About the Murthy vs Missouri decision...

Regarding Murthy v. Missouri: the Supreme Court decision yesterday about government coercing social media companies to censor users' activity based on political content.  SCOTUS decided that the plaintiffs had no standing and dismissed the lawsuit.

This seems like a colossal victory for the government and social media companies.  HOWEVER...

The case was *not* dismissed.  Today's ruling dealt with the temporary injunction in the case, not the case itself.  The case was REMANDED, back down the legal chain.  It could still come before the high court where the plaintiffs can better frame their arguments with solid evidence of coercion and censorship.

I believe that such a thing is not only possible, it is almost guaranteed to happen.

Twitter, or X as it's called now, is going to be VERY interesting to watch as it pertains to the case.  When Murthy v. Missouri was first filed it was confronting a seemingly unassailable block of social media companies, especially Twitter.

But Twitter/X is no longer part of that.  It's in the hands of Elon Musk now.  Who may prove to be quite enamored with the idea of opening up Twitter's old files and shed some sunlight on how his company under previous management censored content because the government told it to.

That may be a more substantive body of evidence than a few emails were as was the crux of the plaintiff's arguments.  If not in support of the Murthy plaintiffs then almost certainly worth a case all its own.

So to those who have been frustrated by today's ruling: be of good cheer.  This sort of thing has happened before, and it will again.  Personally I believe that Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were correct in their dissent.  But I'm not ready to throw out the bathwater with the baby quite yet.  This was a ruling on the injunction, not necessarily the case itself.  The case was sent back to the lower courts.  And might still come before the Supremes again.

Read More

What the leaked majority opinion REALLY does

 I'm seeing a lot of outrage about the leaked draft of the majority opinion overturning Roe v Wade. Much anger about destroying a "right" to abortion. But for all their screaming these people are showing us that they have NO grasp whatsoever of what they are screaming about.

Justice Alito's draft does NOT end the right to abortion. It does however articulate that the federal government has no standing in establishing such a right. The opinion is of the belief that Roe erred when it legislated into being a notion that the federal government had no constitutional basis in creating.

 

All that the majority opinion is arguing, if it is indeed the final say in the case at hand, is that the issue of abortion is one that per the Tenth Amendment is the sole province of the individual states. Which is exactly where it should have been given to almost fifty years ago.

 

So now it is going to be up to state legislators, who have been voted into office and who are beholden and accountable to their constituents (i.e. the voters), to decide if abortion will be legal in their respective states. It will NOT be a "right" whipped out of thin air by a judge or group of justices who do not answer to the people, but instead act upon their own politics.

 

This is a return to the balance of powers established in the original Constitution and then the Bill of Rights. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

This is stuff we were supposed to have learned in ninth grade civics class.

 

But I suppose too many politicians, and celebrities, and "useful idiots" in the streets, never paid attention to.

 

 

Read More

The CDC: Too much power given to an agency

One February morning in 1997, I was at a gas station in Burlington, North Carolina.  At the counter someone was complaining about new cigarette laws requiring that people under a certain age must show their photo ID.  He said it was a stupid law.

"Wait, let me explain something," said the bearded man behind the counter.  "What you are protesting against is not a law.  You are instead protesting a regulation.  A law is something that has gone through the legislative process and is voted into being by people that you vote for and who are accountable to you.  You don't get to vote for people who make regulations.  They can do whatever they want to do.  They don't answer to you at all."

It remains one of the most eye-opening exchanges I've ever witnessed.  It changed my perception of things.  Ever since that morning, I have cast a wary eye on things like mask-wearing: is it a law, or is it regulation?

For the past two years the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has mandated wearing of masks in public places.  And worse, there have been the mandated "get vaccinated or else" proclamations.  Most of those have come from decree by Joe Biden (I refuse to honor him with the title "President").

NONE of this has been "law".  Congress did not order masks or "vaccinations".  That's what unelected government bureaucrats ordained.  And no matter what a sitting president demands, he or she does not have the authority to insist that civilians get jabbed (the military is another matter, and the Supreme Court just decided 6 to 3 against members of the armed forces who want to refuse the shot: Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito were the dissenting justices).

Masks and "vaccines" against COVID-19 have become the most egregious and blatant power grab in American history.  Thankfully, earlier this week a federal judge struck down mask mandates on public transportation.  You may have seen the photos of airline passengers tearing their masks off and rejoicing.

The Biden "administration" hates that.  And they are already trying to appeal it or work around the judge's decision.

Remember people: it's NOT a law that we've had to be putting up with for the past two years.  It's a REGULATION.  One whipped up out of thin air by our alleged "betters".  A thing dreamt of by people we don't vote for and who will probably never be held accountable.  For the damage and injury done, both physical and mental.

I received the COVID vaccine very early on.  As a health care worker, and someone who is in constant contact with the general public, getting "vaccinated" made sense.  I'll never know if it worked to ward away COVID.  I do know that I contracted COVID late this past December (the symptoms were mild).  But in hindsight if I had a chance to have a do-over, I would not have received the shot.  As much as being an "up yours" to people like Fauci and Biden as it would be to regard my own health and well being.

Remember: if the mask mandate comes back, you don't have to comply.  Because that's not a real law at all.  And it never was.

Read More

This article was a heartbreaker to read...

Let me preface this by stating from the start: I know fully well that bad cops exist.  There is a city in North Carolina that I am forever going to loathe going through because of one incident that involved both city police and county sheriff's personnel, and that was almost twenty years ago (oh the perils of being a puppy-eyed cub reporter getting knocked around by the world for the first time).  I believe that there are few things as bad as any member of law enforcement who consciously betrays what it means to take an oath and puts on the badge.  And this blog has chronicled law enforcement abuse so many times that it's gotten its own tag.

