Government is mostly malevolent–conscientious parent edition.

A Libertarian friend of mine, David K. Williams, likes to say: “Government is largely malevolent.” He posts this frequently on social media, along with a link to a story about some bureaucrat or petty tyrant making life harder, worse, or both for ordinary folks trying to do ordinary things. I think I will take after my friend David in this practice.

Today’s illustration is this outrage from a school district in Virginia. A mom has been criminally charged for the way she tried to protect her daughter from ongoing bullying at school. I’m confident this mom will not be convicted of anything. In a sane universe, which we may or may not inhabit, the charges will be dropped, and whoever decided to cite and or charge her will be tarred and feathered and humiliated.

But there is a more important point here. This is government. This is the mentality of government. A mom trying to protect her baby against bullying that school administrators were powerless or apathetic to remedy, puts a recording device in her daughter’s pack. It gets discovered.

Mom gets charged not only with felony wiretapping, but with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Let me be clear. This is not only outrageous rubbish, it is a manifestation of the controlling mentality. The mentality that exists mostly in government. Did any of the busy-bodies who reviewed this situation think: “Wow. Poor kid. Poor mom. What can we do to help solve this situation?” No. The execrable jackals were afraid of being embarrassed. They were ticked that a parent might permeate their sanctum. Someone went to the rule book and combed through, looking for ways to punish the rabble and make an example.

This is not unique. This is not rare. This is what happens when citizens challenge authority.

It is a mentality that can thrive only in the public sector. In the realm of free exchange, when a company abuses you, you can look to a competitor. In the realm of regulated living, when the bureaucrat takes an interest in you, you can only pray that he’ll apply a little soap as he goes about his business. Please read the story linked below and get mad, then take action.

The phone number for Norfolk Public Schools is (757) 670-3945

The phone number for the Norfolk Police Department Chief’s Office is (7575) 664-3277

The phone number for the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office is (757) 664-4444

 

Mom charged after putting recording device in daughter’s backpack

The New York Times’ creepy crush on Communism: Global Warming edition.

The New York Times has struck again in its strange gushes of infatuation with communism. Its latest is a vacuous reflection titled The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid. Before digging into the sterile soil of this small plot of desert of logic, it is useful for context to recall the Times’ recent valentines to the bloodiest, most brutal ideology yet known on earth.
 
The Gray Lady apparently has slipped into nostalgic dementia for the days when its erstwhile Pulitzer scribe Walter Duranty wrote home about the glories of communism and scientific state planning even while, right under his nose, there were mass famines and slaughters that were exterminating tens of millions. What else would explain its recent paean 100 years of Communism, a series of columns airbrushing and romanticizing Marx’s spawn in the 20th century?
 
The various columns have to be seen and savored to be fully appreciated. There’s the heartwarming When Communism Inspired Americans. Too, there’s the heart wrenching What Killed the Promise of Muslim Communism? If you’re looking for something upbeat and racy, the Times is eager to explain Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism. Continuing the theme of doing right by the ladies, the Times also analyzes how Mao’s China lifted and empowered women.
.
There’s much more. The series includes primers on Bolshevism’s lessons for parenting as well as how early communists were models for future environmental activists. Which brings us up to November 2017 and capitalism’s sins against the mother planet.
.
In declaring that capitalism is the fire that will burn us all, one Benjamin Fong, a lecturer at Arizona State University offers no intelligent argument on global warming. He presents no substantive discussion of warming trends, warming causes, or warming consequences. He offers no explanation of how capitalism—free exchange really—is the driver of those trends. And he offers no description of the political-economic system he believes will cool the fire we face. He simply quotes a single scientist who reports global carbon emissions are on the rise. Fong doesn’t bother to invoke the proverbial 97%, Al Gore, or Michael Mann. He simply takes it for granted that invoking the C word makes his case. Readers will accept the reality of our coming doom and pine for solutions.
 
Fong’s omissions are not surprising in light of his light credentials to address his heated topic. Fong is not a climate scientist. Fong is not a political scientist. He’s not any kind of scientist. Fong is not an economist either. What is this lecturer from ASU, to whom the nation’s most arrogant newspaper leased a prized piece of opinion real estate?
 
Well, Fong’s bio on the university website informs us:”[Fong was at Princeton] Affiliate Scholar at the Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. His interests lie at the intersections of philosophy, psychology, critical social theory, and the study of religion.”
 
It further informs that Fong’s first book is: “Death and Mastery: Psychoanalytic Drive Theory and the Subject of Late Capitalism, which seeks to strengthen the psychoanalytic dimension of first generation critical theory in the hopes of rejuvenating its conception of subjection in late capitalism.” I don’t know what any of that means. I fed it through Google translate, but it came back word for word, verbatim verbatim the same. So, there we have it. Benjamin Fong is a non-professor who is interested in the intersection of religion and psychology and who hates capitalism. Sounds perfect for the New York Times. It’s a wonder NPR or PBS didn’t gobble him up first.
 
In any event, Fong’s thesis comes at an inconvenient time for the religion of warming hysteria. Temperatures aren’t keeping up with the doctored models. Consumers of popular American media like the Times wouldn’t know it, but, in light of step backed IPCC observations and hedged projections, even the oracle of mainstream scientific thought Scientific American recently reported: “Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time.
.
That was no coldflash in the pan. The journal Nature GeoScience reported a recent study by several eminent climate scientists that concluded prominent models over-estimate the heat retaining effect of CO2 and underestimate the responsive dynamics of earth’s skies and oceans. Bottom line: Global warming is crawling to catch up with activists’ alarmism.
 
