The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Grubergate Proves that Citizens United Was Correctly Decided

So in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech in Citizens United v. FEC.  You can read that decision, here, and my early blog post praising the decision is here.  That old post really has stood the test of time.

One of the arguments made by the dissent went as follows: sure, some corporations had free speech rights: the news corporations!  But, according to the dissent no one else had this right.  They based it on an interpretation of the free press clause where, to them, in that sentence “press” referred to “the institutional press.”

As I pointed out at the time, that was a ridiculously constrained reading of that clause.  Freedom of the press was freedom of expression in the written word.  That’s all.  It protected the New York Times, but it also protected the crank pamphleteer on the street corner.  Any other reading would have the court declare that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was not protected expression, an outcome the founders obviously never intended.

I would add that such a ruling would also allow the government to regulate many other forms of corporate speech.  Is the Daily Show considered part of the institutional press?  If you were John Stewart, would you want to take the gamble that the courts would say it was?  And certainly there are other comedians besides Stewart who 1) engage in corporate speech, and 2) talk about politics, without seeming to count as the “institutional press.”  One obvious example is Dennis Miller, who recently made a comedy special called “Dennis Miller: America 180.”  I watched it, and basically it was Dennis doing pretty much what you expect from him, standard stand up material mixed with jokes about the news, the only difference being how conservative he had become compared to past years.  Would this be considered protected speech if only the institutional press is protected by the free press clause.  Could a corporation, in this case Epix, be allowed to pay him to engage in that speech if the dissenters won in Citizens United?  If the only corporations that can express themselves freely are the institutional press, and only the institutional press, it is hard to see how Mr. Miller’s speech would be protected, in such a regime.  Or Bill Maher’s HBO show.  Or the ladies on The View...  You get the idea.

The Tea Leaves Seem to Say Darren Wilson Won’t Be Indicted

Now let me start by saying that the merits of the Darren Wilson/Mike Brown case will not be discussed.  I already discussed the applicable law, here, and the evidence is pretty much all over the place.  The only thing to add is that the legal standard is probable cause.  Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition, if you are playing along at home) defines that as:

Reasonable cause; having more evidence for than against. A reasonable ground for belief in certain alleged facts.  A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and more than a mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction.

It is a low standard, especially given that the accused has no right to defend himself—although bluntly, if I was on a Grand Jury, I would at least want to hear the accused side of the story.  There are some who think that the Grand Jury can’t call its own witnesses—that they can only hear what the prosecutor puts in front of him, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.  Still, it is often said that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.

Anyway, besides rumors to the effect that there won’t be an indictment (here and here) we are seeing other indicia that an indictment won’t occur.  First, you have this little tidbit:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard Monday afternoon ahead of a grand jury decision on whether to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Obama Grubers Illegal Immigrants

Funny fact.  On Wednesday afternoon, Becca Lower called me and told me that Obama was going to make a speech on immigration and, hint, hint, Aaron you should write a post on his plan.  I confessed to her at that time why I hadn’t: I didn’t feel confident I knew what the plan was, yet.

Well, now we more or less do.  Here is his speech, last night:

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

A Letter to Baltimore School of Law

This will be an email to officials at Baltimore Law School I will send after enough time for the peanut gallery to point out any mistakes.

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is Aaron Walker.  I am an attorney and a graduate of Yale Law School.  I say this not to brag but to make you understand that I am not simply a crank.  I know of which I speak.

Recently one of your professors, Garrett Epps wrote a piece in the Atlantic entitled “Imperfect Union: The Constitution Didn't Foresee Divided Government” that argued, remarkably, when discussing the likely confrontations between the President and the newly-Republican Congress:

What’s coming will be painful, frustrating, and dangerous—and it will illustrate a constitutional malfunction unforeseen in 1787. The country will survive, and it’s possible it can even make progress—but at tremendous cost in polarization and missed opportunity. The country is like a car driving with the handbrake on: Any movement forward will be accompanied by smoke and internal damage.

So we might profitably put a six-month moratorium on paeans to the wisdom of the Framers. The problem of divided government is a bug, not a feature, and the Constitution itself provides no guidance on how to work around it.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Obama Says He Stole Liberally From Gruber

This is admittedly not quite as damning as the video I put in the update to this post, but it’s one more drip-drip-drip of evidence that this many openly contemptuous of the American people was one of the key architects of Obamacare.  And while from a legal standpoint his comments are irrelevant to the King case coming up, it is increasingly becoming a political problem for the Democrats and this is only the latest example:

Congressional Democrats: Accommodations Only Have to be Provided By the Little People

I have said for some time there is an undercurrent of hostility toward the disabled in the Democratic party.  For instance, when Wendy Davis ran an ad last month featuring an empty wheelchair...