In short: I get it.

But I'm also grateful for being able to still appreciate that the good cops far outnumber the bad.

Three situations come to mind as I write these words.  One happened not too long ago, and it revitalized my trust and confidence in the members of law enforcement in general.  Two of its representatives assured me that an incident I brought to their attention would be pursued as much as possible, and I have taken their word on that.  The second involves the prank video I made four years ago of a rocket launcher destroying that "new statue" in Reidsville, North Carolina's downtown area.  Two police officers came to my front door (fifteen minutes away from town!) to ask about it.  There was no warning issued, they seemed pretty amused by it actually.  It was just that apparently someone reported it to Homeland Security and they had to follow up on it.  They were confident that I was harboring no real explosives and a good laugh was had by all.

The third situation regards my having severe enough mental illness that I have had to be taken into custody numerous times by members of law enforcement.

Yes, I have had to be handcuffed.  I have had to be put into the back of a police cruiser or sheriff's vehicle.  I have been frisked for potential weapons and escorted under guard into hospital emergency rooms.  All of these and more.  And not once have I felt like my dignity as a human being was violated.  Every officer involved in those sporadic situations has behaved with utmost respect toward me and I hope that I reciprocated that to them.

(There is also the matter of how many times during the course of my current profession, that I have witnessed law enforcement officers interact with some of the most neglected people in our community.  That alone has brought about renewed appreciation for their efforts.)

Right now there is a lot of commotion about cities disbanding their police forces.  Travis Yates, writing at the website Law Officer, has penned a heart-rending essay about why that will sooner than later not be necessary.  Because members of the law enforcement community are finally becoming so discouraged by what they must deal with that they are now actively asking young people to reconsider going into the profession.

I have to agree with Mr. Yates, on every point.  And if Minneapolis commits to its plan to abolish its police department, then it truly will become "Mogadishu on the Mississippi": a lawless realm of total anarchy.  Give it a year and it will not resemble the Minneapolis of today... and I don't mean that in a good way either.  It is not a situation that will be remedied by bolstered social programs and increased bureaucracy.

It's an eye-opening article, and it made me reassess my own perspective on those who put on the uniform.  It also led me to discover Blue Line Bears: an endeavor by a young lady in Florida to provide teddy bears to children of those who have fallen in the line of duty.  I was so impressed by the effort that I reached out to them to thank them.  There's an option to make contributions on their site and I'm going to ask that any readers of this post consider that.

As for the people of Minneapolis and other cities: you would do well to read Mr. Yates' words and ponder them deeply.  And then if you are still led to do so, go ahead with your plan to abolish the police force wholesale.

The rest of us will be watching.

Read More

Various thoughts about the Trump impeachment

As I write this it's 1:35 a.m. and it's all over but the cryin'.  Sometime in the next eighteen hours will likely come the final vote on Impeachment 2020 and the end of this mess.  Donald John Trump will remain President of the United States for another year and quite possibly more than that.

I've never doubted the outcome.  Trump had this in the bag on a party-line vote alone.  But I never thought that the final days of this fiasco would be such a bewildering demonstration of both brilliance and ignorance.  This impeachment will be studied for generations to come about how not to impeach, as well as how to effectively counter one.

So, admitting that I only took time to watch the trial proceedings itself during the past few days, here are some sundry musings...

1.  "Abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are not impeachable offenses.  I don't even know what the hell "obstruction of Congress" is supposed to mean in this context.

2.  There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in coming days and weeks about the issue of witnesses during the Senate trial phase.  Namely, about the House impeachment managers wanting John Bolton to testify.  They are forgetting that witnesses had already testified during the impeachment hearings.

3.  The trial is based on testimony and evidence already presented and entered into record during the House impeachment proceedings.  The Senate trial is absolutely not the place to introduce new witnesses and evidence.

4.  The House managers betrayed a lack of faith in their own case by demanding new witnesses this late in the game.

5.  The table at which the Trump counsel sat looked neat, dignified, corporate, razor-focused and serious.  Meanwhile the table of the House managers resembled a cram session of some college frat house, all that's missing are the boxes of cold pizza.

6.  Speaking of Trump's legal representation, any reputable law professor should make required viewing of the performance of Sekulow, Dershowitz, Philbin et al.  They have 10000% been the model of what competent attorneys should be in regard to the interest of the client.

7.  In stark contrast, the House managers' case has been very little apart from retread of the past three months, excruciatingly drawn out, absent any fresh or sound legal argument, and loaded with weary political rhetoric.

8.  Okay, this one sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  During this final day of Senate questioning I heard Adam Schiff and the other House managers insist that they want a "fair trial", hence more witnesses.  They were completely ignoring the basic underpinnings of how the trial process under United States law works and has always been intended to work.  The American courtroom is an adversarial arena, prosecutor versus defendant, and the onus is on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.  Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler and the rest of the managers have instead all along played this as if it's up to Trump himself to provide evidence and testimony that he's guilty.  Trump has not done this.  Neither is any other defendant under American law obligated to so testify against himself or herself.  I think during the second half of the impeachment trial when it became glaringly obvious that theirs was a lost cause, the managers dropped even a semblance of pretending they wanted a "fair trial" and began attempting to rig the game.  Hence, trying to bring John Bolton into the mix.  That alone screamed how much of a sham this impeachment has been from the beginning.

9.  The House managers should be really thankful that they didn't get witnesses during the Senate trial.  Not I, or any criminal law expert, or sane American for that matter, would not think for an iota of a moment that the Trump team would NOT pounce and begin calling witnesses of their own.  And it would be an unprecedented fiasco.  Indeed, potentially calling Hunter Biden to take the stand, and maybe even Adam Schiff himself, the "whistleblower", former Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden... the Trump counsel would find any and every reason to have them sworn and testify on the stand.  And the result would be a crippling blow to the Democrat Party from which it might never recover.

