It is even worse than I thought.
Having Godless socialist judges is simply incompatible with having a constitutional republic that could only be developed and maintained in a predominantly Christian culture. But socialist judges now prevail by a lopsided margin in the 4th Circuit.
Remember, these almost exclusively consist of political hacks and liberal judicial activists.
The stated Republican/conservative strategy of reforming the federal courts through judicial nominations has utterly failed. We need a new approach completely if we ever want to reassert the sovereignty of the individual states, and fix the judiciary:
When President Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, the federal appeals court based in Virginia was known as one of the most conservative benches in the country.
Two Obama terms later, Democratic appointees hold a 10-5 majority on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of which issued a groundbreaking ruling this April backing transgender rights.
The shift to the left on the court, which hears cases from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina, highlights a widely overlooked aspect of Obama’s legacy.
His appointments of dozens of judges to the country’s influential federal appeals courts have tilted the judiciary in a liberal direction that will influence rulings for years to come...
When seeking to appoint judges, the White House has said it is looking for highly credentialed lawyers reflecting the diversity of U.S. society. Conservative critics say he has picked judges who are willing to circumvent the law in order to reach preferred outcomes.
“There’s no question President Obama’s nominees have absolutely been part of his effort to transform the country and move it dramatically to the left,” said Carrie Severino, a conservative legal activist...
The regional appeals courts are currently more powerful than ever because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, which has left the court divided equally between liberals and conservatives. If the ideologically divided court splits 4-4, the appeals court ruling is left intact. Such an outcome occurred four times in the Supreme Court term that recently ended...
One of the most dramatic transformations has been on the 4th Circuit.
In July 2007, 18 months before Obama became president, Republican appointees held a 7-5 majority. Through a mix of seven Obama appointments and retirements, Democratic appointees now hold sway...
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. is another where the balance of power has been flipped. Often known in legal circles as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the federal government, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was dominated by conservatives 6-3 when Obama took office.
Obama was able to force through four appointments after a major showdown in the Senate. The court now has a 7-4 split in favor of Democratic appointees.
It was announced a couple of days ago that News and Record reporter Joe Killian is leaving to take a job with NC Policy Watch, a left wing online publication. This was proclaimed without hesitancy.
Several months ago, we saw our school superintendent take a job with a foundation that funds liberal/socialist causes. And now, we witness Killian's destination. Conservatives should regard this pattern as troubling.
We harbor no ill will toward this young reporter, and I certainly wish him well with his career. His departure, however, is an appropriate time to recognize what we have witnessed here in Greensboro in the local journalistic community.
When Killian first became employed with the News and Record a decade ago, the paper still attempted to maintain a false façade of objectivity. Most conservatives knew this was fraudulent; but now, the folks there do not even bother attempting to create a mistaken impression. Their bias is so overt that grade school children could detect it.
My recollection is that Joe Killian joined the News and Record fresh out of college at UNCG. He immediately became active in the local online communities; and most of us paying attention knew that he leaned at least somewhat leftward. That is, in fact, why he was eligible to be hired at NC Policy Watch.
The problem, however, is not Joe Killian. Instead, the fault lies with the editors who supervised his work during his early years of employment. It was their duty to instruct him, and to help him develop habits to assure there was not even an appearance of political or cultural bias-- with his reporting, with his public profile, and also when he interacted with elected officials and candidates.
Unfortunately, the News and Record has had a paucity of responsible grown-ups providing leadership with integrity for many years. Ten years ago, they had a golden opportunity to help mold and shape a neophyte young reporter in the direction he should have gone. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that truly happened as it should have.
Killian's farewell article on Monday included a subtle, implied call for socialized medicine. Why am I not surprised?
The school will open on August 29. It will undoubtedly face some struggles and challenges. But its opening is an auspicious moment for east Greensboro. The organizers have done a great job thus far. Consider the following:
This school might be some of the best news east Greensboro has had during the 22 years since I moved here. If it delivers as promised, it will give these kids a fighting chance for a better life.
Thus far, the local news media has not provided coverage of the new school at all. And support from the east Greensboro political establishment has been tepid at best. These forces are apparently all married to the traditional public school concept which is so fraught with difficulty.
