The obnoxious screed “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?,” authored by an obscure writer I never heard of (three of his better-known mentors are above) and hope I never hear of again, was deemed appropriate content for New York Times readers, and not as satire either.
Litt epitomizes the type of insufferable elitist jerks that have made the modern Left the pit of despond that it has become over the last decade or so. Yuck. Was this guy ever a tolerable human being? The Times should be required to publish a full analysis of how Litt got this way as a public service, kind of like that episode of “I Love Lucy” where her book draft was sought by a publisher to use in a how-to tome to illustrate what writers shouldn’t ever do.
The column is about how Litt “felt a civic duty to be rude” to his wife’s younger brother because he hadn’t seen the light and surrendered his mind to the Woke and Wonderful. A few excerpts will tell you all you need to know about Litt, but I may add a little commentary here and there:
Britain’s media regulator (Great Britain doesn’t have a First Amendment, remember, so the government can punish dishonest, biased journalism. This is not a good thing…) said today it is investigating a BBC documentary about the dire fate of children in Gaza. The BBC removed the program, “Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone,” from its streaming service earlier this year after it was revealed that the 13-year-old narrator, “Abdullah,” is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, Hamas’s deputy minister of agriculture.
Oh. Sounds fair and objective to me! The media reports says this information “emerged.” Translation: the BBC was caught. News programs purporting to be factual must not materially mislead the audience in Great Britain, or so they claim. Imagine if the U.S. had such a regulation and enforced it. There would be no broadcast news.
The independent production company that made the program didn’t share the background information regarding the father of the young narrator’s Hamas ties, claims the BBC. Hoyo Films, which produced the documentary, claims it didn’t “intentionally” mislead the BBC. The BBC meanwhile, was wonderfully trusting and incurious—you know, like good journalists are supposed to be. After all, it’s not like anyone is out to vilify Israel as it tries to survive while protecting its citizens from being raped, murdered and kidnapped by terrorists.
1. So…Director of the F.B.I. Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino are throwing public hissy fits over the Justice Department stating in an unsigned memorandum that there is no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein, the dead convicted sexual predator, had a client list and used it to blackmail elected officials, celebrities, and other powerful people. The memo also declared that Epstein committed suicide. Patel and bongino are behaving this way because they are unprofessional and untrustworthy, though everyone should have known that already. The professional manner in which to demonstrate a serious disagreement with one’s superior, organization or client is to resign, stating why to the extent permitted by the terms of your job. The President should fire both of them immediately.
2. I don’t care about Jeffrey Epstein or his alleged client list. Nobody should at this point. He was a walking, talking ethics train wreck, and now he’s dead. Good! A collection of documents, including emails and schedules revealed by The Wall Street Journal showed, among other things, that Woody Allen frequently socialized with the billionaire. Gee, what a surprise. So what are we supposed to do with such information? We already know that Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, creepazoids both, were pals with the sex maniac (I’m talking about Epstein, now, not Woody…). Other than as tabloid fodder, what value does such intelligence have? I have the Red Sox winning streak to worry about and a sock drawer to alphabetize. Shut up.
That’s a quote from the late futurist Herman Kahn, the smartest person I ever talked to (which is saying something). Herman was always optimistic about the future, but regularly warned that his rosy predictions were always subject to being derailed by the 1% contingency of bad management and bad luck. Indeed virtually every disaster in history can be explained by that 1% contingency.
I thought about this today as I read the infuriating Washington Post story, “Kerr County did not use its most far-reaching alert system in deadly Texas floods…Local officials used the system more than two days after the recorded height of the floods.”
The short version is that officials had at their disposal the technology to turn every cellphone in the river valley into a screaming alarm, but, inexplicably didn’t use it before river levels rose to record heights, causing widespread destruction and killing more than a hundred people. Why? So far, nobody is talking. Two days after the rain storm that caused the river to rise 30 feet, Kerr County officials used the system to warn residents that there could be another round of river flooding. This is akin to Pompeii officials going house to house to warn survivors that Mt. Vesuvius might erupt again. But no county officials have responded to emails, texts and other requests from The Post to explain what happened. State and local officials said in a statement that county leaders have been focusing on rescue and reunification and are “committed to a transparent and full review of processes and protocols.”
Video has “surfaced”—where do these surfaced videos go to, before they surface?—of Los Angeles’s incompetent, smug, ridiculous mayor Karen Bass answering a question about her city’s ICE riots by replying that “they never happened.” See?
