Saturday, October 03, 2015

Shooting fun! and blogging update

Poor Barry Hussein Barack Obama is an angry man.  He's angry about guns, or rather that American citizens own them.  The other day a homicidal maniac entered a gun-free zone, selected Christians, and executed them.  Barack Obama blames the NRA and anyone who defends individual rights, including the right to keep and bear arms...but not his own Christian-bashing, of course.  (There's a great deal of irony in all this, since he plans to import, at taxpayer expense, thousands of Muslim refugees whose numbers will almost certainly include members of Daesh, bloodthirsty Muslims who, given the chance, also will select Christians and other non-Muslims for execution.)  I expect the lawless, tyrannical fool in the Whitehouse will attempt to create and enforce gun controls before his term expires, most likely without any new legislation.  I don't feel like blogging much about this right now -- suffice it to say that anyone who tries to disarm the American citizen will start a civil war.

Meanwhile, last week I fired, for my first time, a handgun in .454 Casull, a round designed for stopping big game up to the one ton range.  More about this shortly.  But first, a blogging update.

I'm trying to blog a bit more often, and have a couple of subjects upcoming.  I am sure the world will be waiting breathlessly:

Nobel Prizes  I suppose I should make predictions now.  For Economics, I predict the award will go to William Baumol and Israel Kirzner for their studies of entrepreneurship.  Why not?  Nothing would make me happier.  Last year they were at the top of the Reuters prediction list, and my theory is that these predictions tend to come true, but with a lag.  For Peace, there are so many worthy candidates.  One obvious choice is Barack Obama, for solving the Iranian nuclear problem forever.  I suppose this would be shared with Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who is preparing his country for peaceful relations with all the world.  But it might be a little embarrassing when during his speech about how Israel will be eliminated soon, Khamenei begins shrieking "Death to America."  Even worse, they'd probably have to include John Kerry as well, and no one wants to hear him try to speak.  There are many other worthy candidates, of course -- Vladimir Putin and his Soviet Russian soldiers for liberating Crimea and bringing peace to eastern Ukraine, or the Pope, for traveling to communist countries to condemn capitalism.  But I predict that the Peace Prize will go to the Muslim refugees storming the E.U.  This makes at least as much sense as having awarded it to the E.U. itself, so I think I have a winner here.

Le Grizz  Every second Saturday of October, I return to Montana's Flathead and environs to run the Le Grizz 50 Mile Ultramarathon.  This year we return to the 2013 "Government Shutdown Course," most likely on a permanent basis.  (The new race management is Polebridge Mercantile, conveniently located at the race start and finish, long with a log saloon, for all our coffee, pastry, and beer needs!)  I am better trained than I've been in a few years, I think.  Expect a race report.

OK, finally, shooting  I was with a friend, Chris P. and we had a target set at 50 yards and fired both a fair .45 Long Colt and .454 Casull ammunition through a Ruger Super Blackhawk (for those who don't know, the .454 is a lengthened version of the .45LC, so the revolver will chamber either one of them).  At 50 yards I had no trouble hitting the target with the .454; the .45LC has less flat trajectory and I had some trouble connecting with it.  But what I really noticed was the difference in recoil, as expected.  I dislike recoil in a rifle, but I enjoy it in a handgun -- and boy, was this fun!

Two videos illustrate.  One round with each cartridge, placed in cylinder so I wouldn't know when it would go off (a great exercise for overcoming flinch and similar problems).  On another part of the range, someone else was shooting, so in the first video my second hammer drop coincides perfectly with one of their shots, making it look like I don't budge at all!  Here's the fun:

One round, .45 Long Colt
One round, .454 Casull...bang!

Friday, October 02, 2015

More Immigration Nuttiness from FEE

FEE (the Foundation for Economic Education) has done wonderful work in the past, and still manages to do some good work on economics.  But FEE has also taken to promoting libertoonist silliness, stuff that is a caricature of libertarianism.  The subject of immigration seems to particularly draw out the libertoonism.  In this case, Professor Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics argues that if a country tries to exercise any control over its borders, it means controlling every person in the country and monitoring them on an ongoing basis.  In fact, it "is is not possible without controlling citizens and existing residents, who must be regulated, monitored and policed to make sure that they comply with immigration laws."  He rattles on about establishing internal passport checkpoints and explaining what happened under South Africa's apartheid system, as if our only choices are entirely open (i.e. nonexistent) borders or a totalitarian system in which each person is constantly monitored.  That's crazy.  But here it is, "Controlling Immigration Means Controlling Everyone:  cracking down on immigration means invading every aspect of natives lives."