10.  I am chuckling at the ignorance many are radiating tonight, that in the event of a 50-50 tie on the witnesses issue, how Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will cast the deciding vote.  Roberts is not a member of the Senate.  He represents an entirely separate branch of government.  If fair is truly fair, then Vice President Pence will break the tie and some will say that Trump himself would be entitled to the vote.

11.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will go down as the conductor of the sloppiest, most mismanaged prosecution effort in the history of anything.  Had this been a criminal proceeding, the jury would have spent five minutes before returning a "not guilty" verdict.  She had her eyes on the prize but had no vision whatsoever of how to achieve it.

12.  I expect that this coming Tuesday night's State of the Union address is gonna be a LOT of fun to behold.

So much else that could come to mind, but it's late already.  Maybe better legal minds than mine can remark on whatever I've missed here.

Read More

Equal Justice: The Legend of Herkenbald

Law, we are told even in fifth grade, is something that applies to all without respect to wealth or status.  And then a few years later the same notion gets drilled into our mushy skulls during civics class as high school freshmen.  It's a noble ideal, and we like to think that the world follows America's example as a model of how under the rule of law, there are none deemed greater than others.  Rich or poor, celebrity or obscure, politically affluent or peanut gallery... it doesn't matter.  Here we are all equally accounted and equally accountable.

And it is all a damnable fantasy and we all know it.  Even if we don't talk about it.

I suppose the current situation with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is in my mind tonight.  As of this writing some former classmate during the early Eighties is alleging that Kavanaugh did something, or other, whatever.  She's due to testify before the Senate next week.  It's already grounds enough, however dubious, to have a number of elected officials and many commentators in the media demanding that Kavanaugh withdraw himself as a nominee.

Huh.  Funny.  I remember many of these same people insisting in 1998 that President Bill Clinton's sexcapades were inconsequential.  That his "character didn't matter".  That it was all "sex lies" whatever that is supposed to be.  If it didn't affect his performance as President of the United States then it shouldn't be on the radar.

These same people went down to the mat tooth and claw to fight for Bill Clinton.  Now they demand that Brett Kavanaugh be stricken from consideration for the Supreme Court.  All on the word of an individual whose integrity has been questioned by her peers and students, and is now found to be an anti-Trump activist at least at some point recently.

Maybe it's just me, but a semen-stained dress is a lot more incriminating than high school gossip from thirty-five years ago.  That a heap of Kavanaugh's former fellow adolescents are now vouching has been made out of whole cloth circa September 2018.

Don't even get me started on the obscene double-standard in regard to the allegations of foreign interfence on Trump's behalf in the last election and the uranium sale that we know happened with the blessing of Hillary Clinton.  One is fast becoming an unsubstantiated scandal that has lost all meaning for most Americans.  The other supplied nuclear material to those who would do harm to this country.

But, none of those particulars are really germane to this post.  I'm discussing the greater tragedy across our system of justice.  Namely, that justice is not impartial.  It plays favorites.  It has become a commodity for sale to those with pull.  And it's not supposed to be this way.

Which brings us to the legend of Herkenbald.

It was something introduced to me when I was in Belgium many years ago.  And ever since I've thought that it's a tale well worth telling to students here.  It should especially be shared in law schools, and in police academies, and with anyone who takes it upon himself or herself to become involved in the judicial process at any level.  It is, in my mind, the perfect parable of incorruptible justice.

So, what is the legend?

Herkenbald is said to have lived around 1020.  That is when he was a judge serving the people of Brussels, anyway.  And he was renowned far and wide for the wisdom of his decisions.  He was also famous... or infamous... for how serious he took his duties.  Everyone, no matter their station, was beneath the same shadow of immutable law.

And then came the day when Herkenbald, after many years of faithful service to his people, was very old and taken with grave illness.  He was moved to a bed in the hospital, to wait for the end.  And yet, he insisted that he be allowed to carry out the task appointed him long before.

Toward the end, Herkenbald heard a commotion outside of his room.  With hesitance, the great magistrate was told that his own nephew had taken a maiden against her will and committed rape.  Herkenbald commanded his subordinates to bring his nephew to his bedside.

However, the subordinates disobeyed, and took measures to hide the nephew.  And for whatever dumb reason, five days later the nephew came to the hospital on his own and entered Herkenbald's room.

Herkenbald was friendly and kind to his nephew.  He was very glad to see the young man, here at the end of his own days.  He bid his nephew to come and sit beside him.

And that's when Herkenbald grabbed the youth, held him with all his remaining strength as he pulled out a concealed dagger, and slit his own nephew's throat wide open.

His nephew's body collapsed to the floor.  The act discovered even as Herkenbald's breathing grew shallow, the bishop was summoned to hear his confession and to deliver last rites.  But Herkenbald refused to confess to the murder of his nephew.  It was not murder at all, the judge told the bishop.  It was the administration of justice.  His nephew had raped a woman and thus forfeited his life.  The law was without question in the matter.  A crime had been committed and punishment must be meted out.  And that is what Herkenbald had done.

Outraged, the bishop refused the final sacraments to Herkenbald.  The legend says that just as the bishop was storming out of the room, Herkenbald called out to him.  Then Herkenbald blew the high clergyman a holy raspberry: upon his tongue was the sacramental Host.  He had been given communion by the highest of all judges.  And then, his tasks fulfilled and a proverbial "up yours!" to the Bishop of Brussels, Herkenbald died.

