Authored by Thomas Buckley via The Brownstone Institute,
Deciding that a person who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection is guilty of insurrection and therefore cannot run for president…that is “protecting our democracy” in action...
Whenever that term is used, one can be assured that the democracy they are referring to has no semblance to any actual democracy.
In this case, “ours” does not mean “all of ours” – it means “theirs.”
What they are protecting is their democracy; not a democracy of the people, but now merely a word used to fig leaf the ever-expanding slither of socialist socialite statism, the velvet fascism that is deftly hammering its way through the society and the culture.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot there is absurd, legally indefensible, and a direct attack on the entire constitutional premise of the nation.
It eviscerates the basic right of the people to choose – however one may think of their choice – their own leader.
It torpedoes the idea of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. Until yesterday, judges have almost always steered clear of most election-related cases, in part because of that issue. In fact, the mantra that “Trump lost every challenge he made in court to the 2020 election” is true because, three years ago, courts did everything they could to not hear the cases – issues of standing, issues of timing, and issues well, what do you what me to do? Order a new vote? Few – if any – were heard on their merits.
The United States Supreme Court even ruled that a group of states did not have standing to sue states they thought mishandled the 2020 election. One would think a state would have standing in court to challenge how another state ran their elections because who is president impacts every state, but still the Supremes passed on even hearing an argument.
That is yet another reason this ruling is so mind-boggling dangerous – the precedent set is catastrophic to the point that the President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele was right when he tweeted “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy’.”
That is how degrading this ruling is to the actual rule of law, not the “rule of law” the statists trot out to stifle, intimidate, and destroy their opponents.
Even though it should not be necessary to refute the Colorado ruling point-by-point – for the same reason people don’t try to argue with sidewalk schizophrenics that there really aren’t people and plants and dogs yelling at him – here are the particulars (from a previous piece) as to why the Colorado judges are wrong.
-
First, the events of January 6th were not an insurrection attempt. They were wrong and stupid and the greatest gift ever given to the Deep State and the Democrats, but they did not constitute an insurrection. When you try to overthrow the government, you tend to bring guns and you tend not to make sure to wrap it up in time to get back to the hotel for dinner.
-
Second, to say Trump caused the problem is also not true. One could make the argument that Nancy Pelosi “caused” it because she point-blank refused to beef up Capitol security that day, thereby allowing bad actors to run wild, or that the FBI “caused” it via its embedded intelligence operatives.
-
Third, Trump has not been found guilty of a crime…yet. Therefore the idea is legally premature and the position taken by those in favor that “we all know it was an insurrection and he did it so we don’t need a trial” is not quite – at least for the time being – how the American justice system works.
-
Fourth, read the clause again – it says “elector of President,” not “president.” May seem like splitting hairs, but they’re really different. As to “officer,” even that is muddy as many legal scholars equate that with appointed personnel. Finally, Congress is specifically called out for the ban, but the presidency is not. So even if it ever gets to court it will not fly (unless, of course, that court is in the District of Columbia).
-
Fifth, even if you twist yourself into believing Trump cannot serve as president, it does not in any way, shape, or form bar him from running for the office. That would be a gross and obvious violation of his first amendment rights…oh, wait.
-
Sixth, to argue that insurrectionists are not allowed to serve in the federal government is patently false. A few years after the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were signing up for the US Army and Confederate veterans began serving in – wait for it – Congress. In fact, dozens of former Confederates – and not just privates but high officers – served in the House and Senate, no problem.
The last Confederate veteran to serve in Congress was Charles Manly Stedman of North Carolina, a major on Gen. Robert E. Lee’s staff – seriously – and he held his seat until 1930.
And he was a typical southern Democrat racist, by the way, pushing to erect a “Mammy Memorial” statue on Washington. And yes, it really means what you think it means: a statue honoring mammies because, as Stedman put it: “The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization [when] fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more [freely] from care or distress.”
So, if people who signed up to specifically go shoot people as part of an actual intentional rather widely advertised bloody insurrection – and clearly remained committed to the underlying cause – were allowed to serve in Congress, I’m pretty sure that sets a precedent.
Leaving the particulars refuted and turning back to the core of what is meant by “protecting our democracy” we must face the lie that has become the undercurrent of American discourse.
“Our democracy,” on its face, sounds reasonable, like “our constitution” or “our rights” as citizens. It seems inclusive, unifying, and based on a shared set of facts and beliefs. In other words, the “our” is meant to signify “everyone” and that’s good, right?
But in this case, the “our” specifically does not mean everyone but only some, as in “this is ours and not yours”.
The Romans called the Mediterranean Sea “Mare Nostra,” or “Our Sea” to connote power and exclusivity. The mafia is often referred to by its members as “Cosa Nostra,” or “Our Thing,” again to ensure a protective separateness from everything and everyone else.
