Unconstitutional

Beto O’Rouke – flirting with the idea of running for president with all the grace of an elementary school choir singing a medley from Les Miserables – discusses his take on the Constitution.

Caveat: I did not make this up. Emphasis added by me.

“I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke said. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?

More and more, I’m starting to believe those who do believe we can, and must, govern ourselves by those principles should seek an amicable divorce from those who can’t.

The Nice Thing About Being A Democrat…

…is that you can be a corrosive, giggly bigot, and nobody will ever, ever call you on it.

I add the emphasis:

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle implied without evidence Tuesday that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) has something to hide and the president is blackmailing him over it.
Graham has become one of the President Donald Trump’s staunchest allies in the Senate, although he has criticized him for some key decisions, such as the military pullout from Syria. Ruhle seemed to imply there’s more to their relationship than politics, however, during a discussion about Graham with former Rep. David Jolly and professor Eddie Glaude.
“Before Don got elected, Lindsey Graham called Donald Trump a racist, xenophobic bigot. Those are Lindsey Graham’s words,” Jolly said. “I doubt Lindsey Graham could tell you Donald Trump has had a change of heart in the last 24 months, I bet the change of heart has been with Lindsey Graham, not the president.”
“Or it could be that Donald Trump or somebody knows something pretty extreme about Lindsey Graham,” Ruhle replied. “We’re gonna have to leave it there.”
The smirk Ruhle produced when she spoke suggests she was referring to rumors about Graham’s sexuality, which some Democrats have been trumpeting anew recently. Jon Cooper, chairman of the Democratic Coalition super PAC, explicitly accused Graham on Saturday of letting himself be blackmailed for “some pretty serious kink.”

Did I say “Nice thing?”

I meant “horrible, Orwellian, evil” thing.

The Rhetorical Equivalent Of The Moral Equivalent Of War

Why is it that the party that claims to eschew war (while getting us into most of the wars we’ve had since 1900) can’t keep its mitts off of militaristic rhetoric?

Big Left’s “Green New Deal” is, like nearly every gigantistic utopian Big Left enterprise since the Wilson Administration, the “moral equivalent of war” – requiring the nation to organize its economy along military lines, albeit without saying the “M” word.

Jonah Goldberg:

…the important point is that ever since philosopher William James coined the phrase the “moral equivalent of war,” American liberalism has been recycling the same basic idea: The country needs to be unified and organized as if we are at war, but not to fight a literal battle. The attraction stems from what John Dewey called “the social possibilities of war” — the ability to reorganize and unify society according to the schemes of planners and experts.
This was the through line of 20th-century liberalism, and now 21st-century liberalism, too. Wilson’s war socialism, FDR’s New Deal, Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, Jimmy Carter’s declaration that the energy crisis was a “moral equivalent of war,” and Barack Obama’s “new foundation for growth,” with his Thomas Friedman-inspired talk about “Sputnik moments”: It’s all the same idea gussied up as something new.
Another irony: The militaristic organization of the domestic economy is a hallmark of nationalist movements. But nationalism is a dirty word among liberals today.
Instead, they name-check a thoroughly nationalistic enterprise, the New Deal, and slap the word “Green” in front of it as if it were a fresh coat of paint.

If it got out that migrants mocked and taunted intersectional theory, I’d guess Big Left would appropriate the idea of a border wall, too.

Your Lying Ledger

A “Shoprite” store in Philadelphia is closing due to Philadelphia’s pop tax. 

Or so says the owners – someone with years of experience in the field, for what that’s worth:

Store owner Jeff Brown says this location has lost approximately 25 percent of its business over the last two years because of the tax on soda and sweetened drinks. 

