Archive for the ‘Idiot Lawyers’ Category

It’s Not Over

Sunday, July 14th, 2013

Readers of this site are often treated to predictions of doom and gloom; reports of misdeeds and malfeasance; foreshadowing of despair and sorrow, but on this day, we ought to take a moment to quietly celebrate the fact that despite all the  treachery aligned against her, Justice still succeeds in America precisely because there are so many good and diligent people still among us.  George Zimmerman was acquitted Saturday night on all charges, and whatever we may individually think of the case and Mr. Zimmerman, for the jury to have arrived at a “not guilty” verdict speaks to the fact that despite all the wrenches thrown with malice into the gears of the ordinary legal process in this case, six average Americans were able to arrive at a verdict that went against every bias that might well have stymied Justice among folk of lesser character.  Threats of violence notwithstanding, outrageous statements by reporters and lawyers in media no more fruitful, these six jurors dared to decide the case on the basis of its merits.  They upheld the rule of law in the face of a myriad of reasons that might have stopped them, save only one: They took their duty as jurors seriously, and decided the case with the full measure of diligence it deserved.  This ought to tell us at least one thing about America that in our constant depression over the country’s state that we must not forget: It isn’t over yet.

Justice still prevails in America, and that ought to be reason enough to celebrate.  I do not intend here to gloat about the particular outcome, but instead hope to explain to you why this should give heart to every American of good will.  Even with the grim spectacle of Florida Attorney Angela Cory’s bizarre and hateful attempt to retry the case in the press, having lost it only moments before, justice did prevail.  I know this because had there been even a sliver of evidence to support the prosecutors’ case against George Zimmerman, he would have been found guilty because the pressure being placed on this jury by the entire media spectacle must have been obnoxious.  For them to return a “not guilty” can only mean that despite all the ploys of the prosecution, and the tampering of the judge, even with all the media attention on the courtroom, these six women sat down to deliberate the case and came out with a verdict that all the pressure in the world made into the most difficult of them, except that in the end, they could not adhere to anything but the law and the evidence.  It is a marvel in this age of politicizing everything. Whatever they may have felt about George Zimmerman at the conclusion of this show trial, they managed to see through it to justice.

Based on the testimony and evidence I had seen replayed or recounted in reports, it was difficult to imagine how they would convict him under the “reasonable doubt” standard. In my view, the case put on by prosecutors with respect to the evidence and the testimony of witnesses was largely exculpatory, irrespective of all the emotion the prosecutors poured into the mix in a shameless attempt at misdirection.  The fact that this had been a political trial instigated by political hacks insistent upon pandering did not overwhelm the good sense of the jurors and their ability to reasonably apply the law to the case laid out before them.  In this country, with the vast leftwing conspiracy of goons all agitating in one direction, these six jurors sent an unimpeachable message by their verdict that must serve as a searing reproach to all those who sought to tamper with the process: Justice still works in America.

It will be tempting to dismiss this instance in which justice had prevailed as an aberration, but the fact is that in most cases, in most places, at most times around the country, justice prevails when the stakes are high.  There will always be those infamous cases that prove the contrary thesis, but even at this late date, and perhaps more importantly because of this nation’s creeping devolution, it is all the more heartening to see the law more faithfully observed and measured by six ordinary Floridians than by five of nine Supreme Court justices.  Consider this while insisting that we cannot save the country.  Do you believe it will be saved by some grand stroke?  If America is to be saved, it will have been because ordinary Americans in cases big and small took a stand on the side of justice. Not “racial justice.” Not “environmental justice.”  Not “social justice.” Instead, plain, old-fashioned, uncorrupted, scales-and-sword with blind-fold Justice will be the thing that can save our nation.  It had been six ordinary women who were willing to wear the blind-folds and weigh with the scruples of saints and the fine precision of  jewelers, willing only to raise their sword if their measuring had demanded it.

I recognize that on this morning, there exists some sizable proportion of the American populace who remain unsatisfied with this result, but I beg them to accept it as a first step back toward the ideals that had been our American dream even when we have not always achieved it.  I also offer a cautionary note, because what this verdict means and should be understood to describe is a country in which it is still quite normal for ordinary citizens to rise to the occasion and mete out justice as the situation demands.  For those who would take their dissatisfaction violently into the streets, they should know that there will be courtrooms in their futures too, and with any luck, juries that will be equally diligent when sitting in judgment.

There are those who ask me how I can possess any glimmer of hope for this country, but I contend that the evidence is all around us, even if it isn’t writ large on television screens.  It has ever been the diligence and forthright character of ordinary Americans pressed by circumstance into civic duty who have given me such hope as I still possess, and on Saturday in Florida, six of them did not disappoint. America is not over.

Miscarriage of Justice

Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Judicial Intemperance

In the case of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman on Thursday, Judge Nelson stepped out of line.  The purpose for which a judge serves in any trial is to be sure that the evidence is presented, and that a fair trial is conducted that by its processes, procedures, and by the judge’s own conduct, does not prejudice the jury flagrantly either for or against the defendant.  Whether you believe that George Zimmerman had been merely defending himself, or instead that he had shot Trayvon Martin with other motives, he is entitled to a fair trial.  What occurred on Thursday in Nelson’s courtroom was a travesty, and everything about it stinks of corruption or malfeasance on the part of the judge.  There can be no excuse for the conduct of the judge, so that whatever you think of Zimmerman’s alleged guilt or presumed innocence, you ought not be satisfied with the conduct of this trial.  From the very start, the deck has been stacked against George Zimmerman, and to see our system of justice perverted in this manner is one more piece of evidence in the case that we are entering post-constitutional, post-American conditions.

To begin, there should have been no trial.  The trial is the result of a special(read: “political”) investigation conducted by a state government that was seeking a political solution arising from a purely legal problem: The original investigation by Sanford, FL police found no cause to prosecute George Zimmerman, finding there was insufficient evidence to support prosecuting him.  All bizarre conspiracies aside, what Sanford investigators concluded was that George Zimmerman had acted in self-defense when he discharged his weapon, resulting in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At that point, the usual suspects in the unending meme of racial discontent took the stage, including our aggrieved President, who proclaimed “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  From the moment these words issued forth from Barack Obama’s mouth, the die had been cast, and there could be no fair process for George Zimmerman. For an alleged “constitutional scholar,” Mr. Obama exhibited the prudence one might expect from a drunken lout making off-hand declarations.

The prosecutors spent the course of their case contradicting themselves, putting on witnesses that damned their case against Zimmerman, and mostly making a spectacle of their own incompetence.  If one didn’t know better, one might conclude that the prosecution had given up making any serious case against Zimmerman, and was merely going through the motions as a matter of political obedience to those same authorities, including the governor and attorney general of the State of Florida who insisted on bringing this case despite the clear lack of evidence for prosecution, and in spite of exculpatory evidence and witnesses that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claim of self-defense.  This has been a show-trial in mockery of justice, and throughout the presentation of their case, the prosecution didn’t manage even to put on a good show.

