The Thinking of a Postmodern Warlord John O’Sullivan

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2022/05/the-thinking-of-a-postmodern-warlord/

In 2008 Vladimir Putin provoked a war with Georgia by giving its president, Mikhail Sakashvili, the poisoned choice either of losing two “breakaway” regions of his country to pro-Russian separatists and Russian “peacekeepers” illegally present there or of risking an attempt to recover them by military action. Sakashvili chose the second course—which was also a Russian trap—and was defeated. Russian troops advanced to within twenty-five kilometres of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, where they halted and have remained.

At that time I was the executive editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague which broadcast to twenty-two countries in twenty-eight languages. Our Georgian service was an especially influential one with first-class journalists in Prague and Tbilisi. I took the crisis as a chance to visit the Tbilisi bureau, and after a few days of meeting local politicians, diplomats, economists and journalists, I set down my thoughts in a commentary for RFE/RL’s English language service.

My first thoughts, slightly abridged here, were that the Russo-Georgian war was a very postmodern experience.

***

Tbilisi, August 2008. Seated in an open-air restaurant overlooking the Mtkvari River, enjoying a light lunch of mountain trout and Georgian salad, one finds it hard to believe that Russian tanks are only about twenty-five kilometres away—indeed that they may be even closer by the time the Turkish coffee arrives.

Tbilisi has few signs of being a capital city at war. National flags hang from many buildings. Newspapers have emphatic anti-Russian headlines such as “Peacekeepers Go Home”. Some pavement satirist has sprayed the features of Vladimir Putin on the pathways so that pedestrians tread on his face.

But there are no bomb shelters; no one looks up anxiously at the sky when a plane is heard; and refugees head into the capital from South Ossetia for help rather than away from it in panic.

This postmodern invasion looks very different to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia forty years ago. In 1968, Soviet tanks reached the centre of Prague. Today, Russian tanks seem to be going back and forth around major Georgian towns, but they will not head straight for Tbilisi without an additional (and highly improbable) Georgian provocation. In 1968, Czech leaders of the Prague Spring were rounded up and deported, reappearing years later as gardeners and furnace-men. Today, Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, addresses large anti-Russian allies in the capital and hosts visits from Western leaders. In 1968, the Soviet invasion was a “multinational” one drawn from the entire USSR and Eastern Europe; today, most members of the CIS have either criticised the Russian invasion or remained silent.

Medicine’s Tricky Operation: Grafting ‘Systemic Racism’ Onto Hard Science The antiracist movement wants more than just legitimacy. It wants unimpeachable scientific authority. By John Murawski

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/07/medicines-tricky-operation-grafting-systemic-racism-onto-hard-science/

A few years ago, concepts such as “white supremacy,” “systemic racism,” and “structural intersectionality” were not the standard fare of prestigious medical journals. But a February special issue of Health Affairs, the Washington, D.C.-based peer-reviewed journal, analyzes racial health disparities not through biology, behavior, or culture, but through the lens of  “whiteness,” along with concepts such as power, systems of oppression, state-sanctioned violence, and critical race praxis—a sampling of terms that appear in the issue.

The Health Affairs special issue reflects the effort of “antiracist” scholars to transform concepts still considered speculative and controversial—and some say unprovable—into scientific fact. It  is being advanced by other high-profile publications as well, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Scientific American, which last year published articles entitled “Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” and “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.”

But this scientific aspiration faces major challenges. Science demands verification, testability, and replicability, whereas race is a social construct that can be difficult to separate from factors like class or culture, and explaining the data often remains dependent on academic theories about systemic racism. The articles in Health Affairs indicate that elevating the concept of systemic racism from moral certitude to scientific fact will require developing new tools and methods.

