A Message For Messrs Frum and Walsh

 Hopefully you have read my previous posts: A message to David Frum and Joe Walsh of which I spoke: Democrats vote en bloc, they stick to their talking points and they never, ever criticize other Democrats.  And when was the last time you witnessed the democrats engaging in educating rather than riling up their base while engaging in respectful debate with conservatives? Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and that cast of political savages treating their conservative colleagues with respect? By respectful, I have to assume you mean like the way Democrats respectfully treated Brett Kavanaugh? Talk about an alternate reality.  So exactly how did this go down, Fred, Joe?  Did The Atlantic and TIME magazines offer you blood money to sucker punch Rush on his deathbed while giving you an opportunity to plug your respective magazine and talk show? Sure looks like it.

 

And There Is Joe Walsh

 Yes, I know my conservative wrath of late has dwelled on Mr. Frum’s editorializing in The Atlanic-, let me switch my attention to Joe Walsh, a bird of the same feather: Republican, a former social worker, who served one term in the House of Representatives representing Illinois’ 8th congressional district in 2011-2013, Presidential candidate in 2020, and conservative talk radio host.  On the day Rush Limbaugh died, Joe had the phenomenally poor taste to pen an article for TIME magazine entitled “Rush Limbaugh Leaves Behind a Conservative Movement No Longer Interested in Truth. That Alarms Me as a Conservative”.  Who would do such a thing?  Certainly not a Republican.  But maybe a Republican with an axe to grind.  “He helped make our nation more divided and polarized than it had been in years.  This is Rush Limbaugh’s legacy”.  How sweet a tribute.  He admits to being a listener but “stopped after a couple of years” because he “got bored”.  Apparently Rush couldn’t hold the interest of this enormous intellect. He details Rush’s career “trajectory to making millions”, perhaps with a note of envy, but criticizes him for “much less focus on the conservative agenda”. “His daily three hours on the air became all about attacking and mocking the left and I grew to not believe a lot of what he was saying.  His problems with the truth were my giant red flag”.  His “show to be little more than shtick.” Joe, on the other hand, does not “view conservative talk radio as entertainment. I view it as a serious mission to change hearts and minds and compel people to action” he said.  Such a pillar of virtue, this Joe Walsh.  

A David Frum Ache

As you have no doubt gathered by now Mr Frum of The Atlantic fame had struck a nerve with me. My diatribe continues: Although he concedes that the American system of government has evolved, and by evolved he means it has been diluted to his satisfaction, Mr. Frum levels the accusation that it remains anti-majoritarian, distrusting the “unpropertied” majority. Sticking in his craw was a rant by Utah Senator Mike Lee who last year tweeted out “We’re not a democracy…Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish.  Rank democracy can thwart that”. Mr. Frum belittles Mr. Lee for reducing Madisonian theory into “so few characters”, not that Twitter allows more, but the fact that we are indeed a Constitutional Republic with safeguards to preserve us from mob rule tends to enrage the left when it becomes inconvenient.  Say, when Trump was elected after Hillary captured the popular vote. Yet the fear of mob rule, or tyranny of the masses, has been an essential tenet in American government and is not strictly an American born concern, nor the exclusive property of the framers.  Alexis de Toqueville, a French aristocrat and political scientist, studied the American experiment and concluded “a decision which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not a rightness of excellence” is indeed an “abandonment of rationality”.  Similar arguments by Herbert Spencer in 1851 concluded that “there is evidently a limit to the power of the majority” and John Stuart Mill in 1859 who stated that there “is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of minority factions”. Even Abraham Lincoln, recently hijacked by the left, reacted to incidents of mob mentality: “Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation”.  He went on: “when the “mobocratic spirit” takes root among good men, government may then be effectually broken down and destroyed”. Never violate the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others”.  The “Penman of the Constitution”, statesman Gouverneur Morris said “I see with fear and trembling that we may be under the worst of all possible dominions….the dominion of a riotous mob”. Black Lives matter protesters and Pennsylvania board of elections, take note. So in essence, our founders were “threading the needle between liberty and order” based on their learned observations of history in Europe where governments began as monarchies or dictatorships which, in cases where they evolved into democracies, were subject to the fluctuations and vagaries of mob rule which ultimately devolved into governments run by monarchs and dictators in an attempt to restore order.  Madison himself warned in the Federalist No. 51 of the inherent dangers of “tyranny of the majority”.  And in a quote perhaps attributed to Ben Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”. “But it takes Mr. Frum three pages before the point of this exercise rears its ugly head: Donald Trump.  Mr. Frum is consumed by Trump.  He rails against the fact that Trump was elected with only 46.1 percent of the national vote stating he “was elected not by the preferences of the American people but by the anti-majoritarian mechanics of the Electoral College”that “installed a flimflam man in the Oval Office”.   There you have it. A Flimflam man.  Really? He goes on to use everything from the insurrection on the Capitol to the repeal of Obama’s DACA executive order and rescinding of Obama’s joining the Paris Accord, which imposed crippling green regulations on American industry, as evidence of our poorly crafted government that allows the Senate to be controlled by a minority that represents 41 million less people than the majority.  This flawed government is what he claims forced Obama to resort to the pen to save us. And “control” is perhaps a misrepresentation.  The Senate minority has the ability to block legislation but that is certainly not putting them in control. The system is in place to foster bipartisanship, compromise and to prevent the majority from ramming through blatantly one-sided legislation laden with pork.  But you know that, Mr. Frum, the Democrats do the same damned thing when they are in the minority.  It’s apparently only inconvenient when the other side does it.  And glossing over these topics you use as evidence, which are themselves fodder for a hundred posts, is insulting to your audience. Or more likely, just preaching to the choir. Where is DACA supported by a majority of Americans? 

