More Transit Attack Woes, Now In Chicago

On the Blue Line Train in Chicago, at 9:25 pm a 26-year-old white woman was set on fire by a 45 or 50 year old man. Depending on the reports, there was either an argument before the man doused her with a flammable liquid and set her on fire, or was simply sitting there when the man poured the liquid on her and set it on fire in an unprovoked attack. Update:  It's been confirmed that there was no argument, this was an unprovoked attack.

The man is not being identified by the media, so you can draw your own conclusions.

While not identifying him nor providing identifying information, the media has helpfully reported almost every other detail about him.

He had previously been arrested 53 times, and has a record with 9 felony convictions with only having jail time for two of them. His latest assault before this one took place in August when he knocked out a female social worker causing a major head injury when he was being held in a psychiatric hospital. 

So much for replacing cops with social workers. 

He was released and set free, after that last attack, because of course he was. Set free by a Cook County Judge and sent home on home monitoring which was apparently not being monitored very well at all. Should we mention he has no home of record, either?

CWBChicago.com:  CTA fire attack suspect knocked a psych ward employee unconscious, but a judge decided to let him walk the streets: court docs

Yep, let mentally ill criminals continue to walk the streets no matter how many crimes they commit, let them roam free on public transit, then go on about how violence is down and Chicago and its transit system is very safe after an attack inevitably happens.  Much like the Iryna Zarutska  event a mentally ill criminal arrested multiple times but always given a slap on the wrist, if that, and returned to commit crimes again and again and again until someone gets killed or seriously maimed.

Anarcho-tyranny at its finest. 

Yet Another Reason To Appreciate Being American

You can actually defend yourself if attacked.

Unlike say, Australia, where you can be criminally charged for pepper-spraying someone who is in the act of breaking into your home. 

 Not The Bee:  Australian man criminally charged for stopping home invader with pepper spray

 Yes, really.

Compare to a similar situation in the US but with a much happier ending for the victim in the home, in Illinois of all places:  

Daily Mail: Mom hid her baby in closet then shot and killed burglar who broke into her home in peaceful suburb late at night

The Anglosphere seems to be swiftly shrinking away from what it once was. 

AG Nessel Folds To Her Progressive Base

The Detroit Free Press: Michigan AG Dana Nessel drops all charges against U-M pro-Palestinian protesters

In yet another example of two-tier justice when Democrats are in  charge, Attorney general Dana Nessel has dropped all charges against the pro-Hamas protestors at University of Michigan.

One cannot imagine her doing so for non-leftist approved criminal acts during protests.

Since she is most likely be running for a US Senate seat this year, she had to shore up her leftist progressive base by supporting the pro-Hamas wing, and this is the result.

When The Process Is The Punishment

Daniel Penny was found not guilty of manslaughter in a case that should never have been brought against him.

NBC New York: Daniel Penny found not guilty in Jordan Neely subway chokehold death

The jury appropriately found him not guilty. 

Note that neither of the two men assisting Penny in restraining the attacking Jordan Neely, who had been threading to kill passengers on the subway car, were charged in his death. The fact that one was Black and the other Hispanic clearly had no bearing on there not being charged by the progressive DA Alvin Bragg in this matter. Surely not.

Meanwhile, Mr. Perry’s suffered  legal expenses for his excellent defense by his attorneys, and his life and liberty were put in jeopardy by the two-tiered legal system instituted under the progressive DA's office under Bragg, where viewing crime through a racial lens and "equity" is more important than justice. Under Bragg, actual criminals are given a pass, and law-abiding citizens defending themselves and defending others, as in the case of Penny are prosecuted.

 

Here, the process was the punishment along with a message being sent to other good people.

 

The message is to not intervene against a favored minority committing crimes -- even if someone's life is at stake -- or you'll be prosecuted by the same state that knowingly let the criminals walk free to commit their crimes. 

 

Well, Team Blue Really Wants To Go There

Democrats in Blue states are gallivanting around removing Trump from the ballot in Illinois, Colorado, and elsewhere on the specious grounds that he committed insurrection when he has never been charged nor convicted of such.

Thus is a rather dumb interpretation and application of the 14th Amendment for many reasons, and also shortsighted on the part of the Democrats in the Blue States involved short-sightedly thinking such would never happen to their candidate.

After all, following the same logic of the Blue States, Red States are free, if they so choose, to also take a novel application of 14th Amendment, Section 3 and disqualify Joe Biden from the ballot in their states.

After all, Section 3 states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

President Joe Biden indeed has demonstrably provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States:

$6 billion worth of aid and comfort to Iran, and even before that insanity, he also removed sanctions from Iran.  Iran, a country that is a sworn enemy of the United States, has committed acts of terrorism against Americans, and has directly and through surrogates attacked US military personnel.  This is the same country that annually has demonstrations where they shout "Death to America" - and mean it.

Joe Biden had also removed the Houthis from the terrorism list, again providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.  These are the same Houthis whose slogan is:  God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.

Verily, it will be much easier to prove that President Biden has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States than proving that former President Trump had engaged in insurrection. If the Red States apply the same standards and "logic" that  the Blue states have applied, removing Biden form their ballots will be a cinch.

As such, it wouldn't take much for Red States to decided turnabout is fair play and start removing Biden on the grounds he has violated the 14th Amendment.

This of course would be stupid. 

I really can't recommend such a course of behavior, but since Democrats insist on playing stupid games, game theory dictates that turnabout is indeed fair play.  Should the Supreme Court not decide that the removal of Trump from the ballot is incorrect, having the Red States take this action may be the only way to get them to knock it off. 

Of course, this can have some bad unintended consequences, but the Blue States are already indulging in this bad behavior.

In short, should the Supreme Court not have the Blues knock this gamesmanship off, the Blue states should show some restraint and knock it off themselves before the Red states decide that two can play that game.

The ICJ Decision - First, About South Africa

Before we even go into the inane decision, which in many ways didn't amount to much but is the camel's nose under the tent so to speak. We should first note that thus case was brought by South Africa.

The same South Africa that after the ICC issued an arrest warrant on Vladimir Putin for the invasion of Ukraine, invited Putin to South Africa for the BRICS conference, and had in 2015 failed to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir under an ICC warrant in June 2015 when he was in South Africa. 

Indeed South Africa under the ANC is busy working on withdrawing from the ICC even now over the Putin warrant. In short, South Africa only cares about the ICC when it can be used as a tool for supporting their allies and their own terrorist-supporting ends.

South Africa under the ANC also seems to be busily practicing genocide against whites in South Africa at his very moment.

In short South Africa probably wasn't the best country to bring such a ridiculous charge given its own issues, its own disdain for the court, and its constant failure to adhere to the court's orders, but commies and terrorists gotta commie and be terrorists, so what can you do?

So, on to the decision in the next post.

All Obstructors Are Equal, But Democrat Obstructors Are More Equal Than Others

You guessed it, Dem Rep Jamal Bowman just got a nice sweetheart deal for his obstructing Congress by falsely pulling a fire alarm in an attempt to stop the Republicans from passing a funding bill.

The Detroit News: Rep. Jamaal Bowman pleads guilty to a misdemeanor for pulling a fire alarm in House office building.

No obstruction felony charge for the likes of him.

But not to worry, under the terms of his deal, even this misdemeanor slap-on-the-wrist will not remain on his record:

He will pay a $1,000 fine and serve three months of probation, after which the false fire alarm charge is expected to be dismissed under an agreement with prosecutors.

It's good to be a Dem, neh?

Michigan Red Flag Laws And Democrat Double Standards

So the badly flawed Michigan Red Flag Law has been signed into law, and those who have signed it have yet to point out a single incident in the past that would have actually been prevented by its existence.

Quite a few Michigan County Sheriffs have expressed reservations with the lack of due process in the law and stated they will not enforce it.

This has further revealed that for Michigan Democrats,  when it comes to standards, that if they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Both Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Nessel are absolutely aghast and dismayed at the thought that the law might not be enforced by law enforcement or county prosecutors:

For those who are in law enforcement who refuse to enforce these important orders, let me say this loudly and clearly: I will make certain that I will find someone with jurisdiction who will enforce these orders," Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

Note this is the same AG Nessel who, less than a year ago, when enforcement of a law was on the subject of abortion, took the following stance:

Nessel says she won’t enforce the ban in Michigan, along with at least a dozen law enforcement officials across the country – a bold statement that sets the US up for a complex legal landscape with different enforcement regimes in different states, and even within them.