How do politicians like Bass keep getting away with this? Democrats during the Biden Administration set new records for “It isn’t what it is” gaslighting. The border was secure. Inflation wasn’t really excessive. Men who declared themselves women while keeping all their junk were…POOF!…women. Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack.” War is Peace. Oops, sorry, that last one was Big Brother. How does Bass and her party live with themselves? How can they look themselves in the mirror? Why do Democrats tolerate it?
Have they no sense of decency, at long last? Have they left no sense of decency?
Apparently not, or they would be hiding their heads under paper bags.
[Of course, it helps that virtually no Axis news sources have reported on the video. But we know that journalists have no sense of decency…]
Whitehouse is Little Rhodey’s senior U.S. Senator, Democrat of course, and his speech this week on the Senate floor (several members had to be hospitalized after they rolled their eyes too hard) was reflexively praised by “The Nation,” which employs far, far, FAR left lunatic Elie Mystal as an editor.
[Digression: You remember Elie, don’t you? He can only appear in public now on MSNBC without being chased by men in white coats carrying butterfly nets. He was too extreme for the left-biased legal gossip rag “Above the Law,” which published his radical nonsense before he went completely bonkers. Elie has opined that all black jurors should always vote to acquit black defendants no matter hwo guilty they are. Nice. (I wonder what the ABA would say if juries paid any attention to him?) More recently he called for foreign nations to issue sanctions against the U.S.]
Read it. Or at least try. I dare you. I double dare you. First, it is garbled, rambling and incoherent (not unlike this), perhaps not quite Authentic Frontier Gibberish, but too close to be tolerated from a U.S. Senator. Second, and this has always been true of his rants, Whiethouse obviously doesn’t understand climate change science at all, like all hysterics who want the U.S. to spend trillions and cripple the economy based on speculation. This country can’t slow down climate change, whatever it is, without the vast majority of the world joining in and they won’t, don’t and can’t. This includes giant countries India and China. Does Whitehouse really not comprehend this, or is he just pimping for a world dictatorship? Oh, who knows? There is no justification for paying any attention to him, ever.
Whitehouse has, for example, repeatedly said that Americans who oppose the climate change “consensus” should be imprisoned. To this, law professor/pundit Glenn Reynolds responded,
“First, this man should be voted out of office as soon as human possible. His ignorance is dangerous. Second, the state bar should require him to undergo at least 100 hours of mandatory continuing legal education on the subject of constitutional law, with emphasis on the First Amendment. Newsflash: joining together to discuss common interests and even–gasp!–funding research, white papers and lobbying efforts to advance one’s perspectives on an issue isn’t illegal; its free speech.”
It should be no surprise that Whitehouse implies that the Texas flood is the result of evil Republicans and Donald Trump not caring about our planet slowly burning up, though there is no evidence of the tragedy being caused by climate change (or DOGE cuts). [Added] I just saw this…
🚨SHOCK POLL: CNN admits that the American people AREN'T CONCERNED about climate change — Radical activists FAILED to scare citizens.
"Americans AREN'T afraid of climate change!"
"Climate activists have not successfully made the case to the American people!" pic.twitter.com/47u9IzQ8IF
But he has other villains to finger: “dark money” that elects those evil Republicans (funny, getting far more money in donations than Donald Trump didn’t seem to help Kamala Harris any); “creepy billionaires,” and a “captured Supreme Court.” In fact, I can’t let this pass; here is that part of the rant:
Former President Biden’s White House physician, Kevin O’Connor, refused to answer questions for the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into the White House and Democratic cover-up of Biden’s mental decline and disability. News accounts from the Axis keep stating that Biden’s condition and a cover-up are “alleged” only, but res ipsa loquitur: what we already know, have witnessed and heard tells us all we need to know except the who, how, and how long. Biden was (is ) suffering from dementia of one kind or another. His condition was carefully, if insufficiently, hidden from the public. The fact that his power had to be exercised by unelected figures using the President as their agent, puppet or beard constitutes at least as great a scandal as Watergate, and perhaps a more substantial attack on our democracy.