No, it doesn't.  That's remarkably stupid.  It's unbelievably stupid.  How could anyone ever argue such a crazy thing?  Apparently even Professor Kukathas realized this for a moment, because at one point he claims he is not drawing an equivalence between apartheid and controlling borders -- but then he goes ahead and does just that.  I commented (see below) but how is one to take seriously an argument that stopping perhaps one million refugees from swarming across a border into one's country is equivalent to monitoring every citizen internally, in every aspect of their lives?  The illogic of Professor Kukathas' piece is mind-boggling.  And the consequences of the mass immigration Europe is now "enjoying" will be highly destructive for liberty.

Steele's comment:

Apparently FEE's objective with the pieces it publishes on immigration is to ensure that each one is more absurd than the previous ones -- a tough challenge, but Kukthas' piece rises to the occasion.

Kukathas equates controlling immigration with establishing internal checkpoints where everyone must prove their identities.  That's absurd.  He's arguing that Hungary building a fence or wall on its borders to keep tens of thousands of people from invading the country indiscriminately is the same as South Africa establishing internal checkpoints where every individual was sorted by race.  It's impossible to take such a crazy position seriously.

No members of Daesh (ISIS) should ever be admitted into a Western country.   Nor should members of Al Qaeda.  And as the Germans are starting to learn, it verges on suicide to allow close to one million people into the country when they have no local language skills, little human capital, and adhere to a religious viewpoint that is completely incompatible with liberal Western values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rights for women, etc.  The problem is compounded when the country is a welfare state; Germany expects to spend 10 billion euros feeding, clothing, and housing the refugees this year. 

But Kukathas insists we must accept this; the only alternative is internal South African-style apartheid. That's crazy.  Simply block borders and screen immigrants before admitting them.

It's hard to believe arguments for entirely open borders can get more absurd than Kukathas,' but I look forward to FEE's next attempt.  If nothing else, we're getting some good laughs.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

The Inevitability of Nuclear War, Part 2

Over a year ago I posted a piece "The Inevitability of Nuclear War, part 1."  The gist was this: For the current leadership of Russia, nuclear warfare is not at all unthinkable.  Vladimir Putin and members of the Russian state  security and military apparatus regularly refer to the possibility of using nuclear weapons, the Russian military has been developing doctrine to guide the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the Russian military conducts training that includes simulated use of tactical nuclear weapons, and Russia has been working to upgrade its nuclear forces.  This is not the end-of-the-world MAD (mutual assured destruction) scenario of all out use of strategic nuclear weapons, it's limited use of nukes.  Russia has conducted wargames, at least twice, that include simulated strikes on Warsaw with nuclear weapons.  My observation -- if Putin is allowed to continue his expansionist policies unchecked, his strength will increase, and at some Russia will go so far that the West's choices will be confrontation or surrender.  For countries of Eastern and central Europe, this would constitute an existential threat.  The chances of a conflict that would include nuclear weapons is very high.

Part 2: The Middle East

Since writing Part 1, I've assembled quite a collection of material on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian intentions, and how the rest of the Middle East regards this.  With the completion of Obama's deal with the Iranians, much of this now seems to me beside the point.  The deal to end sanctions on Iran is the greatest foreign policy catastrophe of my lifetime.  It might well prove to be the greatest such disaster in human history, because it holds the seeds of nuclear war on a massive scale.  Rather than make a lengthy argument, consider this.  The treaty with Iran (a treaty that most of Congress decided to pretend is not a treaty for reasons of political expediency) ends sanctions and releases up to $150 billion in frozen assets to the Iranian government.  It also provides that Iran can challenge and effectively block any inspection of nuclear sites, and even that Iran conduct its own inspections on sensitive military sites.  It provides a grandfather clause that protects investments in the unlikely event sanctions are ever re-imposed; in other words, Iran is guaranteed its economic trade remains intact.  The predicted time frame for Iran to develop sufficient material for a fission bomb is less than the time frame for getting inspections, international dithering over noncompliance, and eventual "snapback" of sanctions.  The deal is preposterous.  Good grief, it evens provides that the United States will protect the Iranian nuclear program from Israel!  It sets Iran free of any serious restriction on its nuclear programs and provides Iran capital for nuclear development, as well as for funding Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran's military adventure in Yemen, its ballistic missile program and other trouble-making.