Now, the organizations and people fetishizing “protect our democracy” mean it the same way the Romans really did and the mafia really do – “their democracy.”
“Democratia Nostra” indeed.
This trope is an intentional attempt to quell discussion and debate, to “other” (to use a woke term) people who question the idea, and to define anyone who does not subscribe to their statist, elitist, technocrat, oligarchical version of democracy as being a danger to the very idea of democracy itself.
Examples of this hypocritical – but strangely alluring – linguistic perversion abound. From the “Protecting our Democracy Act,” which would have essentially federalized elections, pushed by progressive Democrats to countless “non-profit, non-partisan” groups started by those same totalitarian wokesters, the term can be found being used – and never falling under media judgment – throughout today’s political landscape.
Like so many other tech companies (and their leaders, see Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life), Microsoft has an effort called “Democracy Forward.” At a recent conference on digital campaign security, a member of the project, one Ethan Chumley, used a rather telling phrase when describing what Democracy Forward does as “supporting the institutions we think (emphasis added) are fundamental to a healthy democracy.”
And what institutions are included? Defending Digital Campaigns is one, a “non-aligned” organization funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others to, in theory, increase campaign data security. Its board of directors includes former NSA and current DHS officials, former Romney presidential campaign manager Matt Rhoades, Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook, and the chairman of a group called DigiDems, which itself in financially supported by the Democratic Party and, of course, the law firm Perkins Coie of “Russiagate” fame (a perfect example of the DC swamp rabbit hole, by the way).
Democracy Forward also partners with NewsGuard, the organization that calls itself a media fact-checker and trustworthiness monitor that consistently places sites like The Federalist on its naughty list and the Guardian on its nice list. NewsGuard also slammed outlets that tried to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and announced in January a partnership with the American Federation of Teachers to combat misinformation in the classroom.
For more information on the absolutely non-partisan, completely fair minded Microsoft effort, you can visit the website.
The group “Protect Democracy” was founded by a pair of Obama White House lawyers, one of whom during his college days helped found “Law Students Against Alito,” also claims to be non-partisan. Here is how it defines “The Threat” to democracy on is website:
These global trends impacting the entire democratic world, when combined with our own governance structures and history of white supremacism, have resulted in an amplification of the power of an anti-democratic, illiberal, and bigoted faction in our society that has always existed. That faction, first through Trump’s presidency and now through the political party it has largely captured…
Non-partisan, indeed If you want, you can check out the website.
Then there is Securing our Digital Future, an effort of Foreign Policy magazine. With a contributor list that reads like a parody of internationalism, the policies suggested essentially espouse the idea of saving democracy by killing freedom. One writer, Matt Masterson of the Stanford Internet Observatory (that’s what it is actually called), states that the “onslaught of misinformation” that started in 2016 has caused people to mistrust institutions before noting that the 2020 election was the most secure in modern American history.
To continue to protect democracy, Masterson suggests, in part, the following:
Accountability for those who knowingly spread disinformation to achieve their political or financial goals. Allies in democracy must identify, call out and collectively respond to adversaries’ attempts to destroy democratic institutions. This can encompass political accountability at the ballot box, as well as professional accountability, such as the loss of a law license for using the court to further disinformation, or the loss of financial support by refusing to do business with those funding the attacks.
The term was recently employed by the New York Times when announcing the hiring of Ken Bensinger to report on “conservative” media and ideas and such. Putting aside for the moment that he was the reporter that foisted the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier onto the public, the Times’ own reasoning for the hire is telling:
“…Ken’s new beat, filled as it is with people who reject mainstream narratives and question the institutions that hold up our democracy (emphasis added). Understanding the way information is developed, circulated and absorbed on the right is vital at this precarious moment…,” stated the Times in its announcement.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, MSNBC, AOC, CNN, Liz Cheney, etc., etc., ad infinitum have all used – may even be using it right now – the term “protect our democracy” and all, whether putatively right or left, mean it the same way – their democracy. But that is a democracy that, with apologies to the Washington Post, thrives in darkness and is protected by the prosperity and silence and loyalty of its members, a political code of Omerta that must be kept at all costs.
Our democracy, indeed.
The Colorado decision will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, but for “protectors of our democracy” that is not such a bad thing – it will give them an election hammer point: see, the Supreme Court bad, just like with abortion, and needs to be abolished…wait, reformed and expanded to include every proper viewpoint.
As the media will play along with this, it is yet another “Heads I win, tails you lose” political shell game being played to keep Trump – or anyone who threatens the Deep State, the “own nothing and be happy” drivers of the world, or the global nomenklatura – away from the levers of power,
It should not have happened, but what could happen has now happened.
And we will never be the same.