On Thursday, the judge permitted the prosecution to seek a conviction on the lesser charger of manslaughter, a charge that could still carry up to thirty years behind bars for Mr. Zimmerman, despite the fact that throughout the course of the trial, they had been seeking a second-degree murder finding.  While not unprecedented, it shows the degree to which the court has been accommodating to the prosecution’s interests.  It also clearly demonstrated that the prosecution knew it would never get a guilty verdict on the legal standard of second-degree murder, but they are hoping the jurors are willing to play Solomon and cut this baby in two, by finding Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge despite the fact that their case hadn’t even met that standard.

More, judge Nelson entered into an interrogatory with the defendant in an entirely improper way, using her power of the bench to silence defense attorneys in what can only be regarded as a gross violation of the defendant’s civil liberties.  Zimmerman had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to reserve the matter of whether he would testify until the conclusion of the case being put on by his defense team.  In ordering the attorneys to be silent, the judge effectively deprived Mr. Zimmerman of counsel.  There is no other way to describe this, and it is an unconscionable breach of her duty to remain impartial to either party.  On the one hand, she was sabotaging Zimmerman’s defense, and on the other, she was providing clear appellate cause if there should be a conviction, and she admitted that might be the case in her own remarks to the court, but this did not deter her actions.  Why?

Some suspect foul play, inasmuch as it is not beyond the conceivable bounds of the Obama administration.  By opening his mouth on the matter, Obama now has a huge personal stake in this.  His prestige as President is on the line, and while he is mocked overseas from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, and while our foreign adversaries continue to consider him as a less-than-serious threat who has no credibility, at home he remains something of a cultural icon among minorities and youth.  His credibility is on the line, and if George Zimmerman is acquitted, after all the tampering by he and Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, in many quarters, they will lose face on the street.  This may explain why the DOJ helped facilitate anti-Zimmerman protests at the outset of this case. Yes, to add insult to injury, tax-payer dollars went to support the creation of the spectacle of a racially-motivated rent-a-mob at the beginning of this case.

Should Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter, I would not be surprised if on appeal, he may either get a retrial or have the conviction overturned.  Cynics might argue that this is the intention of the judge: Set Zimmerman up for conviction knowing that he will likely find relief in the appellate system.  In this way, the immediate threat of violence will be deferred so that when he finally finds relief from courts of appeal, people will have forgotten about him and the case, and the specter of riots averted.  If that’s the intention of any person connected with this case, they ought to be disbarred, removed from public offices in any capacity, and prosecuted for their misdeeds.  It is a heinous crime to rig the system of justice on the potentially false assumption that they will find justice at some later date.

Judge Nelson is a life-long Democrat, and a Jeb Bush appointee.  None should be surprised at this since we know Bush is no conservative.  If Zimmerman is convicted on the basis of this sabotage by the judge, Bush may face questions should he seek the nomination of the Republican Party about the quality and temperament of his judicial appointees, as well he should.

As all of this goes on, the same media that worked devilishly to rig public opinion by editing the 9-1-1 tapes is continuing to push the violence meme, replaying clips of the same old garbage, with perpetual vermin like Al Sharpton being looped repeatedly across the networks from the beginning of this case, when he added his voice to those comprising the lynch mob seeking Zimmerman’s blood.  It’s a sorry spectacle, but do not be dissuaded: If an injustice is carried out in this case, it will have been because our judicial system upon which we must all rely for a fair hearing in court has been bastardized and corrupted like so much else in our rapidly devolving culture.

As this goes to press, the jury is continuing their deliberations, and one can only hope that whatever their verdict, that these people will not be swayed by faulty process, misrepresentations, threats of violence, or any other factor except the law and the evidence.  If that is the case, justice will be done, and that’s all we can ask, but given the circus-like atmosphere of the court proceedings, it’s difficult to imagine the jury remaining completely untainted.  With this firmly in mind, like all the world, we must await a verdict, fervently hoping a further injustice will not have been done, but given the conduct of judge Debra Nelson, a grave miscarriage of justice has already occurred irrespective of what verdict may be handed-down by the jury.

Note: Some of the site update work has been delayed due entirely to my work schedule.  As outages are expected, I will let readers know.  Thank you for your patience.

Did the Solicitor General Lie to the Supreme Court?

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Asking the Tough Questions

In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said something in response to a question from Justice Antonin Scalia that I believe was intended to mislead.  Scalia was much too clever for Verrilli, and why he didn’t call Verrilli on it, he made it clear that he understood full well what Verrilli was doing with his wording.  It might not have been a “lie” in the strictest sense of the word, but it was intended to obfuscate the issue, and to do so in such a way as to shield the government from the very basis on which I have been criticizing the “individual mandate” since its proposal.  To understand this “lie,” “misleading statement,” or “obfuscation,” whichever you will prefer to call it, you must understand the basic issues in context. In my view, Verrilli tried to hide something crucial, and you should know it.

What General Verrilli tried to conceal is the fact that this “cost-shifting” that Obama-care’s mandate is intended to address was created by government statute.  Let us start with the transcript, available in full here:

GENERAL VERRILLI: That — that absolutely is a justification for Congress’s action here. That is existing economic activity that Congress is regulating by means of this rule.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Verrilli, you could say that about buying a car. If people don’t buy cars, the price that those who do buy cars pay will have to behigher. So, you could say in order to bring the price down, you’re hurting these other people by not buying a car.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That is not what we’re saying, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: That’s not — that’s not what you’re saying.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s not — not -

JUSTICE SCALIA: I thought it was. I thought you’re saying other people are going to have to pay more for insurance because you’re not buying it.

Now for the key exchange:

GENERAL VERRILLI: No. It’s because you’re going — in the health care market, you’re going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get, getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow — that — to which we’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care.

Here, Scalia absolutely demonstrates he understands the issue:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, don’t obligate yourself to that. Why — you know?

And now, for the slam dunk:

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I can’t imagine that that — that the Commerce Clause would — would forbid Congress from taking into account this deeply embedded social norm.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You could do it. But does that expand your ability to issue mandates to — to the people?

Let me explain why I’ve italicized the portions above.  When Verrilli argues that the receipt of healthcare by the so-called free-riders is the result of “the social norms that allow,” he stammered through a self-correction, “to which we’ve obligated ourselves so that people get health care.

What Verrilli is here talking about is that Congress has enacted laws prohibiting an emergency room from turning away patients on the basis that they cannot show an ability or willingness to pay.  Verrilli tried to hide this behind a “social norm,” and later a “deeply embedded social norm,” but in fact, Scalia understood with acute perception why it is that Verrilli would do this, and he spat it back in Verrilli’s face, as was right and proper: “Well, don’t obligate yourself to that.”   In other words, if you don’t want people to receive treatment without having paid, repeal the law that provides that treatment must be provided.