Justice Department Threatens Oath Keepers with Life in Prison “The United States takes the position that the most analogous offense to seditious conspiracy is ‘Treason,’” warns federal prosecutor Kathyrn Rakoczy.  By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/07/justice-department-threatens-oath-keepers-with-life-in-prison/

In a letter obtained by American Greatness, the U.S. Department of Justice is threatening defendants charged with seditious conspiracy in the sprawling Oath Keepers case to accept plea deals or face life in prison.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia handling every prosecution related to the events of January 6, 2021, imposed a May 6 deadline for the remaining defendants to accept plea deals. Three men have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy; nine others, including Oath Keepers’ founder Stewart Rhodes, have rejected government attempts to reach a plea.

“We write to advise you of applicable penalties that could apply upon conviction at trial,” Graves’ chief prosecutor in the case, Kathyrn Rakoczy, wrote to defense attorneys in a letter dated May 2. (Every January 6 defendant who has faced a jury trial in Washington, D.C. has been found guilty on all charges by jurors following brief deliberations.)

After detailing the hefty prison sentences and fines associated with other offenses charged in the case, Rakoczy turned to the potential sentence for seditious conspiracy, a crime so rare that federal sentencing guidelines don’t cover it. “The United States takes the position that the most analogous offense to seditious conspiracy is ‘Treason,’” Rakoczy wrote. If a jury concludes the conspiracy involved conduct “that is tantamount to waging war against the United States,” Rakoczy explained, the government could seek a life sentence upon conviction.

Seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more people who “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.” After pressure from the media and Democratic leaders, Graves’ office indicted 11 Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy on January 12, 2022. Another Oath Keeper was indicted this week.

The Oath Keepers are not accused of carrying or using any weapons on January 6; none is charged with directly vandalizing government property. Two “stacks” of Oath Keepers entered the building after the joint session of Congress recessed that afternoon and walked through open doors with police nearby.

Biden DOJ sets up a new ‘Office of Environmental Justice’ — headed by another fanatic By Monica Showalter

ttps://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/biden_doj_sets_up_a_new_office_of_environmental_justice__headed_by_another_fanatic.html

As if we didn’t need yet another government agency in this age of behemoth federal spending, the Biden administration has saddled the U.S. with a new one, the Office of Environmental Justice. The $1.4 million monstrosity will be buried within the U.S. Department of Justice under the authority of U.S. associate attorney general, Vanita Gupta, who set up the new bureaucracy-enforcer arm. It will be headed by one Cynthia M. Ferguson, whose title is acting director. And you can bet it’s going to be a problem.

According to the Washington Examiner:

The Justice Department is launching a new Office of Environmental Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Thursday, which will seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.

“Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change,” Garland said at a news conference on Thursday.

“For far too long, these communities have faced barriers to accessing the justice they deserve,” Garland said, adding that the Justice Department “will prioritize the cases that will have the greatest impact on the communities most overburdened by environmental harm.”

Which sounds like a shakedown operation. We already know that activist groups have conspired with the Environmental Protection Agency for millions in payouts as well as the ‘right’ to write regulations themselves in exchange for not protesting the agency. We saw the details of that scandal in the late Obama years, after President Trump’s officials came to power and put a stop to it. Remember this?

In fulfilling his promise to end the practice of regulation through litigation that has harmed the American public, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt issued an agency-wide directive Oct. 16 designed to end “sue and settle” practices within the agency.

Sue and settle refers to the practice of special interest groups filing suit against federal agencies with the two parties coming to an agreement outside of the normal rule-making process. These settlement agreements are negotiated behind closed doors with no participation from the public or affected parties.

…and…

For example, between 2009 and 2012, EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. These cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations — including the recent Clean Power Plan.

Clarence Thomas Says Supreme Court Won’t Be ‘Bullied’ after Leak of Draft Opinion Overturning Roe Zachary Evans

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/clarence-thomas-says-supreme-court-wont-be-bullied-after-leak-of-draft-opinion-overturning-roe/

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court can’t be “bullied” in comments at a judicial conference in Atlanta on Friday.