* * *
Republished from the author’s Substack
Authored by Thomas Buckley via The Brownstone Institute,
Deciding that a person who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, insurrection is guilty of insurrection and therefore cannot run for president…that is “protecting our democracy” in action…
Whenever that term is used, one can be assured that the democracy they are referring to has no semblance to any actual democracy.
In this case, “ours” does not mean “all of ours” – it means “theirs.”
What they are protecting is their democracy; not a democracy of the people, but now merely a word used to fig leaf the ever-expanding slither of socialist socialite statism, the velvet fascism that is deftly hammering its way through the society and the culture.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot there is absurd, legally indefensible, and a direct attack on the entire constitutional premise of the nation.
It eviscerates the basic right of the people to choose – however one may think of their choice – their own leader.
It torpedoes the idea of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. Until yesterday, judges have almost always steered clear of most election-related cases, in part because of that issue. In fact, the mantra that “Trump lost every challenge he made in court to the 2020 election” is true because, three years ago, courts did everything they could to not hear the cases – issues of standing, issues of timing, and issues well, what do you what me to do? Order a new vote? Few – if any – were heard on their merits.
The United States Supreme Court even ruled that a group of states did not have standing to sue states they thought mishandled the 2020 election. One would think a state would have standing in court to challenge how another state ran their elections because who is president impacts every state, but still the Supremes passed on even hearing an argument.
That is yet another reason this ruling is so mind-boggling dangerous – the precedent set is catastrophic to the point that the President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele was right when he tweeted “The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy’.”
That is how degrading this ruling is to the actual rule of law, not the “rule of law” the statists trot out to stifle, intimidate, and destroy their opponents.
Even though it should not be necessary to refute the Colorado ruling point-by-point – for the same reason people don’t try to argue with sidewalk schizophrenics that there really aren’t people and plants and dogs yelling at him – here are the particulars (from a previous piece) as to why the Colorado judges are wrong.
-
First, the events of January 6th were not an insurrection attempt. They were wrong and stupid and the greatest gift ever given to the Deep State and the Democrats, but they did not constitute an insurrection. When you try to overthrow the government, you tend to bring guns and you tend not to make sure to wrap it up in time to get back to the hotel for dinner.
-
Second, to say Trump caused the problem is also not true. One could make the argument that Nancy Pelosi “caused” it because she point-blank refused to beef up Capitol security that day, thereby allowing bad actors to run wild, or that the FBI “caused” it via its embedded intelligence operatives.
-
Third, Trump has not been found guilty of a crime…yet. Therefore the idea is legally premature and the position taken by those in favor that “we all know it was an insurrection and he did it so we don’t need a trial” is not quite – at least for the time being – how the American justice system works.
-
Fourth, read the clause again – it says “elector of President,” not “president.” May seem like splitting hairs, but they’re really different. As to “officer,” even that is muddy as many legal scholars equate that with appointed personnel. Finally, Congress is specifically called out for the ban, but the presidency is not. So even if it ever gets to court it will not fly (unless, of course, that court is in the District of Columbia).
-
Fifth, even if you twist yourself into believing Trump cannot serve as president, it does not in any way, shape, or form bar him from running for the office. That would be a gross and obvious violation of his first amendment rights…oh, wait.
-
Sixth, to argue that insurrectionists are not allowed to serve in the federal government is patently false. A few years after the Civil War, Confederate soldiers were signing up for the US Army and Confederate veterans began serving in – wait for it – Congress. In fact, dozens of former Confederates – and not just privates but high officers – served in the House and Senate, no problem.
The last Confederate veteran to serve in Congress was Charles Manly Stedman of North Carolina, a major on Gen. Robert E. Lee’s staff – seriously – and he held his seat until 1930.
And he was a typical southern Democrat racist, by the way, pushing to erect a “Mammy Memorial” statue on Washington. And yes, it really means what you think it means: a statue honoring mammies because, as Stedman put it: “The traveler, as he passes by, will recall that epoch of southern civilization [when] fidelity and loyalty” prevailed. No class of any race of people held in bondage could be found anywhere who lived more [freely] from care or distress.”
So, if people who signed up to specifically go shoot people as part of an actual intentional rather widely advertised bloody insurrection – and clearly remained committed to the underlying cause – were allowed to serve in Congress, I’m pretty sure that sets a precedent.
Leaving the particulars refuted and turning back to the core of what is meant by “protecting our democracy” we must face the lie that has become the undercurrent of American discourse.
“Our democracy,” on its face, sounds reasonable, like “our constitution” or “our rights” as citizens. It seems inclusive, unifying, and based on a shared set of facts and beliefs. In other words, the “our” is meant to signify “everyone” and that’s good, right?
But in this case, the “our” specifically does not mean everyone but only some, as in “this is ours and not yours”.
The Romans called the Mediterranean Sea “Mare Nostra,” or “Our Sea” to connote power and exclusivity. The mafia is often referred to by its members as “Cosa Nostra,” or “Our Thing,” again to ensure a protective separateness from everything and everyone else.
