Amerika

https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=33694

Cops bust Christian service, criminally charge pastor for having 16 people in 293-seat building

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cops-bust-christian-service-criminally-charge-pastor-for-having-16-people-in-293-seat-building

Criminalizing drive-in worship services

https://www.toddstarnes.com/faith/watch-police-raid-churchs-drive-in-service-issue-500-tickets-to-entire-congregation/

https://www.toddstarnes.com/faith/louisville-mayor-forbids-churches-from-holding-easter-sunday-drive-in-services/

DACA

I'm getting propaganda about DACA in my news feed. There are two ways to view DACA: on the merits or from a process standpoint. It's striking how many people think DACA is sacrosanct. But DACA was never enacted into law. It's simply a policy of the Obama administration. Executive policies can always be changed by the next administration. DACA is kepy alive by renegade judges who operate outside the law as members of the Resistance.

Even if you think DACA is a swell idea, so long as it's nothing more than Executive policy, it can be rescinded. If you think a president doesn't have the Constitutional right to revoke Executive policies of former administrations, if you think courts have the right to block the Trump administration from revoking DACA, you support a dictatorship. Our system is based on consent of the governed. We elect officials to represent our interests. If they fail, we can vote them out of office. 

To insist that Executive policies have the force of law, which can't be revoked by successive administrations, you don't believe in consent of the governed. The alternative is an unaccountable ruling class. 

Suppose a gov't official likes your house, or your car, or your daughter. What's to stop him from seizing whatever he wants for his own benefit? In a representative democracy, the law restrains him. But if secular progressives have their way, everyone will be at the mercy of a banana republic or totalitarian state. Think China, N. Korea, Stalinism, Papa/Baby Doc Duvalier, Robert Mugabe, &c. So many Americans are too stupid to think three steps deep. 

What Brexit and impeachment have in common

We have a parliament that is frightened of the electorate.

We have a politicised judiciary.

We have a government with no majority.

We have a population who fear that democracy is at risk.

The next general election will be fascinating, if we’re ever allowed to have one.

— Andrew Doyle (@andrewdoyle_com) September 25, 2019

There's a striking parallel between our situation and Brexit. The electorate voted in favor of Brexit, but the Parliamentary and judicial elites want to vacate their vote. They despise popular sovereignty. Likewise, Executive agencies under Obama tried to throw the election to Hillary. When that failed, they tried to have Trump removed on a 25th Amendment pretext. When that failed, they moved to impeachment, even though the next election is just 13 months out. Once again, they despise popular sovereignty.

Home rule for Narnia!

Lord Aslan,

We the people do earnestly petition thee to liberate Narnia from usurpers to the throne. Having lost the British Empire in their own world, the Crown now seeks to colonize Narnia. The Pevensie siblings are grifters and carpetbaggers. They rule over us without our advice or consent. Rather than learning the dialects of Narnia, they expect everyone to speak "the King's English". They drain our natural resources to sustain their ostentatious lifestyle at castle Cair Paravel. 

When she first arrived, Lucy was sweet and modest, but she's taken on royal airs. Fancy hairdos and evening gowns. Jewels. Pedicures and manicures. And don't let us get started on her vain gossipy sister.

"High King" Peter is drunken lout who whiles away the hours in gambling and blood sports–while his randy younger brother Edmund cavorts with the wood nymphs and water nymphs. 

We plead with Thy Divine Majesty to succor us in our distress and rid our land of English imperialism. Cast off the yoke of foreign oppression! End the occupation!

Humbly, 

Thy royal subjects and servants,

The

• Badgers

• Bears

• Beavers

• Deer

• Foxes

• Hedgehogs

• Mice

• Moles

• Otters

• Rabbits

• Squirrels

Fowl play

In case anyone had any remaining doubts, Trump is demonstrably guilty of obstructing justice. Trump just pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey. 

Presidential pardons can be abused to buy the silence of potential accusers. The turkey was a potential witness in the Russian collusion investigation. Mueller indicted the turkey to put the squeeze on the ill-fated fowl. Nothing loosens the tongue of a gallinaceous witness for the prosecution like the prospect of winding up on a dinner platter. Anonymous informants at the DOJ tell me that the stressed-out Galliforme was on the verge of turning state's evidence against Trump when he pardoned it, thereby robbing Mueller of his star witness. 

