She Avoided, Again

Posted on by
1

Last month, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was gang-raped and murdered by illegal aliens in Houston, TX. Last Saturday, Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris traveled to Houston to campaign for her nomination and then for office. However, she lacked the courtesy—even the courage—to visit with Jocelyn’s parents; she was reluctant, apparently, to face the possibility of having to explain the role her open border position might have played in their daughter’s rape and murder.

This, though, is of a piece with Harris’ visit to Border Patrol facilities in El Paso, TX, shortly after her boss, Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden assigned her the responsibility of overseeing the security of our southern border, or as the press had it before they began trying to purge their history, assigned her the role of Border Czar. On that visit, Harris was in the area, but she declined actually to go to the border itself.

All of this, insulting as it is to young Jocelyn’s memory and to her parents, is part and parcel with Harris’ strongly held position of open borders and her holding that illegal aliens shouldn’t be illegal.

Pseudo-Support, Two Ways

Posted on by
Reply

Pennsylvania’s Progressive-Democrat governor Josh Shapiro claims to be pro-school choice, yet when the State’s Republican legislature passed a $100 million voucher program, he vetoed it: his fellow Progressive-Democrats in the legislature objected, and their opposition would have “complicated” passing the State’s upcoming budget bill. Shapiro used his Party opposition as cover for his closet opposition to support for non-public school programs. Never mind that the same Republican legislature could have passed the State’s budget bill over continuing Party opposition.

Then there’s this claim by an organizer of a letter to Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris opposing any thought of her nominating Shapiro to be her running mate:

He is far too supportive of school privatization to be the vice president. We don’t need to be soft on this issue because public education is the cornerstone of our democracy.

Education certainly is a cornerstone of our (republican) democracy. There’s nothing magic about public education, though, especially in today’s world where public education districts, run for the most part by teachers unions, are so badly failing our students.

Pseudo-support for voucher schools and pseudo-support for education in general, each with the same Progressive-Democrat at the center—these are the positions of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

It’s Out

Posted on by
Reply

My latest Peter Hunt novel, Dodger, is out and available in Kindle format on Amazon. See my Author Page link in the sidebar.

“Blackmail targets generally fall into two categories in this modern age.” He cocked an eyebrow at that. “One—” thumb up “—the blackmailee really does have something to be blackmailed over. There are subcategories of that.” Index finger up. “The other is the blackmailee is innocent as that chair you’re sitting in, but he’s being scammed by somebody with a good photoshop package. Some folks are timid enough or exposed enough in other ways—a delicate reputation in a sensitive line of work, maybe—to be bothered by the attempt.”

I mentioned sub categories. One—” thumb again “—is the blackmailee really did the thing he’s being blackmailed over. The other—” index finger; I resisted pointing it at him “—is he did something he doesn’t want exposed, maybe is blackmailable, maybe just embarrassing, and he doesn’t want that out during the blackmail about the thing he didn’t do.”

And then Peter Hunt’s client fired him from the blackmail case.

Not too long after that, a hitter took a run at him, and while he’s at the police station reporting the matter in detail, he learns that other hitters had run at his pseudo-niece, Trang Thi Thao, who was chasing a lead on her late sister’s drug supplier.

Hunt decided it was time for Plan C.

I looked from one to the other and said, “Time for me to go to Plan C.”

“I don’t like Plan C,” Thao said.

“You don’t even know what Plan C is.”

“It’s one after Plan B, which means it’s even more desperate and risky and with even less chance of succeeding.”

“What happened to Plan B?” Jackie said.

“Way things are going, it’s time to skip ahead,” I said. “Get out in front.”

Jackie said, “You’ve been out front all along. You’ll get shot. Again.”

“Out front is different from out in front. One of those nuancicals. Been shot before. I’m still here. Besides, if I do, we’ll know who they are and where they are. If I don’t, we’ll still know who they are and where they are. Win-win.”

Jackie said, “And just what is this Plan C of yours, O Wise One?”

“I’ll let you both know right after I figure it out.”

A Supreme Court Justice Doesn’t Understand our Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has a very good code of ethics—pronounced so by no less a light than Justice Elena Kagan—but it lacks teeth sufficient enough to suit that same light. So Kagan wants—and she’s serious—a panel of lower court judges to pass judgment on claimed ethics violations done by a Justice.

There’s a problem with that. Here’s what Art III, Section 1, of our Constitution says about our courts and our judges and Justices:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The editors of the WSJ understand this full well:

The Supreme Court was established by the Constitution, but the lower courts were created by Congress. A lower-court tribunal would therefore subject the High Court to supervision by a creature of Congress, which is constitutionally dubious.

It’s not just dubious; such a travesty would be a blatant violation of the separation of powers that our Constitution has created for our Federal government.

How is it that the Light of the Supreme Court does not understand this?

How Concerned?

Posted on by
Reply

Just the News recently ran a poll of its readers—entirely unscientific, since the respondents are far from a random sample even of readers of JtN, and JtN makes no bones about this with any of its polls—that asked How concerned were you by FBI Director Wray’s testimony on attempt to assassinate Trump? regarding FBI Director Christopher Wray’s initial House testimony that he couldn’t be sure that Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, in the recent assassination attempt, was hit by a bullet—it might have been, speculated Wray, a piece of shrapnel.

You can guess how the poll went (I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two won’t count), but that’s not what’s important here.

What’s important is the speed with which “the FBI” reacted to pushback on that “uncertainty” and moved to correct/adjust Wray’s testimony to indicate that Wray was, after all, confident that Trump was hit by a bullet. The initial testimony and the clarification, especially as it was a response to the hooraw over that initial testimony, when taken together are concerning: the whipsaw change suggestd that the FBI and its Director were not thinking overmuch about what actually had happened.

What has become of the FBI’s claim to operate on facts, wherever those facts might lead? What has become of Wray’s respect for facts?