Now, the organizations and people fetishizing “protect our democracy” mean it the same way the Romans really did and the mafia really do – “their democracy.”
“Democratia Nostra” indeed.
This trope is an intentional attempt to quell discussion and debate, to “other” (to use a woke term) people who question the idea, and to define anyone who does not subscribe to their statist, elitist, technocrat, oligarchical version of democracy as being a danger to the very idea of democracy itself.
Examples of this hypocritical – but strangely alluring – linguistic perversion abound. From the “Protecting our Democracy Act,” which would have essentially federalized elections, pushed by progressive Democrats to countless “non-profit, non-partisan” groups started by those same totalitarian wokesters, the term can be found being used – and never falling under media judgment – throughout today’s political landscape.
Like so many other tech companies (and their leaders, see Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life), Microsoft has an effort called “Democracy Forward.” At a recent conference on digital campaign security, a member of the project, one Ethan Chumley, used a rather telling phrase when describing what Democracy Forward does as “supporting the institutions we think (emphasis added) are fundamental to a healthy democracy.”
And what institutions are included? Defending Digital Campaigns is one, a “non-aligned” organization funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others to, in theory, increase campaign data security. Its board of directors includes former NSA and current DHS officials, former Romney presidential campaign manager Matt Rhoades, Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook, and the chairman of a group called DigiDems, which itself in financially supported by the Democratic Party and, of course, the law firm Perkins Coie of “Russiagate” fame (a perfect example of the DC swamp rabbit hole, by the way).
Democracy Forward also partners with NewsGuard, the organization that calls itself a media fact-checker and trustworthiness monitor that consistently places sites like The Federalist on its naughty list and the Guardian on its nice list. NewsGuard also slammed outlets that tried to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and announced in January a partnership with the American Federation of Teachers to combat misinformation in the classroom.
For more information on the absolutely non-partisan, completely fair minded Microsoft effort, you can visit the website.
The group “Protect Democracy” was founded by a pair of Obama White House lawyers, one of whom during his college days helped found “Law Students Against Alito,” also claims to be non-partisan. Here is how it defines “The Threat” to democracy on is website:
These global trends impacting the entire democratic world, when combined with our own governance structures and history of white supremacism, have resulted in an amplification of the power of an anti-democratic, illiberal, and bigoted faction in our society that has always existed. That faction, first through Trump’s presidency and now through the political party it has largely captured…
Non-partisan, indeed If you want, you can check out the website.
Then there is Securing our Digital Future, an effort of Foreign Policy magazine. With a contributor list that reads like a parody of internationalism, the policies suggested essentially espouse the idea of saving democracy by killing freedom. One writer, Matt Masterson of the Stanford Internet Observatory (that’s what it is actually called), states that the “onslaught of misinformation” that started in 2016 has caused people to mistrust institutions before noting that the 2020 election was the most secure in modern American history.
To continue to protect democracy, Masterson suggests, in part, the following:
Accountability for those who knowingly spread disinformation to achieve their political or financial goals. Allies in democracy must identify, call out and collectively respond to adversaries’ attempts to destroy democratic institutions. This can encompass political accountability at the ballot box, as well as professional accountability, such as the loss of a law license for using the court to further disinformation, or the loss of financial support by refusing to do business with those funding the attacks.
The term was recently employed by the New York Times when announcing the hiring of Ken Bensinger to report on “conservative” media and ideas and such. Putting aside for the moment that he was the reporter that foisted the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier onto the public, the Times’ own reasoning for the hire is telling:
“…Ken’s new beat, filled as it is with people who reject mainstream narratives and question the institutions that hold up our democracy (emphasis added). Understanding the way information is developed, circulated and absorbed on the right is vital at this precarious moment…,” stated the Times in its announcement.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, MSNBC, AOC, CNN, Liz Cheney, etc., etc., ad infinitum have all used – may even be using it right now – the term “protect our democracy” and all, whether putatively right or left, mean it the same way – their democracy. But that is a democracy that, with apologies to the Washington Post, thrives in darkness and is protected by the prosperity and silence and loyalty of its members, a political code of Omerta that must be kept at all costs.
Our democracy, indeed.
The Colorado decision will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, but for “protectors of our democracy” that is not such a bad thing – it will give them an election hammer point: see, the Supreme Court bad, just like with abortion, and needs to be abolished…wait, reformed and expanded to include every proper viewpoint.
As the media will play along with this, it is yet another “Heads I win, tails you lose” political shell game being played to keep Trump – or anyone who threatens the Deep State, the “own nothing and be happy” drivers of the world, or the global nomenklatura – away from the levers of power,
It should not have happened, but what could happen has now happened.
And we will never be the same.
* * *
Republished from the author’s Substack
Loading…
