I’ve already written that National Journal is “a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.” However, I now have to question what it thinks about the Constitution and patriotic Americans in general.
Michael Hirsh wrote, “We Negotiate With Terrorists, So Why Not With the GOP?” on October 1 when the fight over raising the debt ceiling still raged. In it he wrote:
But if the administration’s approach is to cast the House GOP members as jihadists wielding ballots instead of bullets, then perhaps it should adopt the same policy it applies to real terrorists: Don’t negotiate at all in public, but meanwhile search for every back channel you can. Even among Republican jihadists, there are interlocutors to be found and not unreasonable inducements – like a repeal of the medical-device tax – to offer up.The rest of the column goes on like that, explaining how the U.S. has (supposedly) regularly negotiated with terrorists in its recent history, and how the Obama regime should look to this policy as an example of how to negotiate with the GOP.
So what was Hirsh saying? Was he saying that the Democratic Party’s natural inclination is to negotiate with and find common ground with terrorists but that’s not the natural inclination it has with the Republican Party? Was he actually saying that the only way leftists can consider negotiating with those on the right is if they look to how they work with Islamic terrorists and then apply that to the right?
And then Alex Seitz-Wald wrote, “A How-To Guide to Blowing Up the Constitution,” on October 31 in which he advocates for replacing or greatly altering the Constitution. One can try to justify what he wrote as an intentionally provocative column intended to get a lot of clicks and attention. However, the bottom line is that he wrote what he wrote and National Journal published it.
Therefore, National Journal has clearly established that it believes that it is okay to question and advocate against the Constitution. . . .
Read the rest at ClashDaily.com.