The Problem in Portland Isn’t the Law
The Problem Is the Lawlessness
David Harsanyi
National Review Online
The mayors who surrender parts of their cities to left-wing ‘protesters’ are tacitly endorsing lawlessness themselves.
Despite some occasional looting, chaos, property damage, trespassing, rioting, graffiti, assaults, arson, and general mayhem, the media consistently assures us that Antifa “protesters” are “largely peaceful.” And since the majority of buildings in Portland, Seattle, and Denver haven’t been looted yet, who am I to argue?
Of course, it takes only a sliver of the population to transform downtowns into a mess and create quality-of-life issues for thousands of law-abiding citizens. And the mayors who surrender parts of their cities to left-wing “protesters” are tacitly endorsing lawlessness themselves.
There’s little doubt that if alt-right activists had occupied a few city blocks in Seattle or tried to firebomb a federal courthouse in Portland, we’d be in for feverish wall-to-wall media coverage, engulfed in a national conversation about the perils of right-wing radicalism. Every elected Republican would be asked to personally denounce the extremists to make sure they take implicit ownership of the problem.
When a few hundred angry Tiki-Torch Nazis marched in Charlottesville, you would have thought the RNC had deployed the Wehrmacht. Those who led the riot were even asked to opine on CNN. On the other hand, left-wing rioters — the people Chris Cuomo and other journalists compared to GIs landing on Normandy — are immediately transformed into apolitical actors, rogue “anarchists,” as soon as any violence starts.
Who knows? Perhaps the majority of citizens and businesses in Portland, Seattle, and Denver want their elected officials to let Antifa act with impunity. Or maybe some of those citizens and businesses will begin fleeing those cities. Whatever the case, it’s a local concern.
To a point. If mayors do nothing to stop anarchists from tearing down federal monuments or from defacing, vandalizing, and attempting to burn down federal buildings, the feds have every right to dispatch teams of agents to restore order.
Showing posts with label US Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Law. Show all posts
Saturday, 25 July 2020
Thursday, 30 April 2020
"We Have Legal Codes for a Reason"
Douglas Wilson Summarises the COVID-19 Debacle
Douglas Wilson
. . . But I will tell you what I think.
The devastation that has occurred because of this panic in high places is not likely to have cameras trained on most of it. If the cameras are running, and someone walks up behind someone else and clocks him with a baseball bat, the cause and effect is easy to see. The fellow who does that sort of thing is therefore charged with assault. And this is because everybody can see that an assault is in fact what happened. What happened is visible to all.
But when the damage is done to millions of people, and a large number of well-connected other people profit from it, then the case devolves into a political battle. Factions and parties develop, and all the usual political tools, manufactured in our national laboratories of obfuscation, are deployed. And so the chances are excellent that during the course of the debate, the people directly affected will fade into a gray statistical twilight.
Meanwhile, the damage is actually done, and for those willing to look straight at it, there is no denying it. The people on the margins are the ones who will be hit hardest, but because political careers will be dependent upon not ever recognizing the damage we have done, the chances are good that that we will be compliant, and will not recognize it.
Scientific consensus is oxymoronic. Faith in the scientific process is one thing. Faith in scientists is quite another. Faith in scientific spokesmen (e.g. Fauci or Birx) is actually faith in telegenic people with scientific credentials who have been selected for political reasons. And that is why we have been slathering the nation broadside with scientific solutions when there should have been a scientific debate.
But there are some signs of hope. Despite what I just wrote, there are signs that a debate might occur anyhow, however belated, and I am doing my best to see that it happens. This was as debacle for the ages. And this leads me back to the theme of this post.
One of the “tells” that indicates that something is seriously wrong is that the governor of a conservative state like Idaho can simply announce that he is doing something, cite the part of the Idaho Code that authorizes him to do it, but then, when we go and have a sober look at that portion of the Idaho Code we find something else entirely. But we have written constitutions for a reason. We have legal codes, written down in big, fat books, for a reason.
The code says you can quarantine the sick. What was done was a quarantine of the healthy. The code says that you can isolate the contagious. What was done was the isolation of everybody.
Following this logic, the right to keep and bear arms means that you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. The right to free speech means that you had better shut up. The right to assemble means that you can look at flickering images on Zoom, with no telling who is vacuuming up that data.
The time to kick is now.
Douglas Wilson
. . . But I will tell you what I think.
The devastation that has occurred because of this panic in high places is not likely to have cameras trained on most of it. If the cameras are running, and someone walks up behind someone else and clocks him with a baseball bat, the cause and effect is easy to see. The fellow who does that sort of thing is therefore charged with assault. And this is because everybody can see that an assault is in fact what happened. What happened is visible to all.
But when the damage is done to millions of people, and a large number of well-connected other people profit from it, then the case devolves into a political battle. Factions and parties develop, and all the usual political tools, manufactured in our national laboratories of obfuscation, are deployed. And so the chances are excellent that during the course of the debate, the people directly affected will fade into a gray statistical twilight.
Meanwhile, the damage is actually done, and for those willing to look straight at it, there is no denying it. The people on the margins are the ones who will be hit hardest, but because political careers will be dependent upon not ever recognizing the damage we have done, the chances are good that that we will be compliant, and will not recognize it.
