Leaving a Land Mine to Navigate Around

For John, BLUF:  Attorney General william Barr is a very smart lawyer and it seems he has left a problem for a possible incoming Biden Administration.  A Special Counsel, not easily fired.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Making John Durham a special counsel will cause problems for Biden

Here is the sub-headline:

Now Democrats' Trump administration arguments will come back to haunt them.

From USA Today, by Professor Jonathan Turley, 2 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus eight:

Attorney General Bill Barr made two important evidentiary decisions yesterday that delivered body blows to both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden.&Nbsp; First, Barr declared that the Justice Department has not found evidence of systemic fraud in the election.&Nbsp; Second, he declared that there was sufficient evidence to appoint United States Attorney John Durham as a Special Counsel on the origins of the Russia probe.  The move confirmed that, in a chaotic and spinning political galaxy, Bill Barr remains the one fixed and immovable object.

By appointing Durham as a Special Counsel, Barr contradicted news reports before the election that Durham was frustrated and found nothing of significance despite Barr’s pressure.  Some of us expressed doubts over those reports since Durham asked for this investigation to be upgraded to a criminal matter, secured the criminal plea of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, and asked recently for over a thousand pages of classified intelligence material.

Under the Justice Department regulations, Barr had to find (and Durham apparently agreed) that there is need for additional criminal investigation and “[t]hat investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”  He must also find the appointment in the public interest.

Notably, the investigation of Clinesmith is effectively completed.  So, what is the criminal investigation and what is the conflict?

Developing conflicts

Presumably, the conflict is not in the current administration since it would have required an earlier appointment.  The conflict would seem to be found in the upcoming Biden administration.

Some conflicts developing seem obvious as Biden turns to a host of former Obama officials for positions, including the possible selection of Sally Yates as Attorney General.  Yates was directly involved in the Russian investigation and signed off on the controversial surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page.  She now says that she would never have signed the application if she knew what she knows today.

Durham is now authorized to investigate anyone who may have “violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.”  The list of the names of people falling within that mandate is a who’s who of Washington from Hillary Clinton to James Comey to . . . yes . . . Joe Biden.

Bizarrely, reports have claimed that Trump was irate at the move as a “smokescreen” to delay the release of the report.  That ignores not just the legal but political significance of the action.  From a political perspective, the move is so elegantly lethal that it would make Machiavelli green with envy.

Yes, this could be a problem for a Biden Administration.  It could also be a problem for Democrats in Congress, and perhaps for the Main Stream Media.

I need to curb my enthusiasim for this future show, before I fall into sin.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Long March Through the Institutions

For John, BLUF:  Here is a look at the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, who helped subvert some of our most cheristed institutions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Cultural Marxism's Origins:  How the Disciples of an Obscure Italian Linguist Subverted America

From Ammo dot Com, by Mr Sma Jacobs.

Here is the first part:

You may have heard the terms “Cultural Marxism,” “Critical Theory” or “Frankfurt School” bandied about.  And while you might have an intuitive approximation of what these terms mean for America in the 21st century, there’s a good chance that you don’t know much about the deep theory, where the ideology comes from, and what it has planned for America – and the world.

The underlying theory here is a variant of Marxism, pioneered by early-20th-century Italian Marxist politician and linguist Antonio Gramsci. Gramscian Marxism is a radical departure from Classical Marxism.  One does not need to endorse the Classical Marxism of Marx, Engels and others to appreciate the significant differences between the two.  He is easily the most influential thinker that you have never heard of.

Marx's original idea was that Communism was a historical inevitability, an evolutionary transition that would lead to a bottom-up eruption of revolutionary violence sparked by the Proletariat’s frustration and fury over having been used and abused by the Bourgeoisie for long enough that “the revolutionary subject” (Marx’s term for the broad working class) would overthrow capitalism and usher in socialism.

Gramsci, on the other hand, held that such a revolution was unlikely – particularly in the West, where general prosperity and the lassitude of relative contentment would tend to dull the working class’ passion for a bloody, bothersome overthrow.  In successful Western nations, a Marxist state was far more likely to develop through a slow, patient process of incrementalist takeover of the cultural institutions – the arts, entertainment, and news media, and most especially the schools and universities.  As such, the weapon to be used for revolution was not the economic might of an organized working class, but a “long march through the institutions” (a phrase actually coined by German Marxist Rudi Dutschke), whereby every institution in the West would be subverted through penetration and infiltration.

