They Knew…

Posted on by
Reply

…or they did not. Regarding the massive welfare fraud going on in Minnesota, a (Republican-led) House Oversight and Accountability Committee report says that Minnesota’s Progressive-Democratic Party governor, Tim Walz, and the State’s Progressive-Democratic Party Attorney General, Keith Ellison, knew all about it from early on and made the conscious decision to do nothing about it, instead choosing to punish those officials rude enough to object to the fraud.

There are two possibilities here. One is for Walz and Ellison to deny all knowledge, either directly or via weasel-word deflections. In this case, the two would be lying through their teeth.

The other possibility is that they wouldn’t be lying in denials, and they really didn’t know about all that fraud occurring under that not so watchful eyes. In this case, they would be confessing their incompetence and unfitness for senior (or any other) government position.

With either possibility and with the Progressive-Democratic Party’s continued support for them or for either of them, Party will be demonstrating its general unfitness for any leading role in our government.

Not Relevant

Posted on by
Reply

There is a property dispute in Wisconsin centered on a property owner owning a stretch of lake front beach and a neighbor who insists on traipsing across that private property beach, often with his dog, despite repeated warnings, signs, and calls to the police to get him to stop. It even went to trial, and the trespasser fined some $313.

But that’s not the end of it.

In response to the fine, the trespasser

argues it is absurd to say he could wade past but not put a foot higher up the shore.

His pretense here is from his arrogance. It doesn’t have to be not absurd to him; the distinction is set by law, it is quite clear, and all he need do is obey it. His arrogance doesn’t stop there, though.

My personality is such that if I’m confronted with it I don’t back away from [the argument over his access to the property owner’s property[.]

As if his arrogance justifies anything.

And this argument from the presiding judge, who despite her remark, had the integrity to rule on what the law says rather than what she thought it ought to say:

…a decision favoring the landowner over the public was out of touch with the practices in other states.

This isn’t relevant. We’re a federal republic. What other States do regarding privately owned beachfront property has nothing to do with how Wisconsin treats privately owned beachfront property. “Out of touch with the practices in other states” is a non sequitur.

Dominic Green Asked

Posted on by
Reply

In his lede, Green asked

Which is worse, a young Englishman bleeding out in handcuffs while police ignore his cries for help, or the vice president of the United States expressing his opinion about it?

What JD Vance, the supposedly miscreant Vice President, said was this:

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies, abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, through his spokesman (apparently because Starmer is too timid to speak for himself on this),:

accus[ed] unnamed foreigners of “trying to interfere in our democracy and seeking to stir up division on our streets….”

How does Green’s question even exist? Given the naked bigotry demonstrated by the British police and by the government that created that police department, there can be no question of relative morality here. The one is an accurate commentary; the other is naked, state-sanctioned, and this time murderous, bigotry.

Nor was Vance’s statement in any way an interference in British democracy. There was no push for the British to do anything differently, only an objection to what that government has chosen to allow on its streets. If there was any pressure from Vance’s remarks, it was only because his words struck hard into what passes for a conscience in that government’s collective mind.

There’s a hint on the whole interfere in our democracy matter, though:

The administration-adjacent Elon Musk, whose X website outflanks Britain’s speech laws, told his 28.5 million followers to share the Nowak footage “to everyone you know,” so that all can see how the police “cravenly kowtowed to his murderer.”

Outflanks Britain’s speech laws. Maybe the nation that increasingly restricts what is permissible speech and that increasingly shrivels religious freedom is becoming less and less a democracy in the first place.

A Time for Choosing

Posted on by
Reply

New York’s Congressional 10th District is a microcosm of the choices we face. The Progressive-Democratic Party primary features two far Left candidates. One is Dan Goldman, who is a virulent Never Trumper, to the point his Congressional votes are based on that rather than on any real policy objections, and an increasingly strident anti-Israel politician, to the point of working with ex-President Joe Biden (D) to deny Israel’s access to some of the weapons needed to defend itself against Hamas.

The other is  Brad Lander, former New York City Comptroller and an open, enthusiastic supporter of Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohan Mamdani. Lander shares Mamdani’s naked antipathy for Israel and is openly antisemitic.

The choices come down to this. Progressive-Democrats must choose between a Never Trumper and anti-Israel politician and a candidate who, far beyond being merely anti-Israel, is both antisemitic and pro-Palestinian, the latter with no distinction between Palestinian civilians and the Palestinian terrorists epitomized by Hamas.

After primary season, we Americans in general must choose between a Republican party whose small-government positions are eroding but still leaning that way and a Progressive-Democratic Party that is rapidly strengthening its big, intrusive government ideology; is increasingly incapable of working with Trump or anything Republican; and that is, in this context, increasingly opposed to the only Middle East democracy and staunch US ally while actively strengthening its antisemitic bigotry.

Irrelevant

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing struggle between Progressive-Democrat-run States and the Federal government, the Attorneys General of New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont have filed suit in the DC District Court in an attempt to undo an administration deal with TotalEnergies that has the latter ceasing its US-centered offshore wind projects and instead starting work on developing US oil and natural gas projects.

The Progressive-Democrat AGs’ argument centered on this:

We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy[.]

The “illegal agreement” bit is nakedly conclusory and has no merit in any guise. Stipulate the other factors are accurately presented. They are, though, purely business decisions made within a political and economic framework that is solely within the purview of the political branches—i.e., those two which are elected by We the People—and regarding which, the courts have nothing legitimate to say.

The AGs’ argument is wholly irrelevant and without merit in court. It is worthy of debate in the Congress and the White House only.

The role of judges. and of Justices who are a subset of that group and sit at the group’s top, under our form of government is to check the political branches from excess. Their means of doing so are at once powerful and limited. Judges must apply our Constitution as it is written, and must assess the constitutionality of any statute before them in a particular case. If the judges determine the statute to be constitutional, they must apply it as it is written. If they find the statute unconstitutional, they must strike it.

In particular, judges may not alter or disregard any part of our Constitution in favor of their own view of what it ought to be in order to achieve their own view of societal needs or of justice. Nor are they permitted to alter in any way the statute before them to suit those personal views of societal needs or of justice; they must strike it or apply it.

The deal between the administration and TotalEnergies is entirely legitimate from a legal standpoint, and it should be upheld in the district court, the DC Circuit, and at the Supreme Court.