That's an interesting point: Iran has a ballistic missile program, it is not part of the deal and now faces no restrictions.  What is the purpose?  Iran appears to be developing ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and space launched re-entry vehicles, devices specially designed for delivering nuclear warheads.

There's only one reasonable conclusion: Iran is being set free to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Western Europe and the United States.  That's certainly the conclusion that Iran's neighbors -- namely Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt -- are drawing.  Hence Saudi Arabia is considering options to acquire nuclear weapons, either developing themselves, or buying them. This 2013 BBC article refers to a Saudi policy document in which they state they would accept a nuclear free Middle east, but failing that, would either purchase or develop one, say from Pakistan or North Korea.  Egypt has now begun a nuclear program and Turkey has one that clearly includes a weapons component.

Here are the fundamental points:

My conclusion -- an Iran with nuclear weapons almost certainly results in nuclear war.  MAD works with people who do not want to die; it does not work with those who worship Armageddon and celebrate martyrdom dream of genocide.  And even if the mere possession of nuclear weapons somehow suddenly brought the mullahs to their senses, their neighbors -- the Israelis, Turks, and Arabs -- see the Islamic republic as an existential threat.  If Israel ever faces an imminent existential threat, it will use every power it has to survive, including nuclear weapons.  It's hard to believe the Turks, Saudis, Egyptians, and anyone else who manages to get weapons would behave differently.  The situation is even worse if Daesh (ISIS) ever gets its hands on nuclear weapons.  In a Middle East where multiple sides have nuclear weapons, "false flag" strikes would be a dangerous possibility.  It's hard to understand how such a situation -- multiple players that regard each other as existential threats -- could be a stable equilibrium, the way the nuclear standoff between the US and USSR was.  Stability seems even more far-fetched when some of the players have worldview best described as death cults.

The USSR Russia (oops) has now established an air base with fighter planes in Syria, and the Russians are providing Iran with advanced anti-aircraft systems, and bringing their own to Syria.  Any Israeli airstrike on Iran will now have to contend with Russia's air force.  Conventional responses to an Iranian nuclear breakthrough just became much more difficult.  The likelihood of a nuclear response, with missiles, just increased.  But even prior to this, one analyst suggested that an Israeli nuclear first strike on Iran was a not-unlikely possibility.  Read it, it is a very important and chilling piece.

Nuclear war is not literally inevitable, but the world is on course for it.  Every politician who supported this Iranian deal, or who has not done all they could to block it, ought to be seen as, at best, completely irresponsible.  The people who created this deal, especially Barack Obama and John Kerry, are traitors to America and enemies of civilization.  Assuming that things are not already out of hand by January 2017, the next president needs to immediately and unilaterally take action to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, by any means necessary.  Any candidate unwilling to do this is unfit for the office.  Additionally, it will be necessary to kick the Russians out of the Middle East, if they are still there, a longer term project perhaps, to deal ruthlessly with Daesh and similar groups, and to begin working on building a genuine international non-proliferation regime.  

Obama has nearly destroyed non-proliferation as a policy; we now have a proliferation regime.  It is imperative that the next president reverse this.  And if it must be done with violence, so be it.  Those who preach the hatred of Western Civilization and the glory of holy Armageddon must never have nuclear weapons.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Race rears its head

Let's talk about race -- no, not that practical joke nature played on human beans, I mean the real sense of race -- running!

I had promised to give reports on a few races from this past summer...Running Lungs 5K and Elkhorn 50K.  Here is the Running Lungs report. Elkhorn was successful, but that story will wait.

Running Lungs: back in June, I highlighted this race, a fundraiser put on by my friend Linda Wortman to raise funds for lung cancer research.  My report... on race day, Julie, Chaos and I got up early.  As is my SOP before a 5K, I stretched and drank black coffee and water -- consuming nothing nothing else --a nd did a short warmup run with Chaos.  The three of us then drove in Bozeman to the race start.  The 10K start was 15 minutes before the 5K, and we arrived in plenty of time to watch it.  I said hi to Linda and her husband Jerry, who was working like a maniac behind the scenes to help make everything go smoothly.  We watched the 10 K start, and then, with the 5K start imminent, I took Chaos back to the car.  There's no way to run an all-out 5K with Chaos roped to my waist.  After locking Chaos in the car (she has a comfortable bed and water, and it was coll day, windows open, I started back to the finish line.  And then I heard it -- a plaintive, longing, cry: "how can you be doing this?  Why am I left out."  I turned and looked, and...well, good question.  So Chaos and I roped up and returned to the starting line.

