Monthly Archives: August 2016

PRC Provocation

Posted on by
Reply

This episode comes as President Barack Obama (D) continues his retreat from the global stage, a retreat with which Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is completely on board.

Six coast guard ships of the People’s Republic of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy escorted a large fleet of fishing vessels into the waters around Japan’s Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.  Japan was left to summon PRC diplomats and formally protest, as the Obama administration kept carefully silent on the matter.

Japan’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement it filed the protest after Japan’s coast guard spotted the vessels Saturday along with a fleet of 230 Chinese fishing boats swarming around the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands.

Of course, the PRC demanded that Japan not take “any action that could lead to a tense or complicated situation,” notwithstanding that it’s PRC behavior that’s provoking tensions and complications.

This action marks an escalation of PRC aggressiveness in the East and South China Seas since the PRC’s seizure of the South China Sea was ruled illegal by an international court in The Hague, and it’s an escalation encouraged by Obama’s considered silence.

Cynical

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit, in a mixed ruling, has said the trial court judge had erred in dismissing a collection of Tea Party suits he said had become “moot” because the IRS had apologized for its misbehavior and had said it had stopped such practices.

Of course, the IRS had said it had stopped—sort of—only conditionally.  DC Circuit Judge David Sentelle, writing for the majority (the ruling can be seen here), noted that the IRS only had suspended the screening “until further notice.”

A violation of right that is “suspended until further notice” has not become the subject of voluntary cessation, with no reasonable expectation of resumption, so as to moot litigation against the violation of rights. Rather, it has at most advised the victim of the violation—”you’re alright for now, but there may be another shoe falling.”

Sentelle took issue with “suspended,” understanding that suspension is not cessation.  He took separate issue with that “until further notice” bit, as noted above.

In fact, too, the IRS had not stopped at all.  As Sentelle noted,

…it is absurd to suggest that the effect of the IRS’s unlawful conduct, which delayed the processing of appellant-plaintiffs’ applications, has been eradicated when two of the appellant-plaintiffs’ applications remain pending.

After how many years are these applications still pending? It’s been two years since the trial court made its erroneous dismissal.

Of course, the trial judge knew these things. Based on his logic, too (even if he had been as ignorant as he seemed to be claiming he was), it would seem he would have dismissed charges against Willie Sutton had that worthy only apologized and averred he’s stopped. No consequence should ensue, this judge would seem to insist, for the banks Sutton had already robbed.

How cynical is that?

These are the trial courts and the IRS that will be heavily impacted by the Presidential elections.

Out of Control

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration’s EEOC has loosed its reins.

Wearing a cap to work that has a “Don’t Tread On Me” slogan on it is a racist and EEOC-actionable thing to do.

Because Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech means whatever this Democratic administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it means.

The Hillary Clinton Supreme Court

Posted on by
1

I’ll leave aside specifics of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s goals in appointing Supreme Court Justices.  The overriding goal of Clinton is to appoint Justices who meet a series of litmus tests, none having to do with the Justice candidate’s view of the Constitution.  A potential appointee must explicitly agree that Citizens United must be reversed.  A potential appointee must explicitly agree that limits to individual Americans’ right to keep and bear Arms must be subject to further government restrictions—including Government determining what weapons are fit for Americans to have (no “assault” weapons—defined by her Government—for instance).  A potential appointee must explicitly agree that voter ID laws, which protect the sanctity of an American’s vote, are anathema.  A potential appointee must explicitly agree that religious freedom is a matter of government determination with nothing to do with individual conscience.

Clinton’s goal, then, is to turn the Supreme Court away from an impartial judicial institution into one that is explicitly political, and one that will serve Progressive goals.  Regardless of what the Constitution actually says.

It won’t take many Clinton appointments, either, to turn the Court into her completely political institution.  Four of the existing Justices already are political judges rather than judges who uphold the Constitution.  Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have said they consider the Constitution to be a living document that lives through “updating” reinterpretations to fit their views of the times—Article V and We the People be damned.  Ginsburg has gone even farther, deliberately entering the political fray and publicly stating her views of the unfitness of one of the current Presidential candidates, thereby prejudicing in advance her decisions on any case in which that President’s administration might become involved.  Justice Sonya Sotomayor has said the Court benefits from her “wise Latina” and empathetic talents—again, a political position and not a legal one.  Justice Elena Kagan has said that a judge’s personal values must guide the judge’s development of her opinion, not solely what the Constitution says—still another political, rather than legal, position.

Elections have consequences, and this one’s will last far longer than just the term of one administration.

NLMSM Lies

Posted on by
1

The NLMSM is vociferously reporting that Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump tossed a baby out of one of his rallies.

Here are actual facts from an eyewitness, via PJMedia.  The eyewitness is Will Estrada, Loudoun County Republican Committee Chairman; he also was invited to give the invocation at the rally.  This is what he posted on his Facebook page about the baby incident [emphasis in the PJMedia quote].  Estrada’s Facebook post is here.

One thing I want to mention is the baby crying, because that has been national news. Contrary to news stories, it was a very funny thing, Trump was very supportive of the mom calling her and her baby “beautiful” and “wonderful”, and then when the baby kept crying he turned it into a joke. Everyone was laughing and it was actually very endearing and funny. Not at all anti mom or anti baby like the media has portrayed it to be.

Estrada had an additional comment, too, this time about the media…coverage.

Which brings me to the final point: I was there and saw and heard the entire event with the mom and baby. There was nothing to it. But then after I’m reading all the news coverage saying “Trump hates moms and babies!!!” I started to doubt myself. Did I really miss a huge story right in front of me? I started asking others who were there, including a husband and wife with young kids. And everyone in the room said the same thing: there was no story here. Trump was being funny and personable and going out of his way to make sure the mom wasn’t embarrassed by making it a funny situation. My conclusion is that the media is selling us a narrative. Be very skeptical of what the media is telling you, because I saw it with my own eyes and it was something very different.

Estrada is being generous.  This is the dishonesty of the media.