Category Archives: Law

The End of the Age of Benevolence, by Francis Marion

The money passage: “The irony in the dilemma which the West now faces is that our demise, the continual erosion of a democratic, intellectual meritocracy, is by and large spurred on by the very people that our system was created to protect.” From Francis Marion of Canadiangunblog.com, via theburningplatform.com:

The history of democracy, Marxism and feminism is the history of the snake, which, being hungry for more, stalks its own tail and consumes itself. 

Some evenings I sit on the sofa in the family room with my teenage daughter and watch a TV program with her. I leave the choice of the show to her, it matters little to me, and when she finds something she likes she sits next to me, puts her head on my shoulder, and snuggles up for the hour it takes to watch whatever it is she’s chosen.

It’s our time.

Occasionally we’ll sneak in another twenty or thirty minutes to the objection of her mother but I like my time with her so I put up with the raised eyebrows and the, “She’s got school tomorrow,” scoldings. It’s important to me that she knows I love her, that I want to spend time with her and that she feels safe when she is with me. Someday, when she is a grown woman I want her to find a man that will take care of her and protect her like I do. I expect no less from a suitor and neither should she.

There will be women who read this who will object to my stance. They will say, “She doesn’t need a man to feel safe or validated or content,” but I would disagree. When she gets older she’ll need a good man, not just any man, and that’s as true today as much as it was ten years, twenty years, fifty years, one hundred years and even one thousand years ago. And it will become even more so as time goes on.

Indeed, we have reached peak denial in our civilization and whether we like it or not reality is about to make a come back.

To continue reading: The End of the Age of Benevolence

Advertisements

Debt and Taxes and Perdition, by Andrew P. Napolitano

Loading up future generations with debt is immoral. Fortunately, future generations won’t pay it. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

Should the government borrow against the future? Should it guarantee higher taxes for your children and grandchildren in return for lower taxes for you?

If government’s moral legitimacy depends on the consent of the governed, as Thomas Jefferson argued in the Declaration of Independence, can the federal government morally compel those who haven’t consented to its financial profligacy — because they are not yet born — to pay higher taxes?

These questions are at the base of the debate — such as it is — in Congress these days over the so-called Republican tax reform plan. But you will not hear these questions even asked, much less answered, on Capitol Hill because the Republican leadership of the House and Senate is afraid that the answers might drive them from power. The same can be said for Democratic leaders when their party controls Congress.

In fact, with the exception of a few courageous senators, such as Rand Paul of Kentucky, and representatives, such as Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky, most in Congress in both parties think the only limit on the government‘s taxing power is what it can politically get away with at any given moment.

And it gets away with a great deal because vast majorities in both major political parties recognize no moral limits to the government’s sordid pattern of tax, borrow and spend.

The numbers are chilling.

The federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in revenue and spends about $4 trillion, annually. The difference between what it collects and what it spends is made up in borrowing. But it doesn’t borrow money as you or I do or any business does — with a planned schedule to pay back the principal it owes plus interest. Rather, it goes deeper into debt to pay its debts.

To continue reading: Debt and Taxes and Perdition

Cowboys, Truckers and Us, by Eric Peters

Truckers, who use to be free spirits, are now closely monitored by the government. Don’t think their fate doesn’t carry a message for the rest of us. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Being a trucker – especially an owner-operator – used to be a lot like being a cowboy was back in the 1800s.

On your own timetable, beholden to none – so long as the cows (or the cargo) got where they needed to be on time. Independent, free.

Which, naturally, is why both avocations had to be stomped.

Cowboys became ranch hands, no longer free to roam.

But at least they aren’t subject to 24-7 recording of their doings  – as truckers soon will be. It will be done via something called an Electronic Logging Device (ELD) which is basically a mobile, in-truck Panopticon – a rig for the rig that sees all and knows all – and narcs all, to the Appropriate Authorities.

 It will tell drivers when to stop driving – even if they are just a couple of miles away from their destination. And they muststop. No matter how needless or inconvenient.

If they do not . . .

