Tag Archives: Legal Insurrection

When Reality Shows Up

Posted on by

Green energy is a wonderful theory. So is the perpetual motion machine. However, both are limited by the laws of physics, and the first is limited by practicalities regarding cost.

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about some of the current problems being encountered by wind farms.

The article reports:

A couple of weeks ago, Sweden’s government ditched plans to go all-in on “green energy,” green-lighting the construction of new nuclear power plants. Shortly afterward, fossil fuel giant Shell announced it was scaling back its energy transition plans to focus on . . . gas and oil!

Now it looks like specific wind farm projects are beginning to topple due to strong economic headwinds. Recent, Rhode Island’s leading utility decided to nix a project called Revolution Wind 2 because the cost of the electricity was deemed too high.

…In Europe, Swedish energy firm Vattenfall will stop the development of a major wind project in the United Kingdom after a surge in costs (Hat-tip Hot Air’s Beege Welborne). Once again, the issue was related to surges in energy costs.

The economic headwinds associated with wind farms are beginning to be noticed.

…. Even as the White House is welcoming it with open arms and the Democrats’ climate law is channeling money in its direction, strong economic headwinds are blowing in the opposite direction – inflation and rising interest rates have hit the industry hard.

And then there’s the whales: Some citizen groups and conservative media have blamed a rise in whale strandings and deaths this year on the nascent wind farm projects – a connection scientists have so far found no evidence for.

The combination has made it a precarious time for offshore wind, said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, the trade group representing US clean energy.

“This is the vulnerable moment where the benefits are on the horizon,” Grumet told reporters this spring. “Because we don’t have the benefits of it on the table. We don’t have massive facilities producing energy, lowering prices in those states.”

Currently, green energy is not the answer to anything. The climate-change fear mongering is simply a way to eliminate the middle class and gain more control over the world’s population.

In February 2019, I posted an article that included the following:

In March 2016, I posted an article with the following:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

I can’t post this quote often enough. It needs to engraved in the minds of every American.

Misleading Media Happens On Both Ends Of The Political Spectrum

Posted on by

The mainstream media does not have a monopoly on biased news. Many Americans, myself included, have reached the point where if we didn’t see it with our own eyes, we are not convinced in happened. Unfortunately, the bias can go both ways. Right now we see the political left working to undermine the Second Amendment. Unfortunately they have some serious ammunition–some deeply troubled people with guns have behaved very badly lately. However, that is no excuse to take guns away from honest, hard-working people who own them for self-defense.

Recently there was a case in Texas where Daniel Perry was found guilty of murder after Soros-backed District Attorney Jose Garza sought murder charges for an act of self defense during the 2020 George Floyd riots. The words underlined are from an article posted at The Gateway Pundit on April 10. Note that the article includes the fact that the District Attorney had a connection to George Soros and that the article states self-defense as a given.

The article reports:

This weekend the lead detective in the case, David Fugitt, filed an affidavit following the shocking verdict in the case.

According to Fugitt, District Attorney Joze Garza and his office had him remove 100 pages of exculpatory evidence in the case. The DA’s office had him shorten his presentation from 158 slides to 56 slides.

Fugitt added that this was likely criminal behavior.

On April 9, Legal Insurrection posted an article about the same murder and verdict.

Legal Insurrection reports:

This past Friday, April 7, 2023, Daniel Perry was found guilty in the 2020 murder of Garret Foster during a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin.

The confrontation between the two men occurred as Perry was driving his Uber vehicle amongst a crowd of protestors in the street, and while Foster was among the protestors carrying an AK-47 on a sling. The rifle-armed Foster approached the driver’s side door of Perry’s car, Perry rolled down his window, and shot at Foster five times with a pistol, striking him with three rounds, effectively killing Foster instantly.

…From the start Perry would be arguing that he shot Foster in self-defense, and only after Foster had pointed his rifle at Perry.

And right there we have the key issue in this murder trial. Certainly, if the jury believed that Perry fired only after Foster pointed his rifle at him, there could hardly be a clearer case of self-defense. Indeed, as someone who personally carries a firearm for self-defense on a regular basis, anyone who unlawfully points a rifle at me ought to have a high expectation of getting shot in self-defense.

Social media was outraged at the conviction of Daniel Perry. However, there is more to the story:

The problem with this outrage, however, is that it presumes as an indisputable fact that Foster initiated the deadly force confrontation by pointing his rifle at Perry.

That “fact,” however, is not indisputable. Indeed, that fact was aggressively disputed by the prosecution, which argued to the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry, and so Perry’s claimed legal grounds for shooting Foster in self-defense simply doesn’t exist.

In support of this narrative of guilt the prosecution presented the testimony of multiple witnesses who told the jury that Foster never pointed his rifle at Perry. The confrontation itself was captured on poor quality video, from which screen captures were secured, and neither video nor stills ever show Foster pointing his gun at Perry.

My point is this. If we are going to argue for the Second Amendment and the idea that a man has a right to defend himself, we should be careful to check our facts. Both sides of the argument are very capable of stretching the truth to achieve a goal.