"Bang" went the starting gun... OK, so it wasn't a gun, it was more of a starting shout, but we started out.  Chaos and I stayed back so as not to interfere with people trying to run fast, and tended to run to the side off the trail.  Julie was a bit behind us.  We had a fair number of people ahead of us, but most of the fast runners had entered the 10K, so as the field sorted out Chaos and I found ourselves in the upper 50% (certainly not front of the pack, though).  As we ran, we began picking off the occasional runner and slowly moving through the pack, and the race was starting to look like a race for us.

Chaos absolutely loves running with a group, and this isn't the first race we have run together.  Chaos also loves meeting new dogs, and the second and third miles of Running Lungs goes along Bozeman's Peet's Hill trail, where dogs off leash are welcome.  Hence our run included a few stops to meet with the occasional dog...not my choice, but rope teams move as a team.  I think this added a bit to our overall time.

Out finish through Lindley Park was really strong.  Chaos realized we were near the finish and took off.  When she stops dawdling with smelling this and that, greeting human and canine passersby, etc., and sets herself to it, she's extremely fast.  We covered the last quarter mile at breakneck speed.

Results?  Well, I was #1 in my age group.  Chaos was #1 dog (and yes, there were others).  Julie was a ways behind us, but she finished #1 in her age group.  Three victories!  More importantly, a successful fundraiser and great fun.

The field of runners was interesting.  There were a some elite runners, including Nikki Kimball, a world class ultra runner.  We spent a good bit of time talking with Nikki and her dog (who did not run) post race.  But there was also a substantial turnout from people who rarely if ever race, who were there just because of the cause, to help raise funds.  The post-race festivities were fun, and it was a very successful endeavor all around.  Julie, Chaos, and I look forward to next year's run.

Linda Wortman

Me, Linda, Julie, and Chaos

Linda and Jerry

Top Dog!

Thursday, September 24, 2015

The Pope comes to America...a thought or two

What to make of Pope Francis' visit to the United States?  Pope Francis was allowed to speak to Congress, and rather than bring a spiritual message, he chose to enter our politics and take sides, particularly with his scolding of Americans who oppose indiscriminate immigration.  Elsewhere, speaking at St. Patrick's Cathedral, Francis also condemned the United States for a lack of housing. "We can find no social or moral justification, no justification, no justification whatsoever, for lack of housing."

None of this is a surprise to me.  I've read his Evangelii Gaudium. It's clear he's a socialist (see Chapter 2), IMO a neo-Marxist, and it doesn't surprise me that it appears that he has come here to condemn what remains of capitalism in our society.  Nor does it surprise me that during his visit to Cuba he seems to have failed to condemn communism.

Well, what do you say about such a man?  How about this: he's arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical, and evil.

Arrogant -- how is it that a foreign dignitary and church leader takes it upon himself to lecture what is (or at least was) the freest country in the world, the only founded upon the rights of the individual.  And what business does he have entering our politics?  His demeanor may be meek, but his ideas are arrogant.

Ignorant -- nothing has done more to end poverty and improve human life than capitalism.  Capitalism, with its prerequisite of individual rights including private property, created economic growth.  Prior to capitalism, the possibility of systematic economic growth wasn't even imagined.  On the other hand his preferred system, socialist redistribution, is profoundly destructive.  If one wishes to spread poverty and death, dismantle capitalism.

Hypocritical -- We are to welcome all immigrants...even though the Vatican strictly controls entry and accepts no immigrants.  There's no excuse for lack of housing, "no justification whatsoever."  OK, the Vatican has assets worth 10 to 15 billion dollars -- start building housing, Francis.  Or is it just others who are to admit indigent immigrants and build housing for others, while you live in your closed enclave -- which has the highest per capita income in the world, $365,000, by one calculation.

Evil -- the first three are easily established, and perhaps this one is more difficult.  But where is his defense of liberty?  In totalitarian Cuba, he had none.  He hasn't made one here.  This isn't well-meaning ignorance.  It is indeed evil.

I have talked with a few friends who are Catholics, and I've been reading attempted defenses of the Pope by conservative writers.  Catholics who believe in the free market face a dilemma.  They feel obligated to accept the Pope as their spiritual leader who speaks infallibly, yet at the same time they know he is wildly wrong; how to reconcile this?  The rationalizations are wearing thin; it's getting harder for anyone to say "he's just misunderstood."

Catholics who appreciate liberty should just accept the possibility that the leader of their church really is a Marxist.  There's no need to deny Francis' anti-capitalism.  Like America, the highest position in the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by an enemy.  The question for Catholics shouldn't be how to accommodate Francis' ideology.  It should be how to resist it and counter it.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

FEE loses its moorings

FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, is the original free market think tank.  Founded by the great man Leonard E. Read in 1946, it has a long history of promoting liberty, free markets, and excellent economic analysis for the general public.  It was a home for great scholars such as economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and writer Henry Hazlitt.

Unfortunately, of late FEE has taken a bizarre turn, and increasingly promotes political correctness, knee-jerk anarchism, and remarkably slipshod analysis, all disguised as libertarianism.  Case in point: In today's "Anything Peaceful" page of FEE's website, regular writer David Bier attacks Lousiana Governor and Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal for opposing Barack Obama's plan to import Syrian refugees to the United States.

Bier's argument almost immediately jumps the rails of logic when he says by Jindal's by reasoning Jews fleeing the Holocaust should have been turned back.  He continues by calling Obama's program "extending compassion" and chiding America for not being more compassionate, since Germany is accepting ten times as many.  "America can do more," he declares.  Bier concludes by warning against a "monstrously cold-hearted failure of hospitality" and accuses Jindal, and I guess the rest of us who oppose this resettlement, as rationalizing the fear, prejudice, and selfishness he claims drives us.


I responded in the comments section, and I reproduce a version of my comment here for my (erstwhile?) readers.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Steele's response:
The U.S. government is not "admitting" refugees.  It will finance importing and settling them.

The 10,000 number is for one year, with plans to increase it over time.  The people imported at taxpayer expense will be almost entirely Muslims, because the U.S. is only accepting refugees from U.N. camps.  U.N. camps are almost entirely populated by Muslims, because Muslims drove Christians and Yazidis from the camps.

The refugees won't be vetted to catch the infiltrators that ISIS and Al Qaeda have both promised to send, and while there are forms of Islam compatible with classical liberal values, the vast majority of Muslims from this part of the world believe sharia should be the law of the land.  For example, according to Pew Research, 91% of Iraqis believe sharia should be the law.

Bier says "fear, prejudice, and selfishness" motivate those of us who oppose importing Syrian refugees at taxpayer expense.  Marley G. (in a comment) suggests we are also racists.  But it is certainly not a failure of compassion, any more than opposing publicly financed health care for everyone is a "failure of compassion" motivated by "fear, prejudice, and selfishness."  Importing people, at taxpayer expense, who oppose and in some cases wish to violently destroy a free society is false compassion.  It's a stupid and vicious government program.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***
That's a fairly polite response to Bier's surprisingly nasty and remarkably poorly argued attack on Jindal and the rest of us who oppose this program.  By pretending this is just about free movement of people and that opponents are just a bunch of mean-spirited bigots, Bier tries to make the importation of Syrian refugees a libertarian cause.  It is not.  Never mind that most of the refugees seem to be coming from camps in Turkey, meaning they are no longer fleeing ISIS.  Never mind that many of them say they are just looking for better "safety nets" than Turkey provides.  The salient facts are these. 1) this is a government program to bring refugees here and settle them at taxpayer expense, providing food, housing, health care, cares, loans for homes (check out the HHS Office of Refugee Settlement site, it is chock full of taxpayer-funded handouts for refugees).  2) these immigrants are indigent, tend to be poorly educated with poor English skills, and thus have a high risk of depending on government (taxpayer) funding.  3) they come from a part of the world where most people have values and beliefs that are incompatible with the American values of individual liberty.  Sharia is not compatible with the Bill of Rights.  Neither are stoning to death for adultery (58% of Iraqis support) or death penalty for leaving Islam (a mere 42% support...slightly more than the percentage of Americans Pew finds support bigger government, interestingly).  4) We have no reasonable way of screening ISIS members and similar types.

