Encouraging evil geniuses

I’ve noted more than once here that the rule of law is dead in America.  We have, instead, a nation that applies rules based on the status of the accused (for instance: a special prosecutor has been appointed to look into Trump’s dealings with Russia.  Where’s the one for Her Hillariness?)

The problem, it seems, is not limited to America:

An Oxford University student who stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife may not go to jail because it could damage her prospects of a medical career, a court has heard…

Judge Ian Pringle QC, sitting at Oxford crown court, said he would take an “exceptional” course and defer sentence for four months, hinting that Woodward will not be jailed because of her talent. “It seems to me that if this was a one-off, a complete one-off, to prevent this extraordinary able young lady from not following her long-held desire to enter the profession she wishes to would be a sentence which would be too severe,” he said.

Lots of people make “one-off” mistakes with life-changing ramifications.  If Western Civilization is now accepting that one may engage in violence with impunity because one might be talented, then we’re a short hop away from barbarism.  Every evil regime you can think of had talented people in vital positions, or they wouldn’t have functioned.  Does the persuasive genius of Herr Goebbels “mitigate” the fact he helped put Germany under Hitler’s spell?  Does Charles Manson’s unusual charisma mitigate the fact he and his followers went on a killing spree?  Are we now saying that medical, computer and engineering skills are so in demand that talent in these areas amounts to a “get out of jail” card?

And they say white males have privilege…

Advertisements

Quote of the week

“The law is on Donald Trump’s side. Doesn’t mean that the courts will follow it.”

I’ve noted on several occasions the increasing disregard for law, when it comes to seeking political advantage.  Now we have a judge in Washington who thinks he can set immigration policy for the nation (legislate from the bench much?), and the kooky 9th Circus Circuit Court backing him up.

Given that the Supreme Court is evenly divided, 4-4 with a vacant seat the Democrats will do all they can to keep vacant, it appears the pressure cooker has been turned on.

Despite the attempt to politicize even the Super Bowl to jerk emotions in favor of illegal immigration, a majority of Americans believe in what the Trump administration is trying to do.  That’s why he was elected.

The more the Democrats and their accessories in the judiciary attempt to stop Trump, the more people are going to realize we are anything BUT “one nation,” much less “under God.”  (I keep waiting for one of my students to realize when we say the pledge in the morning I never say the word “indivisible.”  Not only do I believe it’s inappropriate; it’s also factually wrong, even from the beginning of the country.)

As this pressure cooker continues to gain steam, it may be the best solution is to encourage the nascent secession movement in California (see… it’s only wrong when southern states try it…), and encourage them to take Washington and Oregon with them.  It should be clear by now this nation is headed for a divorce.  Better to do it peacefully than via bloody contest.  Once separate, we can see whose worldview leads to prosperity, and whose leads to poverty and bondage.

And maybe — just maybe — we can see the restoration of the rule of law.

The national security state

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has rewritten its mission statement:

The FBI’s creeping advance into the world of counterterrorism is nothing new. But quietly and without notice, the agency has finally decided to make it official in one of its organizational fact sheets.  Instead of declaring “law enforcement” as its “primary function,” as it has for years, the FBI fact sheet now lists “national security” as its chief mission.

As the FBI’s own history shows, the agency has sought to justify and expand its role throughout its existence:

Today, most Americans take for granted that our country needs a federal investigative service, but in 1908, the establishment of this kind of agency at a national level was highly controversial. The U.S. Constitution is based on “federalism:” a national government with jurisdiction over matters that crossed boundaries, like interstate commerce and foreign affairs, with all other powers reserved to the states. Through the 1800s, Americans usually looked to cities, counties, and states to fulfill most government responsibilities. However, by the 20th century, easier transportation and communications had created a climate of opinion favorable to the federal government establishing a strong investigative tradition.

The impulse among the American people toward a responsive federal government, coupled with an idealistic, reformist spirit, characterized what is known as the Progressive Era, from approximately 1900 to 1918. The Progressive generation believed that government intervention was necessary to produce justice in an industrial society. Moreover, it looked to “experts” in all phases of industry and government to produce that just society…  ((that’s called “technocracy,” by the way…  –Jemison))

When the Bureau was established, there were few federal crimes. The Bureau of Investigation primarily investigated violations of laws involving national banking, bankruptcy, naturalization, antitrust, peonage, and land fraud. ((remember this… we’ll come back to those topics shortly. — Jemison))

As the ‘Progressive’ obsession with creating utopia through government fiat crept into every area of life, however, the number of federal laws proliferated accordingly.  A good portion of those laws–as many are today–were passed by crusading “do-gooders” without broad support for their agenda.  The prime example of this would be the Prohibition Era, with strong echoes in today’s “War on Drugs.”

The years from 1921 to 1933 were sometimes called the “lawless years” because of gangsterism and the public disregard for Prohibition, which made it illegal to sell or import intoxicating beverages. Prohibition created a new federal medium for fighting crime…

In other words, not only did Prohibition provoke widespread disrespect for ‘the law,’ it provided an artificial excuse to increase the size and scope of Federal ‘crime fighting.’   More recently, Uncle Sam issued 141 new regulations in just the first three days of 2014.  How much expansion of ‘crime fighting’ is such constant additions to the Federal register likely to create?

There is a reason, though, the FBI is leaving behind the era of the “Untouchables” to dive officially into national security.  It’s called “follow the money:”

What’s not in question is that government agencies tend to benefit in numerous ways when considered critical to national security as opposed to law enforcement. “If you tie yourself to national security, you get funding and you get exemptions on disclosure cases,” said McClanahan. “You get all the wonderful arguments about how if you don’t get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.”

