Saturday, April 21, 2018
Thought of the Day
Liberals have fallen in love with the idea of ignoring the 2nd Amendment and confiscating all firearms. The logistics of doing this in a nation with hundreds of millions of guns (many of which are off the books) when many police departments and tens of millions of Americans would not cooperate is seldom discussed. Another thing that seldom seems brought up is that large numbers of conservatives would see this as a prelude to the government’s use of force against the citizenry. When it is discussed on the Left, there seems to be an assumption that lone resisters might get into firefights with dozens of police or soldiers, as opposed to ganging up with other formerly law-abiding Americans to waylay gun confiscators, politicians and anti-gun activists at THEIR HOMES in guerrilla actions that would be silently applauded and supported by hundreds of millions of Americans concerned about their freedom. Confiscating guns is a dangerous and stupid idea that could in and of itself end our republic if a serious attempt were ever made to implement it.
John Hawkins, with a brush back pitch to those who seek to confiscate guns.
I'm often tempted to tell people merely calling me names on Facebook: "Listen, if you piss me off, when the right wing death squads plan to take you and your family out, I may not warn you they're coming." But since I don't think they'd see that I was merely making fun of them, I don't say it.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Thought of the Day
Or is it conceivable that one could gaze upon the Federal government and perceive neither a well-oiled machine nor an awe-inspiring work of art, but a massively over-engineered, out-of-control behemoth whose onerous expense far exceeds its utility? Could it be that this wondrous mechanism of government simply doesn’t perform the functions that the unwashed masses in the flyover states impertinently expect?
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Thought of the Day
One of the central problems of liberalism is that its operating dogmas sooner or later collide with each other. Take the way antitrust operated for decades: if you charged the same price as your competitors, you were guilty of collusion and price-fixing. But if you charged less than your competitors, you were guilty of predatory pricing. (Indeed this is exactly how antitrust investigations began decades ago before we came to our senses.) Or take bank lending: if a bank doesn’t lend to the urban poor and minorities, it is guilty of “red-lining.” But if a bank does lend to poor and minority customers who default at high rates (as happened in 2008), then you’re guilty of predatory lending.
Labels: Steven Hayward quote
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Comey on Comey and Mueller
Here's a quote from the Stephanopoulos interview I find fascinating by fired FBI head James Comey:
...anybody who's actually done investigations knows that if you've been investigating something for almost a year and you don't have a general sense of where it's likely to end up, you should be fired because you're incompetent.
Hmmm. So what did Comey say about his almost a year investigation of the Russian dossier to see if it was reliable or not? He testified generally that it was unverified and he told Stephanopoulos that he didn't know if it was true or not. At least he was fired.
But you can apply the statement to Mueller's investigation into everything as well. I'll start by stating that the original purpose was to find if there was evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russians to get Trump elected. Of course, the general course of special counsels is that they investigate anything they want, damn the original charter. Here Mr. Rosenstein is supposed to be monitoring Mueller's investigation and give guidance if necessary to keep it on track. He's supposed to be supervising Mueller. We know, however, that he is writing memos after Mueller does things which post facto authorize them. That seems the opposite of supervising to me.
Now at this point, I'm supposed to say that we don't know the extent of what Mueller has uncovered so we should be careful about stating what the investigation has uncovered. True in the abstract, but there has been so much leaking of investigation results over the past near year that only a fool would believe that Mueller has found evidence of the very collusion he was charged with investigating but nobody on his task force is reporting that to the media. So Mueller after nearly a year has no idea generally where the investigation into Russian collusion is going.
So Comey thinks Mueller is incompetent and ought to be fired.
I know, I know, that would be a constitutional crisis or something.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Whom to Trust?
Leaking the results of an investigation in progress may not be illegal, unless it involves Grand Jury testimony (which is clearly illegal), but then again, with about a million malum prohibitum laws around, it just might be. Still, it's not supposed to happen and caught leakers generally get fired.
So of course the Mueller investigation into everything has leaked like a sieve from just about its first day of existence.
Here is the latest leak: The Mueller investigation allegedly has proof that Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, actually did go to Prague to meet with Russians in Summer 2016, just like the Steele dossier says and contrary to his saying he's never been to Prague, ever.
This will make the people who hate Trump happy, if true. So how to evaluate the reliability of this leak?
I don't know Cohen at all and I don't have any way to tell if he's lying. And of course we don't know what the alleged proof of his travels are so that's a dead end for judging credibility.
The best I could do is to see how many leaks from the investigation have turned out true and if the majority have been true, then the likelihood this one is true goes up.
But that's a daunting task and I'm not sure it's reliable so I will just have to wait like everyone to find out if this is true. But, like most people, I hate waiting.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
The Falling of the Mask and Scales
I looked at my new lawyer's card the other day. I've been a lawyer since 1985, and I was handling County Court trials as an intern for about a year before that; in fact, I had to interrupt a trial to go get sworn in as a lawyer. And recently I'm somewhat depressed by the changes I have seen over the past 33 years.
Let's take the current special prosecutor. I have seen three of these before Mueller. They all sucked. In America, when a crime is discovered, our police of all kinds have a duty to investigate and find the criminal. Then the government lawyers try to convict the alleged perpetrator. That's justice.
The special prosecutor does it backward. Here is a person we want investigated, see if you can find any crimes. That's the Soviet method of 'justice.'
Here is an article by a fellow lawyer who is a law professor at Cornell.
One thing he points out in his sound criticism of the Mueller task force is the left's reaction to the raid on the offices of the President's long-time personal lawyer. This part of the NYT's diatribe hit home:
A raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day; it means that multiple government officials, and a federal judge, had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence….
There was a time when the review by the magistrate/judge of the investigator's or prosecutor's detailed and sworn-to application for a search warrant was good enough for me to believe the need for the search was legitimate.
But that ship has sailed.
I don't trust the FBI. I don't trust the DOJ. I don't trust many magistrates to effectively hold the line against baseless searches. Our once valued criminal justice system here has become hopelessly corrupted.
That's very sad commentary. I'm not to Daniel Greenfield despair yet, but I get closer every week.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
In Support of Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens
We haven't heard from Justice Stevens in a while. He retired after nearly 35 years on the Supreme Court in 2010 and is now days away from being 98 years old. He certainly has the years in to be very wise. And recently he put in his support for the Know-Nothing Children's Crusade Against Guns with this article* in the New York Times which says it's time to repeal the Second Amendment.
There's a lot of drivel in it but I applaud the stand he's taking. It supports the rule of law and the proper way to amend the Constitution (not by Justices finding new rights in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution). And in short I say this:
Yes, gun haters, amend the Consitution to take away rights, no matter how unprecedented that is. Amend it to repeal the Second Amendment.
Do it right now.
What are you waiting for, ya' wussies?
Kids are being shot to death! Have you no heart?
* The article has photos of two firearms, a Brown Bess musket and an AR-15 (perhaps a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 but the pistol grip looks wrong). The NYT corrected its prior mis-identification of the musket (smooth bore, accurate to about 20 yards) as a Kentucky rifle (spiral grooved inside the barrel, accurate to about 200 yards). But they didn't correct the mis-identification of the AR-15 as an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not full auto (the back side of the selector switch is a tell); and you have to be capable of fully automatic fire, have a removable box magazines and use an intermediate round in order to be classified an assault rifle (think STG 44, AK 47, M 16/C 4). Double evidence of the pig ignorance about guns the editors at the NYT display.
Labels: Repeal the Second Amendment!