For Gramsci, culture was more important than either economics or politics.

Gramsci’s divergence from Classical Marxism was nothing short of brilliant; certainly, the results speak for themselves when one considers the social unrest that is gripping America and the West today.  In a sense, we are living through the endgame of a Gramscian revolution.

Throughout this article, we will use the term “Cultural Marxism” as a catchall to refer to this phenomenon, because it is the most all-encompassing and does not limit us to discussing any one specific variation (Gramsci, the Frankfurt School or what have you).  Finally, we should briefly echo the words of Dr. Jordan Peterson on “the bloody postmodern Neo-Marxists,” because he has helped raise awareness of the phenomenon:

“It’s not obvious by any stretch of the imagination why postmodernism and Neo-Marxism or Marxism proper would be aligned because postmodernism is an anti-grand narrative philosophical movement and Marxism is a grand narrative.  The fact that these two things seem to coexist in the same space needs some explanation, because it’s a very tricky thing to get to the bottom of."

Because Cultural Marxism is ideologically distinct from postmodernism and deconstruction, we will not touch on either in this article, though they certainly have been influential on the international left.

More to come in future installations.

No, I am not violating a copyright.  They said cite and give a link.  I did.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

2021 and Beyond

For John, BLUF:  If President Trump is not Inaugurated for a Second Term on 20 January, then were will we go?  Will DJT fade away or will he start the run for 2024.  This should be of interest to all of us of a Classic Liberal bent, rather than a Progressive orientation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trumpism without Trump is like Reaganism without Reagan

From Don Surber Blogspot, by Reporter Don Surber, 23 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

A few lefties are getting ahead of their skis and imagining, as Comrade Ed Kilgore in New York magazine put it, Trumpism without Trump. No thanks. I remember Reaganism without Reagan.  It was headed by the first Bush whose administration was about what one would expect from a former CIA director.

This is an interesting contemplation of what the future might bring of the Election does goes to Candidte Joe Biden.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Free Press Failing

For John, BLUF:  Yes, the media played a big role the outcome of the Presidential Election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Media Suppression of 8 Key Stories 'Stole This Election' for Joe Biden

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 24 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

According to an explosive new study the Media Research Center (MRC) released on Tuesday, the legacy media’s suppression of eight key election-related news stories effectively handed the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.  According to a poll conducted by The Polling Company on behalf of MRC, a whopping 17 percent of Americans who voted for Joe Biden would not have done so had they been aware of just one of these stories.

Had the legacy media not buried these stories, Trump would have won 311 electoral votes, the study claims.

“The national news media stole this election, as far as I’m concerned, they deliberately stole it from President Trump,” MRC President Brent Bozell said in a call with reporters.  “It is absolutely unequivocal” that the biased media coverage “cost Donald Trump the election.”

News is curated for an objective.  The objective depends upon who is in charge.  To resist curation it helps to identify what goals the various media are pursuing.

The way to fight back is to read (and listen) widely and to share.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Securing John Durham

For John, BLUF:  The US Attorney General took action, back in October, to ensure the Durham Probe would continue, regardless of who was Sworn in on 20 January.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

John Durham Appointed as Special Counsel to Keep Obamagate Investigation Active

From PJ Media, by Mr Matt Margolis, 1 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Attorney General Bill Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel to continue investigating Obamagate and the illicit origins of the Russia probe.  “On May 13, 2019, I directed John Durham, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, to investigate certain intelligence and law-enforcement activities surrounding the 2016 presidential election,”  Barr wrote in a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.  “Although I had expected Mr. Durham to complete his work by the summer of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as additional information he uncovered, prevented him from doing so.”

Barr reveals in his letter that he appointed Durham as a special counsel prior to the election, on October 19, to ensure that regardless of the outcome, that the investigation would be able to continue.  “In advance of the presidential election, I decided to appoint Mr. Durham as a Special Counsel to provide him and his team with the assurance that they could complete their work, without regard to the outcome of the election,” Barr continued.  Durham has had “the powers and authority of a Special Counsel” since that time.