The city, not to be “Mansplained”…er, “Bossplained?” “Enterepreneursplained?” Anyway, not to be taken to task by a mere prole, the city responded:

The mayor’s office responded with a lengthy statement pushing back against Brown.
“It is no surprise that Mr. Brown has decided to scapegoat the Philadelphia Beverage Tax, but neither he nor the beverage industry have yet to present any evidence that the tax has had any impact on sales. Here’s evidence to the contrary: an ongoing study by three of the most reputable academic institutions in the nation (Harvard University, Johns Hopkins and the University of Pennsylvania) finds the beverage tax has not affected overall store sales, contrary to other public claims by this supermarket chain.”
Brown says the 111 employees will be transferred to his 12 other supermarkets.

Anyone but me suspect hat Mr. Brown’s going to get an audit letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue sometime soon here?

Up next: a Harvard Study on how taxes have nothing to do with “Food Deserts”, no way, no how.

Legalizing Harassment

I’ve got a few pro-gun-control friends who say “I support common sense restrictions on people who shouldn’t have guns…”

So does every gun rights supporter.

“…including Red Flag Laws”

OK, we need to talk.

“Red Flag” laws have a bunch of problems:

1) They allow anyone – literally, anyone you’ve had a personal, business, romantic or habitation relationship with – to go to a judge and tell any story they want, literally, without you being there to defend yourself. And if a judge – whatever their motivations – agrees, then you’ll have armed cops swarming over your house, no different than if they’re serving a warrant on a drug dealer. By the way – Swat teams going after “armed subjects” have “assault rifles”, and get nervous.

What could go wrong?

2) You say you want to prevent suicide? OK – let’s say you actually *are* a danger to yourself. The laws allow the cops to take…your guns. Not the booze and sleeping pills, the rope, the gas ovens, the cars, the razor blades. They cart your guns away and apparently say “At least they won’t *shoot* themselves.”

Brilliant, huh?

And the thing is, there’s an actual law already on the books in Minnesota (253.05) that already allows people with legitimate concerns to get a 72 hour hold *for cause*, that *actually* is intended to keep people from hurting themselves!

3) And if someone is a danger to others? They, like Nik Cruz, have been legitimately threatening to hurt *others*? Yep, there’s a law for that – MN statute 518.01, if memory serves, which allows the cops to preventatively arrest people *for legitimate cause* if there’s an actual threat to *other people*.

“Red Flag” laws are less effective at preventing suicide than existing statute. They *do* less than current law at preventing actual crimes.

What *are* they good for?

Harassing law-abiding gun owners. Seriously – some local gun control activists have already promised to “Swat” local second amendment leaders if the laws pass. And you can already see the wheels turning in the minds of some sleazy divorce lawyers and political opposition researchers out there.

In states where these sorts of laws have been passed, that’s exactly what’s happened.

They are useless in dealing with suicide and crime, and good only for harassment.

What’s the defense?

And if your idea of a “defense” is “We’ve got to dooooooooo something” – just no. What you propose to doooooooo is worse than useless.

But give it a shot.

An Overlord Is An Overlord

Are the big online content providers – Google, Facebook, Netflix and the like – eroding free speech to make doing business internationally easier?

Remember – while free markets will trend toward free speech, the Silicon Valley giants are not free markets; they are to their various corners of the ‘net at best industrious but regulation-made Germans or Swedes, and at worst – Facebook and Twitter – Red Chinese in hoodies and sneakers instead of Mao jackets.

They are bureaucracies – and bureaucracies crave uniformity. The kind of uniformity that only partnership and acuiescence with Big Government can give them.

Kevin Wiliamson:

It took a remarkably short time for the ethic of the Internet to devolve from “Information wants to be free!” to “Follow the rules blindly!” The danger is the California-emissions dynamic, i.e. the tendency of the most demanding and restrictive standard among a group of competing standards to become the de facto universal standard in that it allows a single consistent mode of production. In the United States, 16 states follow California’s auto-emissons standards rather than the national standard, which has made the California standard the effective national standard for many manufacturers. In a similar way, it will be tempting — it already is tempting — to make China the worldwide arbiter of free-speech standards for global technology companies and other international carriers. If you think that a commitment to “artistic freedom” is going to prevent that, go to the movies: The remake of Red Dawn originally was about a Chinese invasion of the United States; after protests from Beijing, it became the story of a ludicrous North Korean invasion. The New York Times submits to censorship abroad.




