U TUBE INTERVIEW
https://youtu.be/K1sJpnXZkjE?
++++
What’s at Stake in the Trump Immunity Case
Under Jack Smith’s theory, Lincoln, Truman, Clinton and Biden could all have ended up in the dock.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. U.S., in which Donald Trump argues that the Constitution precludes his prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. Mr. Trump’s detractors insist that recognizing presidential immunity would put him above the law. They’re wrong. Immunity for official actions is a necessary part of the constitutional structure, and criminal prosecution isn’t the only way to hold a president accountable for unlawful official acts.
Because no previous president ever faced criminal charges, the question before the justices is novel. But the high court has addressed the unique constitutionally driven relationship between the presidency and the courts. In Kendall v. U.S. ex rel. Stokes (1838), it declared: “The executive power is vested in a President; and as far as his powers are derived from the constitution, he is beyond the reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the constitution through the impeaching power.”
Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) dealt with the question of when statutes enacted by Congress apply to the president. The ruling noted that “the President is not explicitly excluded” from the Administrative Procedure Act, “but he is not explicitly included, either.” Under such circumstances, “out of respect for the separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President . . . textual silence is not enough to subject the President to the provisions.”
More fundamentally, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the court held that separation of powers demands absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts falling within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities. Absolute immunity is necessary because the president “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme,” and the specter of litigation “could distract a President from his public duties.” That applies with even greater force to the threat of criminal prosecution.
Special counsel Jack Smith argues that “no President need be chilled in fulfilling his responsibilities” because there are “strong institutional checks to ensure evenhanded and impartial enforcement of the law,” including grand jury indictment, due process and the government’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if the prospect of conviction is remote, the threat of prosecution impairs the presidency.
Further, the most important institutional check, the norm against politicized prosecutions, has so broken down that not only Mr. Smith but district attorneys in New York and Atlanta have rushed to bring Mr. Trump to court. Imagine how other presidents might have fared if they had to worry about prosecution for official acts:
• Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without congressional authorization. In Ex Parte Merryman (1861), Chief Justice Roger Taney, acting as a circuit judge, held that the power to suspend habeas lies solely with Congress. Lincoln ignored Taney’s ruling and continued his suspension of habeas until the end of the Civil War. No one suggested that Lincoln be prosecuted for false imprisonment, false arrest or kidnapping.
• Harry S. Truman seized domestic steel plants during the Korean War, violating statutes that authorized the president to seize private property only in narrow circumstances. The Supreme Court declared his actions unconstitutional in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). But no federal prosecutors suggested they could prosecute him for “conspiracy against rights,” or “conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States,” the charges Mr. Smith has brought against Mr. Trump.
• Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all unilaterally ordered military actions as commander in chief. Critics accused them of usurping Congress’s power to declare war, but nobody seriously suggested that they be prosecuted for murder, torture, war crimes or misappropriation of government resources.
The president isn’t the only official to enjoy immunity for official acts. In Yaselli v. Goff (1927), the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s conclusion that federal prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil liability because the “public interest requires that persons occupying such important positions . . . should speak and act freely and fearlessly in the discharge of their important official functions.” In Kalina v. Fletcher (1997), the justices held that even under Section 1983—a civil-rights law authorizing lawsuits against state officials who violate federal constitutional rights—prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for acts undertaken in their “role as an advocate.” This is because that role is unique to prosecutors, and the public’s interest “in protecting the proper functioning of the office, rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, . . . is of primary importance.”
The court reached the same conclusion about judges in Pierson v. Ray (1967), which held that Section 1983 didn’t abrogate judges’ absolute immunity for “acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” because such immunity is “for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.”
In Gravel v. U.S. (1972), the justices held that the Speech and Debate Clause extends absolute immunity to members of Congress and their aides for official actions. This is to protect a member of “a co-equal branch of the government” from “executive and judicial oversight that realistically threatens to control his conduct as a legislator.”
Like prosecutors, judges and congressmen, a president threatened with prosecutions for official acts couldn’t exercise his duties with full vigor. Unlike those other officials, the president is the singular head of a branch of government, making his ability to exercise his powers all the more essential.
That leaves the question of whether the actions for which Mr. Trump was charged were official or, as Mr. Smith asserts, private. In McDonnell v. U.S. (2016) the court held that an “official act” is an action on any matter that is “pending . . . before a public official,” and includes the president’s “using his official position to exert pressure on another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an ‘official act’ of another official.”
Mr. Trump acknowledges that “no court has yet addressed the application of immunity to the alleged facts of the case.” The justices should draw a line and extend absolute criminal immunity to actions within the outer perimeter of the president’s duties. Then it would be for the lower courts to decide on which side of the line these actions fall.
Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
++++
No comments:
Post a Comment