Tag Archives: politics

A DA Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diane Becton has decided that looters’ “needs” should matter in a prosecutor’s assessment of whether he should charge them with their crimes.

Becton’s full guidelines for charging an individual with looting are:

  1. Was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneous to the declared state of emergency?
    1. Factors to consider in making this determination:
      1. Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency?
      2. What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the business?
      3. What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted?
      4. Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?
      5. Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn’t adequately address the particular incident?

A defendant’s “needs” are centered on his motive for committing the crime of which he’s accused. As such, they’re best considered by a jury during the penalty phase of the trial. “Needs” have no place in deciding whether the public, or the specific victims of the crime, should be allowed access to justice after having been, in the present context, looted, their property vandalized, destroyed, or stolen.

Even a California district attorney must understand this.

Suicide Pact

Posted on by
Reply

The Thomas More Society has filed suit in Federal court against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) edict barring gatherings of more than 10 people indoors and more than 100 people outdoors.

[T]he nonprofits Election Integrity Fund and One Nation Michigan [plaintiffs in the Thomas More case] argue that Whitmer’s order functions as an abridgment of their right to free speech and assembly under the US Constitution.
Whitmer’s orders “constitute direct restrictions on [the groups’] right to engage in protected speech and assembly and therefore violate the First Amendment,” the suit argues, stating that any restrictions on constitutional rights “must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.”

Lower (State) courts have ruled that the Wuhan Virus situation is sufficiently important and dangerous that Government restrictions on Constitutional freedoms and rights must be overruled.

However, there is no clause in our Constitution that allows the Government to restrict individual liberties whenever it thinks something is more important than those liberties. In particular, the 1st Amendment says this in pertinent part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….

Hence the need for narrow tailoring of any intended restriction and the need even then—especially then—for that restriction to achieve a compelling government interest, not just one convenient to it. The Government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, in restricting these basic freedoms because of the virus, especially since it’s increasingly apparent that such restrictions cause more medical and economic harm than the virus itself.

Along these lines, Supreme Court Justices Robert Jackson (Terminiello v City of Chicago) and Arthur Goldberg (Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez) have argued that our Constitution “is not a suicide pact.” Indeed, it is not. However, deviation from our Constitution would lead quickly to national suicide.

The Thomas More case would be a slam-dunk were it not for a collection of self-serving politicians and a similar collection of activist judges.

“Better Have an Army”

Posted on by
Reply

In response to President Donald Trump’s statement that he wants to stop Federal funds from going to “anarchist jurisdictions,” which include New York City, Seattle, Portland, and DC, among others, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) issued this threat:

He can’t come back to New York. He can’t. He’s going to walk down the street in New York? Forget bodyguards, he better have an army if he thinks he’s going to walk down the street in New York.

Yes, Fredo Cuomo’s older brother said that out loud.

It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.

An “Apology”

Posted on by
Reply

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D), after having been caught dining indoors in a restaurant in violation of Wuhan Virus restrictions in the restaurant’s city, has pretended to apologize.

Let’s look at his words of apology as quoted at the link.

“I’m sorry if my decision hurt those who’ve worked to keep their businesses going under difficult circumstances,” he wrote on Twitter. “Looking forward to reopening indoor dining soon and visiting my favorite spots.”

“If my decision hurt those….” Kenney doesn’t even believe his decision, his behavior, necessarily caused harm. It plainly did; his equivocating is a plain lie.

It gets worse, though. Kenney expressed regret for an outcome of his misbehavior—an outcome, mind you, he’s not even convinced actually occurred—but he had not a syllable of apology for his actual misbehavior.

Masquerading those words as an apology is a very large lie.

Kidnap, Inc.

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the new company headquartered in Beijing.

Here’s a partial list of the People’s Republic of China’s iconic business’ products:

  • Cheng Lei, Australian citizen, television anchor for a Beijing media outlet
  • Yang Hengjun, Australian citizen, writer held on vague “espionage” accusations since last year
  • Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, Canadian citizens, held in the PRC since 2018 as hostages to pressure Canada not to extradite to the US Huawei’s CFO
  • threats that Czech Republic Senate President Milos Vystrcil would “pay a heavy price” after he led a business delegation to the Republic of China

And these are just the famous ones, the VIPs.  It’s not very useful—nor is it particularly safe—for foreign nationals to travel to or within the PRC.