Read the whole thing.

Because we’ve all got to demand better.

Leyes De Seguridad De Armas De “Common Sense”

Some Venezuelans are realizing something that we Real Americans have been tryihg to explain to Califorians, New Yorkers, New Jersey-ites and Connecti…cutters (?); that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has nothing to do with hunting, and is only coincidentally about self-defense against criminals.

They’re figuring it out

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Chavez initially ran a months-long amnesty program encouraging Venezuelans to trade their arms for electrical goods. That year, there were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures – more than 12,500 – were by force.

…just a tad too late.

Liberals scoff when Real Americans talk about guns being a bulwark against tyranny.

Perhaps because they’re OK with tyranny.

Why Are Progressives Such Miserable People?

If I’ve noticed anything about radical progressives, it’s that they tend to be intensely angry – and desperately unhappy.

Why?

Here’s the story, from someone who’s been there.

Excerpt from the conclusion

Young adults often become radicals after they realize the immensity of the cruelty and malevolence in the world. They reject a society that tolerates such suffering. They sanctify justice as their telos. But without truth to orient justice, seekers of justice will crash and crash again into reality, and will craft increasingly nightmarish and paranoid ideological analyses, burning out activists, destroying lives through jail or abuse, and leaving the world an uglier, more painful place. To paraphrase Alice Dreger, there is no justice without wisdom, and no wisdom without surrender to uncertainty in the pursuit of truth.

The whole thing’s worth a read.

Think about it when looking at the new DFL majority in Saint Paul.

When You Think It’s Got To Be “Babylon Bee”…

But it’s not:

The head of politics at Cambridge University has called for children as young as six to be given the vote in an attempt to tackle the age bias in modern democracy.

Prof David Runciman said the ageing population meant young people were now “massively outnumbered”, creating a democratic crisis and an inbuilt bias against governments that plan for the future.

In the latest episode of his podcast, Talking Politics, he said lowering the voting age to 16 was not radical enough to address the problem.

But then again… maybe it is?

“What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting, it would make elections more fun. It is never going to happen in a million years but as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not? Why not six-year-olds?

On the one hand, it seems like a terrible idea.

On the other hand, the rhetoric of campaigns like those from “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” wouldn’t need to be especially rewritten.

White Liberal Gilt

A friend of the blog writes:

Those young, progressive, priveleged white men who fight their older progressive, priveleged counterparts are just so entertaining. Here, the new executive director of Union Park District Council is essentially calling some of the people in Union Park racist because they are opposing large development projects in their backyards.

He, and other young progressives, cry about lack of affordability (for some other group of unknown people), while they live in their single family homes in Mac Groveland or Highland Park (as is the case for this director.) Thinking about affordability, I wonder how these young, just out of college people afford their houses in neighborhoods like Mac Groveland or Highland Park. Thinking about racism, I wonder why these young, privileged white people chose those neighborhoods instead of the more transit connected, affordable neighborhoods in the city…

Urban Progressive Privilege – when nobody who matters in your social and vocation circle will ever call you on “inconsistencies” like this.

I’ve found that the correlation between these young non-profiteers and old Saint-Paul-DFL money is really, really high.

Snivel Your Sidewalks. I Mean Shovel. Shovel Your Sidewalks.

After seven nastygrams from the City of Minneapolis, Councilwoman Lisa Bender got her sidewalk shoveled by the city, and a $149 fine to prove it.

Bender – a far-far-far left DFLer famous for compelling the City to clear bike lanes in the dead of winter that nearly nobody uses when the weather is gorgeous – reacted with grace and equianimity.

Of course I’m kidding.  She’s accusing the Strib of mansplaining.

Er, manshovelling.

Anyway, she’s accusing the Strib:

And…Trump!

