Displaying posts published in

January 2022

Decoding the Tyranny of the Administrative State By John Dale Dunn

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/decoding_the_tyranny_of_the_administrative_state_.html

Purchasing Submission:  Conditions, Power, and Freedom, by Philip Hamburger, 336 pp Hardcover $35 Kindle $33.25,   ISBN-13 978-0674258235, Harvard University Press, 2021.

Professor of Law Philip Hamburger of Columbia University has been campaigning for years to measure, define and condemn the growth of a powerful administrative state in America.     

The late, great Angelo Codevilla rang the alarm about the excesses of centralized oligarchic statism and an army of unelected bureaucrats eating away at liberty for citizens under the constitution in his essay, “Scientific Pretense and Democracy,” followed on by another wellreceived  2010 essay “The Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution,” about the growth of an unelected totalitarian ruling class, whose influence and power are derived from “expertise” that allowed them to exert power over and intimidate the citizenry as the self-anointed oligarchy.  

Professor Hamburger, Friedman Professor of Constitutional Law at Columbia, caught my attention with a short monographic book, The Administrative Threat, that summarized the points of his erudite 650-page 2014 book, Is the Administrative State Unlawful?  The short book is a great summary but the long book is magisterial and explains why the political geniuses of the American Founding wrote a Constitution that intentionally hobbled the power of the executive branch and created competing branches to distribute power and prevent tyrannical grasping of power by any branch, along with a federal plan to distribute power to the states.

The Founders were well aware of the history of tyranny in England — crown edicts, Star Chamber prosecutions and other abuses that flourished in the first half of the 17th century — ending with a civil war and regicide of Charles I.  These events were fresh in their 18th century minds and they were serious students of political theory.

Hamburger wrote his two books from the maw of the liberal political establishment, Columbia University in Upper West Side Manhattan, but he obviously has his legal head on straight.  He writes about administrative state growth and abuses that had emanated from that growth of a regulatory state.

Tyranny in the Name of Climate Change By Anthony Watts

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/tyranny_in_the_name_of_climate_change.html

A recent paper published by Cambridge University Press titled “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change” is raising serious and worrisome questions about the role of academia in our national political debate on climate change.

The paper was written by Ross Mittiga, who self-describes as an “assistant professor of political theory at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, specializing in climate ethics.” He also labels himself an “environmentalist, vegan, and occasional gadfly.”

Mittiga’s paper explicitly argues society must prioritize climate action over democratic principles and adopt an authoritarian government if society fails to politically act on climate change. Or, in the words of the political left: “my way or the highway.”

This is disturbing because it completely ignores the will of the people to self-govern, favoring a totalitarian approach in order to tackle what Mittiag deems a “climate crisis.”

Key points of the paper in the abstract:

Is authoritarian power ever legitimate? The contemporary political theory literature — which largely conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of democracy or basic rights — would seem to suggest not. I argue, however, that there exists another, overlooked aspect of legitimacy concerning a government’s ability to ensure safety and security. While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach. While unsettling, this suggests the political importance of climate action. For if we wish to avoid legitimating authoritarian power, we must act to prevent crises from arising that can only be resolved by such means.

Think Jan. 6 Was A Big Deal? Here Are 30 Far More Significant Events On That Day In History-Read it and Weep

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/01/06/think-jan-6-was-a-big-deal-here-are-30-far-more-significant-events-on-that-day-in-history/

The rest of the nation may have moved on, but Democrats are determined to squeeze the events of a year ago for every ounce of political juice they can from the events that happened at the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to mark the day as “an observance of reflection, remembrance, and recommitment.” President Joe Biden plans to speak on the Capitol steps. The press is providing saturation coverage.

Not only does the public not care, but polls show that voters are currently more inclined to vote for Donald Trump – the supposed instigator of the “insurrection” – than Biden.

They know that the only reason Democrats want to keep the focus on Jan. 6 is because they think it will help them politically. Never Trumpers want to keep Jan. 6 alive because they hope it will keep him from ever holding elective office again.

Yes, the attack on the Capitol building was outrageously stupid, and we’re all in favor of those who broke the law being punished. But in our view, there have been many other events that also happened to take place throughout history on Jan. 6 that are far more deserving of presidential speeches, prayer vigils, remembrances and the like.

And so, without further ado, here is our list. (Feel free to use the comments section below to suggest any that we might have overlooked.)

The elite war on biological sex Transgender ideology is relentlessly promoted by the elites – despite huge opposition from ordinary people. Frank Furedi

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/01/05/the-elite-war-on-biological-sex/

For thousands of years, the biological distinction between male and female was considered a simple fact of life. But no more. According to a survey by pollsters Rasmussen Reports, a significant minority of Americans reject the claim that male and female are the only two genders.

While 75 per cent of those polled agree that there are only two genders, 18 per cent disagree. Eighteen per cent may be a clear minority, but as a proportion of Americans it is still a substantial number of people.

Moreover, this minority view has considerable influence over public life and government policy. In the US, people can change the gender identity on their passports without documentation; male-born transgender athletes are now allowed to compete in girls’ and women’s sports; and schools constantly expose children to transgender ideology. And all of this is taking place in spite of popular opposition.

Today’s political and cultural elites are not only indifferent to the views of the majority on sex and gender – they consider these views to be ignorant and prejudiced. Indeed, these elites believe they have a duty to educate and ‘raise the awareness’ of their culturally illiterate inferiors.

The media, academia and other cultural institutions ceaselessly promote trans ideology. In Western societies, celebrities, media stars and commentators possess a monopoly over how gender is framed. HBO’s highly publicised Harry Potter 20th Anniversary: Return to Hogwarts is a case in point. Because of her views on sex and gender, Harry Potter creator JK Rowling was infamously excluded from the show, appearing only in a few snippets of archive footage. This effectively told the world that Rowling’s views on sex are unacceptable. The Harry Potter cast members were also mobilised to promote the message that if you love Harry Potter then you should take a stand against Rowling’s views.

In recent years trans ideology has been all over our TV screens. Indeed, as one commentator at Salon recently boasted, ‘2021 was an extraordinary year of making the non-binary ordinary… More inclusive… pop culture led the charge in busting the gender binary.’

Stop Calling Jan. 6 an ‘Insurrection’ That’s a legal term that denotes much more than a sporadically violent riot or disturbance. By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-calling-jan-6-an-insurrection-capitol-riot-civil-disorder-insurgency-protest-first-amendment-11641417543?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system. Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an “insurrection” is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice.

Many crimes undoubtedly took place at the Capitol that day. Demonstrators rioted, destroyed government property and in some instances engaged in acts of violence. Many are charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 371, which makes it a crime “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States,” and with underlying charges of civil disorder, disorderly conduct, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, destruction of government property, and obstruction of an official proceeding.

These are important criminal charges that shouldn’t go unaddressed. But of the hundreds of “Capitol Breach Cases” listed at the Justice Department’s prosecution page, not one defendant is charged with insurrection under 18 U.S.C. 2383. That’s because insurrection is a legal term with specific elements. No prosecutor would dare mislabel negligent homicide or manslaughter a murder, because they are totally distinct crimes. The media has no legal or moral basis to do otherwise.

The events of Jan. 6 also fail to meet the dictionary definition of insurrection, which Merriam-Webster defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” A usage note adds that the term implies “an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.” A closely related term, “insurgency,” is “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as a belligerency.”