Category Archives: culture of corruption

“Don’t steal…the government hates competition”

That bumper-sticker phrase is normally associated with taxes, but it turns out that it applies equally well to the legalized theft known as “civil asset forfeiture:”

Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed The Value Of All Burglaries In 2014

Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually. By 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year. Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals.

Always follow the money

“Scientist” leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

The sneer quotes around “scientist” are mine, as he’d appear to be just another grifter among the Grünsturmabteilung:

Leader of 20 scientist effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO revealed as ‘Climate Profiteer’! ‘From 2012-2014, the Leader of RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.

George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla ( jshukla@gmu.edu) a Lead Author with the UN IPCC, reportedly made lavish profits off the global warming industry while accusing climate skeptics of deceiving the public. Shukla is leader of 20 scientists who are demanding RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges be used against skeptics for disagreeing with their view on climate change.

Shukla reportedly moved his government grants through a ‘non-profit’. The group “pays Shukla and wife Anne $500,000 per year for part-time work,” Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. revealed.

“The $350,000-$400,000 per year paid leader of the RICO20 from his ‘non-profit’ was presumably on top of his $250,000 per year academic salary,” Pielke wrote. “That totals to $750,000 per year to the leader of the RICO20 from public money for climate work and going after skeptics. Good work if you can get it,” Pielke Jr. added.

Μολών λαβέ, bitches

The Mask Falls: Left Calling for “Gun-Free Society”

I have a better idea: how about a gun-grabbing-liberal-free society?  Whether they realize it or not, that will be the end result of any attempt at undermining the 2nd Amendment:

They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of “sensible gun safety measures” or other rot.

But now they’re becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a “gun free society.

A Gun Free Society.By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.

But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.

It’s not just the bedwetters in the press, either.  0bama has nothing left to lose at this point, and his domestic and foreign policy “legacy,” such as it ever was, is a total shambles.  He’s already threatened to use his pen and his phone if the feckless weasels in Congress won’t bend to his will.  If you’re already set on destroying America, why not just go for the brass ring and make sure it’s “blown up real good?”

Billionaire George Soros warms up to coal as stock prices hit bottom

How convenient…right after he has his minions badmouth the industry and drive its stocks into the toilet, he snaps up what’s left for pennies on the dollar:

Billionaire George Soros warms up to coal as stock prices hit bottom

Billionaire investor George Soros, who has demonized fossil fuels for years through his think tanks and political contributions, seems to have warmed up to Big Coal now that stocks are dirt cheap.

The left-wing hedge fund legend has raised eyebrows with major purchases of stock in two large coal companies, firms his critics say he helped bring to their knees. While buying low is the hallmark of any shrewd investor, buying coal goes against the political and environmental ideology Soros has long espoused.

“I find it very interesting that George Soros would buy shares in those coal companies,” said Daniel Simmons, vice president for Policy at the Washington DC-based free market energy group, Institute for Energy Research. “I am confused given the non profits he funds and how hard they have worked to demonize coal.”

Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what’s left of the U.S. coal industry.

The trades would have cost Soros a lot more six years ago, when Peabody, which trades under the symbol BTU, was at about $90 a share. Under the Obama administration, which has punished the coal industry with costly mandates and regulation, Peabody shares have fallen to around $1.

Let orange be Lois Lerner’s new black

Jailtime For IRS’ Political Hacks

Corruption: After a year’s stalling by the IRS, the Senate Finance Committee has released its bipartisan report, denouncing the tax-collection agency’s partisanship and incompetence. When are these people going to jail?

The Senate report wasn’t entirely satisfactory, given that its criticism was primarily in the compromise language of “gross mismanagement” to describe the agency’s targeting of Tea Party dissident groups.

Using legal technicalities to silence and repress political dissent under the color of the nation’s most feared enforcement agency isn’t mismanagement. It’s a crime.

It’s incompatible with democracy and it shatters public confidence in the rule of law. It’s the very crime the State Department is now condemning in Venezuela: the use of legal technicalities to halt popular opposition candidates from running for office. Until now, this kind of activity has had no precedent in our country, and it must be stopped before it becomes the standard.

You’re known by the company you keep

…and Michael Bloomberg has some rather unsavory company indeed in his gun-grabbing cabal:

Another (Former) Bloomberg Mayor Facing Multitude of Charges – The Truth About Guns

“A statewide investigating grand jury has recommended that criminal charges be filed against former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen R. Reed, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported. “State Attorney General Kathleen Kane … calls the investigation into Reed one of the ‘most disturbing cases of public corruption this office has investigated.’”

