Jul 20
In Charlottesville, Virginia, an innocent man named Mark Weiner was falsely convicted of rape after a Democratic prosecutor and a Republican judge agreed that evidence of pure innocence (cell phone records indicating the purported rape “victim” lied) should be kept from the jury.
In the words of Professor William L. Anderson, “Who says that Republicans and Democrats cannot work together?”
Jul 19
The economist Martin Armstrong writes that a few years ago he was offered an opportunity to do a federal research project for substantial grant money.
When I was called upon for research back to form the G5 and then wrote the White House warning that manipulating the dollar down would create volatility and a crash within two years (1987), I was told I would never again be asked by government for anything. I was told outright to do studies that provide the conclusion up front and I would earn millions of dollars a year for bogus research reports.
Armstrong’s story is here.
Jul 19
In a free society, every person has a right to say, publish and broadcast any truthful facts about anything. One can pay for a full-page ad in any newspaper (that is willing to take the money) saying what one wants to say.
Increasingly, this is not the case in America. After generations of suffering setbacks when they tried to censor speech that was suspicious of government, government-trusters are moving to exploit a new theory to limit freedom of speech.
They seek to censor suspicion by using “campaign finance” laws, upon claims that the SPENDING on published remarks can be outlawed.
Of course, by outlawing SPENDING on speech that the government disagrees with, the government can effectively eliminate free speech–and totally control American politics.
On a fall day back in 2012, an armed SWAT team launched a pre-dawn raid of several private homes to search for any evidence that people in those households had “coordinated” with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker when paying for pro-Walker ads. (The horror!)
(Note: nothing in this post should suggest any support whatsoever for Scott Walker.)
As political activist Paul Jacob writes: “This was simply the opening salvo in a long and intrusive “John Doe” investigation of 26 groups suspected of violating Wisconsin’s campaign finance regulations by allegedly coordinating their activities with Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign.”
But “To this day, after years and much “evidence” gathering, no one has been charged.”
Paul Jacob continues:
those being investigated [we]re ordered to remain silent. Those who suffered from the Wisconsin raids were told that they couldn’t tell anyone other than their attorneys. . . . children, forced to miss school waiting while their homes were ransacked, were told to lie to school officials as to why.
Had Eric O’Keefe, head of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, not bravely defied the gag order and spoken out about this sinister and illegal political witch hunt, it might indeed be proceeding apace and in secret — without the people of Wisconsin or America having any knowledge of what their government was doing.
O’Keefe risked talking to the Wall Street Journal, which published an editorial lambasting the Wisconsin speech police. But O’Keefe also sued Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz and others involved in the John Doe probe in federal court for violating his First Amendment rights.
Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa not only ruled in O’Keefe’s favor, he ordered that all materials taken by DA Chisholm and his speech police be immediately returned and any copies made of documents or computer hard drives be destroyed.
Yet, The witch hunt continued. Until this week, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the investigation was wholly baseless and illegal, and targeted people “who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.”
Jul 19
Every government in history ultimately comes for all freedom, all property, all money, and to kill all who resist.
Now we read that the U.S. government is (again) seeking to extend the outer boundaries of people whom the government seeks (without legislation) to strip of gun rights.
The government is now seeking to create a database of people “who are incapable of managing their own affairs,” and seeking (again, without legislation) to disallow such people from purchasing a firearm. “The new policy would use the same strategy employed by the VA to report certain veterans to the background check system. They take note of anyone who has assigned a fiduciary to manage their pension when they’re not competent enough to do it themselves.”
The story is here.
Jul 17
There is no reason that taxpayers should be forced to OWN a university. The two justifications that are routinely offered for the existence of government universities do not stand up to scrutiny.
The first claim–that public schools somehow meet the needs of the poor in ways that private institutions do not–is shattered by measurable data. See here.
The second claim–that public universities somehow provide more freedom of inquiry than private (often religious-affiliated) universities–is likewise baseless.
Here is a story of how Portland State University–a public institution that supposedly is subject to the Bill of Rights–now drastically censors political speech that any person might find “triggering” or unsettling. Most of the views that are censored in this manner are views that question the state.
Modern government schools (like many private schools) have become dens of censorship and thought control. In practice, these institutions practice widespread discrimination against libertarians and those who disagree with socialism.
Also see this satirical piece in THE ONION. The mock newspaper printed a mock news story not long ago that now mirrors life on many college campuses.
Jul 17
Imagine a government program that achieves THE VERY OPPOSITE result of its intentions.
This is the truth about every large government program.
Social Security has impoverished seniors (and America) and transferred vast sums from poor people to rich people. See here, here, and here.
Minimum wage laws increase unemployment and greatly harm poor people. See here.
The “Americans With Disabilities” Act LOWERED the percentage of disabled people with jobs. See here.
Industrial regulations supposedly put in place to keep wealthy businesspeople under control end up ENRICHING the wealthiest, while keeping common people from competing. See here.
Welfare spending and wealth redistribution harms the poor. See here.
“National Security” efforts make any nation that adopts them LESS SECURE because one’s own government, not any foreign government or any criminal or terrorist, is always THE GREATEST DANGER facing the average person. This has been empirically measured. See links here.
And the federal student loan program–enacted to help poor people achieve the dream of a college education, ACHIEVES THE VERY OPPOSITE RESULT. See here. Recently, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a report showing that the program has greatly increased tuition costs but done nothing to increase the representation of the poor in colleges.
Jul 17
As many legal commentators have noted, jury trials are virtually vanishing.
Prosecutors file complicated multi-count indictments, expecting that every defendant will be forced to plead guilty to something. Increasingly, only a fool would risk his life by taking such cases to a jury. Almost every error is a crime and almost every crime is a felony. Sentences have gradually increased so that no one can afford to demand a jury trial.
Most modern criminal cases are resolved not by judges or juries but by plea negotiations with prosecutors.
In the civil arena, judges rather than prosecutors play the key role. They increasingly proclaim that issues are “LEGAL” questions for them (judges) to decide, not “FACT” questions for juries to decide.
Here is an interesting law review article about the increasing use of “summary judgment” in civil cases. Attorney Richard L. Steagall authored the article in 2009. The title is “The Recent Explosion in Summary Judgments Entered by the Federal Courts Has Eliminated the Jury From the Judicial Power.” You can find a link to the article here.
Jul 15
The occasionally brilliant John Stossel is out with a good column. Stossel attended Freedomfest in Las Vegas recently and learned about countries such as New Zealand and Canada, which saw their economies greatly improve after cutting government spending.
Greece, however, has been in the news for years, unable to stay afloat financially. Greece recently defaulted on an IMF loan and has gotten another (its third) big bailout. Greece has agreed to cut government spending by only 3 percent.
One in four Greek workers still works for government (vs. one in seven in the U.S.). Greek politicians run government “businesses” that employ politicians’ cronies. In other words, Greece has barely begun what I would call austerity.
Stossel also described the worsening economic conditions in Puerto Rico.
A recent island governor tried to cut Puerto Rico’s bloated government. Luiz Fortuno fired thousands of workers and made it easier to open a business. The economy improved. But firing workers isn’t popular. Fortuno lost the next election and his successor increased spending and raised taxes. Of course that didn’t work. Now Puerto Rico can’t pay its $70 billion debt.
Jul 15
Jacob Sullum is one of America’s most gifted writers on civil liberties. His most recent column points out that federal police-state control freaks are (once again) seeking to ensure that all future federal laws governing computer technology be written so that the surveillance freaks in the federal government (the NSA, FBI, etc.) will always be able to monitor and surveil the American people’s computer use by way of “back doors.”
In the government’s sick, twisted vision of the future, all computer and communication technology will be manufactured with “back doors” programmed into it, allowing the omnipotent control freaks of government to secretly enter and conduct surveillance on virtually everything. The government must be all-knowing. The king’s keys must be able to unlock every door.
Jul 14
BUT THE ‘INTERNAL DOCUMENTS’ ARE A 2014 EMAIL BY A RETIRED EXXON EMPLOYEE REFLECTING ON PAST DISCUSSIONS OF THE IDEA
People in an office environment often engage in email discussions about political ideas, facebook postings, upcoming concerts, and restaurants. Now a powerful pro-government climate hysteria organization called the “Union of Concerned Scientists” is pointing to a 2014 email chain involving various “liberal” (in the government-trusting sense) college professors as the “smoking gun” that proves ExxonMobil’s knowing deception regarding manmade global warming.
In the email chain, the professors chime in with typical grievances regarding such things as the Supreme Court’s 2010 CITIZENS UNITED V. F.E.C. decision, and the profit motive of U.S. corporations. One professor attached an email by a long-former Exxon and Mobil employee named Lenny Bernstein as evidence that those corporations “knew” that carbon dioxide caused global warming during the 1980s.
Hardly shocking or startling, Bernstein’s discussion claimed that “Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981” as it sought to develop certain natural-gas reserves in Indonesia. “In the 1980s,” writes Bernstein, “Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect [the Indonesia] and other potential projects.”
“Whatever their public stance, internally they [Exxon execs] make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.”
There you have it. This bit of hearsay by a former Exxon employee–who later went on to be a contributor to IPCC documents–is the “smoking gun” in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ “report.” Read the Union’s claims here (with links to the “report”).
And by the way, even the retired Exxon-Mobil employee admits in his email that the science behind the government’s CO2-driven-climate-change theory is riddled with flaws.
