1. An update to the Michelle Carter fiasco from Taunton, Mass., where the judge in the case discussed here sentenced the young woman to 15 months in jail for her supposedly deadly words, which “made” her boyfriend commit suicide. This classic example of the axiom “hard cases make bad law” provides the censorious camel’s nose access to the tent for advocates of the criminalization of “hate speech,” opposition to climate change propaganda, and the gradual castration of freedom of speech. Carter should have never been charged or tried; doing so was an abuse of process, prosecutorial ethics and judicial ethics. I strongly suspect that the judge knows the case will be reversed on appeal as unconstitutional, hence his decision to stay the sentence, allowing Carter to remain free while her case winds its way to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, her life will be stalled, and completely absorbed by the consequences of her texts urging teen Conrad Roy III to act on his expressed desire to kill himself, which he did. This is her real punishment, because the sentence will not and must not stand.
It is unethical to use the legal system this way. When the government takes it upon itself to punish citizens despite the absence of applicable laws, it is treading over the line dividing democracy from totalitarianism.
2. What is to be done about California? States have always maintained their own unique cultures, and that is a national strength. When a state’s culture becomes wholly estranged from and hostile to the values and principles of the nation it belongs to, however, it becomes a danger to that nation and perhaps to its citizens. What, if anything, is the responsibility of the federal government when this happens? What is the duty of the state’s elected officials?
Tucker Carlson’s creepy interview on Fox with a leader of the California secession movement,Shankar Singam, raised these questions and more. Among Singam’s jaw-dropping positions was that the documented exodus of middle class Californians and small businesses from the state was a good thing. “If everyone in the middle class is leaving, that’s actually a good thing. We need these spots opened up for the new wave of immigrants to come up. It’s what we do,” Singam told Carlson. He also told Carlson that “This is California. We’re not the United States.”
At least that settles the question of whether Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
An ethical, responsible, loyal American governor would recognize the danger inherent in allowing his state to see itself as separate from the rest of the country, and actively work to reverse that dangerous trend and attitude. That governor is not Jerry Brown.
3. Here is another update, this one on the weird and suspicious story of the Pakistani scamster who somehow was allowed access to sensitive Democratic officials’ communications, and who Debbie Wasserman Schultz inexplicably kept on her payroll after the rest of her colleagues fired him, right up until he was arrested trying to leave the country. (Until further developments, I’ll file this one under the mainstream media’s bias and double standards for Democrats categories. It has still been virtually ignored by the same sources that work over time to make every Republican burp a national scandal.)
Wasserman Schultz has been in hiding for more than a week since her tech guy was arrested, but finally came out yesterday, didn’t see her shadow, and gave an interview saying this:
“I believe that I did the right thing, and I would do it again. There are times when you can’t be afraid to stand alone, and you have to stand up for what’s right. It would have been easier for me to just fire him.”
No, it would have been responsible, logical, reasonable and normal to fire him.
Is she really going to claim that she was standing by a victim of Islamophobia? This is the same woman the party of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama thought was fit to represent it for eight years. Writes the Wall Street Journal’s columnist Kimberly Strassel in part:
…Ms. Wasserman Schultz continued to shield Imran Awan to the end. Yes, the amounts of money, and the ties to Pakistan, are strange. Yes, it is alarming that emails show Imran Awan knew Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s iPad password, and that the family might have had wider access to the accounts of lawmakers on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees…The government, under the inattentive care of Democrats, may have been bilked for ages by a man the FBI has alleged to be a fraudster. That’s the same government Democrats say is qualified to run your health care, reform your children’s schools, and protect the environment.
4. Why do prominent Democrats and progressives believe fat-shaming, among other ad hominem attacks, are justifiable when used against Republicans, conservatives, the President, or anyone they disagree with? The same ideologues manufacture accusations of racial slurs and misogeny out of whole cloth when they don’t have real ones to point to, yet somehow feel that calling adversaries fat is acceptable, presumably because the ends justifies the means, and some people just don’t deserve ethical treatment in their eyes. Here is how left-wing hero economist and the second most disgusting Times writer Paul Krugman begins today’s attack: “I guess it ain’t over until the portly golfer sings, but it does look as if Obamacare will survive.”
Translation: Trump is fat.
I wonder how Krugman—he’s supposed to be a financial guru, remember—isn’t wearing a bag over his head these days, since the stock markets are soaring, and he declared on November 8 that in his Nobel Prize-winning assessment, the markets would sink and never recover while President Trump was in office. How wrong can someone be? Why would anyone care what Paul Krugman thinks, when he allows his biases to warp his judgment in the one area is which he can claim genuine expertise?
5. I have experienced enough efforts to make me feel guilty because I use ad blockers.
Thanks for visiting —–
We notice you have an ad blocker on.
Advertisements help us provide quality content.
Yeah, well, I’m happy to look at ads that you imbed in your site. I will not tolerate pop-up ads that interfere with my reading, and I don’t trust you or any site to exercise restraint regarding which products and how many you are going to force me to look at in order to read your content. If you are going to insist, then I’ll go somewhere else. There are ways to pay for your content that do not involve harassment.