Verrilli wasn’t satisfied with this, and he claimed that “[he] can’t imagine that the commerce clause would forbid Congress from taking into account this deeply embedded social norm.”

Here, Scalia might have asked him: “How deeply embedded a social norm is it that has been enacted within my lifetime,” but he did not, preferring to underscore the larger point:

“You could do it. But does that expand your ability to issue mandates to — to the people?

What Scalia is asking here is plain enough:  The government may claim an interest in taking this “deeply embedded social norm” into account in creating its policy, but a desire to support a “social norm” (deeply embedded or otherwise) confer upon the government the authority to stand in demand of participation in the social norm?

What Scalia here recognized is that which I’ve been telling you all along:  The government may enact a law forcing somebody to provide a good or a service(I reject that too, by the way) but the fact that the government creates a legal obligation for itself does not give them an additional claim of authority over you.

A good example is this:  You let one of your adult children move their entire family into your home with you, despite the fact that they can or should afford their own domicile on their own, but when you perceive it is too burdensome, you then go to your other adult children and demand they help you support them, since it’s now bankrupting you.  Your other adult children would rightly say to you:  “Don’t let them live their any longer.”

What kind of mind would actually propose this to their other adult children?  The other adult children would be best to remove themselves from the conversation and ignore the demanding parent.  The problem is that in this case, it’s the government that’s making the demand, and we(the other adult children) are prohibited from ignoring it.

What Scalia recognized, and every one of you must know, is that there is a cost to the choices one makes, but having made them, there is no authority to shift the costs of those choices onto unwilling others who would have chosen differently.  This is at the heart of the entire Obama-care insurance mandate argument:  The government voluntarily decides to fund or subsidize something for somebody, and then mandates that you participate in the payment.  There is no right to health-care, or any other material commodity or service, and nobody is obligated to pay for it.  This should be the basis upon which the entirety of the New Deal and the Great Society are tossed out to the curb, but what’s particularly objectionable about Obama-care’s mandate is that it compels you to purchase an insurance against such costs that you may well never incur.

Understanding this, you should see why it is that what Solicitor General Verrilli attempted to conceal, but Scalia didn’t permit, is that more than “deeply embedded social norms,” these are laws inflicted and imposed upon us by Congress, and that Congress is free to repeal them, but the creation of these obligations does not disparage our liberties.  I hope Antonin Scalia lives to be one-hundred-twenty years old, or longer,  and delivers us from as much evil as he is able.  His agile legal mind, and his clear understanding of the issues at stake is among the best hopes we have for maintaining our liberties, or reclaiming those we have forfeited already.  Our lives quite literally depend on it.

 

 

 

 

Message to Obamacare Goons: Kiss My…

Monday, March 26th, 2012

Tyrant with a law degree

I’ve been looking at some of the information about the case that comes before the United States Supreme Court over the matter of the Affordable Care Act(widely known as Obama-care.)  I ran into one story that frankly made me angry, because it’s typical of the sort of lies and misdirections of this administration, and frankly any stink-from-the-head lefty one may encounter.  It’s ridiculous to read their arguments and realize that their backward logic is actually the basis for laws in the United States.  The Obama administration is full of some very despotic people, but the garbage Neal Katyal spews on behalf of Obama-care is some of the most obnoxious.  AFP is reporting via YahooNews a story I find so detestable that it has caused me to spit coffee across the screen.  AFP interviewed Neal Katyal who has defended Obama-care as the acting solicitor general, and frankly, leftist double-speak like this needs to be shredded:

“The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We’re not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don’t know when you’re going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you show up at the emergency room. The doctors are under orders to treat you — as any Western, any civilized society would do. And who pays for that? Well, ordinary Americans pay for that. They’re the ones who have to pick up the tab for those who don’t have insurance. We are not regulating what people buy, we’re regulating how people finance it.”

There’s a good deal to tear apart here, but let’s begin with the first premise: Katyal says they’re not forcing you to buy a product.  Instead, the claims is laid that they’re merely regulating how you finance it.  What if I don’t want to finance it, because I won’t use it?  What if I refuse care?  What if I want to finance it differently?  What if I’m in a car wreck tomorrow and killed before I ever use any?  Do I get my money back?  No? Then you’re forcing me to buy something I may never use.

The claim is made that doctors are under orders to treat those who show up at an emergency room, and it’s true that this is the law.  Get rid of the law.  Don’t command the entire population of Americans on behalf of the claim that doctors, nurses, and hospitals must labor without any proof of a patient’s willingness or ability to pay.  Don’t like that?  Fine. What the government can do is put medical bills outside the reach of bankruptcy protection, much like they do your tax bill, or you child support payments, or your student loans. Give it the second bite at the apple of one’s estate, after federal taxes.  The fact that some people do not pay is not a burden to be commanded upon all.  We shouldn’t be doing that anyway, and I really don’t want to hear any silly arguments about Western or “civilized” societies.  There is nothing remotely civilized about the government putting a gun to my head and forcing me to pay for products and services I may never consume, or may have not intention of consuming.

Life and death and all of the other necessities of life are not the government’s proper role or responsibility, ridiculous laws notwithstanding.  When I read remarks from a useless jack-ass like Katyal, I realize that this is one of these idiots who probably wants to mandate legal insurance on us too. (Trust me, there is a whole movement among lawyers who want this.)  There can be no authority to regulate how I finance something on the basis that I might decide to buy it, otherwise what you’re compelling me to do is purchase in advance.

The rest of the article is filled with similar drivel, and I encourage you to read it on the basis that you ought to know what we’re fighting.  I also saw the beginnings of a smear-campaign against the court in the interview, and I want you to notice how they’re preparing to smear the court with this “unelected” business:

“If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.”

On the one hand it’s true: If 95% of Americans want to suppress free speech, that doesn’t make it constitutional, but let me suggest to this legal moron that if 95% of Americans want to suppress free speech, they can easily amend the constitution to do it, thus making it constitutional.  Besides, 60-65% of Americans oppose this law anyway, so the very idea posited is false. Give me a break!  Here comes the garbage, however:

“The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30.”

Is this clown kidding?  That’s what the Supreme Court exists to do: Make judges of this magnitude for the American people.  More, the very idea that the Supreme Court is unelected is now a bad thing flies in the face of lefty arguments that were only too happy to see “unelected judges” impose Roe v. Wade, or Social Security, or any other damned thing they want on the American people. No complaints then, at all.

Leftists are scum. I truly hope there is still sufficient wisdom on the court to overturn this unconstitutional monstrosity.  If not, the only course remaining is repeal, but for that to happen, Republicans will need to capture sixty seats or more in the Senate, and replace Barack Obama.  That’s a tall order in any year, but if Romney is the nominee, prepare to live as slaves to the will of idiots like Katyal.

 

Flashback 1995: Eric Holder Wanted to Brainwash People on Guns

Monday, March 19th, 2012

"Brainwash"

Leave it to Breitbart.com to dig up this clip from 1995 of Eric Holder explaining how he would like to use the media, and the public relations outfits in Washington DC to push a new theme on the evils of guns in such a way as to mimic what’s been done with cigarettes.  His point was that it would be best if young people, particularly young men, never had the desire to have or carry(keep and bear) guns.  It’s typical of the left to believe that a PR campaign can fix anything, and of course, to some degree, it probably works on the sort of mind-numbed robots who tend to vote for leftists, but I don’t think Holder made much progress on this.  On the other hand, for all his talk about the evils of guns, he sure didn’t seem to mind putting guns into the hands of narco-terrorists in Mexico through the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious and Operation Gun-Walker.

This is typical of the left.  “Brainwash!”  This man actually wanted to “brainwash” Americans almost two decades ago, and he wonders why his testimony before Congress comes under scrutiny?  Who else is he trying to “brainwash,” and with what?  Leftists are dangerous precisely because their ideas represent a threat to American liberty.  We need more than the sort of bland change represented by Mitt Romney.  We need a reversal.

Gloria Allred Wants to Prosecute Rush Limbaugh

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

Allred on the Warpath Again

Gloria Allred isn’t going to be satisfied until Rush Limbaugh is drawn and quartered in the public square.  The celebrity attorney who helped bring Herman Cain’s campaign to a screeching halt now has her sights set on the radio talk-show host over the words he used with regard to Sandra Fluke.  I’m still waiting for her to produce the sworn statements she promised back during the Herman Cain smears, and while she takes up this new war, I am still curious what happened to the last one.  It seems to have fizzled, and like so many things in which Allred is involved, there is a big press roll-out and maybe a further press conference or two, but we never seem to learn anything substantial about the claims or the claimants she brings to the press. In this case, somebody has tipped her to an ancient Florida statute providing for the prosecution of those who make statements about women under certain criteria.  She is touting this old law as a weapon she will try to use against Limbaugh.

The Florida statute in question is a law on defamation and it reaches back to an earlier era:

836.04 Defamation.—Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.—s. 1, ch. 3460, 1883; RS 2419; GS 3260; RGS 5091; CGL 7193; s. 990, ch. 71-136.

Right from the start, assuming this law is applicable in this case, the standard set forth requires falsehood and malice.  This would be a difficult standard, because it would require that the prosecution demonstrate that what Limbaugh had said was false, and that he did so with malice.  Just as when Steny Hoyer(D-MD,) suggested that Fluke ought to sue Limbaugh, Levin noted the fact that it would require discovery that would likely be difficult for her to endure.

As a criminal matter, the state would be in the unenviable position of having to demonstrate Ms. Fluke had been chaste in order to show the falsehood.  A “chastity” is a pretty severe standard when measuring the meaning of that word.  The word has but one meaning, so it would be difficult to rule in any way but one if in fact Ms. Fluke isn’t chaste.  This could have the added effect of demonstrating publicly that Limbaugh had been right all along, and the court would risk possibly being forced to rule or observe that Ms. Fluke isn’t chaste.  When you add in the difficulty in showing Malice on Limbaugh’s part, this could prove more problematic for Fluke than for Limbaugh.

I suspect that like in so many other cases, Allred may not be worried about the effects on her intended client, but merely her ability to make a media splash.  It wouldn’t be the first time Allred caused a client more harm than good.

Sandra Fluke’s Curious Activism and More Curious Recommendations

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Dumb Luck for the Left?

Isn’t it odd that the Democrats have been pushing this contraception theme as the means by which to derail the heated issue over the Obamacare mandate on religious institutions as a breech of their religious freedoms, and just as Rush Limbaugh stepped into the well-laid snare, the trap was sprung with a ferocity that no talk-show host should warrant, who should rise to the top but Sandra Fluke, 30 year-old Georgetown University law-school student and radical feminist advocate to catch Limbaugh off guard.  I think Rush is a target of opportunity, because I believe they were hoping Rick Santorum would get caught up in all of this.  Having failed to ensnare any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, but having managed to catch the big radio voice they would most like to destroy, they seized upon the opportunity to attack Limbaugh for his imprudent use of the words “prostitute” and “slut.”

Fluke isn’t the innocent she’s been portrayed as having been.  She’s been presented as a bit of a patsy, and a well-meaning young woman, and all of that, but the truth is that Fluke has been a radical activist for years.  In fact, her entire rationale for enrolling at Georgetown University was to try to force this fight.  She’s not some poor, helpless student who was set upon by big mean Rush Limbaugh.  By all reports, she’s a coldly-calculating left-wing conniver who is actively pursuing the goal to compel colleges and other religious institutions to cover not only contraception, but also gender reassignment surgery for transgendered people.  That’s right, Ms. Fluke is hardly some wide-eyed victim of the evil right-wing and other alleged woman-haters. Here’s an excerpt of the article at TheCollegePolitico:

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.

Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.

This so called “prime example” of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services” starting on page 636:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their “heterosexist” health insurance policies don’t believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these “heterosexist” insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff’s mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court’s ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination.

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on “ignorance and bias against transgender persons”.

This gets more absurd, as she appeared Monday on The View with the gaggle of gawking leftists(minus Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who is probably moderately conservative at best.)  Fluke rejected Limbaugh’s apology, as read in part by Barbara Walters, and when asked about Rush Limbaugh, launched into another thing and made a website recommendation.  Guess which one?  (It’s at around the 1:03 mark in the video)

Barbara Walters went out of her way to mention that this isn’t about tax-payer money, and this is somewhat true, but in fact, it’s much worse than this: It’s about compelling religious institutions to pay for coverages that are contrary to their deeply held religious views.  As bad as it would be if Fluke were merely demanding public money, what she’s actually demanding is that the First Amendment rights of religious institutions be over-ridden by her demands.  She’s worse than a welfare moocher for contraception:  She’s a full-on tyrant who doesn’t give a damn for the rights of people and institutions that will be compelled at gunpoint to provide this coverage.  In my view, this doesn’t make the case for Fluke, but merely damns her all the more.

Her recommendation of Media Matters as a source for information is troubling, because what this reveals is a hardcore radical-left activist and advocate bent on an agenda.  The longer this goes on, the more thoroughly I’ve become convinced that it’s a lefty set-up al the way, and that unsuspecting Rush Limbaugh ran headlong into it merely means this was engineered at the highest levels.  As it turns out of course, the testimony happened with Minority Leader(and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi presiding, while Obama’s administration was pushing this desperately as they were beginning to lose ground in the polls due to the controversy over their violation of the protections of the free exercise of religion.