“Former mayor of Pa. capital charged with 499 criminal counts,” Fox News documented in its report. “If convicted on all counts and given consecutive maximum sentences, Reed could face up to 2,439 years in prison.”

Whenever I see reports of a mayor in trouble with the law, my first instinct any more is to see if he or she is one of Bloomberg’s Bürgermeisters.

Here’s the rogues’ gallery:

Wisconsin’s Shame: State Supreme Court Vindicates Victims of ‘John Doe’ Witch Hunt

For once, liberal fascism takes it on the chin:

Wisconsin’s Shame: State Supreme Court Vindicates Victims of ‘John Doe’ Witch Hunt

In a ruling this morning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rendered official what observers have long known: Wisconsin Democrats did, in fact, launch a massive, multi-county “John Doe” investigation of the state’s conservatives, featuring extraordinarily broad subpoenas and coordinated “paramilitary” raids of private homes; the “crimes” that provided the investigation’s pretext were not crimes at all, but First Amendment-protected speech; and the legal theory underpinning the investigation was bunk, “unsupported in either reason or law,” as the court put it.

In two separate reports, National Review described these raids in detail. (The court cited our reports in its opinion.) On October 3, 2013, multiple Wisconsin conservatives were awakened by a persistent pounding on the door, their houses were illuminated by floodlights, and police — sometimes with guns drawn — poured into their homes. Once inside, the investigators turned the private residences of these innocent conservative citizens “upside down,” seeking an extraordinarily broad range of documents and information. These raids were supplemented by subpoenas that secured for investigators massive amounts of electronic information. The court was obviously disturbed:

The breadth of the documents gathered pursuant to subpoenas and seized pursuant to search warrants is amazing. Millions of documents, both in digital and paper copy, were subpoenaed and/or seized.  Deputies seized business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. The special prosecutor obtained virtually every document possessed by the Unnamed Movants relating to every aspect of their lives, both personal and professional, over a five-year span (from 2009 to 2013). Such documents were subpoenaed and/or seized without regard to content or relevance to the alleged violations of Ch. 11. As part of this dragnet, the special prosecutor also had seized wholly irrelevant information, such as retirement income statements, personal financial account information, personal letters, and family photos.

Feds.  Woodchipper.  Some assembly required.

Woodchippers…they’re not just for rogue judges anymore:

THEY DIDN’T JUST TWEET A PHOTO

As Ed Driscoll reports below, when TSA flack Lisa Farbstein tweeted a photo of the contents of a passenger’s luggage–$75,000 in cash–with a snarky comment, the gratuitous invasion of privacy generated quite a bit of public backlash. But the story gets worse. The TSA took a photo, but other federal agents took the money.

The Puppy Blender then refers to the following:

Why the TSA posted a photo of a passenger’s cash-filled luggage on Twitter

The photo, from the Richmond airport, shows a passenger’s luggage containing $75,000 in cash. Farbstein asks, “Is this how you’d transport it?” Most people would not, but there is nothing illegal about simply checking a bag containing $75,000, or carrying it with you on the plane. Passengers aren’t under any obligation to report large sums of cash unless they’re traveling internationally, though the TSA recommends that passengers consider asking for a private screening.

[…]

In this case, the cash was seized by a federal agency, most likely the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to Richmond airport spokesman Troy Bell. “I don’t believe the person was issued a summons or a citation,” he said. “The traveler was allowed to continue on his way.

If true, that would make this incident just the latest case of civil asset forfeiture at the nation’s major transportation hubs. In recent months several high-profile stories have surfaced of passengers who had large sums of cash seized by the DEA, including a young man at an Amtrak stop, a college student at the Cincinnati airport, and a nail salon owner in New York. While the DEA took the cash in these cases under suspicion of its involvement in drug trafficking, no drug charges been filed in any of the cases.

I take it, then, that Marbury v. Madison is a dead letter going forward

Chief Justice Roberts: ‘In Every Case We Must Respect the Role of the Legislature, and Take Care Not to Undo What It Has Done’

O RLY? I’m pretty sure his job is to decide the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court’s decisions in King v. Burwell and NFIB v. Sebelius constitute dereliction of duty for refusing to vacate blatantly unconstitutional laws.