This is a status different from being a Prosecutor or a Special Prosecutor.  Mr John Durham is now a "Special Counsel".  The removal of a Special Counsel has certain special safeguards.

The letter from Attorney General Barr to the Senate and House Committee Leadership is here.  The lettere farom Attorney General Barr, to Mr John Durham, appointing him, is here.

I like this move by Attorney General Bill Barr.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is The First Amendment Passé?

For John, BLUF:  This is about that difficult Right, the Right to Free Sppech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Future Of Free Speech, College Edition

From The Wanderer, by Deacon Mike Manno, JD, 30 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus six:

The In the wake of the election, which still isn’t over, there is obviously concern by conservatives about the future, not so much about the country but about the rights that we enjoy; rights we have received from God that the Bill of Rights is enshrined to protect.

But what has bothered me in the last few weeks is how the activists of the Left-Wing Party, including many Joe Biden staffers, have reacted.  There were calls to ban Trump supporters from future government positions while others wanted them banned from life itself.  There is talk of blacklists and banning others from speaking at public universities.  Social media is already practicing shadow banning and closing accounts of people too outspoken in their conservative or religious beliefs.

And the darlings of the Left-Wing Party are now trying to expand their blacklists:  Delaware Sen. Chris Coons is urging Facebook and others to take another look at climate change deniers.

So how did we get to this point?  How did the proposition of curbing free speech apparently go mainstream?

I think much of it started, as all bad ideas often do, on college campuses.  You know, those places where tenured left-wing professors have four years to shape and mold the young minds entrusted to their care by unwitting parents who have scrimped and saved to give their little ones an education that will allow them to lift themselves above the fray to a comfortable lifestyle.

And I hear the complaints from parents.  One parishioner told me about his daughter, raised a devout Catholic, who after only two years away at college is now a committed atheist who is unwilling to engage in any sort of dialogue about it.  You see, dad’s beliefs are out of touch with today’s reality and need not be considered any longer.

Our friends at FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, issued a report earlier this year that casts some light on the problem.  FIRE, along with College Pulse, and RealClearEducation, surveyed some 20,000 students and made some interesting findings.  First and foremost, not all colleges are the same.  FIRE publishes a list on its website listing good and bad schools for free speech and thought, which should be an aid to parents and families looking for appropriate educational opportunities for their offspring.  According to the report, “Seven of the top 10 colleges for free speech are public, and only one of the top 10 is in the Northeast, while the bottom 10 include many schools that repeatedly make headlines for campus censorship.

I see censurship in two forms these days.  There are the limit on the words we can use.  I have always engaged in self-censorship.  I avoid use of the "N-word" and other belittling terms.  However, I am resistent to taking commonwords and declaring them wrong, which is what I believe the "woke" crowd does.  Over does.

The other issue is curation of speech, where some institution tries to control and direct what I put our, or others putout, on the Internet.  This is especially pernicious when it results in the stiffling of information flow.  It is like Holy Mother the Church silencing Galileo.  Good and sufficient reasons, but the truth made faith and science stronger.

One of the things the First Amendment gives us is the right to be wrong, free from Government interference.  Not the right to be evil, but the right to read the facts differently.

Regards  —  Cliff

Why So Negative?

For John, BLUF:  The Media has, after it overcame its aversion to President Trump's initial COVID-19 efforts, turned negative on the virus.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WHY IS ALL COVID NEWS BAD?

From Power Line Blog, by Blogger John Hinderaker, 29 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus one plus two:

Three professors, two from Dartmouth and one from Brown, have produced a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research titled, “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?”  It focuses on the U.S. press, and its findings are disturbing . . .

Why are “major” U.S. news sources so massively more negative than their international counterparts?  I think the widespread hostility toward President Trump is the obvious answer.  The fact that Fox isn’t much different from its left-wing competitors probably tells us more about Fox than about the American press in general.

But that isn’t the whole story.  This NBER article suggests that the pessimism of major news outlets is a response to reader demand.

Quoting from the original paper:  "Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals."  That is a lot of negativity.

The NBER post notes that Fox News, once a major mainstay of the Conservatives movement, is now the same as other press outlets.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff