Archive for Justice and Law

targeting the opposition

The scandals brew. Bill Clinton and AG Lynch have a half hour discussion in an airport – this raises questions because it is the prosecutor hobnobbing with the husband of an individual under criminal investigation. Then there is the AG that dropped the efforts against Exxon even though a coalition of 17 other Democrat AG’s promise to plow on. These are only two ingredients in the noxious brew.

Paul Bedard describes: Fox targeted by FEC Dems in first-ever vote to punish debate sponsorship

Finally making good on long-harbored anger at conservative media, Democrats on the Federal Election Commission voted in secret to punish Fox News’ sponsorship of a Republican presidential debate, using an obscure law to charge the network with helping those on stage.

It is the first time in history that members of the FEC voted to punish a media outlet’s debate sponsorship, and it follows several years of Democratic threats against conservative media and websites like the Drudge Report.

The punishment, however, was blocked by all three Republicans on the commission, resulting in a 3-3 tie vote and no action.

Then the IBD opines about the IRS Scandal: No End To Lois Lerner’s Lawlessness.

It’s now apparent, if it wasn’t before, that the Internal Revenue Service — which was created solely to collect revenues due the government, not to persecute the administration’s political enemies — has become a kind of rogue agency.

Its chief, John Koskinen, is being threatened with impeachment for not telling the truth in testimony before Congress. But Lerner, more than even Koskinen, has become a symbol of IRS arrogance and illegality.

So it looks like Lerner broke the law — again. But will she be punished? Not likely.

President Obama’s Justice Department already passed on prosecuting Lerner in 2015, despite strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing. IRS chief Koskinen, who is less guilty and less implicated than Lerner in all of this IRS skulduggery, is more likely to be impeached than Lerner is to be brought before a judge.

Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department, it seems, is just as politicized these days as the IRS.

One wonders just how long this sort of behavior will remain acceptable and how long the Democrats will continue to mount a solid patisan effort in trying to block investigations, persecute investigators, and otherwise defend and deny. The Benghazi investigation provides another clear example of this effort to whitewash a dirty fence.

Leave a Comment

The problem with the courts

William J. Olson and Herbert W. Titus take a look at a SCOTUS ruling that medical precautions in abortion are unduly restrictive in Whole Woman’s Health: Justice Thomas Exposes the Court’s Corrupt Abortion Jurisprudence. A dissent describes a broader view of just where the problem in the SCOTUS decision lies.

Justice Thomas concluded: “Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law.” Concluding with a frontal assault on balancing tests, Justice Thomas warned: “As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat[.] … If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result.”

“The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not – and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate[.]”

In other words, the courts have become so politically active that the only way to tell what decision they make is to examine the political ideologies of the judges. The actual law has very little to do with anything anymore. 

Think of the movie Red October where a captain orders that the safeties on a torpedo be turned off is the first two attempts did not get the desired results. That is what is happening with the courts: the safeties for governance are being turned off. In the movie, we found out why the safeties were there. Let us hope we avoid analogous results from court actions to remove the safeties on government.

Leave a Comment

Using the courts as a political weapon

A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on The McDonnell Case: Another Study in Criminal Law as Democratic Partisan Warfare. Clarice Feldman explains.

It’s common for those unhappy with a decision to criticize the partisanship of the judges involved, but the weakness of the case, which was evident when it was argued in the Supreme Court (and during the trial itself), and the fact that it was reversed unanimously warrants a raised eyebrow. It comes on the heels of the reversed prosecutions of then-Senator Ted Stevens, Governor Rick Perry, House Majority leader Tom DeLay, the IRS war on Obama’s opponents in the tea party and other conservative groups, and the outrageous trampling the rights of those who worked for and supported Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. This case and those matters lead to an inescapable conclusion: With the endorsement of partisan juries and/or judges, the Democratic Party seeks to and will use the power of the prosecution to destroy Republican political leaders and anyone who supports them.

The law was thus rather well settled on this point, and neither the prosecution nor the trial and appellate courts gave it the required deference nor exercised any reasonable (or fair) judgment on the salient issue.

In the meantime, McDonnell’s political career, finances and family have suffered greatly by this strained reading of the law to cover conduct which the Supreme Court and ordinary common sense supports was not criminal , but rather ordinary and perfectly proper official conduct.

What I would bet on is that Democrats will continue to stretch the criminal law for partisan advantage, and that, if elected; Hillary will appoint prosecutors and judges willing to continue to mount such legal warfare.

“Warrants a raised eyebrow?” That seems to be a bit of understatement, especially in light of the previous post about a cohort of partisan AG’s going after the First Amendment for the cause. The Left, and the Democrats, loose many and suffer many casualties but they keep going, keep at it, knowing that there will be an occasional victory and another small push forward in the cause.

Leave a Comment

Rights? What rights?

Democrats Attack 3 Of The 10 Amendments In The Bill Of Rights — An IBD editorial explains.

Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama has repeatedly complained about the “messy” process the Constitution’s co-equal branches created, and has several times acted as though the Constitution’s limits on the president’s authority simply don’t apply to him.

But the fact that a major U.S. political party — which still considers itself mainstream — is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least.

Then there is the SCOTUS ruling that allows reverse discrimination, despite laws for equal treatment. What next?

Leave a Comment

Utah v. Strieff, does SCOTUS have a racism problem (tell me it ain’t so!)?

Jazz Shaw thinks The Fourth Amendment wasn’t created to protect the guilty but one SCOTUS case got some riled.

The Libertarians are up in arms over yet another Supreme Court decision this week which involves the question of when police are allowed to use evidence of a crime in the prosecution of a suspect. In a five to three ruling which crossed the normal ideological battle lines of the SCOTUS justices, the court found in the case of Utah v. Strieff that evidence of a crime discovered during a traffic stop could be used if the suspect has an outstanding warrant for an unrelated offense. (New York Times)

The responses from Justice Sotomayor in her dissent and from the Libertarians who are bemoaning the death of the Constitution are equally maddening, though for different reasons.

An officer with a gun. (Every lethal force encounter between police and minority suspects)

No one can breathe. (“I can’t breathe” Eric Garner)

Until their voices matter. (Black Lives Matter)

This wasn’t a Supreme Court dissent. It was a series of excerpts from a Black Lives Matter diatribe in a case which wasn’t even addressing questions of profiling or any other related issue.

In this case, Shaw is illustrating racism by example. Paul Mirengoff describes how those illustrating racism and calling for decorum and such might be expressing projection in A penny for your thoughts — “Here’s the measured response of a British leftist, Laurie Penny, to the Brexit:”

“So, here’s the thing. This was never a referendum on the EU. It was a referendum on the modern world, and yesterday the frightened, parochial lizard-brain of Britain voted out, out, out, and today we’ve all woken up still strapped onto this ghost-train as it hurtles off the tracks.”

There is, of course, more to the Brexit than the desire to curb immigration by low-skilled Europeans. Many Brits wanted to wrest control of Britain’s destiny from EU bureaucrats. In other words, they wanted much more say than the EU will allow them in determining what the “modern world” will hold in store.

They shall have it. No wonder leftists like Penny are incensed.

The Brexit vote also prompted outrage at xenophobia and other such contemptuous moral failings. As with the similar flailing against Trump, the level of the outrage says more than the allegations and accusations.

Leave a Comment

You will think correctly. Or else.

Jacki Pick: Why Exxon is not the problem — “The greatest threat to the environment is unrestrained government.”

What the prosecutors are doing to Exxon and scientists is moving from the Rule of Law to the Rule of Man.

When the Constitution no longer has meaning, its protections are lost to the mercy of whoever is elected or appointed. What a capricious game. So, if the prosecutors’ favored climate scientists are refuted by a future President Trump’s climate experts, does Mr. Trump get to jail them under RICO for propping up the fortunes of green tech groups who contributed to their campaigns? How do you like the climate inquest precedent now?

Counter to the president’s claims, the greatest threat to Americans is not climate change, nor is it Exxon’s climate change research; the greatest threat is unfettered government, and the threat looms larger as the election year wears on.

The case of Peabody Energy is mentioned. That was a ‘do whatever they say’ effort to appease the prosecutors. Funny, that is what some members are saying about how their local  chapters should deal with the WBCCI. The current Exxon exercise shows just how futile it is to try to appease the beast.

And the news this morning is that the British decided to abandon rule from Brussels and Hawaii is implementing a database of gun owners and the bureaucrats have more guns than the marines. 

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Paradigms, due process, and civility: guns

Scott Adams thinks he knows Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA. One problem is the idea of “solved” as applied to gun control as the debate has little to do with guns and a lot to do with control. The Democrats temper tantrum in the House yesterday showed that. The temper tantrum was about due process, not gun control, as due process was the only sticking point on a Senate bill the Democrats otherwise supported. Adams also illustrates the misdirection problem.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and shake off the mental discomfort I just induced in half of my readers. You can quibble with my unsupported assumptions about gun use, but keep in mind that my point is about psychology and about big group averages. If Republicans think they need guns to protect against Democrats, that’s their reality. And if Democrats believe guns make the world more dangerous for themselves, that is their reality. And they can both be right. Your risk profile is different from mine.

Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.

When fear drives people to solving the wrong problem, there is a solution to be had. In the Adams scenario, this would be for Democrats to address the reason why they are killing each other – e.g. inner city crime. The problem here is that they oppose the effective and proven methods. Stop and frisk has been set aside in New York. Black Lives Matter works on a false premise to emasculate proper policing. Releasing criminals from prison on a false pretext of racial disparities in the prison population is another. None of these have anything to do with gun control but they do have something to do with murder and mayhem.

What is missing in the efforts to solve a political problem is first the lack of intellectual integrity. There is no common basis in reality upon which to build any solution. The House tantrum shows just how deep a denial exists. That tends to lend credence to the idea that “Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats” as that is one of the fundamental reasons for the second amendment in the first place: citizen defense against irrational tyranny that eschews such concepts as due process much like the Democrats are advocating.

Leave a Comment

Not the least bit funny

Thomas Sowell on The Gun Control Farce.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.

Why does so much of what the left advocate result in death, misery, and suffering? Another big push for gun controls trying to leveraging grief for political gain at the same time there is a push for leniency of convicted felons in both voting rights and even outright sentence reduction. Whether it is big city crime or Venezuela food riots, the result is not pretty.

Try to discuss or explore this reality and the door slams shut, defensive barricades are erected and denial goes full force. 

Worried yet?

Leave a Comment

This is how it works

Mary Grabar wanted to set up a small tax exempt association “resisting the re-education of America.” She tells her story: Here’s How the IRS Treated Me Because I’m a Conservative.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem — Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections — with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.

The IRS had three types of objections to our application: minor paperwork, a financial inquest, and ideological accusations.

Remember, it was pretty much me in the basement. I described my one-woman efforts in a recent post.

We finally received approval on September 2014. They forced me to waste money and time when we should have been building on the momentum of our launch and fundraising. Other groups also lost opportunities, namely in 2012.

That’s how this IRS, this administration, works.

On the other side of such tactics, it appears that some Republican District Attorneys are telling their Democrat colleagues that going after climate skeptics also puts climate alarmists as valid targets. You can only expect the opposition to lie down and take it for so long. Grabar is now a part of a lawsuit challenging Democrats misuse of the IRS. The efforts to shut down debate about using climatology as a path to power and control are also being challenged. The efforts to use a tragedy to gain control to deny a right to self defense is being challenged with significant increases in gun sales.

In smaller associations, lawsuits and such things are usually not worth the effort. With the WBCCI, for instance, membership suffers when bullies take over. While it is a lot easier to leave a social RV club (and form your own alternative) than it is to leave a country, the parallels in behavior are worth study. Well meaning people seem ignorant of just how destructive their behavior really is and turn to denial and defense rather than introspection, examination of consequences, and intellectual integrity.

Leave a Comment

Self defense or wait for the cops?

The latest mass murder has the gun control fanatics out in full cry and much of that cry is rather far afield from reality. Andrew P. Napolitano speaks In defense of self-defense — “Americans have a natural right to preserve their lives with guns.”

Don’t expect to hear that argument from the gun control crowd in the government. It is the same crowd that has given us the killing zones. It is the same crowd that does not trust you to protect yourself. It is the same crowd that ignores the reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded example in the United States of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun.

We have a government here that is heedless of its obligation to protect our freedoms. We have a government that, in its lust to have us reliant upon it, has created areas in the United States where innocent folks living their lives in freedom are made defenseless prey to monsters — as vulnerable as fish in a barrel. And we have mass killings of defenseless innocents — over and over and over again.

All these mass killings have the same ending: The killer stops only when he is killed. But that requires someone else with a gun to be there. Shouldn’t that be sooner rather than later?

The question is why a political party wants to burden law abiding citizens with suspicion and to take away a fundamental right of self defense.

Leave a Comment

Soft targets or citizen militia?

Jazz Shaw says We’re having the wrong discussion regarding “soft targets”.

So called soft targets are optimal for those seeking to perpetrate evil because of the minimal risk to themselves when launching an attack combined with the probability of the highest body count and greatest impact.

The real question left unaddressed is what to do about it. You can’t eliminate soft targets without forbidding significant numbers of free people from gathering together in public spaces. … since you’re never going to find every person with evil in their hearts before they strike, the only rational choice remaining is to make those soft targets less soft.

what we can do is make it easier for the crowds of innocent civilians to include a reasonable proportion of them who are not only armed but thoroughly trained in how to respond to a crisis situation and take down a bad guy before a tragedy turns into a mass tragedy.

Stripping more law abiding citizens of their ability to defend not only themselves but their fellow citizens is pretty much the opposite of a solution.

Trying to use the reference to a militia in the 2nd amendment to mean it is a collective and not an individual right is a tactic often used to promote gun control. SCOTUS dismissed that idea in the Heller case but the 9th circuit has recently tried to reinstate the idea that one can only be armed by permission of the state. The fact is that recent terrorist attacks do require a citizen militia in order to harden targets and make the risk much higher for those that want to murder civilians.

But then, “having the wrong discussion” in matters like this is another common tactic of those driven by fantasy and self delusion rather than reality and integrity. It is why it is often impossible to have any discussion at all as there is no common basis for discussion when reality is dismissed.

Leave a Comment

Prosecutions run amok

Here’s another one. Baltimore Six Trial – Stunning Last Minute Motion To Dismiss Due to Severe Brady Violation…. This is about trying to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit the prosecution’s efforts and that is evidence that justice is the last thing on the prosecution’s mind.

Just a few minutes ago (Wednesday Night) Judge Williams released to the public a Motion to Dismiss filed by the attorney’s of Cesar Goodson which is based on this Brady violation, and the prosecution’s failure to be honest with the court. This is the third time Mosby’s office has been caught hiding exculpatory evidence in the cases against the accused.

It seems to be a disease that is showing up a lot lately. Whether it is the EPA on watersheds, the DOJ on email security, state AG’s after climate skeptics, the IRS on several scandals, or the partisan blocking of inquiry, the effort to stymie justice seems widespread and almost pervasive and very much an accepted tool by many on the left.

Leave a Comment

Who’s in on the deal?

Michael S. Greve takes a look at Odd Legal Ethics and summarizes by concluding that both sides do it, except one hasn’t had the chance yet.

And suppose we name and shame and sanction the lawyers (and I for one do want to know their names): what then? Why, the spin machine—the same machine that “explains” the President’s Iran Policy or the Secretary of State’s email server—will inform us that a vindictive right-wing judge is seeking the ruin of reputable lawyers with impeccable Harvard Law School credentials and did you know some of them are gay and also the judge hates Dreamers, or whatever. And will those martyrs still find gainful employment? Oh, yes. It’s no impediment to skirt legal and ethical boundaries, to follow orders to that effect, and to take the fall if need be: it’s the price of admission to Hillary Clinton’s entourage.

While Mrs. Clinton is unique in having practiced this sort of “law” and politics for three-plus decades, it has also flourished under President Obama, and it would blossom under President Trump.

In his Trump conclusion he shows himself to be a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. With Clinton (and Obama) there is a track record which has resulted in Judicial censure. With Trump, it is a matter of prognostication that puts bias above reality and attempts to hide it behind a curtain of moral preening (that seems to be the concept of the week – moral preening). Greve falls into Trumpysteria and the same sort of lack of honesty and integrity that was the subject of Luboš Motl’s takedown noted in the previous post.

There is a serious problem with the DOJ and it is now on its second AG. Efforts towards accountability in Congress are being blocked by Democratic Party Solidarity. The media, the state propaganda machine (SPM), is doing its best to obfuscate and deny the scandal. That leaves the Judiciary and the Public – and a good part of that Public is in on the deal, too.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Ideal gas law vs the NFL

Reason and reality don’t seem to make much of an impact on behavior these days. Scientists weigh in against the NFL’s war on physics and Tom Brady makes it clear that science isn’t at issue but rather the power politics about who is in charge.

If you’re not an American football fan, think of this as a story of a $13 billion company that can’t get its head around basic science.

Consider this further bit of analysis. The scientists gathered temperature data for more than 10,000 NFL outdoor games since 1960. They assumed a locker-room temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit and that footballs were inflated to 13 pounds per square inch of pressure ahead of each game, and found that 61% of games would have been played in temperatures that would lead to “deflated” footballs as judged by the NFL.

That’s like in the WBCCI, the Airstream RV association, where the Trustees seem to think their job is to serve the Company and supervise the members instead of serving the members by supervising the Company. Power goes to people’s heads and can create situations where reality and reason get set aside.

Leave a Comment

The state propaganda machine interpreting court rulings

The case was about religious freedom but The press tries its best to downplay a serious defeat for the Obama administration.

Anyone still naïve enough to rely on the legacy media for unvarnished news will have gone to bed Monday evening believing that the Supreme Court evaded its duty regarding Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell. Countless headlines had declared that the Court decided to “punt,” “skirt,” or otherwise dodge any meaningful action concerning the challenge to the HHS contraception mandate. In reality, SCOTUS handed the Little Sisters and the other petitioners with whom the Court consolidated their case a major victory in their protracted battle to defend religious liberties against the depredations of the Obama administration’s bureaucrats and lawyers.

In a unanimous opinion, the justices vacated all lower court rulings against the Little Sisters and the other petitioners. The term “vacated,” in this context, means that the Court has rendered those adverse decisions legally void. And the justices didn’t stop there. In order to protect the petitioners from further financial harm, they informed the Obama administration that it “may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners” pursuant to their continued refusal to abide by the contraception mandate or the so-called accommodation. Finally, the Court remanded the cases back to the relevant lower courts “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

All the Court had to do, then, was remand the cases to the lower courts with the following admonition, “Both parties agree that there is enough flexibility in the law and the regulation to find a compromise, so fix it!” And that’s what the Court did on Monday. Despite the dishonest reporting of the “news” media, the Court hasn’t punted, skirted, dodged, or passed on anything. The Obama administration was forced to admit that it has wasted the Supreme Court’s time on something that could have been resolved at the district court level. But the government doesn’t want resolution. It wants obedience. And it certainly gets that from the media.

This is on top of media interviews with guffaws about how the Administration used lies to sell its position on Obamacare and Iran Nuclear Programs, lies that the Democrats are opposing investigating in a solid block much as they have been blocking investigations into the Benghazi lies and deceit. Propaganda is one thing. Partisan political support for it as we are seeing now does not bode well.

Leave a Comment

Just how far can he go

The issue is Texas v U.S. on an executive order regarding the enforcement of immigration law. Paul Mirengoff on the Oral Argument in DAPA Case Highlights the Need to Block Merrick Garland.

Thus, the possibility of some sort of “compromise” decision cannot be ruled out. In that event, expect the non-liberal Justices to do the bulk of the compromising.
..
If, as expected, it turns out that the Court’s four liberal Justices are willing to uphold DAPA on the merits, thus enabling the president effectively to make a massive change in our immigration law with the stroke of his pen, this will highlight the importance of blocking Garland Merrick’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It will also demonstrate the need to obstruct, if possible, the nominee of the next president, if that president is a Democrat.

On big ticket items such as DAPA, Justices appointed by Democrats form a voting bloc so loyal to liberal presidents and their policy preferences that it’s hard to imagine where they might draw the line. Here, President Obama said he couldn’t do executive amnesty because he isn’t a king. Then, Obama went ahead with executive amnesty, stating that he had no choice because Congress wouldn’t cooperate — i.e., do what he wanted.

What should be a concern here is the “voting bloc so loyal to liberal presidents and their policy preferences” as that is a dereliction of duty by the judges on political grounds. The fact that it is so easy to predict the decisions of most of the judges and just who is doing the “compromising” is the tell on the validity of this concern. Unless, of course, you are in favor of an oligarchy or even a dictator if you can’t get the public to go along with your ideology.

Leave a Comment

Preposterous, climate consensus

Valerie Richardson notes that More studies rebut climate change consensus amid government crackdown on dissent, As the siege continues, it is evident that any area of weakness is getting reinforced.

“As the body of evidence refuting climate alarmism continues to balloon, the question of how the IPCC can continue ignoring it becomes ever more glaring,” said engineer Pierre L. Gosselin, who runs the NoTricksZone website and translates climate news from German to English.

In spite of that research — or maybe because of it — Democrats have renewed their efforts to clamp down on climate dissent.

Two weeks ago, 17 attorneys general — 16 Democrats and Mr. Walker, an independent — announced that they would investigate and prosecute climate-related “fraud,” citing investigations by journalism outlets accusing Exxon Mobil Corp. of stifling its own scientific research in support of the “settled science.”

While Exxon Mobil has denounced the accusations as “preposterous,” Mr. Walker followed up Thursday with a subpoena calling for the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s work on climate and energy policy from 1997 to 2007, including the nonprofit’s “private donor information,” the institute said.

There is kickback. Part is due to the gross abuse of basic freedoms. Part is also due to the fact that many of the accusations and allegations apply to the accusers and not the accused. Doubling down on insanity only makes the lunacy more obvious.

Leave a Comment

Why worry when the insane goes mainstream?

Can you imagine going back in time and asking the men preparing to land on the killing beaches of Normandy if they were fighting so that in the near future, confused men in dresses could be free to invade the ladies’ room? This would have made a great script for Tokyo Rose, whose broadcasts were aimed at sapping the morale of U.S. servicemen in the Pacific during World War II.

Robert Knight asks When a ‘progressive’ culture falters and notes that “The lunacy often comes with court decisions that defy common sense.”

The lunacy is coming in big batches, such as the bizarre presidential race, the collapse of civility and the daily outrages from Team Obama. And some of it’s hitting us in small ways, such as court outcomes that defy common sense.

Subway pays because footlong is represented to be a precise measure, driver license pictures can include a colander hat under the pretense of religion but religion is not enough to protect one from the LGBT assault. Boys are allowed to use girls bathrooms. And much of this is by threat of major corporations who are under threat from activist groups.

The protections, the walls of the castle, are failing. The siege pressure is mounting. The people are getting concerned. Lord knows what they will do if they really start to believe the defenses they have built are indeed failing them. 

Leave a Comment

Prosecutorial Abuse

Silence the critics! Walter Olson reports about CEI subpoenaed over climate wrongthink.

If the forces behind this show-us-your-papers subpoena succeed in punishing (or simply inflicting prolonged legal harassment on) groups conducting supposedly wrongful advocacy, there’s every reason to think they will come after other advocacy groups later. Like yours.

In these working groups of attorneys general, legal efforts are commonly parceled out among the states in a deliberate and strategic way, with particular tasks being assigned to AGs who have comparative advantage in some respect (such as an unusually favorable state law to work with, or superior staff expertise or media access).

This is happening at a time of multiple, vigorous, sustained legal attacks on what had been accepted freedoms of advocacy and association.

The absurdity of these efforts is illustrated by David French: Yes, Let’s Prosecute Climate-Change Fraud — and Start with the Scaremongers

The attorneys general of New York and California are on the warpath. They’re fed up with dissent over the science and politics of global warming, and they’re ready to investigate the liars. … Not to be outdone, Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed that the federal Department of Justice has “discussed” the possibility of civil suits against the fossil-fuel industry. The smell of litigation is in the air.

Some people are worried about little things like the “First Amendment,” “academic freedom,” and “scientific integrity.” Not me. I hate unscientific nonsense. So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases.

Environmental scaremongering is a lucrative business, and the evidence of exaggeration is everywhere. If Lynch, Harris, and Schneiderman file their first lawsuits now, they can file a second round by Christmas, when the season’s first snowflakes provide the next set of litigation targets — all the hysterics who predicted the end of snow.

Or maybe — just maybe — these liberal attorneys general aren’t truly interested in the truth and are instead radical ideologues hoping to shut down dissent. Perhaps they’re trying to advance their political careers by appeasing the social-justice Left and further establishing the new pagan religion of environmentalism. There is a chance that we can’t trust the government to be fair.

A nation can’t sue its way into clarity, but it can sue its way into oppression. The First Amendment still matters. Rather than settle scores, let’s extend the debate.

A more insidious part of this issue is in the a priori assumption that anyone raising any question regarding climate alarmism is scientifically illiterate and should be laughed at. The climate “deniers” are often brought up in all sorts of contexts to illustrate a horrific social problem of people who refuse reality. The people that make this analogy should look in the mirror but their belief system and hubris and group think lead them astray. They don’t realize that they illustrate their own illiteracy be poor problem definition, polar grouping, straw man building and other logical fallacies.

The problem is that it isn’t a debate but rather an argument. A debate requires intellectual integrity and careful listening to the ideas and reasoning provided. An argument is where one or both sides refuse to listen and do what they can to force their views into acceptance. What Olson illustrates is that the efforts to shut down critics is potent, creative, and persistent. French shows just how destructive such efforts can be.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

How do you fight Goliath?

William Perry Pendley: When the National Park Service overreaches — “The federal government is a terrible neighbor and a worse landlord.”

A tale out of Washington State, however, involving a private concessionaire within a unit of the National Park Service (NPS), reveals that the federal government is a worse landlord, one that holds the rights of its tenants in the lowest regard, believes itself unconstrained by the law of the land, and uses its power and its hundreds of lawyers to beat American citizens into submission. Whether it will get away with such tactics this time remains to be seen.

Find the Coyote Blog for more tales of how the government treats concessionaires. It is ugly.

Leave a Comment