The charges against the Trump organization

For example, the story I reported on four days ago – that the charges New York state is preparing against Trump aren’t going to be what the left has long hoped would drive a stake through his heart – appears to be going forward as previously stated:

They investigated the Trump organization for three years and the best they could come up with is unpaid taxes on fringe benefits? This is the kind of thing you normally handle as a civil matter. In fact, as my prior write-up noted, the Times literally could not find a previous example of a prosecutor filing criminal charges in a similar case. That’s how much of a politicized witch-hunt this entire thing is.

These marginal charges come days after it was leaked that Trump himself would not be charged for anything, and you know that wasn’t from lack of trying. Per RedState’s report on that, there isn’t some other shoe waiting to drop either. This is literally all there is.

Given that, the disappointment on the left is palpable. Here a few comments from the Journal’s breaking post…”Evading taxes on fringe benefits and perks doesn’t sound like the hammer I was hoping for. Surely there’s more.”

Source: The charges against the Trump organization

Questions for Joe Biden

I guess AR-15 rifles are totally inadequate to topple a tyrannical government, but face paint and a Viking helmet constitute a weapon of mass destruction capable of wiping out the mighty U.S. government.

But as a public service, let me ask a few, some of which I posed recently in a Twitter thread that was greeted with both conservative acclaim and generous liberal panty-wetting.“

1) “Are you saying that you would use bombers like F-15s against Americans? Would you ever use nuclear weapons against Americans?”

That seems like an important couple of threshold queries. Say “No” and you look like a fool. Say “Yes” and you’re a fool and a psycho.“

2) “Mr. President, since using force against American citizens is on the table, can you tell us how many BCTs the American military has currently deployable within the United States? Do you know how many troops are in a brigade combat team? Do you understand the logistical needs of a BCT and its vulnerabilities in an insurgency environment?” 

A “BCT” is a brigade combat team, 4,000-5,000 troops and the basic ground combat unit. Now, if you are going to pick a fight with 165 million Americans, specifically the half who like America and who own a whole bunch of those accursed AR-15s, you might wanna know how many dudes you have on your side first (I estimate about 80 active and reserve BCTs and equivalents in the whole active and reserve force, including the Marines). One might also want to understand why you would have problems using them here at home.“

3) “How many BCTs do you think you would need to secure an urban area the size of Los Angeles. Didn’t it take three divisions, about 12 brigades, to secure it during the Riots? How long could you logistically support that?”

It did take three divisions (approximately 12 BCTs) to quell the riot in LA in 1992. I was there. Now, that was largely idiots burning and looting. What if the next time it is guys shooting back with evil AR-15s? And America is a zillion times bigger than Los Angeles. How do you hold all that ground? You don’t.“

4) “Have your generals staffed exactly how many American military personnel they could count on to attack American citizens if you ordered it? What percentage do you believe would comply and why?”

Oh, awkward. I was informed – by them, the geniuses in the Pentagon – that “extremists in the ranks” are our gravest threat (except for the weather, of course), so I assume they will have analyzed the number of “extremists” in the ranks who would be averse to killing their own friends and family at the behest of coastal elitists and who would desert or go full Niedermeyer on the guys urging them to wage war on the American people. This would be a good number to have as a planning factor, since when 50% of his troops go *poof* overnight, it would mean a significant reduction in the *’s combat power.“

5) “You mentioned F-15s. How many bombers of all types does the United States have deployable within the continental US? How many are operational? How many sorties could the military fly a day against American citizens? Can you explain how you would employ bombers to hold territory, like a city?”

Bombers are nice. But if they were decisive, you could walk around Kabul without a dozen guys with AKs keeping your Schumer safe. We bombed Afghanistan back into the Stone Age – albeit, it was not much of a trip, but the point remains. You control dirt by having a guy with a rifle standing on it, not plinking at targets from 30,000 feet. And speaking of targeting…

6) “What means would you use to identify targets to bomb within the United States? What would the rules of engagement be when using bombers against American citizens?”

How many of you think the average MSNBCNN viewer would hesitate to bomb Texas or any other red enclave flat? And how many of you feel like giving up your means of self-defense against tyranny at the behest of people who would not hesitate to bomb Texas or any other red enclave flat?

7) “How would you protect the supply lines to the fighter bases from attacks by armed citizens? How many of your limited ground forces would you allocate to securing supply lines between bases and protecting complicit forces living off post from retaliation?”

You know what the most vulnerable part of an F-15, or a tank, or any other combat vehicle is? The people and stuff, like fuel, who make it go. Why would * think that he’d not have to devote most of his force to defensive operations as opposed to offensive ones? Oh wait, it’s because he’s a fool.

8) “Have you considered that the military forces of the National Guard in red states, which include aircraft, artillery and infantry, may refuse or even oppose your campaign against American citizens? Would you attack those forces?”

Oh, that’s a twist. So, does that desiccated clown think that Greg Abbott’s or Ron DeSantis’s National Guard units are just going to join in the oppression fun? Keep in mind, those weekend warriors are a reservoir of wartime experience (many guys like me did a tour in a war, then stuck around in the Guard forever – active-duty units’ turnover is huge, because many are first-termers). Reservists have to maintain exactly the same training standards as the active-duty components and they use much of the same equipment. So, that’s a problem. Oh, and then there’s the most important question…

9) “Mr. President, how many American would you kill to maintain your hold on power?”

Five questions for your school on Critical Race Theory

Again, there’s a difference between teaching about Critical Race Theory and teaching in Critical Race Theory.

So how can you tell if a teacher, principal, or school board official tells you that, no, there’s no critical race theory here (as a lone heckler briefly interrupted my remarks in Loudoun County to inform me)? Here is a list (by no means exhaustive) of five key critical race theory principles. If your school or office does anything that includes these ideas, you can confidently call Bovine Manure when they deny it’s critical race theory.