A Sad Day In America

Posted on by

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection reported the following:

There have been reports swirgling the last couple of days that Donald Trump will be charged and arrested next week by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on charges relating to payments to Stormy Daniels. The exact nature of the charges and the basis is not known yet, but based on prior leaks to the media, it appears that Bragg has come up with a novel theory that an otherwise lawful payment become criminal if it is accounted for incorrectly, a so-called falsifying business records offense. Even the NY Times noted this is highly unusual:

In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.

Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.

Alvin Bragg is a deeply destructive D.A elected with the help of a Soro-funded polical PAC:

The article concludes:

The charges, if not more substantial than described so far, are a fraudulent abuse of power aimed at manipulating the politicial process as we enter a presidential election cycle. Make no mistake, this has happened before and cost Republicans politically, including the fraudulent prosecution of then Senator Ted Stevens, which was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct but not before Stevens resigned setting in motion events that gave Democrats the votes they needed to pass Obamacare.

The abuse of prosecutorial power by Democrats will, to paraphrase Chuch Schumer’s attack on the Supreme Court, unleash the whirlwind. We just don’t know in which direction it will hit. I think there are several things going on here, including Democrats hope for violence that will allow a J6 crackdown on Trump supporters more far reaching than the prosecution of people for “parading” because they peacefully attended a protest where other committed violence. I also think that keeping the Trump prosecution (with more to come) front and center as he (likely) leads the Republican primaries is a political strategy – it’s no wonder the charges are coming now.

Meanwhile there seem to be no consequences for the Biden crime family and their drug-addicted son.

Did He Accidentally Tell The Truth?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about a recent statement by former secretary of state John Kerry.

The article reports:

While speaking at the World Economic Forum this week, former secretary of state John Kerry seemed to inadvertently admit that the issue of climate change is all about money.

It makes perfect sense. Climate change and all of the activism around it have become big business. All those private jets in the parking lot aren’t going to pay for themselves.

This is the full quote:

“I’m convinced we will get to a low-carbon, no-carbon economy — we’re going to get there because we have to,” he said.

“I am not convinced we’re going to get there in time to do what the scientists said, which is avoid the worst consequences of the crisis,” he added.

“And those worst consequences are going to affect millions of people all around the world, [in] Africa and other places. Of the 20 most affected countries in the world from [the] climate crisis, 17 are in Africa.”

In his remarks, Kerry also spoke about the task of keeping the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius alive.

“So, how do we get there? Well, the lesson I’ve learned in the last years and I learned it as secretary [of State] and I’ve learned it since, reinforced in spades, is: money, money, money, money, money, money, money. And I’m sorry to say that.”

Actually, I doubt that he is sorry to say that. How many government-subsidized green energy companies is he invested in? You did notice that the majority of the delegates (if not all) to the WEF in Davos flew there in private jets. Where is their effort to save the planet (other than to impose restrictions on the rest of us)?

To illustrate how the political left plans to make money by forcing the rest of us to depend on green energy, please read about the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2010 (article here).

That article reports:

“The biggest losers have been CCX’s two biggest investors – Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs – and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.”

If you have questions about climate change and global warming, the two best sources of truth are Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts. Joe Bastardi has written a number of books about climate cycles and how they impact our weather, and Anthony Watts blogs at wattsupwtihthat.com. Both authors provide scientifically valid information on the earth’s climate.

Finally!

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Legal Insurrection reported that the Oberlin College case is finally over.

The article reports:

Hopefully the long, hard road Gibson’s Bakery has traveled in its fight with Oberlin College has come to an end.

The Ohio Supreme Court just refused to accept jurisdiction over Oberlin College’s appeal (the Court also refused to hear the Gibsons’ appeal seeking to reinstate the full punitive damages award). It was a 4-3 decision, and it means the Gibsons now can collect approximately $36 million.

We received the following comment from Lee Plakas, lead trial counsel for the Gibsons:

Statement:

On behalf of the Gibson family and the trial team, Truth Still Matters, David can still overcome Goliath.

We and the Gibson family are gratified that all judges on the court of appeals and the majority of the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the rights of individuals rather than the bullying tactics of the big institutions.

We received quotes from the Gibsons and the trial team:

“Oberlin tried to frame this case with claims and issues that weren’t on trial. This has never been a case about a student’s first amendment rights. Individuals’ reputations should never be sacrificed at a false altar of free speech. The Gibsons and the entire State of Ohio should appreciate that the jury, a unanimous Ninth District Court of Appeals, and a majority of the Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that the deplorable conduct of Oberlin College could not be camouflaged by misleading claims of free speech.”

“The jury recognized Oberlin College’s bullying tactics. The students admitted their misconduct, but Oberlin College could never admit that they were wrong. They presumed that they could bring the Gibsons to their knees. The power of truth has enabled the Gibson family to survive Oberlin’s onslaught.”

This case should never have dragged on this long. The goal of the college was to drag the case out so that the Gibson family could no longer afford to fight. This is the equivalent of a person in a poker game with no high cards driving up the bidding until the other players can’t keep up. It is wonderful to see the good guys win.

 

Some Legal Perspective

Posted on by

I am not a lawyer (and have no intentions of ever becoming one), but have some very smart friends. This article will be information from smart friends and various other sources.

From Robert DuChemin (who is a lawyer) on Facebook:

The big news is the FBI’s illegal raid on Donald Trump’s home. The FBI broke the law in several ways. First, in order to execute a search warrant on documents that may be in a safe, police can only secure the safe. They exceeded their legal authority when they broke into the safe.
Secondly, the warrant only gave the FBI the authority to seize top-secret documents. They made no cursory review while at the President’s home, however, and therefore clearly retrieved documents that were outside of the scope of the subpoena. That was an invasion of the President’s rights and creates a constitutional crisis.
Third, The president has the ultimate authority on what is declassified and what needs to be sent to the US archives. He has no obligation to notify anybody of his decision. Therefore, when he packed the boxes and was still president he clearly indicated that what was going into the boxes was not something he considered sending to the archives. It was his decision alone. Nobody else has the constitutional authority to overrule him. Not even congress.
The bureaucrats are not in charge. In the USA, as in any uncorrupt republic, the elected officials are in charge.
This is a usurpation of power just like in the Obama administration, when the FBI helped the very corrupt Hillary Clinton try to steal that election.

Why bother hiding your cards when the media won’t challenge you?

Democrat lawyer Marc Elias knows what’s up. He shows us why the Democrats raided Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.

Because this would never apply to anyone else, right? Looking at you, Hillary.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally:

(b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I don’t know if we can get the blindfold back on Lady Justice.

Do Laws Actually Mean Anything?

Posted on by

The source of this article is a Legal Insurrection post of August 5th. The article is about the lawsuit filed by Gibson’s Bakery against Oberlin College charging that the college had engaged in false accusations of racism against the bakery. When a black Oberlin College student was caught attempting to steal wine from the Bakery, the bakery clerk who tried to stop him was assaulted by the thief and two of his friends. The students were arrested and plead guilty to the charges against them. At that point, students at the college erupted in protests, citing racial profiling. When the case came to trial, it was reported that the jury found that the former dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, attended the protests and handed out a flyer that said, “This is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”

I hate to be difficult here, but if the thief and his friends were found guilty, how can you claim racial profiling? They did the crime. What difference did it make what color they were?

The article at Legal Insurrection reports:

The historically liberal Oberlin College, located in Oberlin, Ohio, is still refusing to pay up for defaming Gibson’s Bakery as racist in 2016.

The college, which is financially underwater, has now asked the Ohio Supreme Court to halt the multi-million dollar judgment while it appeals the decision for the second time. Earlier this year, the Ninth Ohio District Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s finding that Oberlin committed libel, slander, and interference with business relationships against Gibson’s after it encouraged student protests over a bakery employee’s pursuit of a black student who had shoplifted.

For delaying making the payment, Oberlin has added on $4 million in interest to the original judgment of $32 million, raising the cost to $36 million. Handing over the $36 million will have enormous ramifications for the financially struggling institution, which had a deficit of $44.7 million in 2020 and whose monetary woes stem back years. The college also had a deficit in 2017, which forced it to institute a rescue plan.

The president of Oberlin, Carmen Twillie Ambar, has been defiant in the face of the judgment and has continued to deny any fault on the part of Oberlin. Unwilling to accept the jury’s decision, Ambar said in 2019, “This is not the final outcome. This is, in fact, just one step along the way of what may turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process.”

I believe the strategy here is to delay the payment until the bakery goes out of business and there is no one left to collect the payment. Hopefully someone in the legal or law enforcement community will step forward and prevent this from happening.

Is Anyone Surprised?

Posted on by

Most of us quietly acquiesced to the restrictions imposed by Washington, D.C. during the Covid pandemic. What we didn’t consider, unfortunately, was the Washington, D.C., loves power and would do pretty much anything to maintain increased power, regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says. We are about to see that principle in action.

On Thursday, Legal Insurrection reported the following:

One day, I will no longer write about covid.

But today is not that day.

After two years of covid lockdowns, restrictions, and progressive virtue signaling with promises of being able to contain an uncontainable virus, the country is seeing a surge in covid cases.

Laughably, officials say they “know how to manage it.”

Top U.S. health officials warned Tuesday that a surge of COVID-19 cases driven by the highly transmissible Omicron subvariant BA.5 has arrived, but stressed that the country has the tools — like vaccines and antiviral treatments — to prevent people from getting seriously ill.

“We know how to manage it,” Dr. Ashish Jha, coordinator of the White House’s COVID-19 response, said at a virtual press briefing. “We can prevent serious illness. We can save lives and we can minimize disruptions caused by COVID-19.”

As I predicted, the world will experience wave after wave of covid until we have built up enough immunity so future variants will join the very long list of common cold viruses. In fact, in my personal experience, I know many people who are now recovering from covid infections who did not believe me when I said that we would all, eventually, get the disease.

I predict that by the time of the mid-term election Americans will be so fearful of this new variant that drop boxes for ballots will be absolutely necessary (according to the Biden administration) to protect the health of voters. Signature matching will be waived in order to reduce the number of people handling ballots, and oddly enough, the Democrats will remain in control of Congress. I hope I am wrong, but I am not sure Americans have the backbone to stand up against the Democrat power grab that is being planned to steal the mid-term election.

The article concludes:

Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to lead the White House’s public messaging on COVID-19 this week after his own battle with the disease — urging Americans to again wear masks and get boosted amid the threat of waning immunity against surging new variants.

The administration’s 81-year-old chief medical adviser has been lying low since testing positive in mid-June.

Now recovered, the quadruple-vaccinated infectious disease expert gave a series of interviews Tuesday to warn of surging cases sparked by the latest Omicron variant, BA.5 — and caution Americans that even those recently recovered from an infection are likely still at risk.

“The threat to you is now,” Fauci warned during a White House briefing Tuesday.

After doing it Fauci’s way for two years, how about doing it my way:

    • No testing, unless symptoms warrant identification of virus.
    • Promotion of early treatment options that are inexpensive and readily accessible.
    • Focusing on good diet, vitamins and exercise as preventatives against severe covid.
    • End vaccine mandates, and allow people to make the decision about the vaccine that best suit their own risks.

Finally, end the ridiculous “public health emergency,” which at this point is a “political health emergency.”

Makes sense to me.

Freedom Of Association On College Campuses

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection reported:

The editorial board of a Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) student newspaper slammed the student government and school administration for an early September decision to recognize the campus pro-life group, which the paper called “a danger to the student body.”

“CWRU does not care about its students. If they actually cared, they would have immediately considered concerns about the student body’s immediate safety and the broader school-community impacts, and they would have easily determined this organization to pose a danger,” The Observer editorial board wrote.

The pro-life group Case for Life seeks to “protect and promote respect for all life from conception to natural death” through education, outreach, and volunteering at local pregnancy centers. They have faced criticism and calls for denying their recognition since last year.

. . . . “It is not just that students have to worry about laws that impose on their bodily autonomy, but they also have to worry about being in an environment that is supposed to be safe but isn’t,” the students’ editorial reads. “Who could care less if someone is pro-forced-birth, but when that someone takes action to enforce that opinion on others—that’s when it becomes dangerous. “

The editorial continues to argue that CRWU’s approval of Case for Life is just another example of the attack on “reproductive rights,” referencing the new Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks.

Whatever happened to the concept of a university being a place of diverse ideas for the students to evaluate? It’s interesting that the newspaper is concerned about the laws that the pro-life people would impose on their bodily autonomy. The university requires a covid vaccine in order for you to attend classes there. Isn’t that imposing a law on their bodily autonomy? There seems to be a lack of logic here.

 

The Insanity Continues

Posted on by

Legal Insurrection posted an article today a new school curriculum in Ontario, Canada.

The article reports:

A new curriculum in Ontario, Canada is seeking to ‘decolonialize’ math and will teach that the subject is subjective. This is just the latest example of the left’s attempt to inject social justice into a subject that should never be politicized.

It’s not only crazy, it’s completely unfair to the students.

The Toronto Sun reports:

Ontario’s new Grade 9 curriculum preaches ‘subjective’ nature of mathematics

It’s apparently about more than just the numbers.

Changes to Ontario’s math curriculum announced last year by Education Minister Stephen Lecce will include a ‘subjective’ and ‘decolonial’ approach to mathematics, according to documents posted on the ministry’s website.

…Math, it continues, has been “used to normalize racism and marginalization of non-Eurocentric mathematical knowledges,” and explains that taking a “decolonial” and “anti-racist approach” to teaching math will outline its “historical roots and social constructions” to students.

“The Ontario Grade 9 mathematics curriculum emphasizes the need to recognize and challenge systems of power and privilege, both inside and outside the classroom, in order to eliminate systemic barriers and to serve students belonging to groups that have been historically disadvantaged and underserved in mathematics education,” the brief continues.

Are you willing to drive over a bridge built by people who believe that mathematics is subjective?

Another Good Program Bites The Dust

Posted on by

Legal Insurrection is reporting today that the Biden administration is taking steps to remove the Trump administration policy put in place to lower the cost of insulin and epi-pens.

The article reports:

Biden’s bid to retract the rule was approved on Monday, as reported by Politico, with the expectation that the Department of Health and Human Services could publish the retraction within the coming days.

The measure, signed off on under the previous administration in December, aimed to require some 340B community health centers to deliver savings to low-income patients for insulin and epinephrine in a bid to bring down unaffordable prices.

Spokespeople for the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not return FOX Business’ request for comment.

The article notes:

Just after Biden was Inaugurated, USA Today “fact checked” the claim that such a move was planned. Once again, the press is forced to do a fact-reversal, one in a long stream of many we have covered at Legal Insurrection.

For diabetic patients, out-of-pocket costs for insulin can be a major expense, whether they are insured in the commercial market, enrolled in Medicare, or have no insurance. The savings Trump created was substantial.

The current group of fact-checkers have a rather questionable track record. It should be noted that most of the things ‘fact-checked’ are things that might portray President Trump in a good light or President Biden in a bad light.

The article concludes:

The Biden administration said Friday it has no timeline on whether it will allow states to import drugs from Canada, an effort that was approved under President Donald Trump as a key strategy to control costs.

Six states have passed laws to start such programs, and Florida, Colorado and New Mexico are the furthest along in plans to get federal approval.

The Biden administration said states still have several hurdles to get through, including a review by the Food and Drug Administration, and such efforts may face pressures from the Canadian government, which has warned its drug industry not to do anything that could cause drug shortages in that country.

“Although two proposals have been submitted to FDA, no timeline exists for the agency to make a decision. Thus, the possible future injuries to Plaintiffs’ members are overly speculative and not imminent,” the Biden administration wrote in a court filing late Friday seeking to dismiss a lawsuit from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry trade group. Drugmakers are asking the court to overturn the rule set by the Health and Human Services Department in October that for the first time approved allowing states to import drugs from Canada.

The Biden presidency is proving to be very costly and painful for average Americans.

The information in this article is also found at Fox News and Politico.

When The Chickens Come Home To Roost

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article that illustrates the duplicity of the Biden campaign and the Biden presidency.

The article reports:

In October 2020, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden privately told U.S. miners he would support boosting domestic production of metals used to make electric vehicles, solar panels, and other products crucial to his climate plan.

The U.S. Democratic presidential candidate also supports bipartisan efforts to foster a domestic supply chain for lithium, copper, rare earths, nickel and other strategic materials that the United States imports from China and other countries, the sources said.

Just last month, Biden persuaded the nation’s largest coal miners’ union to support the move away from coal and other fossil fuels in exchange for a “true energy transition” that includes thousands of jobs in renewable energy and spending on technology to make coal cleaner.

Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, said ensuring jobs for displaced miners — including 7,000 coal workers who lost their jobs last year — is crucial to any infrastructure bill taken up by Congress.

“I think we need to provide a future for those people, a future for anybody that loses their job because of a transition in this country, regardless if it’s coal, oil, gas or any other industry for that matter,″ Roberts said in an online speech to the National Press Club.

“We talk about a ‘just transition’ all the time,″ Roberts added. “I wish people would quit using that. There’s never been a just transition in the history of the United States.″

Unfortunately the coal miners’ union forgot that President Biden has a long history in politics–some of it indicating that his word might not be trustworthy.

The article notes:

This month, Biden “forgot” the promises. Biden’s team said it will rely on ally countries to supply the bulk of the metals needed to build electric vehicles and focus on processing them domestically into battery parts. The move is part of a strategy designed to placate the Democratic Party’s eco-activists.

The plans will be a blow to U.S. miners who had hoped Biden would rely primarily on domestically sourced metals, as his campaign had signaled last autumn, to help fulfill his ambitions for a less carbon-intensive economy.

We can debate whether or not it is foolish to expect any politician to keep his promises, but you might want to include in that debate that President Trump did keep his promises.

The article also notes:

The plan will reportedly rely on metals imported from Canada, Australia, and Brazil. This is not a trivial economic move, either. Biden plans to make the entire federal fleet electric.

That includes 245,000 in various federal agencies… 225,000 in the United States Postal Service… and another 173,000 in the military.

That adds up to a grand total of 643,000 cars, trucks, and vans set for an upgrade on the U.S. government’s dime. And after the year we’ve seen for EVs in 2020, this should come as no surprise.

As an extra bonus, electric car manufacture will also be outsourced.

This does not sound like the coal miners’ union will be benefiting at all from the energy policies of the Biden administration.

 

Telling The Truth Causes An Uproar

Posted on by

The latest adolescent fad being promoted on social media is transgenderism. Unfortunately it is a fad that can do permanent damage to a young person who simply follows what he or she sees on social media. Recently “60 Minutes” did a segment about state regulations on transgenderism and included people who as teenagers underwent medical procedures to change their sex and then regretted it later.

Today Legal Insurrection posted an article about the reaction to the “60 Minutes” segment.

The article notes:

A recent 60 Minutes segment talked about red states denying hormones and surgery to transgender youth. However, the news program made the grave mistake of including a part about young people who regret transitioning.

The left is furious that 60 Minutes included dissenting voices.

This is one of the stories included in the “60 Minutes” piece:

One young woman described her experience after she went on hormones, had her breasts removed, and then detransitioned all in one year. Transcript via the Daily Wire:

Lesley Stahl: Did the therapist not question you about how deep the feeling was and what it was stemming from?

Grace Lidinsky-Smith: She didn’t go — really go into what my gender dysphoria might’ve been stemming from. We only did a few sessions.

Lesley Stahl (NARRATION): Because she was over 18 and didn’t need parental consent, she says she merely signed an informed consent form at a clinic and got hormone shots.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith: They asked me, “So, why do you wanna go on testosterone?” And I said, “Well, being a woman just isn’t working for me anymore.” And they said, “Okay.”

Lesley Stahl: So, that was that. You got your prescription for testosterone?

Grace Lidinsky-Smith: Uh-huh. Yup.

Lesley Stahl (NARRATION): Just four months after she started testosterone, she says she was approved for a mastectomy, what’s called top surgery, that she told us was traumatic.

Lesley Stahl: You know, I’m kinda surprised because, based on everything you’ve said up to now, I would’ve thought you’d have a great sense of relief.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith: I started to have a really disturbing sense that like a part of my body was missing, almost a ghost limb feeling about being like, there’s something that should be there. And the feeling really surprised me but it was really hard to deny.

Lesley Stahl (NARRATION):And so she detransitioned by going off testosterone and then went back to the clinic and, she says, complained to the doctor that the process didn’t follow the WPATH guidelines.

Grace Lidinsky-Smith: I can’t believe that I transitioned and detransitioned, including hormones and surgery, in the course of, like, less than one year. It’s completely crazy.

The article also includes one reaction to the segment:

Jezebel called the report an “attack” on trans kids:

60 Minutes’ Segment About Republican Attacks On Trans Kids Was Itself an Attack On Trans Kids

This is not an issue that needs both-sidesing. But on Sunday, CBS’s 60 Minutes did something even worse—the primetime show decided to air a segment that, while ostensibly addressing the Republican-led assault on trans young people’s health care, ended up focusing heavily on the favorite topic of conservatives who would like nothing more than for trans people to not exist, and who wish to paint transition as a painful, regret-suffused process—people who have detransitioned.

First of all, Republicans are not attacking trans kids, they are simply trying to prevent teenagers from doing something irreversible during a period in their lives when their decision-making process is not fully developed. Secondly, this is not health care–it is serious surgery that cannot be reversed and needs to be entered into with extreme care. In a few years there will be many young adults walking around seriously regretting what they have done with no way to correct their mistake. That is sad.

Banishing Political Opposition

Posted on by

We have all seen the news that President Trump has been banned from Twitter and Facebook. There are some people who see that as justified, but how many people have to be banned before those people become concerned?

Legal Insurrection posted an article today about Facebook banning the “Walk Away Movement” page. The page consisted of personal testimonies of people who have left the Democrat party discussing their reasons for leaving.

The article quotes a Washington Examiner article:

“FACEBOOK has removed the #WalkAway Campaign and has BANNED ME and EVERY MEMBER of my team!!!” Straka, founder of the #WalkAway movement, tweeted Friday morning.

“Over half a million people in #WalkAway with hundreds of thousands of testimonial videos and stories is GONE,” he added. “Facebook has banned everything related to #WalkAway.”

Straka also included screenshots of messages from Facebook, including one that said the page was “removed for violating terms of use.”

Straka confirmed to the Washington Examiner that his Facebook group, the business page for the nonprofit group, and his personal account were all shut down Friday morning.

He added that people merely associated with the page were also removed from Facebook.

“Every volunteer, every paid employee, banned,” Straka said.

The article at Legal Insurrection notes:

How can this be perceived as anything other than political?

As long as we have people in Congress that take large donations from big tech, no action will be taken to hold Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., accountable. It is unfortunate that somehow the Republicans didn’t get to that when they held the Senate.

 

A Preview Of Things To Come

Posted on by

If the election of Joe Biden is allowed to stand, America is going to become a subsidiary of China. If you think I am overreacting, I would like to direct you to an article posted at Legal Insurrection yesterday.

The article reports:

Communist China on Monday demanded the United States to return to the Iran nuclear deal and end all sanctions placed on Tehran under President Donald Trump’s watch once Joe Biden moves into the White House.

“The US shall return to the Iran nuclear deal as soon as possible and without any preconditions, and the US should also scrap all sanctions imposed on Iran, other third-party entities and individuals,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a video conference with other four signatories of the 2015 nuclear accord.

The Chinese foreign minister’s undiplomatic and stern tone underlines China’s belief in a ‘reset‘ in bilateral relations with a Biden-run administration. According to Chinese media reports, Beijing opened backchannel talks with figures close to the Biden team last month and wants a rollback on the tough policy course pursued by President Donald Trump.

…“A joint statement released by [German Foreign Minister Heiko] Maas and the foreign ministers of Iran, China, Russia and the UK acknowledged their desire to see the treaty upheld and greeted the prospects of a US return to it under incoming President-elect Joe Biden as ‘positive,’” Germany’s state-run DW News reported Monday.

“With Joe Biden on board, all parties to the nuclear deal want to bring it back to life,” the German broadcaster noted in a separate article last week.

The European Union has also joined the diplomatic push to get the U.S. to back the nuclear deal without any preconditions. European powers, mainly Germany, France, and the UK, had lined up huge investments in the oil-rich country before the Trump administration snapped back sanctions on the regime two years ago.

So why would the EU want us to enter into a deal that would eventually allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons aimed at Europe? Because the money to be made in the short term with trade with Iran has blinded them to the future with a nuclear Iran holding them hostage.

There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that a Biden administration will renew the Iran nuclear deal. There is also a lack of realization that the deal will make the world a much more dangerous place. You have only to look at the alliances currently forming in the Middle East to know what the countries closest to Iran think of the intentions of that state.