The traditional public school, of course, provides the left with a means of indoctrination and a power base.
But the east Greensboro community is apparently embracing the new school, regardless of whatever the self-appointed local guardians of the public sphere might think about it.
The school's principal, Corey Moore, has experience at a similar school in Durham. Its board includes Ashlee Wiley, Jeff Hyde, Troy Lawson, Jeff Phillips and Brenton Boyce. (Wiley, Lawson and Boyce are African-American.)
Let's hope this school succeeds... and indeed thrives.
It is located at 123 Flemingfield Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27405. That is just off East Wendover Avenue.
Hannibal Bateman states the following about documents leaked concerning George Soros' Open Society Foundation:
"(S)triking are the documents' stark discussion of demographic realities... In addition to funding local NAACP and Mexican American groups throughout states such as North Carolina and Texas. Such demographic real talk is spoken of in plain language in a way that it never is in Conservatism Inc. For instance, look at the following (emphasis mine):
For much of the past decade, North Carolina has been among the nation’s fastest growing states for three primary reasons: 1) it has a pleasant quality of life, with decent weather and a lower cost of living than the Boston to Washington, DC urban corridor; 2) the employment situation is strong and diversified, with its higher education institutions creating a high tech mecca, principally in the Research-Triangle area of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, that draws many well educated northerners to the state, and the Charlotte area’s rise to be the nation’s second largest banking center after NYC; and 3) the free trade accelerated decline of its historic industries: textiles, furniture, and tobacco has led to new low-wage economies of service, construction, and agribusiness industries that have made the state a magnet for immigrants from Mexico and Central America
Because of these factors, North Carolina now has roughly nine million residents, slightly larger than the population of New York City, making it the third most populous southern state (after Texas and Florida). The state is now the nation’s tenth most populous and continues to grow. It is changing rapidly, with one third of the population now people of color and a tri-racial population dynamic – African-American, Latino, and white –replacing the Black/white dominance of old. North Carolina through the 1990s had the fastest growing immigrant population and in the 2000s had the fastest growing Latino population. This is no Mayberry (and taking TV fiction for what it is, the state likely never was Mayberry).
When Allen Johnson published his attempt at imposing speech codes earlier this week, there was one key topic that he did not discuss-- the fact that influential forces within contemporary Judaism have helped take away religious liberty from orthodox Christians with their relentless pursuit of the LGBT agenda. This had been the main motivator of our entire initial discussion here-- but magically, Johnson overlooked that part.
The democratic socialist left, according to World Magazine, is openly celebratory that LGBT prerogatives now supersede religious liberty.
The type of political hit job seen in Sunday's column is part of the reason some conservatives and Republicans prefer to refrain from communicating with the News and Record.
But it turns out that some prominent voices within American Judaism are now reconsidering the damage that has been done on matters related to religious liberty.
From Mosaic Magazine-- a national Jewish publication-- a couple of important articles discuss the issue. Their writers seem very concerned:
(H)ere is where the danger to the freedom of Jews to be Jews becomes painfully manifest. Although the secularizing and leveling fires of today’s activists are aimed mainly at Christians, the precedents that are being set would apply no less to Jewish day schools, colleges, and synagogues as well as to kosher restaurants and community centers. In the name of non-discrimination, zealots could make it increasingly difficult for religious Jews to educate their children as they see fit or possibly even cause them to lose the right to do so...
(L)egislation at the state or federal level would affect Jewish educational institutions that uphold traditional teachings about marriage... Jewish religious institutions could also find it necessary to sue just to protect their right to teach the biblical understanding of sex and sexuality. The same logic would apply elsewhere as well: for example, to a law penalizing the use of the “wrong” sex pronoun about someone claiming to be transgender, or compelling yeshivas or other religious schools, in the name of non-discrimination law, to hire openly gay teachers on pain of losing their tax exemption...
Catholic charities in Boston no longer offer adoption services because the state insists they do so in a manner that violates Catholic doctrine. That would apply to Orthodox agencies, too. Bans on kosher slaughter and circumcision, long on the to-do list of activists, might not be far behind. Nor might basic internal arrangements of traditional Jewish communities and religious institutions necessarily escape scrutiny: one can imagine, for instance, a situation in which a transgender Jewish man might sue for access to a mikveh designated for use by women.