Governor Whitmer had this to say on the potential that a prosecutor or sheriff may not enforce the Red Flag law:

When it does take effect, Whitmer told reporters, law enforcement will be expected to enforce a judge's order.

"Every prosecutor has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Michigan, and that's the expectation," said Whitmer, who did a stint as Ingham County's prosecutor before running for governor in 2018.

Verily, note well that this is the same Governor Whitmer who having taken an oath to uphold the laws of this state, that when the question came up on enforcing an abortion ban law in this state immediately sued the state to prevent that enforcement and ensure the law was not upheld. Again this was less than a year ago and they've both now flipped their principles as to the enforcement of laws 180 degrees.

Wonderful consistency there on their part, isn't it? Then again it is about power and politics, not principled enforcement of laws.

So A Candidate For President From New York . . .

So, let me get this straight. 

A candidate for president with New York residency is accused of hiding a payoff by classifying it as legal fees.

Sounds real bad, doesn't it?

So, when exactly can we expect Alvin Bragg to charge Hillary Clinton (New York residency baby!) with felonies for hiding her payments for the Steele Dossier and other false election activities to influence the election. Not to mention her acts to the whole false Russian collusion story and investigation that many on the left still cling to, Durham report notwithstanding.  remember that she was running them through the law firm Perkins Coie falsely labelled as legal fees?

Hillary Clinton and the DNC have indeed even admitted to doing it.

AP: DNC, Clinton campaign agree to Steele dossier funding fine

Politico: Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure

Should be an absolute slam dunk case for Alvin Bragg, given the investigation is already done for him and tied up in a very neat package.

I'm sure he'll get around to it any day now.  Really, any day now he'll assemble a grand jury and enforce justice without partisanship nor favor.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn in great shape to sell you, along with a corrupt partisan district attorney.

Michigan Dem Legislature To Pro Gun Side: We Won't Let You Speak Against These Bills

During the hearings on the gun control bills the Democrats are pushing (and of which both the "safe storage"  and "universal registration" bills have been signed into law), a curious thing happened.

The Gun banner side in favor of these bad laws was given lots of time to speak.

The Pro-Firearms ownership side that was against these defective and punitive bills?  Not so much. 

 In fact, in most hearings, they were completely blocked from testifying at all, and in the few hearings where they were allowed to speak, they were severely time-limited when those in favor of the bills were not.

Most speakers including those from Great lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry and were not allowed to speak, and even John Lott was limited to minutes for his opposition after they almost shut him out as well, declaring they were "out of time", after giving the antis all the time they wanted.

So both Great Lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry are now suing for this rather obnoxious treatment and probable due process and government free speech violation.

The Detroit News:  Gun groups sue Michigan Legislature over ability to testify on firearms bills

They Probably Should Not Have Publicly Admitted That

The University of Michigan Graduate Students Instructors via their Union, are on strike.

A little problem is the strike is illegal.

Even worse, they admit on their union website that the strike is illegal:

Yes. UM is a public university, and it is unlawful for public sector employees to strike in Michigan. In addition, our contract has a “no-strike clause” specifying that we cannot strike. Striking would therefore be a breach of contract and the University could legally discipline or fire us. This was also the situation in our 2020 strike. The question is whether the University would retaliate against workers and the union rather than pay us a living wage. UM is highly unlikely to fire all of its GSIs and GSSAs because of how essential grad workers are to its day-to-day operations (see above). Striking is not a crime. Striking is a civil rather than a criminal offense.

Kinda problematic to publicly announce that you know what you are doing is illegal and a breach of your current contract.

But worry not, their defense seems to be:  They can't fire us all!

UM could legally fire striking workers, and will almost certainly threaten to do so. However, there are a variety of reasons why UM has never fired GSIs/GSSAs in previous GEO strikes (including the 2020 strike), and why no grad worker has lost their place at their university over the past decade of strikes. In addition, we would try to negotiate with the University for a non-retaliation agreement as part of any strike resolution. This is one reason why it is crucially important that we all stay on strike together to ensure all of our collective safety: Without enough strike power, we may not be capable of getting UM to sign a non-retaliation agreement at the end of the strike.