Mr. Frum

 I'm back at Mr. Frum. Under the title, “The Founders were Wrong About Democracy” he states his case: “the authors of the Constitution feared mass participation would unsettle the government, but it’s the privileged minority that has proved destabilizing.”  There you have it, the buzzword of today: Privilege.  Noteworthy only in the fact that he didn’t tack “white” onto it, although that is the implication. He opens his article and peppers it repeatedly with quotes from the Founding Fathers to make his case, the first from Madison: the mass of people would be susceptible to fickleness and passion, who labour under all the hardships of life and would secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings such that the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the majority”.  His conclusion, obvious from the start and tainted through the prism of today’s equality politics, is that wealth and property is concentrated in an elite minority and the Founding Fathers saw to it that it would stay there, rather than being equitably distributed to the masses, by rigging our constitutional form of government.  Taking it one step further, he accuses the framers of erecting governmental obstacles, a “necessary fence against impetuous councils”.  What are those barriers? The Senate, “an elite few serving longer terms”, the federal judiciary, “confirmed by the Senate and serving for life” and of course the Electoral College, an “indirect election of the president”.  Well, if you put it that way, let’s just tear it all down. Right! And I'm still not quite through with Mr Frum; bear with me, more to follow.

Conservatives

 It has been a difficult few week for we conservatives.  Aside from having to endure the media continuing to fawn over Joe Biden, not to mention a couple of days of hearing them gush about Joe and Jill’s special romance in their endless effort to cast him as erudite and compassionate. While conservatives lost Rush Limbaugh, pioneer of conservative talk radio and by all accounts a humble and philanthropic man. Running contrary to the bluster of his radio personality, Mr. Limbaugh gave generously to charity yet preferred to remain anonymous in his giving rather than accept accolades.. But from TIME magazine to the reprehensible cast of sociopaths on The View, the leftist media wasted no time in savaging his legacy, unable to take him on in life, choosing instead to demean him in death.  Not nice. Rest in peace Rush, knowing you have spawned an entire medium for conservative expression and have given a generation light in the darkness of a progressive assault on our constitutional values. You will be sorely missed 

Other affonts we had to endured, an interesting tactic has emerged in the media.  In the past week two attacks on conservative values came to my attention: Not for the attacks themselves, as reprehensible as they may be, but from whence the attacks came.  They came from authors who both identify as Republicans or Conservatives. The first by The Atlantic where David Frum, a former speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration has produced a steady stream of anti-Trump vitriol, this one entitled “The Founders Were Wrong About Democracy”.  The second article appeared in TIME magazine on February 17, tastelessly published on the day of Rush Limbaugh’s death, entitled Rush Limbaugh Leaves Behind a Conservative Movement No Longer Interested in Truth. That Alarms Me as a Conservative.”  This one was written by former Republican congressman, Presidential candidate and radio talk show host Joe Walsh.  As you can see, I’m beyond just being alarmed! And know I'm not through with our Mr. Frum and his treacherous “ Conservatives,” stay tuned.

Rush Limbaugh

 Already the Time magazine is taking in death a shot at Rush Limbaugh, calling him a spreader of lies and disinformation claiming he is responsible for the partisan divide. These people have no morals or ethical standards. Interesting in that, like Mr. Frum from the Atlantic, the article’s author claims to be a Republican. Is this a new tactic by the left? Woke RINOs infiltrating our ranks to sow discontent and doubt?

Impeachment Theater

There is so much going on in the news it is overwhelming.  Federal debt reaching 100% of GDP with more spending proposed, Andy Cuomo satisfying his critics by demonstrating that he is indeed as corrupt as we thought he was, the teacher’s union steamrolling over Joe Biden’s education policy, Trump acquitted once again as the media rails against him.  It is indeed a target rich environment.  Where to turn my sights?  If this is the Biden Administration’s idea of a “return to normalcy” it’s going to be a busy four years.