BREAKING: Newly-Discovered Video of Obamacare’s Architect Looking Down on Average Voters (Update: Another Video)

Update: Jump to the end for a new video linking Obama to Gruber’s deceptions.

Another day, another Gruber video drops where he demonstrates what a complete snot he is.  As I said previously on #Grubergate, the man has a fundamental distaste for Democracy, and the #Grubergate chorus has gotten loud enough to force Obama to talk about it.  Via Hot Air:

When asked directly if he or his administration had, as Gruber insisted, intentionally misled the public and oversight organizations like the Congressional Budget Office when they crafted the Accordable Care Act, Obama’s reply was terse and direct. “No,” he said. “I did not.”

Obama was joined on Sunday by Health and Human Services Sec. Sylvia Burwell who appeared on Meet the Press to distance herself and the administration from Gruber.

“I have to start with how fundamentally I disagree with his comments about the bill and about the American people,” she began emphatically.

Do read the whole thing, but, dear reader, you are looking at the website of a Google ninja.  Just as the now-famous Rich Weinstein, a.k.a. @phillyrich1 went through publicly available videos and found the video that kicked off Grubergate, I have found another video previously available that also proves just how much the architect of Obamacare looks down on ordinary Americans, which I will share with you after the break.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

A Hypothesis on the Story of Exodus

Strap yourself in, because this is going to be a long one.

I don’t speak directly about my faith too often.  For me, faith is like the air I breathe or the sun in the sky.  It is just there, a constant presence, exerting an influence in more ways than I could count or quantify.  It doesn’t need to be talked about, it is just there.

This week I have finally gotten around to watching The Bible on Netflix.  This is the History Channel miniseries dramatizing the Christian Bible.  It is pretty good even if at times it shows its budget.  Also it keeps making me want to play Mass Effect (a joke only gamers will fully get).

But it made me think of a hypothesis I have about the story of Exodus and I thought I would share it with you.

I call it a hypothesis because one should always be careful attempting to know guess any part of God’s plan.  By definition God is omniscient and omnipotent and so we are a bit like cave men trying to understand nuclear physics when it comes to these things.  “Hypothesis,” therefore, is a precisely chosen term: it is an educated guess, and not even raised to the level of theory.  But I think it is a good one.  Maybe.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Time Apologizes For Allowing “Feminist” to Lead Its Dumb Poll

So Time every year engages in a stunning piece of bad journalism by running a poll for what words ought to be “banned.”  The piece is terrible journalism all around.  First, the winner doesn’t get banned because we have a First Amendment, duh.  Indeed, past winners like OMG, YOLO and Twerk didn’t seem to disappear.  At best, it reflects what words its respondents are sick and tired of.

And then there is the fact that the poll is utterly unscientific given that it is one of those “internet polls.”  So it is a survey of those who decide to take the time to answer these polls, which often induces people to try to game the outcome.  Of course it works fine for Time’s advertisers because it means more clicks, but it is simply terrible journalism.

(And don’t get me started on the fact that some of the “words” they are proposing to ban are actually “phrases.”)

And despite all efforts, they managed to make it worse.  This year, they decided to include the word “feminist” on the list of nominees and then, to the anger of many radical feminists, it was far and away the winner.  At last reporting it go 51% of the votes, with the next highest vote-getter receiving 12%.  Which in turn caused radical feminists to freak out, which in turn made Twitchy laugh.  Which in turn led to this bootlicking editor’s note on the poll itself:

Friday, November 14, 2014

The Danger of Shirtgate (to Conservative Pundits)

Let’s start by saying something basic.  “Shirtgate,” as it is being called, is kind of dumb overall.  It is not worth writing about in and of itself, but it is worth talking about for what it says, overall, about social attitudes and similar issues.

It started with the landing of a probe on a comet.  It was supposed to be a “one small step for a man” moment, and it was, but some radical feminists spotted something they really didn’t like: this shirt.



Thursday, November 13, 2014

Rush Limbaugh’s Legal Threat to the DCCC

So the other day the news broke that Rush Limbaugh was threatening to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee otherwise known as the DCCC.  I remember reading about it at Instapundit and Mr. Reynolds saying “it sends a valuable signal.”  Well, respectfully, I think he is wrong.

But first, you should probably see that letter, below the fold: