Prosecution and Prejudice

We have prosecutors who won’t prosecute the ‘wrong’ people for their crimes and prosecutors hell-bent on prosecuting the ‘right’ people for what they symbolize.

There is a flip side to the way progressives have perverted the concept of prosecuting crime. It is, in its way, just as insidious as the now-familiar delirium that non-prosecution is the best prosecution.

The flip side is equally the fallout of politicizing state police power. It flows naturally from the conceit that the point of prosecution is to run interference for the Left’s favored groups while penalizing those who oppose progressives. It has only disdain for the quaint idea that we prosecute for the purpose of upholding the rule of law, so society as a whole can flourish.

The flip side is this: When today’s cutting-edge prosecutors do deign to prosecute, the target is ideas, not acts. The objective is not to neutralize those who prey on society, but to frame their acts as part of a morality play: the progressives cast as the guardians of “our values,” and the criminals drawing out contempt more for what motivates them — or, at least, what progressives say motivates them — than for any evil they have done.

This is exemplified by the Kyle Rittenhouse prosecution.

The fact that Rittenhouse, then 17 years old, shot and killed people was not decisive in making his prosecution a national story. More people are routinely shot in Chicago than were shot in Kenosha on that fateful night. And, though not as sedulously suppressed as news of black-on-black violence is, white-on-white violence is usually far too humdrum for the media-Democrat complex to take much notice.

Source: Prosecution and Prejudice

Watching Trump Derangement Syndrome in action in 2020 — Bookworm Room

We’re only five days into 2020, but thanks to the Soleimani strike, Trump Derangement Syndrome is already exceeding anything we’ve seen before. I knew that 2019 wasn’t the year of peak crazy Trump Derangement Syndrome, despite the excesses of the House’s impeachment process. I knew that the Left would be compulsively driven to up its…

Watching Trump Derangement Syndrome in action in 2020 — Bookworm Room

On Soleimani’s death, the Democrats are looking to an imaginary constitution — Bookworm Room

Democrats misunderstand the Constitution when they contend that the president lacks Constitutional power to deal with a sudden attack against America. Oona A Hathaway, a professor of International Law at Yale, writes at The Atlantic that “The Soleimani Strike Defied the U.S. Constitution.” According to her, our Constitution required that Trump first seek Congressional approval…

On Soleimani’s death, the Democrats are looking to an imaginary constitution — Bookworm Room

It seems the Democrats like imaginary clauses in the Constitution. But then that’s why they’re so upset about Trump appointing judges who don’t acknowledge these invisible clauses.

Majority of Fatal Attacks Statistics

This came up on Facebook tonight:

“Majority of fatal attacks on U.S. soil carried out by white supremacists, not terrorists” The link is to a Washington Times piece.

Well, I can post links too.

FACT CHECK: 94 Percent of U.S. Terrorism Fatalities Are Caused by Islamic Terrorists



NY Times Launches Histrionic Alarm Over “White Nationalism” Days Before Election

Terrorism & Bathtub Accidents — The Left’s Talking Point Doesn’t Hold Water | National Review

Source: Terrorism & Bathtub Accidents — The Left’s Talking Point Doesn’t Hold Water | National Review

Count me in the Michael Brendan Dougherty camp. In his essay today, Michael touches on some of the same points I do in my column about the tired, rote nature of the post-terror debate. In particular he laments how it has become routine to minimize terror attacks as simply par for the course, a negligible problem that pales in comparison to the death toll of, among other things, random household accidents.

And yet, even before the victims on London Bridge had stopped bleeding, this was the reaction among society’s best, brightest and most morally self-assured members on social media. The pattern is by now familiar. Even as an Islamic terrorist killer’s proclamations about Allah’s will are still ringing in victims’ ears, these individuals are already declaring that the true danger from the attack is an Islamophobic backlash, and that you’re more likely to die by drowning in your own swimming pool than from a terrorist attack.

Do they know how callous that sounds? Do they not realize that sensible human beings react differently to a car accident than to a murder plot? Or that states and car manufacturers are constantly working to decrease the lethality of driving, while terrorists are constantly trying to improve the lethality of their enterprise?

Again, ditto. But I think there’s a way to put the ridiculousness of the terrorism-minimizers into starker relief. Barack Obama liked to point out that more Americans die from bathtub accidents than from terror attacks. (To the extent this is true, it is because very old people tend to lose balance and fall down, we have a lot of very old people, washtubs are slippery, etc.)

Now, imagine if I were to respond to complaints from, say, Black Lives Matter in the same way so many people respond to terrorism:

“Yes, yes, this is regrettable. Police shouldn’t kill young black men like this. But let’s keep this in perspective. More people die in bathtubs and swimming pools than from unwarranted police homicides.”

Or imagine if I tried to explain away an abortion-clinic bombing by noting that far more people die in swimming-pool accidents.

I’m not so sure the gang at Vox would nod appreciatively. Rather, my hunch is that the outrage would be deafening — and rightly so. Now, of course, unlawful police shootings, abortion bombings, and Islamist terrorism raise different issues and have different valences, but they all overlap on the issues of justice, the rule of law, and the proper responsibilities of the state. It’s not the state’s job to prevent acts of God. It is the state’s job to prevent murder — and war — against its citizens in the name of God (or in the name of anything else).