Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Government, Morality, Republicans, States' Rights

It isn’t.

By now you have to have noticed the ethical and moral corruption baked into the vaunted American system.

In the event Judge Roy Moore is elected in the Alabama special election by the people, The Establishment is waiting to unseat him and overturn the election via a Senate ethics investigation when he gets to Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters last week that he expects Moore will face a Senate ethics probe if he wins.

“If he were to be elected I think he would immediately have an issue with the Ethics Committee, which they would take up,” McConnell said.
Young, the Moore strategist, cast the Senate election Tuesday in Alabama as a referendum on President Donald Trump.
“This is Donald Trump on trial in Alabama,” Young said on “This Week.” “If the people of Alabama vote for this liberal Democrat, Doug Jones, then they’re voting against the president who they put in office.”
“It’s ground zero for President Donald Trump,” Young added. “If they can beat him, they can beat his agenda, because Judge Moore stands with Donald Trump, and his agenda.”

It’s unethical for a politburo to overturn The People’s democratic decision via a far-removed ethics committee. They do it anyway.

Comments Off on Roy Moore: How Ethical Is It To Overturn The People’s Democratic Decision Via An Ethics Committee?

Written by on

The Colorado Cake Case: Why Such Cruelty To A Christian?

Christianity, Freedom of Religion, Gender, Homosexuality, Individual Rights, Paleolibertarianism, Private Property

Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is a deeply religious Christian. Why would a gay couple want to compel him to decorate a cake with words his faith rejects? What kind of craven cruelty would compel such coercion? Why, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, would you proceed with force against a private property owner? What’s wrong with you?

A crude reductio ad absurdum should help:

A retail store selling Nazi memorabilia opens its doors in my neighborhood. I enter in search of the yellow Star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich. The proprietor, decked out in Nazi insignia and regalia, says, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve Jews.” “Don’t be like that,” I say. “Where else can I find a pair of clip-on swastika earrings?” The Nazi sympathizer is polite but persistent: “Ma’am, I mean no disrespect, but back in the Old Country, Jews murdered my great grandfather’s cousin and used his blood in the leavening of the Passover matzah.” “Yeah,” I reply. “I’m familiar with that blood libel. I assure you my own mother’s matzo balls were free of the blood of brats, gentile or Jewish. No matter. I can see where you’re coming from. I’m sorry for your loss. Good luck.”

There! Did that hurt?

Did I rush off to rat out my Nazi neighbor to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Not on your life. A principled Jewish libertarian (with a sense of humor)—who believes in absolute freedom of association and the rights of private property—would doff his Kippah and walk out.

Live and let live.

Writes Joseph Wright, in the Denver Post:

A devout Muslim with a wonderful singing voice runs a small music business featuring his CDs. A Christian couple asks this Muslim to record a song for the wedding. The song includes the words: “Jesus, resurrected from the grave and God incarnate.” The Muslim man declines, saying his sincere religious beliefs prevent him from recording the song. Would the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) take action against him and inflict financial penalties for abiding by his convictions?

A non-religious couple asks a Jewish kosher deli with fantastic food to cater their wedding reception, but demand that ham be included on the menu. The deli refuses. Would the CCRC take action against this deli for its religious convictions?

One more question: Would legal action be taken only against Christians practicing their sincerely held beliefs or against people of all beliefs?

All strength, Jack Phillips.

FBI Director’s Statements Calculated To Poke The Finger In POTUS’ Eye

Donald Trump, Ethics, Government, Republicans, The State

How can President Trump expect to carry out his agenda of draining the swamp and slaying swamp creatures—or simply fulfill his promises to Deplorables—when his appointees are hostile to his mission and contradict him at every turn?

President Trump attempted to shine a light, in the combative tradition of his 2016 campaign, on the crooked Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Despite the  abominable recent conduct of the FBI, Director Christopher Wray chose to shed darkness with these pat statements about the FBI “protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law in all 50 states and in about 80 countries around the world.” (Is that the FBI’s constitutional mandate? Crap.)

“Let me start by saying that it is for me the honor of a lifetime to be here representing the men and women of the FBI,” he said. “There is no finer institution than the FBI and no finer people than the men and women who work there and are its very beating heart.”
When asked about Trump’s tweets over the weekend criticizing the FBI, Wray told Rep. Jerry Nadler, “there is no shortage of opinions out there.”
“What I can tell you is that the FBI that I see is tens of thousands of agents and analysts and staff working their tails off to keep Americans safe from the next terrorist attack, gang violence, child predators, spies from Russia, China and North Korea, and Iran,” he responded. “The FBI that I see is tens of thousands of brave men and women who are working as hard as they can to keep people that they will never know safe from harm.”

Wray’s poking of the finger in POTUS’ eye is emblematic of why the Trump presidency is imperiled.

UPDATED (12/8): Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians

Ethics, Government, Law, Natural Law

THE NEW COLUMN, “Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians,” is now on WND.com. An excerpt:

Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn’s sin was lying to liars, not colluding with Russians.

When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump’s 2016 election, former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to the electorate.

In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn’s deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that Obama’s expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at “boxing Trump in diplomatically,” making it impossible for the president to “improve relations with Russia,” a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.

To defuse President Obama’s spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot of which was that Russia “retaliated” by … inviting US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin for a New Year’s bash.

A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn’t you say?

Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Kushner likely instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council’s favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.

One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s violations, here, is that Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect’s promised foreign policy—diplomacy with Russia—is not illegal.

Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government’s KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.

The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated “criminal” label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?

Nowhere.

By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common criminals. …

… READ THE REST. “Flynn’s ONLY Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians” is now on WND.com.

UPDATE (12/8): READER writes at WND about the punchline to the column:

“‘Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule?’ READER writes: “Bastiat could have written that. Magnificent conclusion to your article. Prose of a poetic quality. Terrifically written.”