Translation: more money, more authority, relief from your original functions, a license to fearmonger, and reduced accountability.  Pretty much the playbook for the entire federal government over the last decade. Besides, it sounds much cooler to say you fight al Qada than to say you go after privileged criminals (including some known as ‘Congresscritters‘ and their minions) who game the U.S. system to their advantage.

According to a 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation, the Justice Department did not replace 2,400 agents assigned to focus on counterterrorism in the years following 9/11. The reductions in white-collar crime investigations became obvious. Back in 2000, the FBI sent prosecutors 10,000 cases. That fell to a paltry 3,500 cases by 2005. …   As a result, the agency fielded criticism for failing to crack down on financial crimes ahead of the Great Recession and losing sight of real-estate fraud ahead of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

Almost makes you think 9/11 became a great smoke screen for the looting and pillaging of America, doesn’t it?

Rest well, citizens…

Head games

The case of Nidal Hasan and the shootings at Ft. Hood are Exhibit A for a number of congruent trends that are not going to end well for America:

– First, the administration refuses to label the event a ‘terror attack,’ despite Hasan’s own claim to have been acting in ‘defense of the Taliban’ by shooting his fellow Soldiers.  Once again, politics are trumping a clearheaded examination of what exactly is going on.  After all, how can the President claim there have been ‘no large-scale terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11′ if one doesn’t obfuscate inconvenient events like Ft. Hood and the Boston Marathon.

– The judge in the case has decided to allow Hasan to ‘defend himself,’ rather than use counsel.  This means, of course, that once the actual trial gets under way the self-proclaimed jihadist will have a bully pulpit to spew his twisted version of reality to the public.  Every defendant has the right to state their side for the record, but there’s no reason this process has to become the media circus megaphone that it inevitably will.

– Which leads me to wonder: what is there to try at this point?  Hasan has confessed to the killings and clearly stated his motive, which was to aid the enemies of the United States.  In doing so, he violated the nation’s trust and murdered people who wore the same uniform he did.  There is a word for this: treason.  There is also a traditional penalty for it: death.  I have become much more reticent about use of the death penalty in recent years, but if there were ever a case where it seems clearly applicable, this would be it.

It’s tragically appropriate that Hasan is a trained psychiatrist.  The ‘War on Whatever We’re Calling It Today” has been a slide into madness as a society.  We refuse to call evil by its name.  We worry more about offending people than protecting them by effective prudence (and no, I’m not referring to locking down cities like Boston with martial law; I’m talking about securing our borders and showing more discretion about who we allow to access our land in the first place).  We seem to prefer security theater to the real thing.  And we give people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad and Nidal Hasan a form of prestige by virtue of the legal pins and needles we inflict on ourselves.

Small wonder would-be jihadists have little trouble deciding who’s the “weak horse.”

So it’s open season now?

Interesting to know there’s now judicial precedent that says I can physically attack someone who’s denigrating my Christian faith:

It almost sounds like the makings of a joke: an atheist, a Muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren’t laughing about an attack and insist what’s really frightening is the way a district judge ruled on it.

The Atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope and a zombie Muhammed. On YouTube, you can catch a scary moment. It’s dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.

“He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck,” said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.
The Muslim man and Perce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.
“Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him,” he said.

Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment, but District Judge Mark Martin threw it out after criticizing Perce, the victim, and even calling him a “doofus.” The audio is also on YouTube. Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that’s relevant in this country.

“He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack,” Perce said. 

The judge is apparently none too happy with the publicity his ruling has drawn.  Is there ANY doubt that had a misguided Christian, in violation of the teachings of Christ, stepped off the curb and attacked the “zombie Pope,” it would be headline news around the nation?  That we would be hearing dire warnings about the ‘desire of militant Christians to establish a theocracy?’

As Glenn Reynolds (who appears to be a complete secularist) often points out, Western civilization really needs to understand the perverse incentive system that’s being created.  Criticism of the Muslim faith is demonstrably muted, out of deference to the very real possibility of inciting riot.  Meanwhile, Christians’ complaints about the direction of a society that was once permeated by the principles of their faith, are mocked with impunity and marginalized at every opportunity.

I pray that Christians will continue to be guided by the Spirit and the principles of the Prince of Peace, confining our battle with the “god of this fallen world” to the public conversation.  This side of eternity, though, it’s a constant struggle to control the vestiges of the sinful nature… the one to which the fallacy of the “tu quoque” argument seems mighty appealing at times.  Fortunately, we’re taught “do unto others as you would have them do to you,”  not “do to others as you’ve had done to you.”

Yet more agents provocateur

Only in America (and parts of Western Europe) would it be possible for a member of one religion to VOLUNTARILY choose to attend a university named for a different religion… and then sue to demand that school accommodate the student’s religious desires:

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.
The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

Well… for what it’s worth, I think it inappropriate for a devout Muslim to choose to attend a Catholic institution and expect the school to cowtow to their demands.  Where do I file MY lawsuit??  
If the students had no option for education that met the dictates of their conscience, I could sympathize.  But with a gazillion colleges and universities in America, some of which have large and active Muslim communities, this just doesn’t fly.  Where is it written anyone has the right to voluntarily join an organization, then demand it change to suit them?  Doesn’t one person’s rights end where another’s begin?
Freedom of association… a lost concept that, if revived and defended, would address a host of ills…

Wow…

…talk about a politician’s sense of entitlement:

There’s nothing quite like a politician scorned.
When voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully.  No, he decided to get even.  So he did what anyone does in today’s culture: he sued somebody.

Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his “loss of livelihood,” Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood…

Driehaus’s suit is breaking new legal ground and may already be having a very chilling effect on political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections and criminalizes what is at least a difference of opinion. And it’s curious that the case has not received more attention from the national press.

Read the entire piece… particularly about the judge that allowed this case to go forward.  I agree with Glenn Reynolds:  Worst.  Political.  Class.  Ever.