Traditional Judaism, after all, depends entirely on discriminating in the original sense of distinguishing: between holy and profane, Sabbath and weekday, man and woman, Jews and others. Such discriminations cannot be reworked without transforming classical Judaism into something unrecognizable to many Jews. Will Jewish institutions be able to withstand today’s freewheeling assault on religious liberty? Or will the enforcers of state-mandated “non-discrimination” not rest easy until they complete their Orwellian campaign of positive discrimination against every last dissenter from the progressive line?...
What goes for the freedom of association goes also for the freedom of expression and of religion: thanks to today’s “anti-discrimination” crusade, they, too, are slipping away. Already in his 1962 lecture, “Why We Remain Jews,” from which I have been quoting, Leo Strauss warned against efforts to end “discrimination,” period. This enterprise, he predicted, would kill liberalism. “The prohibition against every ‘discrimination,’” he said, “would mean the abolition of the private sphere, the denial of the difference between the state and society, in a word, the destruction of liberal society.” (Sensitive to the newly invidious sense of the term “discrimination,” Strauss insisted on using it only with quotation marks. “I would not use it of my own free will.”) Absent that private sphere, he concluded, Jews would no longer be free to be Jews in America.
Today’s post-Christian, anti-Christian bigots have set themselves against the “large and liberal policy” that to George Washington also left Jews free to be Jews, to associate with whom they chose, and to live by the teachings and practices of their tradition: liberties that, along with legal equality, became enshrined as of natural right in the American Constitution. One would hope that this same large and liberal policy lies so deep in the American DNA that the national immune system will finally respond in time to repulse the latest attack on it. Doing so, however, will entail recovering both specific laws and an idea of justice based upon treating Americans as individuals who “all possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship”—that is, upon the ideal of live and let live.
In today’s fevered political climate, one cannot help wondering how much of the felt national anger might be traceable to the juridically abetted effort to force all Americans onto a uniform cultural page. If that is the case, restoring a healthier understanding of liberty would be good not only for traditional Jews and Christians but for all Americans. In furthering that restorative effort, American Jews have a collective interest, a historical responsibility, and a role to play.
(One) factor favoring anti-discrimination laws over religious liberty is that the left, which traditionally fought for both religious liberty and non-discrimination, has made a virtual religion out of the latter while largely abandoning traditional religion. The left also once enjoyed a substantial religious base; today it has become dominated by secularists who simply fail to understand the perspective of religious traditionalists.
Many secularists see adherence to longstanding moral teachings as compelling evidence of irrational animus...
(T)he left is still mostly at peace with the American Jewish community because the latter is predominantly irreligious, socially liberal, and politically progressive. A few decades from now, the majority of affiliated Jews may well be predominantly religious, socially conservative, and a significant “reactionary” force in politics, especially in New York where Ḥaredim are concentrated. This is unlikely to occur without a significant rise in anti-Jewish sentiment on the left, bringing with it potentially dire consequences for the community’s religious liberty. Nor, we can predict, is this anti-Jewish sentiment likely to be limited to Ḥaredim.
I also find interesting some discussions regarding anti-Semitism we have seen recently. It turns out that Barry Farber-- a Jewish conservative who was raised in Greensboro-- also has made some accusations of anti-Semitism. But in Farber's case, the accusations were against Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the Democratic National Committee for rigging the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against Bernie Sanders' bid in order to help Hillary Clinton.
The progressive left, of course, also could be accused of anti-Semitism because of its embrace of the Palestinian cause at the expense of the state of Israel.
Approximately 25 years ago, during 1991, I was in Washington, D.C. to attend a medical conference on the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a terrible bill, pushed by Bob Dole and signed into law by Bush I, that would have a profound impact on my medical specialty.
As I walked through the lobby of my hotel, a large screen television was airing the McLaughlin Group. A large group of hotel residents and visitors gathered around the television because sparks were flying. The panel was discussing the Rodney King/ police situation in Los Angeles; and it quickly degenerated into a shouting match. The dopey liberals on the panel were absolutely furious that the conservatives, including Fred Barnes, were being openly critical of the rioters in L.A.. Eleanor Clift nearly had a stroke.
