Subsidizing official misbehavior

It must be nice to be able to flaunt the law and get somebody else to pay for it:

Ms. Lerner and Ms. Paz gave taped depositions in a class-action lawsuit brought by tea party groups demanding answers and compensation for having been subjected to illegal targeting ((by the IRS)) for their political beliefs.

The government settled the class-action lawsuit in Ohio and another tea party challenge in the District of Columbia in two agreements last month, admitting to the illegal behavior. The Ohio settlement also called for the government to pay $3.5 million to the tea party groups, according to one of the plaintiffs.

Now, where does the government get $3.5 million?  That’s right: your wallet and mine. This practice of making Joe Taxpayer pay for Johnny Government’s misdeeds is not unique to the IRS debacle, either:

Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough said Wednesday that over the last 20 years, Congress has settled 260 complaints of workplace discrimination “at a cost to taxpayers of this country of $15 million,” reiterating a figure she quoted on NBC Tuesday. But it’s unclear how many of those complaints were related to sexual harassment, versus racial or other forms of discrimination, because Congress doesn’t release that information, nor is it subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Got that?  You and I are paying for the government to break its own rules, and those rules have been arranged so that we can learn nothing of the details.  This is the same Congress, incidentally, that has been preening morally about how “wrong” it would be for Alabama to elect Roy Moore to the Senate, since he’s been accused of misconduct. But the last I looked, Moore continues to deny the allegations and he has never paid out a settlement to shut somebody up.

These elected officials dodge the financial bullet for their misconduct under the concept of “official immunity,” which is a gross abuse of the public trust.  Official immunity is meant to protect public workers in the performance of their duties.  For instance, a military physician cannot be sued by a servicemember because the physician performed an amputation in a war zone.  This recognizes that even in the honestperformance of official duties, some injury may occur.

But what we’re seeing here is not a pattern of honest service.  Far from it.  Official immunity is instead being used to offload the penalty of malfeasance to the taxpayers — and that is an injustice of the highest order.

Lois Lerner and Holly Paz are also asking that their testimonies in the IRS mess be sealed permanently.  In other words, they want the taxpayers to be denied still more information about why they’re being bilked for these settlements.  They claim they fear the public’s wrath, should their testimonies be released.

GOOD.  It’s time the government came to fear the citizens again.  Fear is a powerful deterrent, and right now there doesn’t seem to be much deterring our ruling class from doing whatever the hell they want… and making US pay for it.  When the legal system is perverted to obstruct justice, as it has been with “official immunity” and the concealment of what should be public information, the system loses its legitimacy — and the people lose their patience.

It’s probably time to invest in some torches and pitchforks.  We’ve reached the point where instilling fear is about the only recourse we have left to reign in our out-of-control criminal ruling class.

Advertisements

Saturday Sounds

It seems these days every new news cycle brings up another scandal, real or imagined. As Christians, we know this world is evil but it’s still disheartening to see so many rocks kicked over in so many high places, revealing the corruption beneath.  It’s a useful reminder, though.  Our hope is not found in any politician (of any party), nor in pundits or those whose fame and fortune are celebrated by society.

In Christ alone, our hope is found.

You say you want a revolution?

Gun control advocates are usually careful to emphasize they’re not proposing “confiscation” of private firearms.  But every once in a while, the mask slips:

The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?

As a patriotic American fully aware of his history and heritage, I can only hope it would look something like this:

the-shot-heard-round-the-world-by-domenick-dandrea

Otherwise, the colonists of 1775 fought for nothing.

The writer of the Boston Globe article needs to realize that many of the most ardent gun rights advocates today are also veterans of the wars of the last quarter century.  Not only do we take seriously the oath we swore to uphold the Constitution, we’ve also seen first-hand what happens to a disarmed people at the mercy of whatever thugs claim to be a government.

We can talk all day about the need to address mental health issues, or requiring reasonable firearms training before being allowed to possess weapons.  What is not on the table is seizing weapons from law-abiding citizens.  As Mike Vanderboegh said years ago in his essay “What I have Learned from the 20th Century:”

Lesson No. 2
If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms– kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

The politicians and the press have forfeited their credibility and abandoned any pretense of governing in the public’s interest.  Across the West, orthodox Christians are openly mocked and bureaucratically (for now) harassed.  A veritable fifth column of violent jihadists has been allowed to settle in America and Europe.  Does anyone seriously believe any of those trends will improve in the face of a disarmed populace?

Mr. David Sharfenberg of the Boston Globe, there is only one appropriate response to an arrogant, presumptuous headline like “Hand Over Your Weapons.”

Molon Labe.