Now if that's not a hardcore myth to convey to apprentice practitioners of the law and to veteran judges and constables alike, then by all rights it should be.  The legend of Herkenbald is the perfect morality tale about the law.  It is an admonition to judges and to politicians and to all who would hold sacred the rule of law in a society.  It is a reminder that though man and his schemes are inescapably fallen, there is an incorruptibility that must be striven toward without favor.

That photo is a depiction of Herkenbald slaying his nephew.  The statue itself decorates one of the churches in Brussels.

Maybe there needs to be a sculpture of Herkenbald in the United States Capitol Building.  Perhaps in the Rotunda, where every member of the House and Senate might see it.  And in the United States Supreme Court Building.  And in every courthouse in America.  And in law school textbooks.

After all, Lady Justice carries a blade.  Herkenbald actually used his.

Read More

A federal judge just turned Twitter and Facebook into public utilities

In what might be the most hilarious case of unintended consequences in recent memory, today Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that President Donald Trump was wrong to have blocked users from his Twitter feed... which inadvertently has officially designated Twitter (and by extension Facebook and YouTube and other social media outlets) to be common carriers like the telephone system!

In a 75-page ruling, Judge Buchwald declared that Twitter was a "designated public forum" on which Trump could not discriminate against selected readers by blocking their accounts. "This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, 'block' a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States," Buchwald said in her opinion. "The answer to both questions is no."

So let's tear this down...

If a person is a "public official", that person can not "mute" communication between himself or herself and selected members of the audience based on their political views.  It is effectively giving the President a right to be heard whether he wants to be heard or not.

So when do these same protections get extended to ordinary citizens like Diamond & Silk, who have been chronically banned (and reinstated after considerable public outcry) from Facebook and other social media venues?

The documented cases of those who have seen their Facebook posts, tweets, and YouTube clips purged down the memory hole have have had one outstanding factor overwhelmingly in common: they have pertained to those who hold what are often deemed to be "conservative" beliefs.  Too many have been banned outright or have been "shadow banned": made to look as if they are broadcasting their message out but in fact have had their posts and tweets throttled down or shut down completely by Twitter or Facebook or whoever.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is now an open secret that there is extremely active discrimination being practiced on the part of self-ascribed "liberals" and "progressives" within the tech industry against those who they disagree with.  So much so that some have wondered if there might be RICO charges on the basis of advertising purchased with these companies only to have potential audiences algorithm-ed out of sight and out of mind.

But now thanks to Naomi Reice Buchwald, Twitter and other social media platforms have been officially defined to be "common carriers" like AT&T, Comcast, and a lot of other companies.  In business but also subject to regulation by the government to ensure fair practices and privileges for all.  And if users of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are being censored not because of inappropriate behavior but purely on the basis of ideology, well...

This is gonna be totally fun to watch as it unfolds.  Wouldn't surprise me if Twitter came down on Trump's side if it keeps them and every other social media outfit out of regulatory jurisdiction.

Read More

Alfie Evans and Prince Louis: A Tale of Two Britains

While the western world has been obsessed this week with a baby boy born into a family that to be perfectly honest lives in ultimate luxury while producing nothing but a tourism industry and fodder for gossip magazines, another little boy - born to parents who work hard to provide a happy home without need or desire for celebrity - was denied nourishment and life support by order of the High Court in Great Britain.

But few people outside of England, it seems, heard or ever bothered to hear about Alfie Hastings, who had a severe brain condition.

His parents and others tried their very best to save his life, but the judges of Britain decreed that Alfie was a lost cause and a drain on the system.  And so Alfie should die.

Which, he now has.  As of this past hour or so.

Louis and Alfie.  Baby boys born in the same country.  One will never know want or hunger or discomfort, the other has been taken from a Mommy and Daddy who loved him very much and did everything they could to give him a fighting chance to live.

If the situation had been reversed, and Prince William and Kate given birth to a child with the same medical condition as Alfie Evans... would the British courts have ordered and enforced a mandate that their baby boy must die?

Read More

Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act: An affirmation of liberty, and other thoughts

Some musings on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now on the books in Indiana and that so many are in a tizzy about...

The act does not discriminate.

The act is not "anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-bisexual, anti-transexual" or anti-anything at all. Nowhere in the text of the legislation is there found a clause stipulating that any one or any group in particular is to be given any less protection under the law.

The act simply reasserts something that Amendment One of the Bill of Rights has codified for well over two hundred years: that there is a right to assembly and association. This also means that there is just as much a right to NON-association.

The act simply does as its title indicates: it allows for individuals and businesses to not provide a service if doing so violates the religious beliefs of that individual or business.

There are many people who do not believe that such a valid concept exists as "gay marriage" or any other kind of marital relationship apart from one man and one woman. These people have a right to those beliefs even if they are not agreed to.

The act asserts the rights of such people to act in accordance to their religious beliefs.

The act applies across the board to every citizen of the state of Indiana. Thus, a Moslem photographer cannot be compelled to be hired for a Jewish bar mitzvah. A Jewish carpenter cannot be forced under penalty to build a creche for a church’s Nativity scene. A Christian-owned bakery will not be obligated to bake a cake meant for a homosexual marriage celebration. And a homosexual-owned catering service cannot be made against their will to provide food for the "God Hates Fags" nuts at Westboro Baptist Church.

Those who are against the act have every right in the world to look for another business with which to solicit service as a customer.

Why are two homosexuals who want a wedding cake going to a bakery that they know is against homosexual marriage, anyway? Are there no more bakeries around, or could it be that they desire to forcefully compel that bakery to provide against its owners beliefs?

If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is going to legalize discrimination and if those against the act are concerned about it on such a vast scale, then logically they have accused most of the people of the state of Indiana of being pro-discrimination and that said discrimination is deeply entrenched in that state's society. I have to wonder what most citizens of Indiana would think of that.