The ELDs, of course, will not be optional.

They will become mandatory for all new trucks about a month from now – on Dec. 18 – when a new federal fatwagoes into effect.

Unless, as the result of some some last-minute spasm of concern for our ever-diminishing liberties, someone puts a legislative stop to it.

One such someone is Republican Rep. Brian Babin of Texas, who wrote a bill (H.R. 3282) that would do just that but. Give him credit for trying. But like the effort to get rid of Obamacare – it’s more about talking points than actually doing something about it. Because most Republicans might as well be Democrats, or the reverse. The one party always seeks the same things – more power, more control.

To continue reading: Cowboys, Truckers and Us

The Clintons’ Day of Reckoning, by Bionic Mosquito

The evidence mounts that the powers that be are throwing the Clintons under the bus, as SLL speculated in “The Rout Is On.” From the Bionic Mosquito at lewrockwell.com:

Day of Reckoning: the time when one is called to account for one’s actions, to pay one’s debts, or to fulfill one’s promises or obligations.

When the Harvey Weinstein story broke about a month ago, I offered that the reason for such a story to break now – after decades of such behavior – might have something to do with the democrats getting tired of telling Hillary to go away.

Well, the train is leaving the station:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Thursday went to a place that few Democrats have dared or cared to go when it comes to allegations of sexual assault: Calling out Bill Clinton.

The initial story on Weinstein broke in the New York Times; this story is in the Washington Post.  In other words, this isn’t some wacko like bionic mosquito or some such.  Someone is on a mission.

It’s difficult to overstate the potential significance of Gillibrand’s response to the question about the former president.

As you would expect, Gillibrand is being threatened by Clinton loyalists.  I say this is irrelevant – and not only because the democratic party establishment wants to make Hillary go away:

Suddenly, other Democrats will be asked if they agree with Gillibrand’s comments that the former president should have resigned.

Stuck between an oval-office desk and a hard place….

If a reasonably large number of Democrats decide to rewrite their view of Clinton’s legacy as one that should have ended in disgrace, that turns Clinton from a statesman into something closer to what many Republicans have long alleged.

Alleged”?  You must be kidding.

It may never come to that, especially if other Democrats don’t join in Gillibrand’s statements about Clinton.

They won’t have a choice.  They will have to make a public statement: side with the predator and his (nominally speaking) wife, or protect their own tails.

Conclusion

But in one fell swoop, [Gillibrand] put that debate squarely on the table. And you can bet the Clintons are apoplectic about that right now — especially considering the source.

Any tears out there?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/bionic-mosquito/the-clintons-day-of-reckoning/

The National Republican Party Is Pathetic! by Chuck Baldwin

If the headline is news to you, where have been the last two or three decades? The latest Republican demonstration of testicular absence involves Alabama senatorial candidate Judge Roy Moore. SLL has no idea if Moore did what he’s accused of doing, but the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. The official Republican party doesn’t like Moore’s brand of Republicanism, so they are deserting him in droves. So much for the party that touts its fealty to principles. From Chuck Baldwin at lewrockwell.com:

After Judge Roy Moore won the Alabama Republican senatorial primary election a few weeks ago, I wrote this:

You can bet that the establishment is not finished trying to destroy Roy Moore—not by any stretch of the imagination. When Trump stumped for Luther Strange last week, he said that Judge Moore would have a hard time winning the general election. He said that because he knows that not only will Roy Moore have to defeat the Democrat establishment, he will have to again defeat the Republican establishment. So, Roy’s fight is far from over.

Boy, were those words an understatement! After forty years in public office; after being investigated more times than probably any man in America; after being removed from office twice for not caving in to unconstitutional judicial rulings; after taking on the President of the United States Donald Trump, the Vice President of the United States Mike Pence, the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the entire media and political establishments in New York and Washington, D.C.; and after having over $30 million spent against him by the Republican establishment AND WINNING—and just four weeks away from the most important senatorial election in modern American history—suddenly several women come out of nowhere to accuse Roy Moore of sexual improprieties from some forty years ago.

Writing for SonsOfLiberty.com, Tim Brown writes, “It seems that Bezos’ CIA-ties Washington Post has decided to run a hit piece on Moore in which allegations by a woman who was then 14-years-old claims that Moore touched her sexually, and that three other teen girls at the time he was in his early thirties dated him and they hugged and kissed.

“The first thing that makes these accusations almost unbelievable is that Moore has been in Alabama politics as a judge for years.  He’s not been in some closet somewhere.

“Why are these allegations of things that allegedly took place four decades ago just now coming out?  My guess is it’s because the establishment knows Roy Moore is the real deal.”

To continue reading: The National Republican Party Is Pathetic!

 

More Hillary Chronicles, by Andrew P. Napolitano

There is no way that Hillary Clinton should not be investigated. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

The Department of Justice will soon commence an investigation to determine whether there should be an investigation (you read that nonsense correctly) of a scandal involving the Clinton Foundation and a company called Uranium One. It appears that FBI decisions made during the time that Hillary Clinton was being investigated for espionage will also be investigated to see whether there should be an investigation to determine whether she was properly investigated. (Again, you read that nonsense correctly.)

Only the government can relate nonsense with a straight face. Here is the back story.

When President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey last spring, the attorney general’s stated purpose for recommending the firing was Comey’s dropping the ball in the investigation of Clinton’s email when she was secretary of state. After a year of investigating her use of her own computer servers to transmit and store classified materials instead of using a government server to do so — and notwithstanding a mountain of evidence of her grossly negligent exposure of secret and top-secret materials, which constitutes the crime of espionage — the FBI director decided that because no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, it should be dropped. Weeks later, the DOJ ratified Comey’s decision.

At the same time that Clinton was failing to safeguard state secrets, she was granting official State Department favors to donors to her family’s charitable foundation. There are dozens of examples of this so-called “pay to play,” the most egregious of which is the Uranium One case. This involved a Canadian businessman and friend of former President Bill Clinton’s, Frank Giustra, who bundled donations from various sources that totaled $148 million, all of which Giustra gave to the Clinton Foundation.

To continue reading: More Hillary Chronicles

With Bloomberg And Democrats At Bay, Now Is The Best Time To Flex Your 2A Rights, by Duane Norman

It’s a great time to stock up on firearms and ammo. From Duane Norman at fmshooter.com:

President Trump‘s election has done little to mollify the appetite of gun control advocates.  In spite of the losses incurred by politicians who have supported gun control over the years, recent mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas have emboldened gun grabbers to continue their quest to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Former Vice President Joe Biden was brazen enough to appear on NBC’s Today Show and state that the man who stopped the Texas massacre never should have been legally permitted to own the weapon:

The only thing that was surprising about Biden’s commentary is that it didn’t occur sooner; as Free Market Shooter has recently covered, the gun control playbook has been to call for gun control in the wake of any mass shooting, long before the facts have been determined:

Leading the charge was former President Obama… joining in his chorus were New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, NBA basketball coach Steve Kerr, and a slew of Congressional Democrats, none of whom bothered to wait until more facts on the incident were available.

But wait a second… wasn’t Trump’s win supposed to be good for gun rights?  

Indeed, gun rights advocates hoped to advance legislation to both remove suppressors from NFA regulation, and implement national concealed carry (CCW) reciprocityAnd in spite of the fact that gun control groups have all but lost the fight against suppressors, House Speaker Paul Ryan refuses to bring either bill to the House floor for a vote:

It is October 31 and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is ignoring national reciprocity legislation for the 43rd consecutive week.

National reciprocity was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) on January 3, 2017, and law-abiding citizens have been waiting for Congress to take up the measure ever since.

The wait is fast-approaching a year, yet Ryan remains mum on the legislation. President Trump signaled that he wanted national reciprocity early in his campaign.

And even though Ryan is facing down a Republican challenger within his own district that wants to advance CCW reciprocity

 

To continue reading: With Bloomberg And Democrats At Bay, Now Is The Best Time To Flex Your 2A Rights