Now comes word that a push is ongoing in the Senate to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio altogether, and the White House has posted a link to a petition to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio, while political hack Steny Hoyer(D-MD,) runs around talking up the possibility of Fluke filing suit against Limbaugh.  I doubt such a suit would ever occur, because as Mark Levin pointed out on his show Monday evening, this would open up the matter of discovery, and soon we would find out all the details of Ms. Fluke’s personal life. I can imagine attorneys asking things like:

“Have you ever participated in the events known widely as “slut-walks?”

Of course, nobody knows the full details about Ms. Fluke’s life, never mind whether she’s ever participated in such an event, but that is the way she and the White House would probably like to keep it, because it would cause great harm to this little storm they have swirling around Rush Limbaugh, and it’s for this reason that I doubt she’d file suit.  By testifying before Congress, she’s entered into the realm of public persons by her own volition.  The standards there would be much higher, and she’d be hard-pressed to show that Limbaugh’s questions, little more than opinions, were anything more than any of the millions of other opinions issuing forth about public personae each and every day in media. In short, she’d probably lose, and for her trouble, would be placed into the position of having to air her own laundry, however clean or dirty it might be.

One thing is certain about Fluke: She’s not the poor little school-girl the media has made her out to be, and while Limbaugh probably shouldn’t have used the words he did, it’s clear to me that the left is using this to gin up another false narrative, and more, they’re continuing to push the notion that some alleged entitlement to contraception trumps religious liberties.  It’s a lie, it’s a sham, and if they expect me to forget this, they’re wrong.  Oh, and don’t expect me to abandon Limbaugh to the leftist hyenas. I’m not like those weak-kneed Republicans last seen running for the tall grass.  Not a chance.

Here’s some more interesting background on Fluke.

 

While We Watched Florida: Hint of Holder’s Full Complicity Comes to Light

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Caught Lying

Not only did US Attorney General Eric Holder know in advance of his testimony about the circumstances of Agent Brian Terry’s death, and the involvement of Fast and Furious weapons in the event, but in a document dump late Friday night, it has been revealed that he knew of the connection within approximately one hour of the murder of Agent Terry.  This is all of the evidence we need to have in order to pronounce Attorney General Holder a perjurer, and let’s not make any bones about it:  He knew, and he knew the specific details, and he knew that his own program, Fast and Furious, the operation that provided thousands of semi-automatic firearms to narco-terrorists on the Mexican side of the border, had been implicated in this shooting.  There’s no excuse for any of this, but once you understand the original purpose of this grotesque malfeasance, it no longer looks anything like mere incompetence, but something much more sinister.

What you must understand in all this was that as I’ve reported earlier, they wanted to create a statistical bit of evidence to prove why they should be able to monitor and restrict the number of long-guns you could buy at any one time in the US.  This was the whole purpose, and it is ultimately the reason Agent Terry and countless Mexican nationals lost their lives:  Holder, as part of the Obama administration, had a political goal of limiting firearms sales to Americans, and was willing to sell massive numbers of guns to people who would carry them to Mexico for use by the narco-thugs.

This site has joined previously in the widening call for Holder’s immediate dismissal, but despite more than one-hundred members of the House calling for action, John Boehner and Eric Cantor continue to sit on their thumbs, not wishing to stir up too much controversy in an election year.  Rather than worrying about risking their re-election, they should be concentrating on enforcing the law, and taking action against an Attorney General who has repeatedly lied under oath.  I don’t understand what they’re waiting to discover, or whether it will take their entire Republican Caucus in the House to get them to act, but the simple fact is that Holder lied, and he must go.

The President should fire him.  He won’t.  He continues to support his AG because of the damage a dust-up could have on his own re-election campaign.  If you’re like me, and tired of all these politicians sitting on their thumbs, pick up the phone, call or write your Representatives, and let them know it is long overdue that Holder make his departure in appropriate disgrace. At the very least, we’re going to need to fire Obama in order to ditch his Attorney General.

EEOC: Diploma Requirement May Violate ADA

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Why Does This Agency Exist?

This is another absurd bit of prospective interference by government in the market, once again under the umbrella of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and again put forward in such a manner as to defy all logic.  At this point, it’s still just a discussion letter, but by now, you should realize that once the government begins to openly discuss an idea, t’s only a matter of time before they cram it down our throats.   I realize there are those who support the existence of the ADA, but frankly, I am not one of them, primarily because I have seen too many scam artists who avail themselves of the protections of such a law when no reasonable person would ever conclude they were “disabled” or otherwise honestly in need of the protections of such law. Do we really need government to be making these decisions?

These things always devolve into a scam. Always.  In this case, what they’re discussing is whether an employer requiring a High School Diploma as a screening criteria might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, if they had been prevented from graduating High School because they had some learning disability covered under the act.  In the long run, I can see it being used by ne’er-do-wells who failed to finish high school as the means to bypass ordinary educational requirements.  I can see it already:  “I didn’t graduate because I had a learning disability.“  “Really, what was your learning disability?”  “I had an obsessive compulsive disorder that caused me to play hooky a lot, but you can’t ask me that.

Yes, this is real.  Yes, this is actually under discussion.  If I’m asking you for a High School diploma for a ditch-digging job, it’s because I’m going to need you to fill out all those lovely government forms before you can start. Seriously.  If you cannot complete High School due to a learning disability, or because you were simply a ne’er-do-well, what on earth makes you think you’re entitled to be considered for a job that requires much beyond basic manual labor?  What the EEOC is discussing is whether a High School diploma requirement is an unfair tool of discrimination.  Have you talked to some of the people who manage to graduate high school these days? At the current rate of depreciation of educational diplomas, one might want to ask for a doctorate before hiring somebody to flip burgers.  Call them “Hygienic Food Preparation Engineers.”  I probably shouldn’t make light of this, but I’m shocked at how ridiculous this has become.

I know that’s not fair to the bulk of High School graduates who earn their diplomas, but I’m not really talking about them.  More specifically, I mean some of the blooming morons who manage to complete High School.  The education system manages to pass through some people who it seems couldn’t complete middle school, much less high school, but then again, a high school diploma may signify more than simple learning.  It also says something about one’s basic willingness to comply with and conform to standards and rules, or at least it did in my day.

At my current day job, we screen out applicants for the entry-level positions on the basis of many things, and among them is the High School Diploma or GED.  Those new employees spend the first 4-6 weeks training full time before ever performing the actual job, because it’s specialized and requires the ability to rapidly gather information from many sources, manage multiple computers, redistribute that information rapidly, and follow very precise standards.  Even with the requirements, we have a 60% failure rate among trainees.  Why?  Clearly, it’s because many of the trainees don’t measure up on the simpler things, like showing up on time, or following directions, or relatively simple procedural performance measures.  One of the things we have seen over time is that those with GEDs are less likely to arrive on time, and follow conventions and norms, to the point that we have looked at simply saying GEDs need not apply, because their failure rate is greater than the average, and since we spend so much time and money training, it doesn’t make sense to pour it down a bottomless pit.