The dogs of war

From a recent Facebook exchange: 

TJ is with Joe Carter and Alan Noble.

Evangelical leaders are upset with the GOP, because the GOP isn't damning the proverbial torpedoes and rushing through the confirmation of a judge who's been credibly accused of sexual assault. This is where we find ourselves in 2018.

The next time some Christian conservative risibly tries to claim the moral high ground with you, keep this in mind.

Hays 

Where we find ourselves in 2018 is people who think an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault should put the onus on the accused. What if TJ was on the receiving end of that standard? What does he have to fear? Seize his bank records, medical records, email, text messages, &c.

Stacey

Where we find ourselves in 2018 is beholden to a bunch of old, white Conservative men who refuse to have the president authorize an FBI investigation into a sexual assault allegation against a potential member of the Supreme Court - a lifetime appointment, mind you - even though that precedent was set by President George H.W. Bush (R) in 1991 during the SCOTUS hearings for Clarence Thomas. 

These same old, white Conservative men want to rush the hearing and think the American public can't see that these same old, white Conservative men had no problem sitting on the Merrick Garland nomination for almost a YEAR. 

Where we find ourselves in 2018 is that many evangelical Christians seem to support this hypocrisy and the outright appalling assault on our democracy.

Hays

i) If it happened it wasn't a federal crime. Thomas and Hill were federal employees. The alleged harassment took place in the workplace. Hardly analogous. The FBI has no authority in that case.

ii) Why are you making sexist, racist, ageist comments about "old white men"? Is bigotry okay so long as you're a woman?

iii) The Senate had no Constitutional obligation to consider Garland.

Stacey 

Actually precedent shows the president is allowed to - and should - ask the FBI to investigate the claims. 

Hays

I explained why the comparison with Thomas/Hill is bogus. You didn't refute what I said. 

Stacey

What's the problem? If Kavanaugh's done nothing wrong he should welcome an investigation. I would. 

Hays

No one should welcome a rogue FBI investigation. The onus is not on the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated allegation. 

Stacey

Also GTFO with your Garland justifications. The entire country knows that was yet another GOP sham/scam. It's ok though.

Hays

Yes, it's okay for the Senate to ignore a nominee. It has that Constitutional prerogative. Remember when Democrats stiffed Estrada (and Janice Rogers Brown)?

Stacey

I'm fine with whatever you want to call me...ageist, racist, whatever. You don't know me so your labels mean nothing to me.

Hays

Dianne Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both 85-year-old white women. Do you have a problem with their age and race? Your complaint reduces to misandry. 

Stacey

I refute your idea that there should be no investigation because this was not a workplace/federal worker incident. In no way does that change the need for an investigation.

Hays

Actually it does since it falls outside the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Stacey

And in what world does an FBI investigation go "rogue"? Do you believe in the deep state or some other bizarre notions of the FBI?"

Hays

When people urge the FBI to violate its mandate. So it's your position that the FBI has the statutory authority to investigate alleged sex crimes by minors in private homes?

Stacey

Why don't you want an investigation?

Hays

i) You're playing a bait-n-switch. There's a difference between an investigation and an FBI investigation. In fact, when Susan Collins proposes that both the accused and the accuser testify, and be subject to cross-examination by their respective lawyers, that's an investigation.

ii) No, I don't think it's a good idea for Federal agencies with police powers to engage in extralegal investigations. That's a banana state.

Stacey

Maybe you're a closet misogynist who thinks all women fake sexual assault claims.

Hays

Maybe your'e a closet misandrist who thinks women never make false rape allegations. Do you think every black man who was lynched in the Jim Crow South was presumptively guilty just because a white woman accused him of rape? 

Stacey

There's every possibility you're just toeing the party line.

Hays

Unlike when you toe the Democrat party line?

Should only one side play by the rules?

The legal noose is tightening around Trump. A few observations:

1. I don't know what Trump opponents hope to accomplish. If the end-game is forcing him to resign, legal threats are counterproductive. To my knowledge, a sitting president can't be indicted. He can only be prosecuted after he leaves office. By building a criminal case against Trump, they are giving him a disincentive to resign. Since he enjoys legal immunity so long as he's in office, they are giving him a powerful incentive to finish out his first term, run for reelection, and run out the clock. It may even be possible for a president to pardon himself on the way out. So what's the point? 

