T
The sometimes vehement Mark Levin, lawyer, author, and commentator on the Constitution, had a field day commenting on the inner contradictions of the Mueller Report on Fox and Friends (4-19-19). He vindicated my own musings that collusion with Russia was the point of the two-year Mueller investigation, and therefore that the liberals, by pouncing on the obstruction matter, was superfluous and demonstrated bad faith. By so doing, he challenged the moderate men: he was off the (Fox/ Wall Street Journal) reservation.
The rest of this blog deals with what passes for “moderation.” It proposes that FNC operates within the parameters of “fair and balanced” discourse that tilts it toward Democratic politics. “Liberals,” like a few “moderate” conservatives,” eschew the search for truth in favor of (irrational) compromise, multiculturalism, postmodernism, and “civility” in favor of “many truths,” depending on race, class, and gender. Similarly, they advocate “unity” and the “living Constitution,” thus delivering a mixed message (how can there be “healing” a structural divide?)
Levin didn’t do this on 4-19-19. He further violated the moderate code by raising his voice, suggesting excessive love toward the original Constitution. In so doing, he violated the tenets of moderate pseudo-democracy: politeness and “rationality.”
The Clare Spark Blog 
It’s refreshing some people are still aligned with reality. As Brit Hume pointed out, if there were evidence of obstruction of justice, Mueller certainly would have pointed it out. And very loudly, I might add. There’s too much “pseudo” going around out there. We may preface so many words with “pseudo.” For example, free speech, multicultural, freedom, bigotry, racism. And it won’t stop anytime soon.
Comment by Bonnie Kauffman Melloul — April 21, 2019 @ 12:01 am |