“We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” Thomas said, according to Reuters. “We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”

While Thomas did not explicitly discuss the leak of a draft opinion earlier this week that would overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade, the justice referenced “unfortunate events” of the past week during his talk, the Washington Post noted. The opinion, first reported by Politico and later confirmed as authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts, sparked condemnation from Democrats.

Biden’s Thug Government By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/bidens-thug-government/

The Democrats don’t care about politically motivated violence, American institutions, or the Constitution.

If Democrats and other Trump obsessives are really wondering why much of the country couldn’t care less about the Capitol riot, they need look no further than the Biden administration’s disgraceful response to the criminal leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs abortion case, and to the intensifying threats from the radical Left that endanger the justices, their families, and the Court as an institution.

It is worse than a nonresponse. It is worse than a reckless response. The Biden administration and Democratic Party activists are complicit in the extortionate, norm-busting, burn-it-down id of the woke progressivism they extol.

It is thug government.

I thought President Trump should be impeached over January 6. I still do. Because they can’t help themselves, Democrats corrupted the impeachment. Rather than conducting a competent investigation and crafting impeachment articles that met the moment, they put impeachment in the service of their racialist demagoguery. The impeachment was not so much an attack on Trump, who emerged unscathed. It was an attack on Trump supporters and Republicans generally, who were smeared as white-supremacist domestic terrorists. Congressional Democrats also laid the foundation that would enable progressive activists to file legal actions against Republican lawmakers who supported Trump’s fraudulent “Stop the Steal” gambits in Congress and the courts — seeking their disqualification as “insurrectionists” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

To the contrary, Trump should have been impeached on two grounds. First, the “Stop the Steal” con job — based on scant evidence of election fraud, patently absurd legal theories, and such artifices as the presentation of phony Trump elector slates as if they were legitimate alternatives to the authentic Biden slates certified by the states at issue — was a willful undermining of the states’ constitutional authority over presidential elections. It was thus a profound betrayal of the president’s core duty to defend the Constitution and execute the laws faithfully.

Second, the president was derelict in failing to use his executive powers and his influence over his supporters to oppose and end an uprising at the seat of government. Far from protecting the Capitol, members of Congress, and the vice president, the president swerved between provocative rhetoric that further endangered them and inaction when he could have short-circuited the mayhem by swiftly calling for the rioters to stand down, and backing those words with firm enforcement action.

Who Funds the Campaign to Smear and Pressure Elon Musk? The Democratic activist troika fighting his Twitter acquisition has identified a new front in the battle to turn American life into a perpetual partisan apocalypse: Armin Rosen.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/who-funds-the-campaign-to-smear-and-pressure-elon-musk

Elon Musk’s maybe-impending purchase of Twitter is being treated not as a mere business acquisition but as a kind of twilight battle over the fate of the American experiment. Maybe there was a time when hypothetical and probably minor changes to the terms of service of a social networking website could be seen as an eminently survivable event, without any larger implications for long-established rights and customs like free speech. But those days are gone now, as evidenced by yet another high-profile, strong-arm effort by a weirdly open combination of private and public powers acting in unison to taint or scuttle the Twitter sale.

On May 3, a trio of so-called “advocacy groups” sent a letter to Twitter’s major corporate advertisers, including image-conscious and regulation-sensitive heavyweights like Coca-Cola and Disney, urging them to pull their business from Twitter if Musk proves unwilling to censor speech on the platform to those organizations’ satisfaction. “Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety,” began the missive, distributed under the letterhead of Media Matters for America, Accountable Tech, and UltraViolet, and co-signed by another two dozen groups, including the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. These groups are promising to mobilize their activists, and whatever other resources they might have, to punish companies that will stick by Twitter if it junks its pre-Musk content moderation regime. The pitch was a simple one: Nice store you got there. It would be a shame if someone threw a rock through your window.