Technically he might try to cut a backroom deal with Pence, but that's unenforceable. If he resigns and Pence takes over, he has no leverage over Pence. Moreover, there's no presumption that Pence would win in 2020. So why take the risk?

2. Trump poses a moral challenge for conservative ideologues. Is it possible to support the Trump administration when it does good things without becoming morally complicit in his misconduct? This is an issue raised by Ben Shapiro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61WDeLVjXA

On the one hand, there's the danger of moral drift. Do we keep adjusting our standards to excuse Trump? There's the danger of resorting to one compromise after another. 

3. Insofar as Trump may have broken the law, that seems to go back to his previous career as a private businessman. Some of Trump's shady business practices are catching up with him. That's fair game. But thus far I don't think he's broken any laws as president. 

4. While Shapiro makes some good points and raises some valid concerns, his own position fails to draw some necessary distinctions. In this post I'll fall back on some principles I've articulated before Trump ever threw his had into the ring. So this isn't me reinventing my ethics in the Trump era. For instance:

i) I did this post two months before he even announced his presidential bid: 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/04/counter-cheating.html

ii) Most of my posts about deception antedate the Trump candidacy. 

iii) During the Bush 43 administration, I objected to treating terrorists like POWs. I pointed out that the laws of warfare are based on reciprocity. 

iv) Likewise, I cited the salus populi suprema lex principle.  

5. All things being equal, the rule of law is very important. But that's not absolute. Maybe Shapiro is using "law" as a shorthand expression. Take so-called campaign finance "laws". Aren't some of these actually regulations promulgated by the FEC? 

If so, we have a huge problem with the regulatory state, where Congress abdicates its responsibility, giving Executive agencies a blank check. That subverts the democratic process. Rather than elected lawmakers answerable to the voter, unaccountable Executive bureaucracies become rogue dictatorships. 

In addition, it's my impression that some (many? most?) campaign finance "laws" violate Constitutional free speech. Not to mention rubbery laws. 

6. There's a standard distinction between laws of morality and laws of utility. We need to distinguish between moral norms and legal technicalities. And even in the case of moral norms, there are priorities. Not all moral obligations are equally obligatory, and sometimes duties conflict. 

We can never justify wrongdoing, but that's not equivalent to law and policy. For instance, consider the California law that punishes employees with imprisonment if they refuse to use the transgender speech code. Or consider the bill working its way through the Sacramento legislature to crack down on churches that don't capitulate to the LGBT agenda. There's nothing morally sacrosanct about those laws. 

7. It's harebrained to play by the rules if the other side routinely breaks the rules to win. That's a recipe for unilateral disarmament. At that point the rules subvert their original rationale. Imagine playing by the rules when you know the opposing team bribed the referees? Why play at all under those conditions? Why go through the motions? 

8. Under Obama, agencies like the FBI and DOJ tried to rig the election for Hillary. And there's a continued effort to sabotage the will of the electorate. They refuse to accept the fact that Trump is the duly elected president. They use any means at their disposal to nullify the elections results. To disenfranchise Trump voters. (And I didn't even vote for Trump.)

There's no obligation to cooperate with that agenda. This isn't ultimately about fighting for Trump but fighting for our Constitutional liberties. Defending majority rule and the consent of the governed. 

Seven Days in May

Seven Days in May (1964) was classic anti-war propaganda, at the height of the Cold War. The film had a fine cast. The timing may have been aimed at the Goldwater campaign. 

That was fiction. But what we're witnessing toddy is a real life Seven Days in May scenario. A coordinated conspiracy to either block a candidate (Trump) from getting elected or, failing that, to stage a palace coup, by the DOJ and FBI engaging in utterly lawless tactics. It's naked treason.

Who watches the watchman?

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists#

Eye of Sauron

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343785-newly-declassified-memos-detail-extent-of-improper-obama-era-nsa

"Colluding" with Russia

My basic objection to the Trump investigation is that gov't should never embark on a criminal investigation unless there's already prima facie evidence that a law was broken. 

Gov't can abuse a criminal investigation as a pretext to crush investigative reporters and political opponents. Seizing your computers. Reading your emails and text messages. Which, in turn, gives them a chance to read the emails and text messages people sent you. Other stuff is caught in the dragnet. Your medical records, tax records.