When The New Mafia Comes To Town

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about some recent events in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville is the largest city in Kentucky; about 625,000 people live there.

The article reports:

A rather alarming situation is developing in Louisville, Kentucky, in which local businesses are allegedly being issued demands from Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists and told that if they don’t meet the demands, their business might be “f*cked with.”

The demands are onerous, invasive, and ludicrous. They include everything from hiring quotas to training mandates to displaying a letter supporting reparations for black people to—perhaps most outrageous of all—paying a “recurring monthly donation of 1.5% of net sales to a local Black nonprofit or organization.”

While some area businesses have reportedly caved to the bullying demands, Fernando Martinez, a partner in a restaurant group, referred to the demands and alleged threats if he failed to comply as “mafia tactics.”

The Louisville Courier Journal posted the story on Saturday and updated it today.

The Louisville Courier Journal reports:

According to a press release, members of the city’s Cuban community will meet outside the NuLu restaurant at 4 p.m. Sunday to support the immigrant-owned business, which “has been subject to vandalism and extortion in recent days.”

The release states that La Bodeguita de Mima was forced to close July 24 during a demonstration that shut down East Market Street, at which several protesters presented Martinez with the list of demands and said he “better put the letter on the door so your business is not f*cked with.”

The restaurant remained closed the next two days because “management and staff were concerned about safety,” according to the release. “30+ staff members (mostly immigrants) were unable to earn a paycheck.”

The article includes the list of demands:

The demands and an attached contract, which were created by local organizers and activists, ask NuLu business owners to:

    • Adequately represent the Black population of Louisville by having a minimum of 23% Black staff;
    • Purchase a minimum of 23% inventory from Black retailers or make a recurring monthly donation of 1.5% of net sales to a local Black nonprofit or organization;
    • Require diversity and inclusion training for all staff members on a bi-annual basis;
    • And display a visible sign that increases awareness and shows support for the reparations movement.

This is a shakedown. Those responsible for threatening the business need to face legal consequences. Any person who vandalizes the business in any way needs to be arrested and kept in jail for a while. This is the kind of behavior that goes on in a town controlled by the Mafia. It is not acceptable in an American city. It is wonderful to see much of the community come out in support of Fernando Martinez and his restaurant.

Time For A Flip

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about the criminal investigation into Spygate.

The article notes:

When Barr appointed John Durham to handle the investigation, later in May, the finger-pointing among those involved in investigating Trump started, leading to the the pressing question was Who’s going to cut a deal first in Spygate?

The drama between Brennan and Comey is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of the FBI-CIA up through the Obama administration, including then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the White House itself.

There is the potential for a lot of finger pointing, as Karie Pavlich tweeted:

The Comey vs Brennan vs Clapper vs Lynch vs Obama show is going to be awesome

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1128438654781808641

Since the NY Times reported that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, that is the question again.

The stakes are so much higher for those involved. Whoever cuts a deal first could be spared prosecution or prison. So someone is likely to sing, and that someone likely is a mid-level person in the FBI who was disgusted with what happened but close enough to it that the person is at risk.

The question in the article is, “Who is going to be the first to flip?”

An article posted in The American Thinker today may provide a clue. The title of the article is, “Andrew McCabe withdraws his lawsuit against the Department of Justice.”

The article at The American Thinker notes:

Here’s the interesting question: Did he dismiss it because concluded it’s a loser, especially in light of anticipated indictment — or did he(his attorneys) conclude his suit waived his 5th Amendment rights?  By dismissal with consent, without prejudice, does that waiver go away? If so, it might mean he expects to be indicted.

Mark Levin last night said he’d been offered plea deal — and turned it down.  So makes sense to dismiss suit to preserve waiver, which I suspect dismissal in this fashion likely does[.]

I realize we have wandered into the weeds here, but the big picture is simple–there are some people who are not willing to go to jail simply for following orders. Those people will make a plea deal to save their own skins and thus implicate the people giving the orders. I suspect there are more than a few high ranking people in the intelligence community who are not sleeping well right now. Their dream of having Hillary Clinton elected and all of their misdeeds buried for good has obviously not come true.

Why There Is So Little Reporting On The Actions Of Hamas

Posted on by

A website called Legal Insurrection posted an article yesterday about the lack of reporting in the mainstream media about the activities of Hamas.

You may recall a April 11, 2003, New York Times article by Easton Jordan entitled “The News We Kept To Ourselves.” The article states:

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990’s one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government’s ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency’s Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

That is the way thugs in the Middle East handle reporters. Things have not changed–that is the modus operandi used by Hamas.

The article at Legal Insurrection reports:

The Times of Israel confirmed several incidents in which journalists were questioned and threatened. These included cases involving photographers who had taken pictures of Hamas operatives in compromising circumstances — gunmen preparing to shoot rockets from within civilian structures, and/or fighting in civilian clothing — and who were then approached by Hamas men, bullied and had their equipment taken away.

The article at Legal Insurrection included tweets from reporters and stories of intimidation of reporters. The reason we are not hearing both sides of the story of the Gaza-Israeli war is that one side is a bunch of thugs who are endangering their own civilian population and doing everything they can to hide the truth.