Quote of the Day

From Kurt Schlichter:

“When you own a weapon and can defend yourself and your rights, you are a citizen. When you do not, you are a subject.”  (emphasis added)

And that, in a nutshell, is the real root of the Left’s desire to gut the 2nd Amendment.  This week marks the centennial of the advent of communism.  The body count that ideology racked up was due in no small part to the fact that its targets were usually unarmed and unable to fight back effectively.

one execution from utopia

The entire article is worth your attention, in light of recent events.

It’s a mystery

At least, it’s a mystery to the New York Times why the phrase “Allahu Ackbar” has become synonymous with terrorism:

When H. A. Hellyer is out walking with his family, strangers sometimes approach him and declare, “Allahu akbar!”

RES_d9a28254-94e0-48b9-aa16-c2d467f16ac9SELRES_3ad5f98a-35b5-49d0-850d-c990a37560bfSELRES_7b62172d-4292-4cdc-a53d-5bcef31d7408SELRES_5a1912fd-94d8-4209-9025-b22fe1ce7809SELRES_d74be42a-80bc-484e-bbc1-10729004b017Many Westerners may find it hard to believe these days, but Mr. Hellyer does not recoil in fear.

“I’ll be walking out with my kids,” he said, “and someone will say: ‘Oh, they’re so cute. Allahu akbar.’ And I’ll joke: ‘Thank you — now stop talking to my kids.’”

The Arabic phrase, which means simply “God is great,” has, it sometimes seems, become intertwined with terrorism.

I wonder how on Earth such a connection could be made?  As he often does, David Burge cuts right to the chase:

Allahu Ackbar

It’s telling that one of the top priorities of the NYT and other major outlets after EVERY. SINGLE. ATTACK. is to leap to the defense of Islam and Muslims. I get it: we’re not supposed to judge an entire people by the actions of a few. The problem is, it’s not just the actions of a few and frankly, the foundations of that faith are more than a little problematic.

For what it’s worth, I spent quite some time overseas interacting with Muslims in their home nations. I don’t recall a single time the phrase “Allahu ackbar” was uttered in such a casual fashion as the NYT describes. I heard plenty of “inshallah,” (if God wills) and “Alhamdulillah” (basically “praise Allah”).  But what the NYT is trying to get us to do is ignore observable reality: when the phrase “Allahu ackbar” pops up in the West outside of a mosque, bad things happen.  I just have one response to them for that attempt at obfuscation:

Go to hell, Wormtongue.

Fantasy vs. reality

Just two days ago, the organization Latino Victory Fund posted this racist video to Twitter as part of their support of the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia:

They’ve since taken the video down (but not before it was archived). What prompted the removal? The aftermath of a REAL instance of a vehicular manslaughter:

A man in a rented pickup truck mowed down pedestrians and cyclists along a busy bike path in New York City Tuesday, killing at least eight and injuring 13 others in what the mayor called “a particularly cowardly act of terror.”

In a tragic irony, at least five of those killed were Hispanics — Argentine nationals in New York to mark the 30th anniversary of their high school graduating class.  But the driver of the rented truck had nothing to do with the Tea Party (a libelous smear added to the video), Ed Gillespie, or even the Confederate flag for that matter. He DID, however, exit his truck screaming “Allahu Ackbar!” just as his fellow travelers have done in London, Nice, Stockholm, Berlin and Barcelona. (By the way, CNN, that doesn’t translate literally as simply “God is great.”  There’s a lot more to it.)

Conservative, patriotic Americans are not the problem.

The Second Amendment is not the problem.

The problem is the practically unfettered migration of jihadists and their descendants to the West(The truck driver’s name — Sayfullo — is the Uzbeki form of “Saifullah,” which literally means “Sword of Allah.”)

That’s not a popular thing to say, and tragically, not enough people will say it.  Already the press is wringing its hands, worrying over the expected “backlash” against Muslims that never quite seems to materialize, no matter how often we’ve been down this road since 9/11.  Because of this willful blindness, Americans keep dying from these supposed “lone wolf” attacks.  It’s time to ask: why do we have an immigration “diversity lottery” that allows people to come here from places like Uzbekistan where this sort of ideology is a known problem?  Sure, we can pat ourselves on the back for accepting “refugees” (an abused status claim if there ever was one), but what’s in it for America?

We applaud individual charity, and rightfully so.  But what would we think of a man who gives so much to charity that his wife and kids don’t have enough food, clothing or shelter?  Or one who picked up a hitchhiker who proceeded to murder the family and steal their minivan?  It’s said that charity starts at home.  So does security.  Those are good foundational concepts for our immigration policies.

Those who made the video above see the descendants of those who built America as the greatest threat to America.  George Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” would be so proud.