You and your friends have to hire lawyers. A ruinous expense. (Not to mention the civil forfeiture racket.) 

Then they have you testify under oath. Even if you didn't commit the crime for which you are questioned, if they can get a grand jury to indict you for perjury, then that becomes the crime. 

There's massive potential for rogue prosecutors to destroy lives and snuff out opposition from political opponents and investigative reporters.

Clean sweep

I'm a bit puzzled by reaction to Trump firing Comey. I'm not puzzled by the hypocritical reaction on the Left. That's predictable. Rather, I'm puzzled by why some conservative critics are attacking Trump's action.

i) I don't know what Trump's motive was and I really don't care. You can do the right thing for the wrong reason. 

Last year Comey held a press conference in which he systematically explained how Hillary broke the law. He dismantled her lies.

But he then held her to a lower standard than ordinary citizens are held to. He invented a condition (intent) which the statute doesn't require, and used that as an excuse not to recommend prosecution.

Mind you, even if we grant the intent criterion, Hillary's intention was undoubtedly to skirt the law. That was the whole point of the private server evasion. 

Comey's behavior was an example of how those in power protect others in power from the law. 

Moreover, the law in question isn't just some technicality. There are very good reasons for that law:

i) Hillary jeopardized the national security of the USA as well as our allies.

ii) Hillary obstructed the Freedom of Information Act, which is important to ensure a measure of transparency and accountability in gov't.

iii) Arguably, Hillary did this to cover her tracks so that she could solicit bribes as Secretary of State, for the Clinton Foundation.

Comey discredited himself and the FBI. Just another Executive agency politicized and weaponized by the Obama administration. For that reason alone, he richly deserved to be booted out.

I realize he was in a bind. He wanted to keep his job. His superiors were opposed to prosecuting Hillary. But that just goes to show that he's an apparatchik and timeserver. 

In addition, the FBI, during the election, obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Once again, the FBI, under Comey, was hopelessly compromised by the politicization and weaponization of Executive agencies during Obama's tenure.

If you wish the FBI to be truly independent, you need to sweep out Obama's cronies and make a fresh start. 

Now, it remains to be seen who will replace Comey. And it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct himself. But on this issue, thus far, I don't object to Trump's action. 

Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james-comey-latest-victim-of-the-clintons/article/2622746

The Bill of Rights

It's my impression that nowadays, conservatives usually assume the original Bill of Rights applies to Americans in general. It applies at the level of state and local government, and to some degree, even in the private sector. But I've also seen it claimed that that's anachronistic. Rather, that's due to the "incorporation" doctrine whereby some provisions in the Bill of Rights were reapplied to the states via the due process clause. Hence, that doesn't reflect original intent. 

However, I think that's questionable. From what I've read, Enlightenment political theorists had a doctrine of natural rights. Indeed, we see an example of this in The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To some degree, natural rights were distinguished from political rights. Natural rights were universal whereas political rights were individual. In modern jargon, we might recast the distinction in terms of human rights and civil rights, where human rights are innate and universal while civil rights are conferred by gov't. 

However, the distinction isn't that cut-and-dried, from some political rights were viewed as derivative natural rights. The function of some political rights was to safeguard natural rights, viz. freedom from oppression.

This seems to be the basic relationship between The Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. Although a few provisions in the Bill of Rights might be merely individual rights, in the main they appear to be derivative natural rights. In other words, they are specific political provisions to safeguard natural rights. Insofar as that's the case, it's not anachronistic to view the Bill of Rights as an extension and application of natural rights to the political sphere. In that event, the Bill of Rights is not confined to the Federal gov't. In some cases, it's not even confined to the public sector. 

Unmasking civic totalism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/11/make-change-religion-unmasking-civic-totalism/

No, it's not all about the Supreme Court

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441566/hillary-clinton-administration-judges-cabinet-appointees-would-inflict-damage

Yahoo in bed with FBI, NSA

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-nsa-exclusive-idUSKCN1241YT

Mass surveillance

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441366/surveillance-license-plates-faces

The Civil Rights Commission

One of the clear and present threats to American democracy is the proliferation of extralegal civil rights or human rights commissions, elected by no one, answerable to no one, who dictate social policy:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/u.s.-civil-rights-commission-religious-freedom-is-code-word-for-racism-homophobia-and-christian-supremacy