{"id":101495,"date":"2022-04-26T17:37:42","date_gmt":"2022-04-26T21:37:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=101495"},"modified":"2022-04-26T17:37:48","modified_gmt":"2022-04-26T21:37:48","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-monday-april-25th-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=101495","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, April 25th, 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, April 25th, 2022…but before we begin, for those needing proof the federal bureaucracy is completely out of control, this is it, as FOX<\/em> informs us…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fauci is crushed for saying it’s ‘disturbing’ that a U.S. court can overrule the CDC<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…Fauci\u2019s irksome (Merely “irksome”?\u00a0 More like “incredibly disturbing”?!?<\/em>)\u00a0<\/span>comments happened during a Thursday interview with CBS News about U.S. District Court Judge\u00a0Kathryn Kimball Mizelle\u00a0striking down the travel mask mandate on Monday.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the segment on the streaming show “Red & Blue,” CBS anchor Robert Costa asked Fauci, “Do you personally agree or disagree with her interpretation of public health law?”\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>Fauci responded, “Well, I clearly disagree, I mean those types of things should be decided as a public health issue by the public health organizations, in this case the CDC. This is a public health<\/em><\/span> matter, not<\/em><\/span> a judicial<\/em><\/span> matter.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“So, obviously the CDC will abide by the order of the court because it\u2019s a legal obligation<\/span><\/em>,” he continued. “But one of the problems that we have there is that the principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC<\/span><\/em> is disturbing in the precedent in might send,” Fauci concluded<\/span><\/strong>…”<\/p>\n

Thus does Dr. Faux Chi, possessed of neither legal nor constitutional expertise…nor<\/span><\/em>, as far as well can tell, any valuable virological advice<\/em><\/span>…render a judicial judgment after questioning the qualifications of a judge to render a decision in a lawsuit.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Mollie Hemingway noted, “Fauci seems to assert that the bureaucracy should not be beholden to the Constitution and rule of law.”\u00a0 It also serves to emphasize such rules are thee<\/span><\/em>…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…NOT he<\/span><\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, courtesy of Defense One<\/em> via Balls Cotton, John Nagl and Paul Yingling detail Mad Vlad’s…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukraine Endgame: Putin\u2019s Bad Options<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

No matter which one he chooses, the Western response should be the same<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Ukraine\u2019s brilliant and tenacious resistance on land, as well as the\u00a0sinking of the Moskva\u00a0in the Black Sea, have checked Russia\u2019s offensive in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin would be wise to follow the advice of his countryman, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, and know when to stop. Instead, Putin appears intent on further escalation.<\/span> In response to these events, Russia\u00a0warned<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0the United States to stop arming Ukraine, or face \u201cunpredictable consequences.\u201d Putin even went so far as to prescribe the weapons that the United States should not provide to the Ukrainian Army.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As Putin comes to terms with his looming defeat, he is now left with three bad, but not equally bad, options. The least bad Russian option is to sue for peace on the most favorable terms Ukraine will grant and end this pointless and reckless war.<\/span> A worse option would be to go on the defensive in Eastern Ukraine and vainly hope for a more favorable correlation of forces in the future. The worst option of all would be for Russia to attempt another offensive, gambling the entire army in Ukraine on one last thrust with no hope of success.<\/span> The West, in considering its responses to these actions, would do well to remember Napoleon\u2019s advice (more or less<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>): \u201cNever interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself.\u201d<\/strong>…”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As the authors note in conclusion, no matter Putin’s ultimate exit strategy, the Western response should be the same: We can do this ALL DAY, as “<\/b>Vladimir Putin is in the process of destroying himself, and every day that passes, and every arms shipment that arrives in Ukraine, makes that outcome more inevitable.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item from NRO<\/em> which may shed some light on Putin’s plans, citing it as a continuation of the Great Patriotic War Stalin helped start, on Friday\u00a0a Russian general announced\u00a0plans to occupy the Transnistria region of Moldova after subduing Ukraine<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 A\u00a0minor incursion here<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>, a minor incursion there; Pretty soon you have the potential for a world-wide conflict.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, in a must-read<\/em><\/span> item from American Greatness<\/em> forwarded by Speed which deserves presentation in full,\u00a0Roger Kimball wonders…<\/strong>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Who Is Running This Show, Anyway<\/span><\/a>?<\/span><\/h1>\n

