RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271264/times-op-ed-definitive-proof-nevertrump-moral-bruce-thornton

The New York Times’s just published an anonymous op-ed from a “senior official” in the Trump administration. This self-righteous combination of clichéd anti-Trump tropes and arrogant moral preening puts the QED on the proof of the NeverTrumpers’ moral idiocy.

The stalest complaints involve Trump’s personality and style, although the only difference between Trump and, say, Lyndon Johnson is that Johnson with the help of the media knew that most of his vulgarisms and epithets would never be made public until he left office. And he wasn’t monitored 24/7 by a barrage of reports and images from internet news and blogs, hundreds of cable channels, and social media.

As for crudity and vulgarity, if you insurgent White House employees want vulgarity, just look around you. We are saturated with a culture of vulgarity, self-promotion, and crude sexualization. At least Trump hasn’t besmirched the White House with Clinton-style sexual antics, or like Obama brought foul-mouthed rappers who celebrate the murder of judges to socialize in the White House. But to Anonymous, the worst of Trump’s affronts is that he, with the help of deplorable uppity citizens, has “allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.” This charge bespeaks an ignorance of the Constitution and its founders’ understanding of human nature. Given the variety and volume of colliding “passions and interests,” “civility” was a luxury. More important was protecting political freedom by preventing factions from joining forces to increase their power.

The catalogue of Trump’s shortcomings are stale, subjective epithets from nearly two-years of Trump-hating screeds, without any awareness that in terms of actions, progressives like Barack Obama have been much worse. For example, the brave anonymous resister says Trump’s behavior is “detrimental to the health of our republic.” Exactly how have excessive Tweeting, braggadocio, or insults of rivals done more damage to the Constitution’s separation of powers than Obama’s politicizing of the IRS, the EPA, two AGs, the Department of Education, the FBI, and the DOJ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cory-booker-and-democratic-norms-1536276103

When he was mayor of Newark, Booker was considered to be the light at the end of the Lincoln Tunnel….now he’s just another political hack….rsk

Democrats have been acting out at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, but Cory Booker is distinguishing himself in a crowded field. The New Jersey Senator released confidential documents in what he admitted was a violation of Senate rules, and his distortions need correcting.

Questioning Judge Kavanaugh on Wednesday evening, Mr. Booker referred to an email the judge sent while in George W. Bush’s White House counsel’s office. Republican Mike Lee interjected that Judge Kavanaugh didn’t have a copy of the email, which was marked confidential. The papers are shielded from the public under the Presidential Records Act, but Mr. Bush has allowed Senators and staff to read them.

Mr. Booker complained that an email with the subject line “racial profiling” shouldn’t have been withheld. “This wasn’t personal information. There’s no national security issue whatsoever,” he intoned. “The fact that we’re not allowing these emails out, as we have asked, as I have asked,” is evidence that “the system is rigged.” On Thursday Mr. Booker released the documents to TV fanfare and dared Republicans to punish him for it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-anonymous-resistance-1536276239

One consequence of having such a polarizing and personally flawed man as President is the degree to which his opponents justify their own destructive excess in response. An example is Cory Booker consciously violating Senate rules Thursday in an attempt to deny Brett Kavanaugh a Supreme Court seat. (See nearby.) Another is the decision by a “senior official” to publish an op-ed in the New York Times describing the internal government “resistance” to Donald Trump.

Let’s stipulate that publishing an article with an anonymous byline is sometimes worth doing, and we have done it ourselves. In 1991 we shielded the name of a woman who was raped amid the debate over publishing the names of victims. We have published op-eds protecting the identities of writers who could face arrest or worse at the hands of dictators or terrorists, while informing readers that the author was using a pseudonym.

We don’t recall offering anonymity to someone in government or American politics, though perhaps we have and we can’t say we would never do so. It would depend on the circumstances. The op-ed in this case doesn’t meet those standards, not least because it isn’t news. The fact that senior Administration officials have been trying to block Mr. Trump’s uninformed policy impulses, and mute his self-destructive anger and narcissism, has been reported hundreds of times.