Those who are in favor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not consumed by hate toward anyone.
And if they were, I would not want to associate with those people. Christians are not to hate anyone. But that does not mean that Christians must give approval of behavior that according to their convictions is sinful.

The ones who are most preaching "tolerance" seem to be rabidly intolerant of those who hold to the beliefs of marriage being solely between man and woman.

The ones who are most preaching "tolerance" seem to be rabidly intolerant of, for the most part, Christians.

Businesses have the right to serve or turn away who they wish. If a business does not want me as a customer, it can do so. Just as I can choose not to solicit service from that business or any other. If a business so chooses to discriminate, I have the right to go to or not go to that business. If a business decides it will no longer serve celibate white males with bipolar disorder, then I will not try to force the issue and neither would I want to. Neither would I try to be a customer of a business that discriminates against women or other ethnic groups. I will gladly take my money elsewhere.

Those against the act are naturally welcome to boycott Indiana. However such boycotts in general are counter-productive.

I would even dare say that boycotting the entire state of Indiana is akin to cutting off one’s face in spite of his or her nose.

The people who disagree with those against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not "bigots". They do not hate anyone. They are not followers of an outdated religion. They are not pro-discrimination. I have been called all of these things and more in the past few days, by people who do not know what they are talking about.

If a church is truly discriminating against homosexuals, I would not want to be a part of that church. Jesus loved the prostitutes, the tax collectors, and every other sinner as much as He loved His disciples. So must I. But neither did Jesus affirm or approve of their sins. Neither can I. He told them to "go and sin no more." So they must. So must I, for that matter. No church should turn away any sinner. But no church must be compelled to give approval to any sin, either.

There are already laws such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act in place in 19 other states. That is almost 40 percent of the country. These states seem strangely bereft of any boycotting on the part of those who are anti-Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

It has been a very long time since I have seen any alleged discussion as has been about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act with so much incivility and raw hatred. And the vast majority of it seems to be coming from those against the act.

I like to think that we can be better than that.

You are free to agree or disagree with me as you wish. Regardless, Jesus loves you and so do I.

Read More

A Facebook post: My beliefs about politics, law enforcement (and other stuff)

 Earlier this morning, following some comments on Facebook, I posted a status articulating some thoughts about politics, government, and my take on respecting law enforcement.  Subsequently I've been feeling led to post it here as well.  It could be because I really haven't written anything here for quite a while about my beliefs on some things.

Anyway, here it is...

---

There are some people on Facebook who the better angels of my nature are struggling to keep me from referring to as "blithering idiots". Specifically, the ones demanding to know if I am "left or right".

Those who know me best know that I'm neither, and that I have long been above such... at least what I consider to be... an immature, inaccurate and childish paradigm.

I may be fiscally conservative, but I'm not a be-all, end-all "conservative". Neither have I ever thought of myself as "liberal". "Libertarian" doesn't fit either. "Anarchist" certainly doesn't.

I am merely the person God made and meant for me to be... and I will NOT be pegged as "left" or "right" or anything else on the political "spectrum". I'm not on that spectrum. I'm above it. I believe in personal freedom with responsibility. Apparently that is too much for some to comprehend.

Neither do I appreciate the insinuation that I "defend" the "wrong people" because I expect more, and better, from those who have chosen to *serve* us in an official capacity. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. There is no tier system separating "us" from "them". Neither is trust or respect inordinately bestowed on those who have chosen to take up a mark of such service. That level of respect and trust must be *earned*. It doesn't come automatically with a badge or a uniform. That kind of unquestioning "respect" is ultimately what has led to tyranny throughout too much of history.

I don't "disrespect" anybody. But if someone wishes to bear a mark of distinction from others, then they'd damn well better LIVE UP to that with honor. I am an Eagle Scout. Every day I do my best to live up to what that means. I can't add to the honor of that, but I certainly can take away from it. I don't want to do that, because if I did that would bring the honor of a lot of people - who I consider better than I - into question. The same holds true for law enforcement, or anyone else who puts on a uniform. There are some among those who "get" that. There are too many who don't. And lately more than a few of them are taking away from the honor of those that do strive to live up to that honor.

Yet some have recently implied that I'm worse than "wrong" because I choose to question the honor of anyone at all.

We, each of us, are citizens of this country. It is the responsibility of each of us to respect the rights of others and to uphold the Constitution. There are some who have ostensibly chosen to make doing so a paid career of that. If so, then they SHOULD be held to a higher standard than other citizens. They SHOULD be held accountable for what they do with the power and authority entrusted them.

I don't say that out of disrespect toward anyone. But neither can I ascribe a "respect" that is synonymous with fear, toward those who believe they must be feared because of their chosen profession. I can't disrespect, but neither is my respect so cheaply gained. Neither should it be for anyone else.

I believe in accountability on the part of ALL of us, without partiality.

Just as I will not only NOT be branded as "left" or "right" or whatever, and in fact I loathe those who demand that of me.

I am simply what God has led me to be after much life and experience. I am what He would have me to be.

And if others don't have the capacity or the desire to understand that, then that's their problem, not mine.

Read More

Danny de Gracia: more laws do not equal greater morality

Friend, fellow writer and fighter-in-the-good-fight Danny de Gracia has published some well-recommended thoughts this week about the correlation between the quantity of legislation and the resulting amount of public morality.  It has been the conventional wisdom throughout history that more laws equals a more perfect society.

But does it really?  De Gracia doesn't think so.  In fact, as he writes in separate pieces for The Washington Times as well as his own blog, the ever-growing volumes of law being produced have made things worse.  They are, in truth, a symptom of a far worse problem: the spiritual condition of the human heart, which no act of government can change.

From de Gracia's essay in The Washington Times:

When first-time candidates run for office, most pitch a platform promising “change” in the form of new laws. Incumbent legislators are often attacked by challengers not for the number of bad bills canned in committee, but for the number of introduced measures that actually made it into law.