Based on what I know, I cannot imagine the case in which a learning disability that had prevented somebody from obtaining a High School diploma wouldn’t similarly prohibit them from performing the functions of these jobs in my organization.  More than that, however, I know how my organization is apt to respond to such a ruling if it were to effectively become the new regulatory norm:  They would spend hours amending their job requirements to rule out anybody who could not demonstrate the same level of competency without ever referencing a High School Diploma.  They will merely make it exhaustively clear that to successfully maintain employment in that job will require certain skills for which “high school diploma” has always been an effective short-hand.

Sure, Human Resources will spend time and effort on it, making sure we’ve complied in every way with the letter of the law, but the fact is that we already comply with its spirit.  Of course, we’re not a small business, but can you imagine this sort of thing being applied to them?  They don’t have staff devoted to these sorts of things, never mind an HR department.  This is the sort of preposterous, confounding,  job-killing regulation for which the government has no actual justification, except to make work for those who are engaged in these sorts of ‘discussion letters.’  Which brings me to my conclusion:  In further Job Openings at the EEOC, they should include a line in their criteria that states “Those possessing common sense need not apply.”

I’m sure it’s merely assumed at present.

“Fast and Furious” Should Be The Description of Holder’s Dismissal

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

Avoiding Responsibility for Tragic Operation

On Thursday, Sarah Palin wrote a Facebook note that I covered here, demanding that President Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder.  As this story continues, it’s clear that Holder isn’t going to take responsibility, and isn’t going to resign in shame as he should.  What makes it just that much worse is that this alleged public servant continues to make excuses for his malfeasance at the Department of Justice, and is stubbornly callous in his dealings with the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was killed in 2010 with one of the guns that Fast and Furious placed into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  In an act of flagrant disregard for the parents of Brian Terry, he released a semi-apology intended for the Terrys to the press before they had first received it.

Some take this action by Holder and the DoJ under his leadership as an act of cold-hearted folly, but while I am certain that Holder is cold-hearted, I believe it isn’t folly that has dictated his actions.  I believe Holder is a calculatingly cold-hearted villain.  This was done as a PR move with the press, since only days before he had refused to apologize to the family.  The letter was disclosed to Politico, the left-wing online political news-site responsible for digging up the Cain accusers, but Politico is now saying they won’t release it since it was supposed to have been private.  Really?  Isn’t this the same Internet rag that only two weeks ago was cajoling two Cain accusers and the National Restaurant Association to make the details of confidential agreements public?  Interesting it is how quickly times have changed.  As we know about Politico, it’s all about whose ox is being gored.

Tim Mak, writing for Politico said of Holder’s letter: (H/T DailyCaller)

“Eric Holder has told the grieving family of slain U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry that he is ‘sorry for the loss of your son’ and offered to meet with them,”

If accurate, it is a perfect example of a leftist’s so-called “apology:”  It’s feigned sympathy posing as an apology.  He might as well have said “I’m sorry you have the flu today.”  It would have been at least equally sincere, and no less an apology.  If Holder wanted to apologize, he could have said something about his responsibility in the matter, but he dare not admit that as at least 38 members of Congress are demanding Holder’s ouster.  I’ll be contacting my own Congressman to be sure he’s part of that list, and if not, to demand an explanation.

In related news, Terry’s parents, Kent and Josephine, have finally broken their public silence on the matter.  What appears to have anger them most was Holder’s excuse in testimony before the Senate, when in answer to Senator Cornyn, (R-TX) Holder said:

“There are 115,000 employees in the Department of Justice,”  and more: “I cannot be expected to know the details of every operation on a day-to-day basis.”

This isn’t about knowing the tiny details of every operation.  Holder shamelessly sets up a straw man in this statement: Nobody is asking him to know the details of every operation on a day-to-day basis.  They want to know how an operation like this could have been developed in the first place.  Holder shouldn’t have needed the day-to-day details to realize that this operation was wrong-headed.  It should never have left the planning stage.  The management of the DoJ should have prevented this from becoming an operation at all.  That means Eric Holder, of course, who has failed to take responsibility for the operation that went forward under his [mis]management.

Consider Holder’s words in response to Cornyn:

“I certainly regret what happened to Agent Terry. I can only imagine the pain that his family has had to deal with, particularly his mother. … We are not programmed to bury our kids. It pains me whenever there is the death of a law enforcement official, especially under the circumstances. It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that happened in Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry.”

Terry’s parents are right to view Holder’s attitude as one of brazen contempt, or at least shocking indifference.  There’s no excuse for Holder to remain in his post.  He has failed to discharge his duties with diligence, and the entire Department of Justice seems now to be engaged in a continuing suppression of the facts.  It’s time for the President to to step in and do his duty, exercise some fast fury of his own, and finally send Holder packing.  Holder must be made to account for this grotesquely stupid operation, but if the President won’t act, he must be held responsible too.

Come Clean Gloria Allred!(Updated)

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Let's See the Statements!

I want to see the statements.  Don’t wave statements around, and then withhold them.  For all we know, those were an e-mail from your cosmetic surgeon and the evening’s hotel menu.  Release the statements!  Show us this damning evidence!  What are you hiding from us?  Why won’t you show us these sworn statements?  What is the point of gathering sworn statements that are never to be released?  What good are they?  How do we know anything about the nature of the statements?

These two statements could say “I remember Ms. Bialek being upset at the time.”  What would that mean?  We know she was at least somewhat upset because she had been “let go” by the her employer just beforehand.  We don’t  have any clue what is in these allegedly corroborating statements, and until we see them, they constitute nothing except props for Gloria Allred’s traveling stage show.

Ms. Allred, you should immediately release these statements or explain why you will not.  Your client’s allegations are defamatory, and yet there is no supporting evidence of anything, except for her testimony.  I must conclude that you are misleading the American people, and that your concealment of these sworn statements is intended to carry out a hoax.

Then, after all of this, we now have the statement of a Tea Party member who says your client wasn’t at the event she says she had attended to speak to Mr. Cain.

This is all very curious, and I simply wish to know from Ms. Allred what sort of case she is presenting to the American people.  I don’t know what she’s attempting, but until I see these statements she has yet to release, I have no reason to assume this is anything but a pile-on episode in a long history of dubious cases involving Ms. Allred.

