Monthly Archives: January 2016

More Spending, More Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a two-fer that only President Barack Obama could propose with a straight face.

The Obama administration is proposing to extend a financial sweetener the federal government offers states that expand their Medicaid programs, in a bid to persuade more to do so before the president leaves office.
White House officials said President Barack Obama will ask Congress to include three years of full federal funding of expansion for any state that extends eligibility for the program to most low-income residents. Officials said the proposal will be made in Mr Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget, to be released Feb 9.

More Federal spending. Billions of dollars of spending to persuade States to expand their Medicaid programs, an addictive “offer”—addiction to Federal dollars.

And that’s the foolishness. Obama is promising to do this for three more years. Three years in which to get the suckered States hooked on the Federal government’s street corner product.

This move of his hasn’t anything at all to do with low-income citizens. It has everything to do with vote pandering.

In an election year.

A State Appellate Court Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has postponed the trial of a police officer charged with second-degree murder in the death of Freddie Gray last April.

That officer was Caesar Goodson, the second officer to go on trial. The putative reason for the delay is the hung jury on the first trial, of William Porter. The Baltimore prosecutor has said that Porter’s testimony at Goodson’s trial (and at the trials of a number of the other officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death) is central to their case. With Porter still under trial, and with a Federal case against Porter still possible, his testimony could be incriminating, and the appellate court wants to fully adjudicate the legitimacy of the prosecution’s forcing Porter to testify.

So, for the sake of government convenience, another defendant’s trial is delayed, that defendant’s 6th Amendment right to a “speedy…trial” is annulled.

Of course, the prosecutor is prepared to proceed with the trial, pretty much by definition, else she would not have charged the defendant. That she finds it difficult to proceed without Porter is irrelevant. There’s nothing in that 6th Amendment that says “speedy…trial, except when the government demurs.”

This delay is wrong.

Progressives and Language

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party ex-Presidential candidate and Vice President Joe Biden had this to say, this time about our Constitution:

…Second Amendment says which he [Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (D, VT)] has of late, the Second Amendment says you can limit who can own a gun.

What the words on the Constitution’s parchment say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

However, to Progressives, words have exactly the meanings Progressives say they have. Not more, not less. And so “shall not,” of course means “shall.”

All the rest of us should just shut up. We don’t understand the words.

An Opportunity

Posted on by
Reply

…in the hands of competent authority.

ISIS fighters who fled to the terror group’s Iraqi stronghold of Mosul after being defeated in Ramadi were burned alive in the town square, sources told FoxNews.com, in an unmistakable message to fighters who may soon be defending the northern city from government forces.

Several residents of Mosul recounted the grisly story for stateside relatives, describing the deadly reception black clad jihadists got when they made it to Mosul….

Notice that. These were guys who’d either rejected the martyrdom of dying in place or who had recognized a lost position and departed in order to resume the fight in another place and time.

Here’s the opportunity: guys like this aren’t going to be allowed, in Tacitus’ words, to “fight and run away, To turn and fight another day.” No, they’ll die, anyway, a grisly death of the sort reserved for the enemies of the Daesh. So: make it easy for them to surrender rather than retreat.

Of course, that would require their Arab or Kurdish captors, of whatever sect of Islam, to treat them with some semblance of humanity. But that’s another opportunity, this time for Arabs and Kurds, of whatever sect of Islam, themselves.

A Definition of Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

The Global Terrorism Database has one (and scroll to Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism):

the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.

Notice that: no killings necessary to be an act of terrorism. No destruction necessary to be an act of terrorism. No definition of what constitutes violence. In the end, only the threat of…something…is necessary to be an act of terror.

Leave it to the Left (the GTD is an arm of the University of Maryland) to invent a version of terrorism that could include microaggressions, triggers, and on and on—all acts of “fear,” “coercion,” “intimidation” in the hearts of precious snowflakes and others terrified of disagreement or uncomfortable truths.

It’s true that the GTD picked up this definition from a predecessor; however, GTD has made no effort to tighten the definition at all. It’s only made its database searchable with criteria that let the searcher make up whatever definition of terrorism suits his narrative.

Microaggressions as terrorism. Triggers as terrorism. Hurt feelings as terrorism.

Hmm….