Musk seemed to take the not-so-subtle threats of brand damage and possible federal regulation as a challenge. “Who funds these organizations that want to control your access to information? Let’s investigate …” Musk suggested on Twitter. But while the question showed moxie, its scope was also clearly too limited. Better to ask: What function do these “advocacy groups” serve? And for whom?

The Ongoing Concern Of The State Of California Is In Question An Analysis By Victor Davis Hanson Adam Andrzejewski

https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-concern-of-the-state?s=w

The following is an abridged version of a talk delivered on Wednesday, April 20, 2022, during the question and answer portion of an OpenTheBooks.com virtual event. Videos, media, and other speeches are available at YouTube/OpenTheBooks.

QUESTON:

Dr. Hanson, You and I are both native Californians. So looking at California, do you think we’ve lost the state? Or do you have any strategy advice to reverse this current downward trend set up that we have, and bring some success to us? Just in the state of California.

ANSWER — VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:

California is sort of like a prodigal son. We’ve all had members of our family that we love, and we grew up with and we thought they were stable, and then they take drugs or they get wayward, they get in trouble, but we don’t disown them. Well, we don’t move away from them. We try to work with them and hope they can find redemption.

I think that’s what we’re doing in California.

So, there isn’t one Republican statewide officeholder. Republicans only have 11 of 53 Congressional seats. The rest are Democrats. Both houses of the state legislature have super majorities (Democrats). The ninth federal appellate court is the most liberal in the nation. So, they got what they wanted; the left did.

The Left got what they wanted.

Insights On Progressive Thinking From The Climate Action Council Public Hearing Francis Menton

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=3e2507af14

My previous post on Tuesday contained some highlights from the May 3 public hearing of New York’s Climate Action Council. The CAC is the body that is charged with devising a “Scoping Plan” to inform all us New Yorkers how we will achieve “zero carbon” electricity by 2030 and a “zero carbon” economy by 2050. I attended the hearing for about two and a half hours, during which about 60 people spoke.

Reflecting on the hearing a few days later, I think there are a few more highlights that would interest the readers, and will give some more insights into the nature of progressive thinking.

As stated in my prior post, of the 60 or so speakers, all but myself and four others were vigorous supporters of the critical necessity of achieving the stated zero carbon goals by the given dates as an urgent matter of saving our planet and our children. This was so despite what appeared to me to be manifestly huge issues of physical feasibility and cost that are almost certain to cause these grand “net zero” energy schemes to fail. The CAC’s draft “Scoping Plan,” as it currently exists for public comment, does not consider these feasibility or cost issues in any remotely adequate fashion, if at all. That fact did not appear to bother the overwhelming majority of the speakers.

MY SAY: THE REMARKABLE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR-THE FIRST WOMAN APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT (1981 to 2006)

Quotes:

The freedom to criticize judges and other public officials is necessary to a vibrant democracy. The problem comes when healthy criticism is replaced with more destructive intimidation and sanctions.”

– Sandra Day O’ Connor.

 

“The power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender.”

– Sandra Day O’ Connor.

On Roe v. Wadehttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/sandra-day-oconnor-and-reconsideration-roe-v-wade/

Her first public [Supreme Court] opinion on abortion came in the Akron case in 1983 [Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health]. She had been on the court for two years. The Akron case served up to the court a series of abortion restrictions that really challenged Roe v. Wade [including requirements for: all abortions performed after the first trimester to be done in hospitals, parental consent before the procedure could be performed on an unmarried minor, doctors to counsel prospective patients, a 24 hour waiting period and that fetal remains be disposed of in a “humane and sanitary manner.”]. The court reaffirmed Roe, and O’Connor dissented, [saying, “I believe that the State’s interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy.”]

 There were four justices opposed to that, and there were four justices fully for that. And everybody assumed that O’Connor was going to be also fully for undercutting Roe. But she wouldn’t go along. She wrote a separate opinion, deciding the case very narrowly. She said there may be time in the future to deal with the bigger, deeper issue, but that time has not arrived.