Scientific consensus is oxymoronic. Faith in the scientific process is one thing. Faith in scientists is quite another. Faith in scientific spokesmen (e.g. Fauci or Birx) is actually faith in telegenic people with scientific credentials who have been selected for political reasons. And that is why we have been slathering the nation broadside with scientific solutions when there should have been a scientific debate.
But there are some signs of hope. Despite what I just wrote, there are signs that a debate might occur anyhow, however belated, and I am doing my best to see that it happens. This was as debacle for the ages. And this leads me back to the theme of this post.
One of the “tells” that indicates that something is seriously wrong is that the governor of a conservative state like Idaho can simply announce that he is doing something, cite the part of the Idaho Code that authorizes him to do it, but then, when we go and have a sober look at that portion of the Idaho Code we find something else entirely. But we have written constitutions for a reason. We have legal codes, written down in big, fat books, for a reason.
The code says you can quarantine the sick. What was done was a quarantine of the healthy. The code says that you can isolate the contagious. What was done was the isolation of everybody.
Following this logic, the right to keep and bear arms means that you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. The right to free speech means that you had better shut up. The right to assemble means that you can look at flickering images on Zoom, with no telling who is vacuuming up that data.
The time to kick is now.
Monday, 18 July 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
America Black and Blue
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
In the aftermath of this most recent series of tragic shootings — Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, and Dallas — the spiritual disarray of our nation is manifest in how we tend immediately to cluster into two groups. One identifies with anger at injustice and the other identifies with the need for order and calls urgently for unity.
The unity our nation needs — and we do desperately need it — is not a “group hug” unity, and it is not that kind of unity with a Jesus shine put on it.
The message is not “Jesus could help us to like each other better,” although that would be a downstream consequence. The message we rather need to hear, and which the church needs to declare, is that “Jesus forgives our sins.”
Before we can have — black or white — unity in Christ the risen, we must have unity in Christ the crucified. But this means unity in sin. This is not going to happen unless we repent of our own sins. We need to repent of our white sins and repent of our black sins. To whatever extent you identify with any group, you must identify also with the sins of that group. This is not to the exclusion of identifying with their virtues or strengths, their culture or heritage. It is simply a shared gospel identification, and not a carnal identification.
We must find common ground in Adam. We must find common ground in our shared iniquity. That is the only way out. When we recognize that we are all one great mess in Adam, then we can by the grace of God shake hands in the second Adam — and only there.
The only true victim in all of this is Jesus Christ, and every color of fist drove the nails in. Let me be specific. What did Jesus die for?
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
In the aftermath of this most recent series of tragic shootings — Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, and Dallas — the spiritual disarray of our nation is manifest in how we tend immediately to cluster into two groups. One identifies with anger at injustice and the other identifies with the need for order and calls urgently for unity.
The unity our nation needs — and we do desperately need it — is not a “group hug” unity, and it is not that kind of unity with a Jesus shine put on it.
The message is not “Jesus could help us to like each other better,” although that would be a downstream consequence. The message we rather need to hear, and which the church needs to declare, is that “Jesus forgives our sins.”
Before we can have — black or white — unity in Christ the risen, we must have unity in Christ the crucified. But this means unity in sin. This is not going to happen unless we repent of our own sins. We need to repent of our white sins and repent of our black sins. To whatever extent you identify with any group, you must identify also with the sins of that group. This is not to the exclusion of identifying with their virtues or strengths, their culture or heritage. It is simply a shared gospel identification, and not a carnal identification.
We must find common ground in Adam. We must find common ground in our shared iniquity. That is the only way out. When we recognize that we are all one great mess in Adam, then we can by the grace of God shake hands in the second Adam — and only there.
The only true victim in all of this is Jesus Christ, and every color of fist drove the nails in. Let me be specific. What did Jesus die for?
“For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (Titus 3:3, ESV).I am marking that last phrase — hated by others, and hating one another. That is what we are doing, right this minute.
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Progress Against Civil Asset Forfeiture, Part I
Chopping Away At Leviathan
The practice of civil asset forfeiture in the United States has evolved into an unjust evil. Now, it appears that the consciences of some in authority have woken up. Slowly the practice is being wound back, state by state. Civil forfeiture is something Christians need to work against as they have opportunity.
Below is a Fact Sheet summary of the practice of civil forfeiture, as provided by the Heritage Foundation. Part II, to follow, will describe the progress that is being made in rolling the pernicious practice back.
The practice of civil asset forfeiture in the United States has evolved into an unjust evil. Now, it appears that the consciences of some in authority have woken up. Slowly the practice is being wound back, state by state. Civil forfeiture is something Christians need to work against as they have opportunity.
Below is a Fact Sheet summary of the practice of civil forfeiture, as provided by the Heritage Foundation. Part II, to follow, will describe the progress that is being made in rolling the pernicious practice back.
Civil Asset Forfeiture: 7 Things You Should Know
1. What is civil asset forfeiture?
Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool that allows law enforcement officials to seize property that they assert has been involved in certain criminal activity. In fact, the owner of the property doesn’t even need to be guilty of a crime: Civil asset forfeiture proceedings charge the property itself with involvement in a crime. This means that police can seize your car, home, money, or valuables without ever having to charge you with a crime. There are many, many stories of innocent people being stripped of their money and property by law enforcement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)