At the Hawaii State Legislature, a newly-hired Senate analyst was once given the assignment of reading the 2011 Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) and complained when her boss was away that she faced reading thousands of pages packed with dense legalese. A veteran House staffer simply smiled and replied, “The SLH covers a couple of months of lawmaking and is more than a foot thick. Yet the Bible contains thousands of years of God’s commands to man and is only three inches thick on average. What does that say about how many laws they’re making here?”

As that incident perfectly illustrates, legislators are lawmaking mass-producers. (Prior to going paperless, in years past whenever the Hawaii State Legislature was in session, the cost of printer paper in Honolulu would rise by a few cents.) It also underlines the more important fact that even God, who is infinitely powerful and wise, could not by the means of law alone make humans righteous or the Earth more verdant.

Laws do not make good citizens nor do they prosper the environment. As is evident by thousands of years of human civilization, the only thing laws really accomplish is condemnation for those who engage in banned behaviors.

 And from his blog piece:

Our 21st century America has become an extremely legalistic society. Chances are if you can think of something, there's a public law that taxes, regulates or bans it. Most legislators who introduce laws do so based on a belief that law somehow makes for a better society or more responsible citizenry. Yet as we have seen in recent years, the increase of laws has only meant more incarceration, more law enforcement (and tougher police tactics) and more surveillance. People need to consult a lawyer for almost everything these days because the slightest screw up could result in government fines, imprisonment or civil action.

In my article I discuss how law at its very core is flawed with respect to humanity because laws do not change the human heart, they only punish. A law can forbid perjury or fraud, but it can never make a liar honest. Another law can prohibit littering, but it cannot make a messy person neat. The human heart -whether it inclines towards evil or good - is the true driving force. A society without morals can have laws forbidding everything but without citizens who have the soul (and by this I mean heart, mind and spirit) to live right, will be marked by chaos, violence and mayhem.

(snip)

You cannot legislate righteousness. It didn't work for God (nor was it His intent to justify by the law) and it certainly won't work for humans either. This is where so-called "social conservatives" miss the mark: they think that by banning behaviors they will somehow "instruct" souls in the way of righteousness or "preserve" the character of the nation. Jesus - speaking of a man's internal heart condition - said that a good tree does not bear bad fruit, neither does a bad tree bear good fruit. Bad deeds do not spontaneously generate, they are the fruit of a bad heart. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit" (Matthew 12:33).

It reminds me of something that Cicero observed: the more the laws there were, the more numerous the lawbreakers.

Metaphorically, it's the political equivalent of grasping at straws: our leaders, we ourselves even, have been convinced that if we pass just one, more, law, that somehow it will magically make everything better.  And that kind of thinking is in defiance of the reality that Man, on his own, is a fallen and corrupt creature.  Nothing he can do according to his own wisdom is going to succeed... or at least survive the test of time.

Why has our country become so corrupted politically and socially?  Because her people have placed their trust and confidence in government, in political parties, in cheapened religion which makes them "feel good" but does nothing to convict and bring personal accountability.  Unfortunately, I look around and see too many people, preachers and politicians who still insist that "things will be right", if only they were in power.

Anyway, de Gracia has some eloquent elucidation in these two essays and they're well worth passing along.

Read More

George Zimmerman: NOT GUILTY

Breaking news on, I think every TV station in the land right now.

George Zimmerman: found Not Guilty

Justice was served.  And I'm going to tell you why...

George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin because the prosecution in this case either had NO real evidence whatsoever, or they were the most incompetent team of prosecutors in the history of anything.  Too many times it seemed as if the prosecutors were scoring points for the defense!

Either way, justice was done in this matter.  The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence.  And the prosecution came nowhere close to meeting that burden.

Read More

Look! Real Third Amendment case! A story that will boil your blood...

'Fess up: how many of us laughed about the Third Amendment when we learned about it (or were supposed to have learned about it) in ninth grade?

The Quartering Act, 1763.

(Chris raises his hand)

The Third Amendment - part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution - reads thusly: "No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

But an incident two years ago which is just now coming to light in court demonstrates how much we should appreciate our rights, whether or not we actively employ them  Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell, were asked by the police department of Henderson, Nevada for the use of their homes in a "domestic violence" investigation.  All three members of the Mitchell family declined, saying they did not wish to become involved.

The Henderson Police Department took their homes anyway.

From Reason.com:

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.

Anthony Mitchell was charged with "obstructing an officer".  His father Michael was arrested while trying to leave a police command center which the cops lured him under false pretense so they could seize his house, too.

The Mitchells are suing the Henderson Police Department for violations of their Third and Fourth Amendment rights as well as "assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress".

If the allegations are true, here's hoping that the Mitchells will bankrupt the Town of Henderson for allowing this to happen.  As for the cops themselves: in a sane world they would be taken to the village square and horsewhipped forty times as a dire warning to any who would wear and then abuse the badge of peace officer.

(That's a huge part of the problem right there: that we no longer have "peace officers" but "law enforcement officers".  There are many in this country who have come to believe that cops are becoming a government sanctioned gang of thugs not much different from the Bloods 'n the Crips.  Stories like this make it hard not to see some merit to that notion.)

Read More

Kermit Gosnell has chosen life

And by that I mean, Kermit Gosnell has chosen life in prison.

He could have chosen death.  Gosnell dropped his appeals in exchange for life, not death.

I'm not the first to note the irony that given a choice, Gosnell chose life.

If only his victims had been given the same choice...

Kermit Gosnell: He chose life for himself, death for babies.

Kermit Gosnell, abortion "doctor", found guilty yesterday of murdering three babies (he had been charged with killing four) during botched abortions at his "clinic". Gosnell was quoted as remarking that Baby A was "big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop."

