In view of Twitter's and Face Book's censorship of the New York Post's stories on the Biden corruption, follows this weekend's op ed in the New York Times Magazine argues

Democrats, the party of lawyers, "lawfare" , of weaponising of the IRS FBI and DoJ have openly manifested contempt for the voters- all of whom are now relegated to Deplorables.

Voting has already started in the USA but the candour of Mr Biden is astonishing as is the hubris: The National Review writer Zachary Evans noted:

The unanswered question in the current US candidate debates so far, - despite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying ‘everything is on the table’- is Supreme Court packing.

The debate has been described as chaos, unruly, of no value and of frightening a CNN analyst. It was not what a debate should be said Rachel Maddow of MSNBC of dispassionately looking at policy and informing the electorate and I surmise the uncommitted, the non-voters, the swing voters and independents who sit in a 20% twilight zone. Sir Robert Jones also came out against Trump as uncouth, an ignoramus and a liar. < Biden was also short on truth.

The revelation from Hunter Biden's emails has had an explosive effect in the USA raising issues of RICO like contemplated corruption and the national security risk of Mr Joe Biden- i.e. susceptibility to blackmail by the states he is beholden to.

The money involved is substantial.

There is one fundamental divide, inter alia, in US politics between means and ends which specifically turns on process or means for the US Supreme Court. For Democrats everything is political.

Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog.

George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley’s blog generally has interesting pieces on US law, social commentary and free speech.

Ronald Reagan in 1964 was more firey than I remember him when he was around as President.

Ms Weiss a features writer for the New York Times has resigned and her letter is of some importance. Some extracts are set out here and are well worth reading.

The United States’ “progressive” agenda is now an avowedly socialist one. An historical basis exists for it from Woodrow Wilson and FDR, which had a fascist bent to it.

In addition to George Orwell's 1984 one could add to the culture war's reading list the following book by Bernard Bailyn The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchison Allen Lane, 1975.

The BLM protest last Sunday in Wellington had a highly intelligent and formidable speaker. She laid into the system and the structures of power. When you hear those words one knows that the dead hand of a wearisome ideology of critical theory, neo-Marxism. The dialectical theory of Hegel, and the unfortunate inheritance from Plato, lives on in the simplistic mechanical calculus which reduces life to the trite oppressor/oppressed calculus which concludes with its predicted premise.

In Mid-March as Covid-19 was imminent, our Minster of Justice, Andrew Little, stated that the ‘hate speech’ legislation was to be brought forward.

The US case of Lt General Flynn, the former Trump white House NSA advisor, has been interesting to follow. He was caught up in the House Democrat’s Russian collusion affair and charged with perjury. Is he an American Dreyfus?

Prima facie, the FBI’s abuses of process, the rule of law and over bearing unconscionable duress (which one may think of as akin to black mail) by lawyers and law enforcement officers make this case an appalling example of the politicisation of law. At the human level it demonstrates a reckless disregard for Lt General Flynn who has lost his career, house and savings.

Amongst all the Engines of Dissention, there hath been none more powerful in all Times, than the fixing Names upon one another of, Contumely and Reproach, and the reason is plain, in respect of the People, who tho' generally they are incapable of making a Syllogism or forming an Argument, yet they can pronounce a word; and that serveth their turn to throw it with their dull malice at the Head of those they do not like; such things ever begin in Jest, and end in Blood, and the same word which at first maketh the Company merry, groweth in time to a Military Signal to cut one another's’ Throats.

These Mistakes are to be lamented, tho' not easily cured, being suitable enough to the corrupted Nature of Mankind; but 'tis hard, that Men will not only invent ill Naims but they will wrest and misinterpret good ones; so afraid some are even of a reconciling sound, that they raise another noise to keep it from being heard, lest it should set up and encourage a dangerous sort of Men, who prefer Peace and Agreement, before Violence and Confusion.
George Saville, First Marquess of Halifax (1633 -1695) Preface to The Character of a Trimmer

I read an opinion piece on Stuff yesterday (24/4/2020) that was a typical anti-Trump complete with the writer’s own emotional biography on points. Being critical of Trump is fine and a different thing from an implacable bias of Trump is wrong on everything.

As has been pointed out in the Spectator online today there is a difference between taking Trump literally as opposed to taking seriously. It has been said that 'supporters take him seriously but not literally’ as they can see the "tradie" like humour and ironical bathos: The MSM 'media take him literally' and each word fundamentally, because ideologically they are puritan like fundamentalists in a word game that has become detached from practical reality. But they do not take him seriously.