Just A Reminder

Posted on by

On Monday, Legal Insurrection posted an article reminding us that U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi is still sitting in a Mexican jail. Sgt. Tahmooressi evidently took a wrong turn near the California–Mexico border, had guns in his car, and was arrested on March 31 when he entered Mexico.

The article reports:

According to the reports, Tahmooressi has been subjected to punching, slapping, deprivation of food and water, and being chained to a bed with a “four-point restraint for almost a month.” It appears that the Mexican officials are treating him as a gunrunner.

These are some quotes from the article:

As Tahmooressi explained, out of a parking lot, “I just made one wrong turn, and then that one wrong turn that I thought was going to take me north to San Diego was actually an on-ramp that swooped around back to the south and to Mexico.”

… According to Jill Tahmooressi, her son immediately disclosed to the border guards that he had weapons and requested that he be allowed to turn around, she said.

“The first thing he said to the first person that stopped him was, ‘I got here accidentally; please let me turn around. I have three guns in my truck,’ ” his mother said.

A 911 tape released by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, appears to support his version of events.

We are not at war with Mexico. We have diplomatic relations with Mexico. This was obviously a mistake, and this man has been in jail for long enough for the Obama Administration to take action to get him home.

It is disgusting that American influence has declined to the point where we cannot encourage Mexico to release an honorably discharged United States soldier.

This situation is a sharp contrast to the recent trade of five high-ranking  enemies of America for one possible deserter. This is not the America I grew up in.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does The Supreme Judicial Court In Massachusetts Care About The Law ?

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent statements by Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. Within a few hours after William Jacobson reported on his website, Legal Insurrection, that Elizabeth Warren was practicing law without a license, Mr. Fredrickson gave an interview defending Elizabeth Warren.

The article reports:

That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren.  After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously?  Even The Boston Globe has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.

Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged.

Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.

Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice….

This is the press release from the Republican Party, including the letter to Chief Justice Ireland:

Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”

Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108

October 8, 2012

RE: Michael Fredrickson

Dear Chief Justice Ireland:

I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:

• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,’ Fredrickson says. ‘But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).

• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.

In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.

Respectfully,

Bob Maginn

cc:
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair

This is an issue that needs to be investigated.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should Political Candidates Be Held To The Same Laws As The Rest Of Us ?

Posted on by

Yesterday a website called Legal Insurrection posted an article about the law practice of U. S. Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren.

William A. Jacobson, the writer of the article, reports:

I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.  I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status.  In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check.  I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, the article also states:

Regardless of where she was admitted, Warren consistently since the late 1990s has held herself out as having her professional address for legal representation at her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Warren was listed as “Of Counsel” on Travelers’ Supreme Court Brief, listing her Harvard Law School office as her office address:

I called a lawyer I know and asked if this was normal practice. I was informed that the average lawyer would be disbarred (or worse) for practicing law in Massachusetts without having been admitted to the bar in Massachusetts.

The article further states:

There is no requirement that a law teacher be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts in order to teach or publish on topics related to law.  In fact, a law teacher need not even be a lawyer.  Once that law teacher starts acting a lawyer, however, the normal licensing rules apply.

The question becomes whether Warren was “practicing law” at her Cambridge address, or doing something that does not constitute the practice of law.

A person practicing law in Massachusetts needs to be licensed to do so.  Superadio Ltd. Partnership v. Winstar Radio Productions, LLC, 446 Mass. 330, 334, 844 N.E.2d 246, 250 (Mass. 2006)(“As a general proposition, an attorney practicing law in Massachusetts must be licensed, or authorized, to practice law here”).

As a lawyer, she would have known that she had to be admitted to the bar in Massachusetts to practice law in Massachusetts.

The article concludes:

I detail above the facts and law which lead me to the conclusion that Warren has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license in violation of Massachusetts law for well over a decade.

I expect Warren will disagree, and I welcome a discussion of the facts and the law.

I doubt that will happen.  Instead, and similar to how her campaign tried to demonize me and the Cherokee women who questioned her supposed Native American ancestry, I expect Warren’s campaign will attempt to deflect these serious issues by attacking the messenger.

Warren should disclose the full scope of her private law practice.  Perhaps there are facts not publicly available which will demonstrate that Warren was not engaged in the practice of law in Massachusetts when she earned $212,000 from Travelers, plus other fees from others who sought out her legal expertise dating back to the 1990s.

The voters of Massachusetts are entitled to know, before they vote, whether one of the candidates for Senate has not been following the rules which apply to everyone else.

Massachusetts voters have a choice in November between a man who legally practiced law in this state for a number of years and a lady who seems to have very little regard for the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Clint Eastwood Remixed

Posted on by

Posted at Legal Insurrection yesterday:

I like the combination of the video from the Superbowl and the Clint Eastwood speech at the Republican Convention. The speech at the Republican Convention did nothing for me, although my husband loved it. My husband finally concluded that if you didn’t like the ‘spaghetti westerns,’ you probably didn’t like the convention speech.

Enhanced by Zemanta