The Washington Post covered the Nature study with the headline: New climate change calculations could buy the Earth some time — if they’re right. The New York Times–America’s paper of record, that prints all the news that’s fit to print–evidently deems this study unfit to print. Instead, it cedes column inches to a religion/psychology-studying, capitalism-hating lecturer to inform us that the catastrophe of global warming is the fault of capitalism.
 
It’s a shame Fong’s enlightened thesis wasn’t available until after the Times ran its tribute to Red redistribution, tyranny, and massacre. It would have been a fitting addition.

More good news: Trump’s triumphs the media tries to hide and some conservatives try to ignore.

 
 
It is fashionable for some conservatives and libertarians to point out dumb things Congress or President Trump does, and to huff it makes no real difference which party controls the federal government. I feel that way myself sometimes. The impression is reinforced by a media that, in its most recent hostile self-embarrassment frenzied wrongly over how Trump tossed too much fish food into a koi pond, while largely ignoring his substantive and successful visits with a number of heads of state. Herewith, some recent reasons I’m pleased that Donald Trump won last November.
 

On the domestic front, At Trump’s direction, cabinet heads are overseeing a historic slowdown and rollback of intrusive regulations. Business confidence and consumer confidence are surging as a result. A Democrat administration would never take this direction. It’s doubtful whether any of the other Republican candidates from 2016 would have, either.

 

Singling out one of the stars, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is bring law and order to an agency with a history of overreaching lawless disorder. On a matter of substance, Pruitt is unraveling the EPA’s power grab over electricity generation via its sweeping rewrite of pollution laws. The war on coal is over, Pruitt declares.
 
On a huge matter of process, Pruitt declared an end to collusion between radical environmentalists and sympathetic bureaucrats, the so called sue and settle strategy. For decades, it’s been a dirty little open secret that activists achieve regulation through litigation. They would bring a lawsuit against the EPA arguing for more aggressive enforcement of various policies. They agency would settle, and gleefully put the screws to business and property owners, because it “had to.” No more, Pruitt says:
The days of regulation through litigation are over. We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.
 
 
On foreign policy, I’m pleased to have a president who puts American interests first and does not seem embarrassed by American strength and prosperity. Consumers of American media wouldn’t know it, but Trump’s Asia tour was a resounding success. He was received with respect, he schmoozed ably with world leaders, and reached a number of favorable understandings and agreements. This includes a little reported pact with China, in which China agrred to invest an eye-popping $84 billion in petrochemical projects in West Virginia.
None other than Piers Morgan formerly of CNN wrote that Trump’s trip was a triumph the media tried to hide.
 
Undoubtedly, they’ll keep trying.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Senators keep gunning for nominees’ religious beliefs.

We have posted before about Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee exhibiting hostile attitudes toward nominees’ religious faith. One of the most aggressive, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse apparently wants to become the committee’s chief spear carrier in that regard.
 
In his questioning of Leonard Steven Graszn, nominated to the US Court of Appeals, Whitehouse spent the end of his time exploring the appropriate role of religion in judicial rulings and in the committee’s consideration of judicial nominations. Grasz and Whitehouse appeared to agree that religion per se should play no role in either. Rulings should be based on the law, and approval of a nominee should be based on his or her qualifications.
 
Whitehouse concluded with a seemingly reasonable sum up question: Is it appropriate for the committee to try to assure itself the nominee will adhere to that standard, and keep personal religious beliefs out of his rulings? Yes, Grasz agreed.Watch the exchange starting at 5:25 in the YouTube link below.
 
The problem with this seemingly arm’s length accord is that it opens the door for all manner of personal probing about what those beliefs are and how they might influence a nominee. This would be an unusual and insidious direction for examinations to go. There have always been nominees of various faiths. Many have come from churches with traditional views on the sanctity of life, family and marriage structure, freedom of religious practice against government regulation. The fact of the diversity of religious views has not previously been an invitation to senators to cross examine nominees about the details of their doctrines. Doing that smacks of an agenda to intrude, to expose, to isolate, and to ridicule. This is particularly troubling where Sen. Whitehouse appears to have precisely that agenda.

Indeed, in the hearing, he argued that “there’s simply no way to prevent a judge’s . . . personal beliefs from influencing” the judge’s rulings It appears Whitehouse is setting up a one-two. Ask questions eliciting any belief in a doctrine that does not comply with current legal trends, then argue the nominee will be unable to follow the law. Rather he’ll be improperly influenced by his church’s teachings.
 
Reinforcing this concern, the ABA investigator who gathered information for the ABA’s report to the Senate questioned Grasz about why he sent his children to a private religious school. That is not relevant fact gathering. An ill wind blows.
 
 
 
  

 

The Tribe Defending Religious Faith at Town Hall

Some of President Trump’s judicial nominees have faced questioning from Democrat senators that seems more like a religious inquisition than discussion of judicial philosophy and temperament. The senators’ motives appear troublingly anti-faith. I posted about it here yesterday. Town Hall published a modified version today. Please check it out at the link below.

.

Left’s Litmus Test for Confirmation: Deny Your Faith or Be Rejected.

 

 

Page 1 of 2412345...1020...Last »