Things boil down to a question of “Who rules”? Is it the people or a hive of bureaucratic would-be experts<\/span><\/a><\/span>?<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Some people, including me, are inclined to disparage social media as an insidious and anencephalic force. Insidious it may be, but it is not entirely brainless.<\/span> As proof, I offer the fact that I just learned the valuable word \u201cquockerwodger\u201d from a Tweet proffered by a friend. Who or what is a quockerwodger?<\/span> It is, my friend\u00a0observed<\/a>, the perfect word to describe the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, to wit, \u201ca puppet figure or individual whose strings are pulled entirely by someone else<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Everyone knows<\/em><\/span> this.<\/span> Who or what that \u201csomeone else\u201d is remains something of a mystery. As I have had occasion to observe in this space and elsewhere, I am wont to refer to this puppet magisterium as \u201cThe Committee.\u201d<\/span> I do not know who populates this agency or even whether it is a deliberate body or merely an anonymous aggregation of shared sentiment.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It could certainly be more expert.<\/span> If it were, Joe Biden\u2019s verbal emissions would be less incontinent and more truthful. He would not, for example, say that he had \u201cflown over every major wildfire<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u201d in the country.<\/span> The puppeteer would have pulled up on the mouth string when\u00a0Biden claimed<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0to have traveled 17,000 miles in the \u201cfoothills of the Himalayas\u201d with Xi Jinping.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The puppeteer could be more adroit<\/span><\/em>, but no one can doubt his presence<\/span><\/em>, whoever or whatever he is.\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The late political commentator Joe Sobran called this locationless body \u201cthe Hive.\u201d Just as in a beehive,\u00a0Sobran observed<\/a><\/span><\/em>, members of the coven feel they are free, yet their attitudes and behavior are utterly predictable.<\/span> \u201cLiberals laugh<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0at conspiracy theories that assume that because there is a pattern there must be some central control; but the fact that there is no central control doesn\u2019t mean<\/span><\/em> that there is no pattern.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Sobran is especially good on the honey that coats the Hive\u2019s often unspoken program.<\/span> \u201cBy using pragmatic language for its agenda,\u201d he notes, \u201cthe Hive misleads the general public about its ultimate goals.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It gains power as ordinary people adopt its language without grasping the implications.<\/span> After all, who could oppose such worthy causes as \u2018civil rights,\u2019 \u2018a woman\u2019s right to choose,\u2019 \u2018protecting our children\u2019 and \u2018saving the environment\u2019? The news media use the buzzwords of the Hive so habitually that they have become virtual organs of the Hive.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the Hive triumphs insofar as people mistake its blandishments for the good<\/em><\/span>. Here\u2019s how it goes: \u201cWe\u2019re in favor of Disney\/CRT\/lockdowns\/higher taxes\/less freedom\/the welfare state because we believe that good<\/span><\/em> people must<\/span><\/em> endorse those things.<\/span> We like to think of ourselves<\/em><\/span> as good people. Therefore, we endorse whatever the Hive propose<\/span><\/em>s.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