Jeremiah Ellison is a permanent city payroll receiver. Er, I mean, city council…well, it’s a distinction without a difference.

Trump Trump Trump!

Don’t you peons get it?  TRUMP!  And MANSPLAINING!  MISOGYNY WOMYN KITTY HAT RESISTANCE ANTIFA YOUTUBE PANTSSUIT!

Dang conservative Strib.

Urban Progressive Privilege:  when everything you do can be defended by citing things your opponents never did.

Faded Glory

I’ve wanted for years if the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shouldn’t, in the interest of intellectual honesty, change its name to the “Manhattan, San Francisco and other Blue cities Civil Liberties Union”. It’s been that long since they represented civil liberties that weren’t popular/convenient among that set.

Classic example Dash they think the “Heller” decision was just a big mistake, and that “US vs. Miller” should still be the defining president regarding the Second Amendment.

David Bernstein at Reason agrees:

Since the George W. Bush administration, the ACLU’s dedication to its traditional civil libertarian mission has waned ever further. With the election of Donald Trump, its membership rolls have grown to almost two million, almost all of them liberal politically, few of whom are devoted to civil liberties as such. Meanwhile, the left in general has become less interested in, and in some cases opposed to, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the rights of the accused.

Future historians will have to reconstruct exactly how and why the tipping point has been reached, but the ACLU’s actions over the last couple of months show that the ACLU is no longer a civil libertarian organization in any meaningful sense, but just another left-wing pressure group, albeit one with a civil libertarian history.

Next, you’ll be telling me that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become more of a hate group then the groups it used to track…

Paranoid

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is waiting in line at Sorrento Cucina in the Minneapolis skyway.  He sees Avery LIBRELLE coming around a corner.  The thought of trying to slip away into the crowd visibly crosses his mind.    But the lure of Sorrento’s delicious sausige  conflicts him long enough that LIBRELLE notices him.  

LIBRELLE:  Merg!

BERG:  Hey, Avery.  What’s up?

LIBRELLE:  With the incoming Democrat House of Representatives in Saint Paul, we’re going to stick it to all you gun-lickers!

BERG:  Huh.  Yeah, I see that the incoming Speaker, Melissa Hortman, says that even though Minnesota has one of the lowest murder rates in the United States, and perhaps the lowest murder rate among states with a top-20 metro area, she’s going to make “gun violene” her #1 priority.

Not the educational achievement gap.  Not economic development in the Iron Range.  Not even anything that’ll have a meaningful impact on urban crime.

LIBRELLE:   Merg!  Don’t you read the papers?  Mass shootings are going on all over the place!  Our schools are charnel houses!  Our malls and gay bars are abattoirs!    Everywhere you go, you are in danger from mass shootings!

BERG:  The rate of spree killings isn’t correlated with the presence of civilian firearms – although it is correlated with “gun free zones” – but schools are the safest they’ve been in decades as re overall gun crime…

LIBRELLE:  I don’t care about overall crime!  Mass shootings are a constant factor of life!  They can hit you any time!  They can’t be predicted…

BERG: …other than being in “gun free zones”…

LIBRELLE:  …and any time you leave your house you’re in constant danger of being gunned down by a white guy with an AR47!

BERG:  Huh.  Now, it’s academic to me, since all my guns fell into Mille Lacs over the summer – but it things really are that dire and serious out there…

LIBRELLE:  They are!  They are!

BERG:  …then it’d be prudent and common sense to decide to carry a firearm to defend myself and those around me from this apparently constant and imminent threat.

LIBRELLE:  Good Lord, Merg – you’re so paranoid!

BERG:  Clearly.

And SCENE

Prescription For Overreach

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Activist medical doctors want to make public policy as if it were infectious disease policy.  They advocate limits on sale of firearms.  The National Rifle Association advised them to ‘stay in their lane’ and the doctors are indignant that their opinions are not being sufficiently venerated.  The NRA was right.  There’s a reason the Founders didn’t delegate drafting the Constitution to blood-letters and leeches.