The first and most important bedrock principle of critical race theory is that racism is not an individual, conscious decision to be a racist or act on that belief. No, it’s “systemic.” Racism, according to critical race theory’s purveyors, is written into America’s laws, institutions, and capitalist system. What masquerades as American culture is actually the norms and practices of white people.

“Critical race theory,” writes one of its main architects, Angela Harris, “takes the position that racism pervades our institutions, our beliefs, and our everyday practices.”

A second principle follows from the first: Behaviors and beliefs are inherent in identity categories, and thus the members of these categories must not adopt American culture—which, in their telling, is merely a conspiracy to perpetuate white supremacy. Members of minority groups must never assimilate to standard practices or norms, even those that appear neutral on the surface.

“[M]any Latinos naturally view information about time more generally and simply cannot see the judicial system’s need for specificity and exactitude,” writes Maria Ontiveros, a professor at the University of San Francisco, in her book “Critical Race Feminism.”

A third bedrock principle is that white people receive unearned privilege at birth, while other Americans are denied it. This “whiteness premium” has prevented the union of the working class.

Segregation, wrote the man widely recognized as the “Godfather” of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, “represented an economic-political compromise between the elite and working-class whites [that] gave to the poor the sense of superiority, while retaining the substance for the rich.”

A fourth principle is that meritocracy is myth. Since whites have rigged the system, all the ways we use to measure merit or success in education or work are far from objective. Hiring metrics and workplace benchmarks, and standardized tests for university admissions, must be eliminated.

On this we have, again, the authority of Bell, who wrote in “Popular Democracy,” a chapter in “The Derrick Bell Reader”: “In short, merit serves as the phony pennant of color-blindness, used as justification for opposition to affirmative action.”

The fifth and last tenet is that equity must replace equality. This may surprise those who think they amount to pretty much the same thing, but under critical race theory, the word equity has become corrupted, and has become the functional opposite of equality. Because the systemic racism that critical race theory’s proponents see everywhere has produced disparities under a capitalist system that rewards the wrong criteria, government must step in and treat individual Americans unequally.

Only in that manner will outcomes be equal.

And on this, we have no less an authority than our Vice President Kamala Harris: “Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

Any curriculum or training program that does any of the above is classic critical race theory. Any functionary who denies it has simply not read her Derrick Bell—or may be lying to you.

Daily Signal

Even the WaPo Can’t Stomach Biden’s Cannon Comment

His supporters will claim it’s only an effect of his stammer.

President Joe Biden delivered an infamous gun control speech last week, claiming that Americans “need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons” if they want to restrain government tyranny. Yet he also used a flat-out lie to justify his gun control agenda — a lie that led even The Washington Post to deliver Biden a scathing rebuke.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” Biden declared last Wednesday.

The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler fact-checked this statement, giving Biden a whopping Four Pinocchios.

“Everything in that statement is wrong,” David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute, told The Washington Post. After 1791, when the Second Amendment came into effect as part of the Bill of Rights, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said.

Source: Even the WaPo Can’t Stomach Biden’s Cannon Comment



UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This is bold talk from a military, and a government, that hasn’t won a war in my lifetime. Not even the War On Poverty . . . But the Transgender Awareness Training is up-to-date, I’m sure.

Seriously, this kind of threat is not just absurd and unseemly, but a disqualification for public office. One of many, I realize.

And I guess the ammo shortage will be back on.

ANOTHER UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Larry Correia: So you want to nuke Omaha? “For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a novelist now, but I retired from the Evil Military Industrial Complex, where I helped maintain those various advanced weapon systems you expect to bomb me with. Before that I was a gun dealer and firearms instructor. So basically I sold guns to the people you expect the people I trained to take them from.”

Plus: “In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because ‘we kept the gloves on’, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas. You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns?”

In a U.S. civil war, the first targets would be politicians, and media figures, and they’re all soft targets. Which is odd, because they seem the most eager to get things started.

Also: “The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.”


DOJ Lawsuit Against Georgia Over Voting Law May Backfire

“I’m highly skeptical and I think they may ultimately regret this move. It could indeed clarify this issue in a way the Biden administration does not want” – Professor Jonathan Turley The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .


Ed Morrissey of Hot Air made a great point about this. He suggests that the White House played along as Democrats whipped their base up into a frenzy about this, but that won’t matter in court:

The courts won’t be interested in the political history; they will want to review the final version of the bill itself. As fact-checkers have repeatedly pointed out, Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly and ridiculously mischaracterized the law. For instance, the claim that the bill restricted early voting is entirely rubbish, as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out in March:

One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional. Counties can have early voting open as long as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at minimum. If you live in a larger metropolitan county, you might not notice a change. For most other counties, you will have an extra weekend day, and your weekday early voting hours will likely be longer.

Source: DOJ Lawsuit Against Georgia Over Voting Law May Backfire

Are You Willing to Kill to Enforce It?

Rampant overcriminalization is why Yale Law School Prof. Stephen L. Carter, for one, cautions his students against “invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill.” That’s just one of many reasons criminalizing the sharing of food with the homeless and less fortunate is abominable. Instead of endangering and arresting good people who share food with the homeless and others in need, we should be celebrating their generosity.

Source: Feeding the Homeless Should Not Be a Crime

Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent

A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify.

By Conor Friedersdorf

Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter believes that the United States would benefit if the debate about what laws ought to be passed acknowledged the violence inherent in enforcing them.

He writes:

Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence.  Every law is violent.  We try not to think about this, but we should.  On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face.

But all of us should.

The Atlantic