You may not have heard much about Kermit Gosnell. In fact, you might not have heard anything at all about him. The mainstream media was curiously quiet about his case. I don't know whether it was because the details about went on in Gosnell's slaughterhouse were so gory and horrific, or because it was a story that exposed abortion for the obscenity that it is.

(You can click here to read more about the case. Much of which is about how Gosnell's primary M.O. was jabbing the babies' necks with scissors and snipping and twisting the spinal cords.)

Last week I wrote about how Ariel Castro is facing "aggravated murder" from allegedly causing the deaths of at least one unborn baby during the ten years that he and his two brothers held three women hostage in Cleveland.  The only person who was killed in that case was an unborn baby.  Not a "fetus".  Not an "unviable tissue mass".  A human being.

Kermit Gosnell is going to prison because he killed human beings.  They were humans at their most helpless and most in need of love and compassion.  Kermit Gosnell butchered them, laughed about it and made money from it.

Kermit Gosnell is not a doctor.  A doctor takes an oath to defend life.  Gosnell took innocent life.  Again and again and again.

So what's it going to be, ladies and gentlemen?  Either an unborn child is a human accorded all the rights as any other, including the right to live.  Or it is not, and Kermit Gosnell has not committed murder at all.

As I said last week: We can't have it both ways.

(By the way, that was Troy Newman of Operation Rescue who first noted the supreme irony of Gosnell choosing life in prison over the death penalty.)

Read More

Department of Defense has 3D printed gun yanked... but I got it anyway (and so can you!)

The Liberator: Coming soon to
a desktop near you!

Defense Distributed has made a lot of headlines lately about the Liberator: a firearm which is completely fabricated by "3D printing", apart from the firing pin.  I think the success of this gun already is that it's got politicians like Charles Schumer and Steve Israel all steamed-up about it.  Schumer wants 3D printed guns to be outlawed completely.

The thing is, politicos like Schumer can't figure out how to pull that off.  3D printing will soon be a household implement and if it can be drawn up on a computer, anyone will be able to produce a fully-functioning model right on their desktop.  The computer doesn't care if it's a replacement part for a kitchen appliance or an action figure or a real working handgun.  The barn door has been thrown wide open and there's no getting that horse back inside.

Never let something like common sense stop the government from trying.  Earlier today the Department of Defense requested that Defense Distributed remove all its 3D weapons-related files from its website.   Defense Distributed's founder Cody Wilson is laying the blame on the doorstep of Secretary of State John Kerry.

As of this writing, Defense Distributed's site has "gone dark".

But less than five minutes after reading about the government having the Liberator pulled from the web, I had downloaded the gun.  And not once, but twice.

Here's how I did it, and how anybody else can as well:

Download µTorrent if you don't have it already (it's a free download) and run the install.  Any other torrent client should work too.  I found the Liberator files on The Pirate Bay.  There are two torrents for it so far: here's #1 and here's #2.  If either of those can't be found just do a search for "liberator" and "gun": I got those two results at once.  The file size is 2.02 megabytes (such a tiny thing for something so much fuss about).

And then... just download your Liberator files!  If you possess a 3D printer you can start making your Liberator pistol immediately.

I downloaded the file from each of those two torrents.  It is on my hard drive.  It is also on at least two USB drives that I've copied it too.  I can e-mail the file to anyone, anywhere in the world.  I could even set up a torrent on my own and allow people to download it from me directly.

In fact, it is happening right now.  Not by me, but by other people.  Lots and lots of other people.

Shutting down the Defense Distributed website was just about the worst thing that the United States federal government could have done, if it didn't want the Liberator to get into the wild.  By trying to outlaw it, the feds have made it so that practically everyone can want it.  Defense Distributed could not have asked for better publicity for and dissemination of its product!

Anyhoo... "Annie get your gun!" :-)

Read More

The Cleveland kidnappings and abortion

Like many others, I have been watching the news out of Cleveland this week: the three young women who escaped after more than a decade of captivity, rape, torture and other abuse.  There is a lot to be said about this story, but most of that has been discussed at considerable length already.

However, tonight I happened to catch something that has led me to articulate some thoughts aloud...

Apparently, at least one of the women became pregnant because of the Castro brothers (Ariel, the eldest, is still being held but his brothers are free for now).  It's being reported that at least one child was born but the others were killed as a result of induced miscarriages.

Ariel Castro, the "leader" of the three brothers charged with the kidnappings and torture, now faces the possibility of the death penalty if tried and convicted.  That is, if it is determined that he is responsible for purposefully causing one of the five miscarriages that hostage Michelle Knight suffered.  Knight was reportedly starved for more than two weeks and then Ariel Castro "repeatedly punched her in the stomach until she miscarried".

Here is what prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty told reporters earlier today...

“Based on the facts, I fully intend to seek charges for each and every act of sexual violence, rape, each day of kidnapping, every felonious assault, all his attempted murders and each act of aggravated murder he committed by terminating pregnancies” during the years the women were held, McGinty said.

"My office of the county prosecutor will also engage in a formal process in which we evaluate whether to seek charges eligible for the death penalty," he said. "The law of Ohio calls for the death penalty for those most depraved criminals who commit aggravated murder during the course of a kidnapping."

That is what Castro's alleged crime is being legally defined as: "aggravated murder".   McGinty made it clear that Castro's actions were "attempted murders" and "murder he committed by terminating pregnancies".

And for his heinous actions, Ariel Castro could be put to death.

But how is what Ariel Castro has reputedly done any different from abortion: something that has long enjoyed legal protection?

If Michelle's children were conceived as a result of Ariel raping her, and he is biologically the father and he didn't want any of them well... isn't that what happens thousands of times each day across America?  When a parent does not want a child?