Being awarded a medical degree give no special insight into the effect of solar radiation on atmospheric conditions; we need not listen to doctors about laws relating to climate change.  Practicing trauma medicine gives no special insight into whether the Book of Ruth was inspired by the Holy Spirit; we need not listen to doctors about matters of religious doctrine.  Being shot gives no special insight into the historical underpinnings of the rights of Englishmen to keep and bear arms, or the intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution; we need not listen to doctors about gun control legislation.

Even if medical doctors had special insight, they’re not applying it to this debate.  The public health model of infectious disease control requires doctors to identify the cause of the disease (bacteria or virus), quarantine the carriers to minimize outbreak, and devise behaviors to avoid spreading it (sanitary sewer, wash hands, wear a mask, get a vaccine).

Being shot is not a “disease.”  There’s no virus causing it.  There’s no vaccine to prevent it.  It’s strictly a behavioral problem but doctors are not advocating quarantine of the people mostly responsible for spreading it (longer prison terms) or ‘vaccinating’ people likely to spread it (change the culture of underclass youth).  Instead, they want everyone to give up cupcakes because the obese ate too many of them.

They see coattails to latch onto.

Insufficient Ardour

Stephen Colbert – as much a symptom of everything annoying about America’s culture of Urban Progressive Privilege as he is a celebrity in his own right – made a semi-rare sensible post on his Facebook page.

There were consequences:

Is anybody else getting flashbacks to the Citizens Committees of the French revolution?

Buyer’s Remorse

Rachel Packer at Marie Claire tells us that Trump makes her regret adopting her Chinese daughters:

But now I worry that we made a tragic mistake.

I pulled those two beautiful babies away from a rising power and into a damaged democracy. I brought two girls of color into a society where it’s clear that their word and their bodies are worth less than a man’s—and where open, overt racism has become even more likely now than it was a decade ago. And unfortunately, my worries aren’t exactly tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoia.

After which she carries on with a couple column-feet of tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoia and unhinged virtue-signaling.

I bring this up not so much to castigate Ms. Packer’s dubious grasp of reality, but to illustrate what seems to matter to liberals; freedom from want, from cognitive dissonance, from opposition, rather than, well, freedom.

Lord, I hope those girls grow up to be conservatives.

Life In A One-Party Town

In the past few months, I’ve been treated to the sight of Saint Paulites – almost all of them people who’d never dream of voting for anything but a DFLer – reacting with Major-Renault-like shock, shock, that…

  • Saint Paul’s Mafia-style trash-collection system costs more, offers fewer options and miserable customer service, all delivered with the sort of arrogance we’ve come to expect from Saint Paul’s government (Motto: “Government is the things we do together, arrogantly and imcompetently”).
  • Mayor Carter’s shunting of budget from police and fire to “Sustainability” (e.g. institutional virtue-signaling) would pave the way for more crime
  • The Soccer stadium, ballyhooed as the core of an urban renaissance with green space,  shops with walkable access and the rest of the urban planning buzzwords – is going to wind up being precisely the plutocrat plaything in the middle of a sea of asphalt that all of us skeptics predicted.

And, now, Saint Paul’s school-building spree turns out to make the Pentagon look like a Bemidji Norwegian Lutheran church’s decoration committee.

St. Paul Public Schools vastly underestimated the cost of an ambitious 2016 plan to improve the look and function of every building it owns.

Eight major school projects that got underway last year will cost the district a total of $214 million, according to the latest figures from the school district.

That’s $63 million more than the district estimated in 2016, a Pioneer Press analysis has found, a difference of 42 percent.

New estimates for the next eight large projects, all scheduled to break ground in the coming five years, total $220 million. That’s $91 million, or 70 percent, higher than the 2016 estimate.

There will be shock.

And then a majority of them will vote for an even further-left Democrat next election.  ∂

Miscarriage Of Justice – Part II

Yesterday, I started telling the story of Dr. Massoud Amin – a man who came to the US as a teenager with his parents after the Iranian Revolution, became a citizen, and rose to the highest levels not only of academia, but of national security, as one of the nation’s foremost experts in cybersecurity.

And then, in the middle of a rancorous divorce with more than a whiff of academic backstabbing mixed in, an overzealous prosecutor turned a paperwork discrepancy in a civil divorce filing into, literally, a criminal case.

Pursuant to that case, the prosecutor and the police searched Dr. Amin’s house, and confiscated Dr. Amin’s firearm collection,  planting the story of “The Iranian professor who collected a bunch of guns and swindled his soon-to-be-ex” – simultaneously defaming him to the left (“Serves the gun nut right!”) and the less-bright parts of the right (“Probably a terrorist!”).

The trial?  It was a comedy of errors – but not remotely funny.   All exculpatory evidence was suppressed, and that was just the beginning.   The ending?   A conviction – aided  by bizarre courtroom antics and some sketchy lawyering on both sides.

The prosecution is asking for a ten year prison sentence for a conviction that normally carries a years’ suspended sentence and probation for a first-time offender – which Dr. Amin, who held a top-secret security clearance until the conviction, most assuredly was.

Why so much irregularity in what started as a typical ugly American divorce?

We’ll be talking with Dr. Massoud about that this Saturday on my show.   Tune in, and call in if you havre questions.

Darn All That Republican Rhetoric

I’ve become convinced that the greatest ever in rotation of Berg’s 7th law has been this past two decades’ drum beat of promises that there is “an avalanche of right wing terrorism” just around the corner.

Any day now.

Honest.

Actor James Cromwell predicts – I would say it’s more like “calls for” – “revolution” if the Republicans win the midterms:

Speaking to Variety at the event, he warned of the turn that he sees America taking and cautioned there will be “blood in the streets” if Republicans remain in control.

“This is nascent fascism. We always had a turnkey, totalitarian state — all we needed was an excuse, and all the institutions were in place to turn this into pure fascism,” Cromwell said. “If we don’t stop [President Trump] now, then we will have a revolution for real. Then there will be blood in the streets.”

The star, who previously played George H.W. Bush in Oliver Stone’s “W,” echoed these sentiments during his acceptance speech, where he warned that he believes the country is headed toward the possibility of a violent revolution.

“We’re living in very curious times, and something is coming up which is desperately important to this country and to this planet, and that is an election, in which hopefully in some measure we are going to take back our democracy,” he said. “We will have a government that represents us and not the donor class. We will cut through the corruption, [and] we won’t have to do what comes next, which is either a non-violent revolution or a violent one, because this has got to end.”

I don’t think members of the “elite” Realize how many Americans are ready to take him up on that. I don’t think it’s going to go nearly as well as they – Cromwell – think it will.

Miscarriage Of Justice – Part I

Last year, a story broke that had a little something for everyone – where by “everyone” you’re referring to “incurious, uncritical consumers of shabby information”.

It involved a professor from the University of MInnesota, Dr. Massoud Amin.   Amin was convicted of “Theft by Swindle” for, it was alleged, concealing funds from his soon-to-be ex wife during a nasty divorce.

We’ll come back to that.

The story got liberals exercised because Amin was a gun collector (with, dare I say, a penchant for finding bargains).   That is a classic dog whistle for the left.

And for the, shall we say, less bright on the right?   A middle-eastern sounding name like Amin’s is enough to get the “WATCH FOR TEH SHARIA” crowd into a froth.

And the media coverage of his divorce proceedings – including the swindle allegations – were decidedly unsympathetic.

Sentencing in his trial is scheduled for November 9.

The client is obviously guilty – right?

Not so fast.  And according to sources with close knowledge of the case, the charges and conviction are well beyond a miscarriage of justice; they were the tip of an iceberg of shenanigans – borne of malice up against incompetence at best, cynical ambition at worst, all  slathered with a layer of legalism.

And when you peel back the onion, you still have something for everyone – among critical thinkers, this time:

  • A divorce from hell
  • City bureaucrats hamfistedly persecuting a law-abiding gun owner
  • A legal process that reads like something between Michael Crichton and Franz Kafka, tainted by racism and amoral careerism
  • And, at the end of the day, an American who has done decades of groundbreaking work defending this country from cyberterrorism, facing ten years in prison for something that, even if it were a legitimate conviction.
  • Which, given the evidence I’ve encountered, it was not.

More tomorrow.

An Inconvenient Truth

The welfare state – in the US, the state that was put in place by Lyndon B Johnson’s “Great Society” – isn’t so much about “solving poverty” as it is about “making poverty a permanently sustainable state that can be exploited for political gain”.

We can argue the specifics, and maybe even the conclusion.

But let’s say that was not the case; if the Democrats weren’t trying to build a permanent underclass beholden to them with the welfare state, how would you better design such a thing as one would with the Great Society?

Because that’s how it worked.   Poverty in the US was in free fall until the nation “declared war” on it.:

 

Why We Need Money In Politics

If you can’t get the media to do anything but paint Democrats’ toenails on the air,  you have to get your own media to do it for you.

Of course, the conservative media that does exist – talk radio – largely reaches an echo chamber.  A smart, superlative echo chamber, but the proverbial choir nonetheless.

Doug Wardlow did something I’ve been dying for a Republican to do for years; put out an ad that tells the actual truth about Keith Ellison…

…that the likes of Esme Murphy or John Cronin will never, ever allow to cross their lips.

And it took money  – filthy lucre! – to get it on the air, to do the job the Twin Cities media will not.

And that’s why Democrats want campaign finance “reform”.

Heads, You’re Guilty; Tails, You’re Not Innocent

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Mitch wrote on Shot In The Dark about Rhode Island’s gun control recommendations.

The caption under the photo in the linked article Mitch linked to, shows the governor addressing a crowd just before signing legislation making it easier for police to remove guns from “violence prone individuals.”  This looks like an area ripe for abuse.

Historically, a person convicted of a felony-level act of violence loses the right to a gun.  But this law must go further, else there’s no need for a new law.  Are we extending the sanction to conviction for a misdemeanor-level act of violence?  Pushing?  Shoving?  Disturbing the Peace?

Do we even need a conviction?  How about suspicion of having committed an act of violence?  A dozen Democrats claim Justice Kavanaugh has been “credibly accused” of having committing an act of violence against Dr. Ford decades ago.  Is that enough to deprive him of his guns?

Do we need a suspicion that a person has actually committed an act of violence?  What if he’s only threatened an act of violence (“One of these days, Alice, bang, zoom, straight to the moon!”).  What if he hasn’t threatened it, but has considered it (“Somebody ought to belt you in the mouth, but I won’t”)?

What if there’s no evidence that he’s never said or done anything to suggest he might become violent, but a woman in tears says she’s afraid he might become violent and hurt her children.  That’s a common claim in custody battles.  Once the court has made a finding the man is potentially dangerous, there’s no way he’s ever going to get custody of his kids.  Is one party’s self-serving claim enough to deprive a man of his kids AND his guns?

What if someone finds out I’ve snorted derisively at the suggestion cross-dressers should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom – is that “violence” against the trans-gendered?  Are my guns at risk?

Well, no, not right away.  Not in this version of the statute.  It’s like the seat-belt law – in the initial version, there’s no fine.  Until next session, when it’s amended as part of the school funding bill so nobody can vote against it without being accused of hating children.  Until the prosecutor decides to demand your guns for a parking ticket, the judge appointed by the liberal Democrat governor goes along with it, and the judges on the court of appeals appointed by the liberal Democrat governor declare it was a harmless error which should not be overturned.  Next stop, Supreme Court, but how much lawyering can you afford?

Test cases are for other people.

And so will due process be, if the left has its way.