This is a terrible program, one more case of Barack Obama "fundamentally transforming" America by undercutting it.

Back when FEE promoted free markets, liberty and reason, they published a story told by Davy Crockett, "Not Yours to Give."  After a speech he gave in Congress against a bill to appropriate funds for a charitable cause, Crockett was asked to explain, and he repeated the words of a constituent, Horatio Bunce:

"...It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff...If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose."

A libertarian should understand this immediately.  Spending taxpayer money on this refugee scheme is not libertarian, free market or "Anything Peaceful."

Thursday, September 03, 2015

Free Kim Davis!

"We" at Unforeseen Contingencies support Kim Davis, and urge that she be freed.  Kim Davis is County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky.  After SCOTUS' bizarre ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, she ceased issuing marriage licenses.  She refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples, citing her understanding of the Bible.  To avoid engaging in discrimination, she simply ceased issue of licences to anyone.

I am skeptical of the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell, because it was based not on law or the Constitution but, according to Justice Kennedy, the weird notion that marriage is a "freedom."  That's nonsensical.  Regardless of what one thinks of same-sex marriage (I'm for it) the SCOTUS ruling was incoherent.  If we can apply "that's a freedom" indiscriminately to any "popular" (i.e. PC) cause of the day and thus claim it is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there are no limits to government power.  One could claim, for example a desire to be free from neighbors who own guns, or who practice a religion you don't like, or have political beliefs you believe should be suppressed, and if five members of SCOTUS agree, why, you have a "Constitutional right" that the Founders enshrined from the start.  Good grief.

But regardless of this, SCOTUS ruled, that's law, and Davis, as a government official, must follow it, right?  Well, no.  SCOTUS ruled that it is unConstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.  Davis has not done that.  She issues no licenses to anyone.  She cites her inalienable right to practice her religion, protected by the First Amendment.  I'm skeptical of this argument, because it could be argued that her job is incompatible with her religious beliefs, and she has no inalienable right to this particular job.  I would make this argument myself, except that, as everyone ought to know, government officials have no legal obligation to provide particular services to anyone.  For example, the courts, including SCOTUS, have repeatedly ruled that the police have no duty to protect any person.  This is not a small point.  If you obtain an injunction against someone, the police have no legal obligation to enforce it.  SCOTUS says so.  If that failure results in, say, the murders of your children, too bad.  You cannot demand they "do their duty," because no such duty to perform exists.

So explain to me where, in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court or anyone else in the federal government is given power to demand a county clerk provide services.  They claim they have no authority to tell the police to protect you from a murderer, but they can demand a county clerk issue you a marriage license?  Bah!  I cry "hoax!"  It's a fraud.

That's damning, but it's a minor point.  Here's the real problem with the persecution of Davis.

SCOTUS ruled that discrimination against same-sex couples is unConstitutional.  OK.  Davis did not discriminate -- she issued no licenses.  Heterosexual couples did not receive licenses.  Furthermore, nothing in Kentucky law permits her to issue licenses to same-sex couples,* because 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4 reads:

402.005 Definition of marriage
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Let that sink in.  Nothing in Kentucky law, or any other law, permits Mrs. Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  And SCOTUS says she is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.  Never mind her religious convictions, she took an oath to uphold both the U.S and Kentucky Constitutions and laws.  Frankly, there's no argument that she failed to do so.  In fact, any Kentucky clerk who issues a license has violated their oath, and the law.  Davis, on the other hand, did not.

Don't forget, your semi-faithful correspondent favors same-sex marriage, sufficiently that he (er, I) donated 200 USD to the ill-fated effort to defeat California's Proposition 8 that outlawed same-sex marriage.  I think the public needs to be persuaded to accept, as a legal matter, same-sex relationships.  The idea that it must be imposed by judges, and by means of legislating from the bench, is utterly unacceptable.

That Mrs. Davis should be incarcerated for following the law, instead of political fashion, is tyrannical.  The judge involved, Judge Bunning, ought to be impeached, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned...after having been tarred and feathered, of course...although I'm sure legal "experts" can construct explanations as to why that's improper and impossible and judges can and should do any damn thing they please without repercussions of any sort.

Well, they are wrong.  Free Kim Davis!

*Credit where it's due: The point about Kentucky law is from Mike Huckabee.  I don't often agree with Huckabee, but this is an extremely important observation from him.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?