How is it possible to defend the killing of unborn children as a legal "right" on the basis that they are not yet full-born human beings but rather an "unviable tissue mass", yet murder charges can be pressed against a man who likely killed at least one unborn child on the basis that these were humans he exterminated?

Logically, it is not possible.  Logically, it does not make sense.

How is the same act of killing someone a "protected right" in one situation and "aggravated murder" in another?

Want to know something?  I would bet real money that if Ariel Castro is charged with murder, the pro-abortion crowd is going to be sorely tempted to come out guns blazing against those charges.  Because if unborn children can be legally defined as having the right to live and that said right being denied is grounds for capital punishment, then the entire legal basis of abortion collapses.

It will have to.  There can be no prosecution for the murder of five innocent unborn children in one matter and a rigorous defending of "the right to choose" and "the right to privacy" so as to put to death unborn children in another.

We can't have it both ways.

Read More

Internet sales taxes: Does the United States Senate NOT understand the Constitution?

A short while ago the members of the United States Senate voted 70 to 24 to pass the "Marketplace Fairness Act": AKA "Internet sales taxes".

The Senate has approved collecting taxes on goods sold on the Internet.  We'll examine that in just a sec.

("Marketplace Fairness Act"?  God, I hate how these people try to govern by emotion instead of intelligence...)

Anyone who voted for this bill should be removed from office at the earliest possible legal opportunity.  For one thing, it is insanity for government to be levying more taxes upon us at a time when you and I and most other Americans are being obligated to tighten our belts.  How much more do our supposed "representatives" believe we can take?

But what is most on my mind tonight is how this bill is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the United States.

According to Article One, Section 7:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate n the House..."

Why then is a bill for raising revenue now originating in the Senate and not only that but has been approved??

I do not have time to watch C-SPAN but I wonder: were there any senators who brought up this fact during debate on the bill?

In a sane world, the House of Representatives would reject the bill from even being admitted into its presence, given how it's unconstitutional.  But I seriously doubt that will happen (though it should).  Barring that, the House should overwhelmingly defeat it.  If it does pass though and President Obama signs it, the obvious thing in this blogger's mind is that the Supreme Court should strike it down.

The Supreme Court shouldn't have to do that though, given that any fifth grader would tell you that the bill has been unconstitutional to begin with.

Y'know, there could be a lot of trouble saved if those in government just followed the directions instead of pulling stuff like this out of their collective ass...

Read More

North Carolina lawmakers want statewide official religion

Earlier this morning I first read about this and ever since I've been trying to find a measure of absurd purpose or mad brilliance in this legislation... but if it's there I can't find it.

Two members of this state's House of Representatives have filed House Bill 494, which if passed would allow for an official religion to be imposed upon North Carolina.

It's not a late April Fools joke.  Representatives Harry Warren and Carl Ford (each of Rowan County) want an official state religion which would circumvent judicial rulings on prayer at government functions within North Carolina.  Presumably this would be in response to courts which have struck down prayers at county commissioner meetings, school board hearings and the like.  Eleven other representatives so far have backed the proposal.

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people... Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion."

Here's the real meat of HB 494...

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

To be fair, the bill does not specify any particular religion.

If this is about localities getting to choose on their own whether or not they will have prayers to open their meetings, then I understand that frustration: the courts have been interfering beyond the scope of their rational interests in regard to prayers which have had a ceremonial role with no bearing on official policy or writing of legislation.

But this is the wrong way to address that concern.  In fact, it's incredibly, insanely irresponsible.  Unethical.  Immoral.  And this is un-Constitutional: in spirit of the law if not in letter of the law.

Warren and Ford consider themselves to be "conservatives".  But there is nothing conservative whatsoever about HB 494.  And faith enforced is no faith at all.

Read More

Once again this blogger makes Cracked.com ("5 Famous Online Copyright Crusaders Who Are Total Hypocrites")

At this point I've lost count. It's at least the fourth or fifth time that my shenanigans have landed me on popular humor site Cracked.com.

This latest appearance comes courtesy of an article titled "5 Famous Online Copyright Crusaders Who Are Total Hypocrites".  With a title like that I just had to scan and tear it down and analyze it to see what I was doing that was so hypocritical... but I honestly can't find anything about my own part in that very strange episode from the fall of 2007.  In fact, the entire article is about corporations - as Viacom did in that incident - who cry and crow about copyright laws protecting their assets and then steal and violate the assets of everyone else without giving a damn!!

Anyhoo, my situation, "Viacom Lays Claim to a County Board of Education Campaign Video", made #2 on the list.  And if you wanna see the commercial that started it all, from my 2006 campaign for Rockingham County Board of Education, click here to watch "Christopher Knight for School Board TV Commercial #1".

(Personally, I'm still more proud of Commercial #2 and Commercial #3.  In fact, Commercial #3 has always been my favorite of that batch of ads.)

Read More

Robert Bork has passed away

Look, I know about the guy's role in the Saturday Night Massacre. There were a number of beliefs that he held to which I do now and always will vehemently disagree with, particularly with his stance on jury nullification. He also was way off about the Second Amendment, holding to the notion that it was intended for participating in government-sanctioned militias.

But I've also long believed that in spite of those and many more qualms about the man, Robert Bork truly - as best he understood - adhered to the highest principles in respect to law and the Constitution.

And claims from petty politicians (like Ted Kennedy) aside, it must be agreed by all: Bork was a brilliant jurist in every sense.

Judge Robert H. Bork passed away this morning at the age of 85.

Thoughts and prayers going out to his family.

And I have to wonder today - as I have many times over the years - what the United States Supreme Court would have been like if Bork had been on the bench.

Read More