Alas, let’s have a look at the Senate impeachment trial and acquittal.  With only a handful of Republican Senators onboard for this theater of the absurd, and that would include the usual RINO suspects: embittered Mitt Romney, the Maineiac Susan Collins, Alaskan Lisa Murkowski, Nebraskan Ben Sasse and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, no one with any political acumen suspected that a guilty verdict would be forthcoming.  45 Senators agreed with Rand Paul that “this sham of a trial is unconstitutional”, making “this trial dead on arrival in the Senate”. But in all probability, that wasn’t the point, nor the intent of the exercise.  The goal has always been to wound Mr. Trump, subject him to a death by a thousand cuts, and in this latest impeachment incarnation, to prevent him from running for office again.  With the democrats calling for impeachment long before he even took office, and some suspect as early as that escalator ride in Trump Tower, the left has sought to discredit, impede, obstruct, and destroy everything from cabinet appointees to policy, hobbling the Trump Administration with sideshows to distract the American public from his accomplishments.  Distractions included two impeachments, the Mueller Russia-collusion investigation, a Ukrainian phone call, a tax return witch-hunt, assorted “whistle-blowers”, and even a porn star.  And if a case were to be made for Mr. Trump being, in essence, a despicable character, why on earth would you bring forth a cast of minions with an even higher despicable quotient?  I bring you the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Waters, and Swalwell to name but a few.  If the media ever wanted to engage in dumpster diving on the other side of the aisle, this lot serves up a smorgasbord of lies, scandal, guilt by association and swarmy backroom dealings.   And now with acquittal take 2; cue the predictable outrage from the media.

With so many medial outlets crying foul, it is difficult to choose but one as an example of excess.  Politico, desperately trying to portray itself as objective, but following NPRs proven tactic of an attack-appease-attack narrative in their reporting, led with “This Acquittal Sends Three Dangerous Messages to Future Presidents” as a headline.  With quotations and analysis from various sources, a majority of content negative, they engaged in predictable subterfuge with the adjective game.  “Brilliant impeachment presentation”.   “Failed to convict in either trial-despite overwhelming evidence.”  “Lack of conviction sends chilling message”.  Brilliant is hardly the word I would use to describe our elected officials given their recent conduct.  Perhaps frothy or maybe rabid would suffice.  Overwhelming?  Based on the fact that he used the word “fight “ multiple times in his rally speech, and in particular: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” That should be an embarrassing line of attack after the defense produced a montage of democrats using the same admonition ad nauseum.  Apparently the only thing these mental midgets really should fight for is a thesaurus.  And “chilling”?  Really? Like they’re promoting a new Steven King thriller, speaking of rabid leftists. When adjectives aren’t enough, they resort to a few well-placed nouns and a couple of action verbs: “Trump was not exonerated”.  “Exoneration……will embolden those and their ilk who stormed the Capitol”.  By “ilk” I have to assume you are referencing Hillary’s “basket of deplorables”.  Or perhaps Obama’s “clinging to their guns and religion” crowd. You know……..Republicans. 

It’s amazing how these catch words circulate among the media’s talking heads.  As if “insurrection” wasn’t enough, find me a media outlet that hasn’t attached “deadly” to it.  With recent evidence suggesting that the Capitol police officer died, not from getting his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher as the media would portray it, but from a cerebral vascular accident (a stroke), with no external signs of trauma, hours later.  A tragedy that anyone died for sure, but it would appear that the only person who died directly as a result of violence at the Capitol was the ill-fated, unarmed female protester, veteran Ashli Babbitt, who when lifted by protesters to breach a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby, was shot by a Capitol Police officer.  I haven’t heard President Biden calling for non-lethal marksmanship like shooting her in the leg, a tactic he once suggested should be employed when police officers are dealing with assailants of color.  And why isn’t anyone alarmed that breaching a window conveyed a death sentence? I certainly don’t see Ms. Babbitt’s name adorning the back of NFL player’s helmets. Wrong color, wrong riot, perhaps. But Politico made some bold statements that can’t be ignored.  “Republican Senators had closed minds and would put party and personal political advantage over loyalty to the country”.  Seriously. And the four tortuous years of democrat obstruction, baseless accusations and hypocrisy wasn’t an example of partisan politics, of putting party before country?  Please.  Don’t you recall that politician that said, “Elections have consequences?”  You remember him. Why then, did you refuse to accept the results?  

