Tag Archives: government

Pseudo-Science and Democrat Suppression of Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys General from California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington State, and the US Virgin Islands are banding together to push their witch hunt against science that refutes their lucrative climatista industry.  Now they’re planning on criminal and civil charges against companies that impudently disagree with the Party Line, cynically likening their case to the

Justice Department’s landmark case against “Big Tobacco[.]”

The truth of their cynicism, though, is exposed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey:

Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be held accountable.  That’s why we have joined in investigating ExxonMobil[.]

Healey’s own words demonstrate that these Democrats already have determined the outcome; they’re just after carefully selected data to support her claim.  This isn’t an investigation; it’s a dishonest witch hunt, designed to protect Democrat votes and crony pseudo-science funding streams.

Full stop.

How to Understand the Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

Juan Williams had some thoughts concerning this alleged point of confusion last Friday in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.

True enough.  But then he went astray.

Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments.

This is an accurate reading of the Modern Liberal position, but what they and Williams alike carefully, consciously elide is this crucial fact: our Founders and the Constitution’s authors also considered the Constitution to be a living document (no obfuscating quotes needed).  They, and We the People who then ratified our Constitution, included Article V explicitly for the purpose of that life.  And We the People are the ones, the only ones, to breathe life into our Constitution.  Judicial interpretation away from the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution only sap that life.

That puts a premium on the importance of judges and Justices applying the Constitution and the lesser laws enacted by our elected Representatives in Congress and our elected President as they are written.

The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end….

There is no legitimate push-pull here.  The Constitution does not belong to any judge, to interpret according to what he thinks it ought to say.  Nor does it belong to any Modern Liberal to interpret for his convenience.

The Constitution is We the People’s document, and it lives through us and our Article V.

Full stop.

Centrally Planned Micromanagement

Posted on by
Reply

Now the People’s Republic of China government is concerning itself with the names the Chinese citizenry give to their streets, businesses, and the very places where they live.  The government has

announced a new move to “stem irregularities in naming the country’s roads, bridges, buildings, and residential compounds,” according to China’s official Xinhua News Agency.

Li Liguo, China’s Minister of Civil Affairs, said that the move will target “exaggerated, foreign, bizarre and repetitive” names, as well as those that cause inconvenience to citizens….

After all, the citizens—the ones applying these names—can’t be allowed to inconvenience themselves.

Worse, such names

damage sovereignty and national dignity, are against socialist core values, deviate from public order and good morals, and raise strong concerns from the public[.]

Or at least the Government’s criteria for these things.

Because the government hasn’t intruded far enough.  Or else a surprising number of PRC bureaucrats are overpaid and underemployed.

No Patriotism?

Posted on by
Reply

The planning board for the upstate town of New Paltz has voted against saying the Pledge of Allegiance at its meetings after one of its members called it a “total waste of time.”

Because it’s such a waste to honor one’s country.

Board Member Amy Cohen wanted the board to recite the pledge at its bi-monthly meetings.

This is a government building, we have a flag here. Personally, coming in off the street to do our governance…I feel that it helps me kind of transition.

Vice Chair Lyle Nolan demurred.

It’s a pressure type of thing, because if you don’t stand, it looks like you’re against it and I don’t think we need that. We’re all adults. We’re all here to do a job[.]

Imagine that.  Government officials—all adults—feeling pressure over an expression of patriotism.

And this from Board Member Lagusta Yearwood:

…reciting an oath to the US flag “goes against the principles this country was founded on.”

Because patriotism has nothing at all to do with this country.

This has been another story in the annals of the Nanny State.

Dissent Democrat Style

Posted on by
1

The Democrats in the Federal government permit dissent: they dissent from anyone else’s right to dissent.  Here’s a case in point.

Attorney General Lynch told the Senate last week that her department had referred a request to prosecute climate dissent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Specifically, it was referred to the FBI’s criminal investigative division.

Yep.  President Barack Obama’s (D) Attorney General actually referred a case of disagreeing with the Left to the FBI for criminal investigation.  Or for a security review.

One of the Senators questioning Lynch at that hearing was Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI), of RICO the dissenters infamy.  While he wondered idly about using the FBI in a “civil” case of suing climate scientists for dissenting over global warming, he had nary a word about the criminal investigation, nor even Lynch’s decision to refer dissent for criminal investigation in the first place.