Now for all I know, this is on the up-and-up, but what makes me doubt it are the following things, right off the cuff:

  • Allred’s involvement. At all
  • The lack of release of the supposedly corroborating statements
  • The testimony of the accuser herself

In the end, if this turns out to be in any measure true, it will destroy Herman Cain, for lying about it, if nothing else.  For his part, he and his campaign are denying this flatly.  I am going on record here to say that if it turns out that this woman’s testimony is substantially true, Cain has no business being on the ticket, whatever the motivations driving this belated disclosure, but before I am willing to condemn the man, I’m going to need something a good bit more substantial than Gloria Allred standing behind a pile of microphones and before a camera waving “sworn statements” around to which she has not given us access.

In short, Ms. Allred has a responsibility to clear this up on behalf of her client, and in the name of justice.  If there is anything of substance to these statements, it will doom Mr. Cain’s candidacy as it should, but let’s not assume anything, because Allred has a long history of bluffing.  I’m calling her bluff: Release the statements!  Let us decide if the testimony alleged to be in them is credible.

Come clean, Ms. Allred!

 

Update #1: Contrary to previous stories, somebody claims to have witnessed Bialek at Tea Party Rally with Cain

Update #2: Cain to hold a press conference Tuesday

Cain Accuser: Come Clean Mr. Cain!

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Accuser Comes forward

I honestly don’t know what to make of this, apart from the fact that it is a political attack.  I’m going to insist on more information, some sort of corroboration, or something.  Do we have hotel receipts? Do we have dates, times, anything to substantiate any of this?  My problem with all of this is simple: In the press conference, we were told there would be statements by two contemporaneous witnesses to the alleged victim’s statements in confidence.  These statements have yet to be released.  It’s one thing to say the statements exist, but it’s something else again to produce them.  Something is very odd about this, and the public would be right to withhold judgment pending the disclosure of these statements.  Until then, what we have still amounts at best to a “he said-she said,” and it’s not enough to believe the accuser.

I’m not going to get into trying to debunk the specific accusations until we’ve had something to substantiate the claims that both individuals were there, were present at the hotel in question.  I don’t wish to smear the accuser, Sharon Bialek, and I won’t, but the problem is that her attorney, Gloria Allred, has a history of some very dubious cases, and in this case, since no action will be take, and no claims will be filed, it’s difficult to understand how this is anything other than a politically motivated attack. If she seeks no compensation or settlement, then her only possible purpose can be to damage Cain’s presidential campaign.   The question is then: “Why?”

Over my lifetime, I’ve learned that people can be motivated to make ugly accusations for all manner of reasons, and sometimes it’s because they wish to see justice done.  Other times, it’s because they have some other axe to grind with the target, and the problem in this case is that while it’s being presented as the former, we really have no evidence one way or the other.

Allred said “Mr Cain, while running for President, is actively lying to Americans.”  My question for Allred is this:  You say you have corroborating statements from contemporaneous witnesses, but you have not released them.  What does Allred offer to substantiate the circumstances?  Do we have anything that shows Cain was in Chicago at the time?  Do we have anything to substantiate the Bialek was in Chicago at the time?  Do we have any information to show that there is or was any relationship of any sort between the two, never mind the allegations put forward by Bialek?  At present, I know of no information apart from her statements, and the statements of Allred, and to be honest with you, I don’t consider Allred a credible source for any information.

Allred’s comments preceding her client’s statement seem to me akin to that moment in A Few Good Men, when the character played by Demi Moore stands up in court and says “I strenuously object.”  The problem is that it’s pointless for Allred to stand up and say Cain “…is actively lying to the American people,”  after offering absolutely nothing to corroborate her client’s claims, apart from a business card that shows Bialek did work for the Education Foundation at some point, although by her own admission, not at the time of the alleged incident.  Statements of that sort are theater, but they have no impact because there is no evidence to support them.  Additionally, we do know that Bialek thought at the time she was let go from the foundation before the alleged incident.  It was stated flatly that she thought she had been fired unfairly by the Foundation because she hadn’t raised enough money.  Allred states that Bialek is a registered Republican.  What does that mean?  There are a number of other candidates in the Republican party who will benefit from this disclosure if it sticks.  It’s not as though the only people who intend political harm to Cain are Democrats, and in fact, I’ve said that all along.

Again, I don’t have a particular dog in this hunt, except to say that I would prefer the truth on all such matters.  What Allred has engineered was a very dramatic, hyped, and overblown spectacle from which no usable evidence of misconduct was produced, apart from Bialek’s claims.  If the two men who allegedly signed statements corroborating Bialek’s claims will not come forward, or otherwise consent to the release of their statements, then I don’t know how we’re supposed to view this as anything but an unsubstantiated political attack.  At the moment, that’s the extent of this despite the endless media coverage.

Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have the truth of this matter yet, and while it’s our natural inclination to believe that where there is smoke, there must also be fire, but the truth is I’ve yet to see any damning evidence.  Bialek sounds credible, but then again, many people are good liars, so I have no idea about her actual credibility.  Without the release of the statements from her friends that purport to support her story, I haven’t enough evidence to damn Herman Cain.  It’s not enough to trot out an alleged victim who makes claims, wave around some pieces of paper that are alleged to contain statements from two confidantes of the alleged victim, and then call it a day.   There must be more, or it’s simply another claim brought forward in dramatic fashion by Gloria Allred.  Frankly, that says plenty to me about this woman’s motives, because she did not seek out an attorney so much as the media management of a publicist.

Here’s the press conference:

Accuser Represented by Allred to Air Allegations Against Cain

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Attorney Allred Bringing New Accuser

This is becoming absurd.  It was only a matter of time before Gloria Allred got involved.  Let’s wait and see what this amounts to before we make any assumptions.  Allred has a history of bringing forward some dubious cases, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this winds up being more of the same.  This attempt to kill off Herman Cain’s candidacy isn’t going away, and as the left and the GOP establishment unite in their desire to wipe out Cain, it’s a sure bet that much of this will wind up as we suspected: A contrived, manufactured assault on Cain’s character. Allred’s press conference is scheduled for 1:30pm EST, and it’s not clear what will be alleged.  The media is swirling with hyper-ventilating speculation, but what this particular accuser will claim is not known apart from a vague description in the press, this one from RadarOnline:

The woman, who will be the first to go public on Monday, sought Cain’s help with an employment issue and was allegedly sexually harassed by him. Allred and her client will discuss, in detail, what she alleges occurred with Cain.

If we’re going to go through all of this, there had better be some actual details this time, with specific allegations, and some sort of evidence, rather than just the “she said” aspects.  I have no intention of entertaining yet another blatantly unsubstantiated attack on Cain.  If this turns out to be another case of that sort, Americans are going to be furious, and rightly so.  This isn’t a game, and we shouldn’t be toying with people this way.  Bring facts, or go home.

As if this isn’t absurd enough, a blogger at the Daily Beast, actually says that Herman Cain’s double-breasted suits are a sort of subliminal message.  I kid you not.