But perhaps the worst commentary from Politico was the following diatribe: “The disgraceful sacking of the Capitol was, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, a seminal day in American History and, like them, it can be easily distorted in the future, spawning a thousand conspiracy theories.  The House managers laid down an ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned, that will forever guide discussion of this event and prevent later, self-serving distortions of what happened.  They worked to engrave the story in our national memory”.  Wow. Do these people actually go back and read this nonsense after they write it? Where to start?  How about sacking?  As in Attila the Hun, or the Vikings perhaps?   Maybe they were inspired by the guy with the horned headdress.  What BLM rioters did to New York City and Minneapolis…..now that was sacking. I haven’t seen anyone wearing Nancy Pelosi’s Nikes or selling AOC’s signature white pantsuit on eBay as a result of Capitol looting.  Nor has anyone declared, like they did last summer, that looting is a form of redistribution that should be tolerated. Was this vandalism, yes.  Destruction of property, check.  But certainly a minor league, half-hearted example of sacking as compared to the wanton destruction of our cities in a series of riots that were most often defined as “peaceful protest” by the left. And comparing the Capitol riot to Pearl Harbor and 9/11?  Absolutely disgusting. This has to be the result of public school education when we allow the teacher’s union to educate our children.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Pearl Harbor saw 2335 American servicemen killed, 1143 wounded, and 68 civilians killed in an unprovoked attack by the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1941.  The United States, then a neutral country in the conflict, suffered 4 battleships sunk, 3 cruisers sunk, 4 battleships damaged, 3 destroyers damaged and 188 aircraft destroyed.   How dare you make this comparison and dishonor the memory of those lost when the bodies of sailors still rest in the overturned hulk of the USS Arizona. And 9/11 should be recent enough that the memory of that horrific day should be fresh, preventing you from making such a misguided comparison.  2606 American civilians in the towers and the complex as well as all 157 passengers aboard the two aircraft lost their lives.  All the buildings in the World Trade Center complex were destroyed, the collapse of the towers resulting in damage to an additional ten buildings surrounding the complex.   I don’t recall seeing any congressmen leaping to their death from the 80^th floor of a burning building. Any of these crazy comparisons coming from the left, comparing Republicans to Nazis, the Capitol riots to the Holocaust, Pearl Harbor or 9/11, are reprehensible, and need to stop now.  In these hyper-partisan times, journalists should choose their words more carefully.  Who then is more complicit in inciting violence anyway? And regarding the comment that the events can be “easily distorted”.  Well isn’t that exactly what we are witnessing by the democrats and the press?  Aren’t these over the top comparisons themselves distortions?  “Spawning a thousand conspiracy theories?”  Theories like Trump incited the violence, or he of the horned headdress and facepaint is a QAnon kingpin instead of the mentally impaired miscreant he turned out to be?  And don’t even get me started on the “ironclad narrative, well documented and crisply reasoned” without allowing me to don my hip boots.  Did anyone who stayed awake long enough to listen to the argument, find any of it crisply reasoned? It was all showmanship and subject to interpretation. Even Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal, who for four years has been behaving like Trump ran over her puppy, declared that “democrat floor managers were at their best when they were direct, unadorned, and dealt crisply with information and data, as they did most of the time.”  Crisply again. When exactly was that, Peggy? It is apparent that Ms. Noonan longs for the days of Reagan when decorum and civility reigned.  Those days are over, sweetie. What upset her most was  “when vandals strolled though the abandoned Senate chamber and rifled through the desks of senators. Those are literally the desks of Mike Mansfield, Robert M. La Follette, Arthur Vandenberg, John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater. They each had, in accordance with tradition, carved or otherwise had inscribed their names in them. It looked to me like history itself was being violated.”  Easy there, old girl.  It was wrong, it was unlawful.  But we are not a monarchy and the king’s scepter was not being used as a toilet plunger.  It was the People’s House that was violated, a house that now, surrounded with fencing and razor wire, conducting business that offends half the nation, looks to be one step further removed from representing “We the People”.  The one thing Politico did get right was quoting Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor who stated, “We were left with a show trial”. In the same article, Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at the Family Research Council, called it “an act of rage and vengeance rather than sober deliberation” Bravo. Somebody is paying attention.  And as far as “engraving the story in our national memory”, I suspect that they accomplished that goal, but not in the way they anticipated.  Witness Congressman Jamie Raskin digging deep, invoking his children and stifling a sob, in a performance worthy of Academy Award consideration.  Laughable in its disingenuousness.  But if Cuomo can get an Emmy for his coronavirus ruse, then certainly Raskin should garner attention from the Academy for this performance. This is what I will have forever “engraved” in my memory: the shameful partisan bickering, the disdain for the Constitution and the refusal to accept election results.  The disenfranchising of half of American voters to thwart the agenda of a duly elected president.  And to unconstitutionally persecute him after he has left office to assure he cannot disrupt their progressive agenda.  Even the Supreme Court took a pass on this political theater. What a disgrace.