It seems that little has changed over the past quarter century.
I really enjoyed the McLaughlin Group. One of the contributions of this particular program was that it gave a prominent paleoconservative-- Pat Buchanan-- a place at the table. With McLaughlin's passing, Tom Piatak explains the significance:
Paleoconservatives have a special reason to be grateful to John McLaughlin. For most of the show's history, Pat Buchanan occupied the front chair on the viewer's right. McLaughlin always remained loyal to his friend from the Nixon White House, and because of John McLaughlin, Buchanan was always assured of a place to present his views on television, despite the concerted efforts by neocons and other leftists to silence Buchanan and those who think like him. John McLaughlin will be missed.
Under the Bush regime, which lasted nearly thirty years, paleoconservatives were essentially banished from positions of influence within the Republican Party, and from the prevailing conservative movement itself.
With the emergence of Donald Trump, some "paleocon" issues like trade and immigration are now being placed at a much higher level of importance.
The news today that Trump has appointed Breitbart's Steven K. Bannon to lead his campaign provides yet another paleoconservative twist. I have been listening to Bannon for quite some time on Sirius XM during my morning commute. He has used Breitbart to promote Trump's candidacy, and is a passionate fighter for the conservative cause. He is a former naval officer who was born into a working class family; and has obvious sympathies with this group of folks.
Trump's nomination has driven certain NeverTrumpers toward Gary Johnson and Hillary Clinton. This proves these folks were never really social conservatives. Or alternatively, it demonstrates they were always most committed to the donor class.
Another conservative option was always open to the NeverTrump crowd-- the Constitution Party nominee-- but these folks would not even consider it. Dan Phillips provides a very cogent explanation:
One reason is the snob factor. Some anti-Trumpism is motivated by what I have called sophistication signaling. Trump can be bombastic and crass at times and is supported by a lot of people that the sophisticated set thinks are yokels, so their anti-Trumpism is in part a way to signal that they are oh so serious and would never sully their hands by supporting an uncouth “demagogue” like Trump, although I suspect that separating themselves from all his yahoo supporters, rather than Trump’s demeanor, is really what motivates them.
Likewise, I suspect that snobbery is one thing that keeps certain NeverTrumpers from considering the CP nominee. Darrell Castle is a lawyer and a long time CP activist, and by all accounts a decent fellow, but he is not a “serious” candidate and his party is still pretty obscure and “fringy,” and I say this as someone who is sympathetic to the CP, despite clearly being the most prominent “more” conservative party at the national level. This is likely why some NeverTrumpers are considering the Libertarian Party (LP) ticket of Johnson and Weld, even though neither of those men come anywhere close to passing a conservative purity test. But both are former governors and serious and respectable and not fringy and thus won’t taint the sophistication credentials of NeverTrumpers who endorse them.
But more than sophistication signaling, what motivates NeverTrumpers refusal to endorse Castle is the issues differences they have with the CP. The CP is an unambiguously constitutionalist party and, broadly speaking, a “more” conservative by degree party, but it is also a paleoconservative party, meaning it is restrictionist on immigration, opposed to globalist trade deals and non-interventionist on foreign policy.
NeverTrump may pretend their resistance is about conservative purity, but what it is really about is keeping conservatism as ideological cover for globalism – relatively open borders, free trade and foreign policy interventionism. Anyone familiar with this dynamic and the nature of the CP understood why the NeverTrumpers weren’t rushing to do the easy and sensible thing and endorse Darrell Castle, but some have done us the favor of making it clear. A good little globalist can’t tolerate any of that “retrograde mercantilism” or “foreign policy isolationism” no matter how solid the party or the candidate might be on such trivial matters as the Second Amendment and saving babies...
(Their) alleged conservatism is nothing more than an ideological apologia for the status quo globalism that just so happens to enrich the donor class fat cats who fund your movement and the Republican Party but leaves the Middle Americans who actually vote for Republicans cycle after cycle in the lurch. The globalist forces that you are giving ideological cover to are responsible for the decline of the country you are supposed to be trying to conserve.
Neither Bannon nor Trump are perfect. McLaughlin was not either. But the next eleven weeks are going to be an interesting ride.