This betrayal of the public trust requires at least as thorough an investigation as that definitive scandal in the Nixon White House received. Democrats, however, unlike the Republicans of the Watergate era, are refusing to do their duty and assist in the inquiry, probably because they have metaphorical blood on their hands. They were complicit. They were guilty. The House inquiry includes questions about whether Biden’s staff used the autopen to illegally carry out official actions in Biden’s name. One would think both Democrats and Republicans would be concerned about this. Apparently not. Make of that what you will.
“Public schools, this Court has said, are “at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.” … They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality.”
—-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting (ignorantly as usual) in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, the 6-3 ruling in which the Court held that schools have to give parents the option of having their children absent themselves from lessons that are adverse to the family’s’ religious beliefs.
Ethics Alarms already weighed in on this case earlier here, but I neglected to focus on the full calamity of the Wise Latina’s sinister dissent. The flood of incompetent, woke garbage spewing from her colleague Justice Jackson of late has raised a lively debate over which of the two women was the worst DEI appointment. Obama picked Sonia before DEI was a thing, so maybe Jackson, Biden’s selection, wins by default; still O made it clear that it was Sotomayor’s ethnicity and gender and not her legal acumen that got her the “historic” seat on the Court.
When I wrote the last post, I could not find a link to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s sole written dissent in the 8-1 SCOTUS decision today to, you know, let the President of the United States run the Executive Branch, which the Constitution says he controls. Well, I finally did find one here, and the dissent is exactly what you would expect if you’ve read her recent hysterical, legally incompetent rants because her party isn’t getting away with its various efforts to cripple the Trump Administration. She is distinctly echoing the primal scream of frustration that the Axis is emitting because its dreams of a Woke paradise are evaporating by the hour.
She wrote in part, “In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground. This case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”
This is a policy complaint, not a legal one. Remarkably, even the pathetic Justice Sotomayor went along with the majority. The fact that Presidents have sought authority to do what the Constitution makes clear that they already have the power to do does not amend the Constitution. The Court lifted the say because it believed it likely that the President’s reorganization of his own Branch would be found lawful. It’s a good bet, given that the Constitution backs him up and there is no progressive majority on the Court more concerned with blocking Republican policies than following the law.
The coalition of unions and activists that sued to block the cuts said in a statement, “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
Are you sick of this narrative yet? It’s a grave thret to democracy to allow the elected President of the United Sates do what he said he would do if elected. More…
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”
But it is. Nothing in the document requires Congressional approval for Presidential control of his own Branch. The Founders do not mention “federal workers” at all, and envisioned a government that would not have departments and agencies multiplying like rabbits. Jackson’s tell is the use of her term “wrecking ball.” That’s a political bias without relevance to the law or the Constitution. She is the one advocating an abuse of power, not the majority.
“The decision could result in job losses for tens of thousands of employees at agencies including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, State and Treasury,” whines the New York Times. Awwww! That’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. That the Times, or some judges, or Democrats, or anyone else doesn’t like the effort to strip down and re-organize the bloated, corrupt, inefficient and profligate Federal government is their opinion and they are welcome to it. But it is the Executive Branch, and the various efforts to block the President from managing his own branch was unethical, an abuse of power, and indefensible.
The decision was preceded by a major ruling on June 27, when SCOTUS limited the ability of judges to block President Trump’s policies nationwide. This should not be treated as a partisan decision, but of course the Left wants it to be seen as so. This, again, demonstrates a death of integrity.
The emergency application on mass firings across federal agencies began with an executive order signed by Trump in February directing officials to prepare for major cuts to the federal work force. Then labor unions, advocacy groups and local governments sued to block it, counting on partisan judges to see it as their duty to block an Evil President. So Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California temporarily paused the administration’s plans for layoffs and program closures, claiming that such cuts were most likely illegal without approval from Congress. There is no legal authority for that contention. She said a President cannot conduct large-scale reorganization of the executive branch without cooperation with Congress and following the process that the legislative branch has approved for government reorganization, and she froze mass layoffs and agency closures while the lower-court case proceeded.
The fact that past Presidents have chosen to seek cooperation from Congress in organization of the Executive Branch, often for political cover, never meant that they had to. Nonetheless, Judge Illston wrote that in order to make “large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, any president must enlist the help of his coequal branch and partner, the Congress.”
Balderdash.
The Trump administration appealed the ruling, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Illston’s order. The Trump administration then filed an emergency application with the Supremes. Judges defying the Constitution to advance partisan warfare is an emergency. It’s called the Executive Branch for a reason.
Ethics Alarms 