Obama Administration Rejects Congressional Subpoena

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Obama Cover-up?

The Washington Examiner is reporting on the Obama administration’s rejection of a House Energy and Commerce Committee Subpoena for additional documents related to the Solyndra scandal.  Apparently, this president is above the rule of law.  Congress is carrying out its duty to investigate why tax-payers were effectively robbed of a half-billion dollars under the auspices of a “green energy” initiative.  The Obama administration is keen on hiding this entire fiasco, and now that the committee has looked at all the documents from other federal agencies, they need to look at documents related to the case from the White House, but as the administration’s response makes clear, there will be no further cooperation.  Clearly, his lawyers don’t believe they must respond to legitimate subpoenas for documents pursuant to the oversight role of Congress.  The lawyer is claiming executive privilege on behalf of Obama because the committee vote was along partisan lines, there is no need to answer it:

“I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation,” Obama’s counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

(read complete response here)

I want my fellow Americans to remember this.  Essentially, what you should understand is that you don’t need to worry about Obamacare, because it was passed by a party-line vote.  You needn’t sweat it. Just ignore it.  When the federal revenuers come to collect money from you pursuant to Obamacare, you just go ahead and tell them “Hey, I’m sorry, but that was passed by a party-line vote, so no thanks.”  See what that gets you.  Enjoy your jail cell.

The most important claim made by the Obama’s attorney, Kathryn Ruemmler, is that the committee’s subpoena was “overbroad” and thus interferes with the confidentiality interests of the executive branch.  This, from an administration that continues to make claims about its transparency. The problem is that this letter suggests that the party-line nature of the vote is what makes the subpoena invalid, but my question is:  Would the intrusions on the executive privileges of the Obama administration be less if this subpoena had been issued by a unanimous vote of the committee?  No. They’d still make the same claim.  Don’t be fooled by this partisan-ship claim of the president’s attorney.  This is all about hiding the truth.

For his part, Committee Chairman Fred Upton responded to this rejection in scathing language:

“We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama Administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers. Solyndra was a jobs program gone bad, and we must learn the lessons of Solyndra as we work to turn our economy around and put folks back to work. Our judicious and methodical work over the last eight months has garnered tens of thousands of pages of documents from DOE and OMB that have proven we are on the right track. Now, we need to know the White House’s role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate. That would have been the route we preferred, and frankly, it would have been better for the White House to get the information out now, rather than continue to drag this out. Our request for documents is reasonable – we are not demanding the President’s blackberry messages as we are respectful of Executive Privilege. What is the West Wing trying to hide? We owe it to American taxpayers to find out.”

This is setting the stage for a conflict between House Republicans and the Obama administration on an unprecedented scale.  As usual, the Obama administration is obfuscating, obstructing, and otherwise attempting to thwart this investigation into the scandal arising from their approval of loan guarantees to the now bankrupt Solyndra, because this would likely reveal the depths of the crony capitalism inherent in the green energy  initiative.

So what will Congress do if the Obama administration ultimately tells them to pound sand, as it now seems certain to be the case?  I suspect with Speaker Boehner’s tepid leadership, nothing will happen, which is why the Obama administration is responding in this manner.  They know that Boehner simply won’t call for an impeachment, in part because Boehner will consider it pointless since the Senate will never take action on it, and in part because Boehner is afraid of controversy, and instead simply wishes to get along.

Enough is enough.  It’s time that Congress demands the President and his administration comply with the subpoena.  As usual, the response to the subpoena came late Friday after most Americans check out on news.  The Obama administration is betting that the House of Representatives is a toothless paper tiger.  Sadly, with leaders like Boehner and Cantor, they’re likely to have been right in that assessment.  Meanwhile, the American people are taking a beating at the hands of this administration, and its corrupt crony capitalism, which hands out favors to friends and big-money donors while stiffing the American people with the bill.

What Qualifications May a State Place on the Receipt of Benefits?

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

Drug Test? Who? Me?

This question comes up repeatedly, and in the context of the Florida law requiring drug testing for the recipients of public assistance, it’s become a point of controversy.  As I reported Monday, a Federal judge has temporarily suspended the Florida law pending further review.  My opinion on that judge’s competence aside, I wish to understand the nature of the mindset that leads a person to believe they have an entitlement to “benefits” or assistance from the public treasury without some reasonable expectation that they are waiving certain claims to privacy.  The Florida judge raised the 4th Amendment’s protections, but I submit to you that there is no 4th Amendment issue in play.

I simply don’t understand how people are able to concoct legal justifications that have no basis in fact or in law.  Here is the text of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Obviously, it is the contention of the ACLU in this Florida case that the requirement for drug-testing to receive assistance constitutes a 4th Amendment violation of the right of the plaintiff to be secure in his person from unreasonable search.   This is a nonsensical claim, however.  This is not a qualified search, because the applicant is not being required to submit to the search(drug test.) He simply won’t get the “benefits” or assistance. End of story. Full stop. A search, to be covered under the 4th Amendment, must be a compulsory search.  Period.  What the Florida law requires in this case is that to complete your application for assistance, you must consent to the search(drug test.) You are not legally required to apply for “benefits” or assistance.  You can walk down the street to your church, or go ask your family for help, or any number of things, but it isn’t relevant to the issue at hand.

Case in point: The Federal Government requires employers to submit Social Security Numbers for verification of a person’s qualification to work in the United States on the basis of legal residency.  You are not required by law to furnish your social security number to a prospective employer, unless you want the job.  Some spiffy ACLU attorney could certainly go make that case, but I doubt that will happen, since it doesn’t fit the agenda of the communistic ACLU.

Of course, going back to the application for public assistance, I wonder why the ACLU doesn’t argue that there’s a Fourth Amendment issue in terms of other qualifications as well.  After all, the fourth amendment guarantees you the right to be free from search and seizures not only of your person and property, but also your effects.  Why does this matter?  In most jurisdictions, Florida included, applicants for assistance are required to furnish copies of their 1040′s, and to demonstrate their impoverished state by virtue of a lack of income.  To establish this lacking, they are required to furnish documentation that can be verified and qualified.

Why don’t they make the argument that the income verification requirement for assistance also subjects applicants to an unreasonable search?  No answer.  This sort of stupidity can be extended indefinitely, but the simplest form of an answer to all of this remains: This is not a fourth amendment issue by virtue of the fact that one’s application for assistance (or “benefits”) is entirely voluntary.  End of story. End of hunt. NEXT!

Please, by all means, feel free to explain to me how this is a Fourth Amendment issue once you include the fact that the application for assistance is voluntary.  If you can’t do that, you’re barking up the wrong tree, and I suggest that you and your ACLU pals go back to finding other unique ways in which to undermine both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  This issue is resolved, irrespective of the legal meanderings of a dunderhead Federal judge.