These days, most commentators refer to the Hive as the \u201cdeep state,\u201d \u201cthe administrative state,\u201d or \u201cthe regulatory state.\u201d There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the activities and influence of this shadowy force.<\/span> I have written about it many times myself, often drawing upon an observation Edmund Burke made in his 1770 essay,\u00a0Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.\u00a0<\/i>Criticizing the court of George III for circumventing Parliament and establishing by stealth what amounted to a new regime of royal prerogative and influence-peddling, Burke showed how the king and his courtiers maintained the appearance<\/span><\/em> of parliamentary supremacy while covertly dismantling it<\/span><\/em>.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt was soon discovered,\u201d Burke wrote with sly understatement, \u201cthat the\u00a0forms<\/i>\u00a0of a free, and the\u00a0ends<\/i>\u00a0of an arbitrary Government, were things not altogether incompatible\u201d (my emphasis). That discovery stands behind the growth of the administrative state.<\/span> We<\/span><\/em> still vote. We<\/span><\/em> still have a bicameral legislature.<\/span> But behind these\u00a0forms<\/span>\u00a0<\/i>of a free government, the essentially undemocratic activities<\/em><\/span> of an increasingly arbitrary and unaccountable regime<\/span><\/em> pursues an expansionist agenda that threatens liberty<\/span><\/em> in the most comprehensive way, by circumventing the law<\/span><\/em>.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Biden Administration is the intermittently smiling, if vacant and dozy, face of this project.<\/span> The reality of this enterprise is more widely felt than understood. One of the best contributions to articulating exactly what is at stake in the machinations of the administrative state is \u201cWhat Trump and Covid Revealed<\/a><\/em><\/span>,\u201d a recent essay by Glenn Ellmers for\u00a0<\/span>The American Mind.<\/span>\u00a0<\/i>Based on an earlier essay by John Marini, who more than anyone has plumbed the stygian depths of the administrative state, Ellmers zeros in on the essential tension between constitutional government<\/span><\/em>, which is based upon a broadly shared common sense, and its would-be replacement: technocratic government<\/em><\/span>, which is populated by an unaccountable elite, \u201cexperts\u201d whose leading characteristic is faith in their own prerogatives<\/em><\/span>. This \u201cpermanent government,\u201d Ellmers writes, \u201cis a powerful force.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It has established its own legitimacy apart from its political or constitutional authority, within the ranks of both political parties and the courts. Bureaucratic rule is defended as essential to solving, in a non-partisan way, the problems of modern government and society.<\/span> But the bureaucracy has become a political faction on behalf of its own interests. Moreover, the party that defends progressivism and elite authority is increasingly open about politicizing the last vestiges of non-partisan government, including the Justice Department and federal law enforcement.<\/span> As their power has grown, these defenders of administrative government are increasingly unable to understand<\/span>, let alone tolerate<\/span>, anyone<\/span> who fails to recognize the legitimacy of the administrative state<\/span>. (Sound vaguely…<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…familiar?!?<\/em>)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is important to note that this progressive project is as much a Republican as a Democratic pursuit.<\/span> Despite some rhetorical differences, both parties are fully paid up worker bees in this hive. The \u201cpragmatic\u201d cover they give themselves is the supposed \u201ccomplexity\u201d of modern life and complication of contemporary governance.<\/span> Who but they are equipped to manage the machinery of the state, the minutiae of government? Ellmers nails it: \u201cThe pursuit<\/span><\/em> of progress, social justice, and equity becomes for them<\/span><\/em> the moral equivalent of constitutional authority<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As a result, the growth and consolidation of the administrative state have made it more difficult to control the apparatus of government by political means alone. It is no longer clear that the bureaucracy understands itself as the willing servant of its political masters, when the \u2018masters\u2019 are perceived as a threat to the administrative state<\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And this is where that strangest of strange messengers, Donald Trump, comes in. Trump understood\u2014and more to the point, he articulated for millions of Americans\u2014what was at stake in the battle between constitutional government as traditionally understood and its technocratic doppelg\u00e4nger.<\/span> Challenging the hegemony of experts requires a widespread reassertion of that \u201ccommon sense morality\u201d to which the founders appealed but which is regarded by our would-be masters as an impediment to utopia. A key problem, as Ellmers sees, is that \u201cwhat is left of public morality is now understood in terms of \u2018values,\u2019 or subjective preferences<\/span><\/em> based only<\/span><\/em> on individual will.<\/span> Even in the small handful of healthy institutions in civil society, the political and civil rights of the ordinary citizen rest upon a precarious foundation, threatened and undermined by the powerful claims of social progress.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Those claims are nearly irresistible, as anyone who has dared to question the dominant narrative on issues from \u201cclimate change\u201d to COVID policy to race and identity politics will know.<\/span> The question, as I have put it elsewhere, revolves around the\u00a0location<\/i><\/span>\u00a0of sovereignty. Who rules<\/span><\/em>?<\/span> The people<\/span><\/em>, articulating their interests through the metabolism of ordinary politics? Or<\/span><\/em> the bureaucratic elite<\/span><\/em>, who claim<\/em><\/span> to discern the inevitable direction and<\/span><\/em> goal of history and are prepared to marshal the coercive power of the state to prevent anything from cluttering up that highway to enlightenment<\/span><\/em>?<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

To which we can only add a hale and hearty “AMEN<\/span><\/em>“!!!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since we’re on the subject of the Socialists’ utterly inept, completely corrupt puppet, courtesy of Ed Hickey, the New York Post<\/em>\u00a0relates how…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joe Biden met with Hunter’s business partner at the White House<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n