I belong to a distinguished legal association—I bet you can guess the field– that one would expect to understand the importance, indeed the necessity, of encouraging open discourse that is welcoming to divergent points of view. Yet yesterday, when I and another lawyer dared to make observations that varied from official progressive cant, the president of the organization, no less, reprimanded us for making comments others on the list found “offensive.” She then posted the listserv’s rules and standards which, as with all such things, were completely subjective, and translated to, in the words of my similarly reprimanded colleague, opinions that conform to the consensus here are acceptable; those that do not are uncivil and subject to censure. Finally, in a remarkable display of self-indictment, she told my colleague that continued publication of non-complying positions and arguments would result in his losing professional referrals.

That’s called “a threat.” It’s also called “chilling speech.”

To the target of this reprimand’s credit, he responded (no weenie he): “I guess I’ll just have to down-size then.” I would have opted for the less elegant “Bite me,” and will, if I have the opportunity in the future.

This is no right-wing conspiracy theory. This is what is going on in all the professions now. I know that there are many lawyers on the list who have been cowed into silence, and shame on them. The only way to fight nascent totalitarians is to fight them.

And that’s the way it is.

Did you know that President Trump was an authoritarian, abused his power and violated the Constitution?

Nothing Trump did in office was as clearly, obviously and intentionally a direct violation of the Constitution’s limits on Presidential power as what President Barack Obama did in 2012 when he could not get Congress to pass a law allowing so-called “Dreamers” to stay in the United States. He used an Executive Order to establish the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program despite saying himself (remember, Obama is supposedly a Constitutional Law scholar) that he didn’t have power to do it.

That was the exact moment when I concluded that Obama was not only a weak and feckless President, but an arrogant and dangerous one:

“The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed a lower court decision declaring DACA unlawful. The case now goes back to the lower court for review of the Biden administration’s DACA final rule. The three-judge appeals panel decision holds that Obama’s order violated statutory provisions regarding immigration. “The district court’s excellent opinion correctly identified fundamental substantive defects in the program,” Chief Judge Priscilla Richman wrote in the 46-page opinion. “DACA creates a new class of otherwise removable aliens who may obtain lawful presence, work authorization, and associated benefits. Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them.” Obama’s circumvention of the law because he lacked the skill and willingness to bargain to seek his goals legally “contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization,” the opinion says. “In our view, the defendants have not shown that there is a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits.”

Then the Court exercised compassion, which was appropriate, since many beneficiaries of Obama’s unethical move relied on it: “We also recognize that DACA has had profound significance to recipients and many others in the ten years since its adoption. Given the ‘uncertainty of final disposition’ and the ‘inevitable disruption that would arise from a lack of continuity and stability,’ we preserve the stay as to existing recipients.”

This episode epitomized the brutal calculus of the current progressives and their party. The ends justify the means; if the Constitution prevents a measure the Left thinks is “right,” then either that document needs to be changed, violated, or ignored. Then the party hopes the illegal measure will last as long as possible, or that an ideologically biased court will concoct a rationalization to uphold it.”Immigration advocates said the ruling signaled that the only chance for DACA to survive was for Congress to pass a law to protect young immigrants, something it has been unable to do for more than two decades,” sniffed the New York Times.

Such a tragedy: now they’ll have to persuade the public and Congress to pass a law, like they were supposed to do in the first place. Don’t have the votes? Is the public losing patience with millions of illegal aliens crossing a porous border? Better start trying to make laws the old fashioned way, then. You know: democratically, not by edict. I can think of no better example of how the Democratic Party has engaged in gaslighting the public, screaming about Republicans being threats to democracy by showing repeatedly that the process only has its favor when and if it follows the progressive agenda.

Continue reading →

It has been raining for five days straight here.

But never mind: what matters is that October 5th marks the date in 2017 when the New York Times blew the whistle on Hollywood mega-producer and major Clinton money source Harvey Weinstein, setting in motion all sorts of cultural. legal, political and societal forces no one could have predicted, as well as providing many depressing ethics lessons. For example, virtually everyone who pretended horror at Weinstein’s predations knew about what he was doing long before, but said and did nothing, and yes, this almost certainly included powerful Democrats as well as alleged Hollywood feminists. Yecchh. The sudden awareness of sexual harassment in high places—as if Bill Clinton hadn’t been enough to make it obvious—was quickly weaponized to take down powerful men in business, the arts, news media, politics and more, some deservedly (Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer…) some not so much (Al Franken). The Weinstein movements #MeToo and Time’s Up also catalyzed the effort to smear Brett Kavanaugh out of his Supreme Court nomination, though they went oddly mute when Joe Biden was accused of doing privately the kind of thing he had been photographed doing to hapless girls and women for years. How and why this happened was neatly illustrated when the co-founder and COB of “Time’s Up” was revealed to have helped Andrew Cuomo discredit his multiple sexual harassment accusers.

Despite its ugly partisanship, hypocrisy and cynicism, the Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck, documented here, has still had its salutary effects. Bill Clinton’s reign as a Democratic rock star finally ended. Woody Allen was at last shunned in Hollywood. 

Best of all, the double standards and empty virtue-signaling of feminists and progressives were impossible to miss. Good.

1. Remember, Karine Jean-Pierre, the President’s paid liar, says that “If you are not with where the majority of Americans are, that is extreme.” A new poll by the Trafalgar Group, taken September 17-20 and including more than 1,000 likely 2022 election voters, showed that 1.4% of voters “believe eliminating gas-powered cars and moving to electric vehicles is the best solution.” Just thought it was worth mentioning…Speaking of Karine, it has been fascinating watching her claim that when the still-high gasoline prices edge down, it is President Biden’s brilliant work paying off, but when it goes up, it’s everybody else’s fault. Now gas is going up again, and OPEC has voted to cut production, probably meaning that it will start rising sharply. Ultimately, her re-flip-flop will pose another “Just how gullible is the American public?” test. The results of the earlier ones have not been encouraging. Continue reading →