It's a cunning plan Cotton, let's see how it works out for them. The Air Traffic Controllers Union would like a word.

Then again, President Ono is no President Reagan, and we have pro-Union Democrats ensconced at every level of government from Ann Arbor up through the state (with Whitmer already publicly supporting the grad students in their illegal strike)  to the feds, so none of them will likely try to enforce the law against public sector strikes, so this tactic may indeed pay off.

Now the Graduate Student Instructors are indeed likely being underpaid, and they can thank their last union bargaining team for that one. 

The rest of their demands are impressive leftist pap - Their top demand: Defunding the Police on campus and exchanging them for unarmed security guards.  Verily, the Leftists have learned nothing and forgotten everything.   

Other demands include not allowing ICE on campus; Abortion rights for grad students - seriously have they forgotten the election results already?;  "Gender affirming care" - by reducing mental assessment of the person, not treating it as a mental illness,  and getting gender dysphoric people onto hormones faster - what could possibly go wrong with that?;  and more.

Most likely these demands will be dropped in return for money or some face-saving statement.

Should the GSIs be paid more? I'd say overall, yes.  

Should they be participating in an illegal strike that they know is illegal that is harming their fellow students and not the University, not to mention making idiotic demands?  No.

There's A Reason They Call Them S-Hole Countries

So picture this scenario:

You're a Canadian flight crew about to depart from the Dominican Republic with your passengers. During your pre-flight walk-around, you find someone has shoved eight duffel bags full of cocaine into the avionics bay.

Not only is this hella illegal, it is rather dangerous. The avionics bay is not for cargo and shoving those bags in there creates a fire hazard not to mention the potential for damage and interference to systems that keep the aircraft on course and flying.

So you do the right thing and inform the Dominican authorities and the RCMP about the cocaine.

The result is all your flight crew gets arrested and then held for almost 8 months in the Dominican Republic.

They then were released not from Canadian government pressure, or say the Dominican Republic completing its investigation. Instead the case was dropped when a CTV news crew came to the DR and started asking questions.  

The Flight Crew was apparently not even interviewed once in the over 7 months they were held.

Kudos to CTV's W5 news team for getting their fellow Canadians released.

CTV: Pivot Airlines crew back in Canada after being trapped in Dominican Republic since spring

Gun Banners Show They Are Not About Reducing Crime With Guns

the Progressive Gun Banners keep talking about banning guns, ostensibly to reduce crime committed with guns,  but at the same time refuse to enforce already existing firearms laws against criminals using guns in crime.

Let's take LA's prosecutor George Gascon for example.

While he's all in favor of gun control  - read gun bans and disarmament of the law-abiding, he's been very open and vociferous about not prosecuting criminals who actually use guns in their crimes.

He eliminated enhanced sentences for using firearms in crimes, leading criminals using guns to get paltry sentences that let them out to commit crimes again.   

He eliminated the enhancement for being in a gang and committing crimes, thus allowing gang violence to flourish.

He eliminated cash bail, allowing criminals to speed up the already quick-moving revolving door form arrest back to the streets.

This has consequences: Gunman who shot dead two cops at motel near Los Angeles was on PROBATION for carrying a gun and has been banned from owning a weapon since 2011: Woke LA DA George Gascon is slammed for 'soft-on-crime' policies

The deaths of those two police officers on June 14, 2022 is on two heads - the scum who shot and killed them, and the scum George Gascon who made sure the killer was released and free to commit murder when he should have been locked up with enhanced sentences for his multiple felonies - includign his beign a felon in possession of a firearm -  laws already on the books to incarcerate dangerous criminals using firearms in crime applied.

Gun banners are demonstrably not acting in good faith when they seek to disarm the law-abiding, yet go out of their woke way to release criminals actually using firearms in crimes back onto the streets to commit more crimes. 

Gun control is demonstrably not about a reduction in crime or crime control. 

Instead, it is about disarming the law-abiding and leaving them at the hands of criminals constantly allowed to commit crimes, often using guns that these progressives claim they want banned.

Lawfare: It's Awfully Convenient When All Sides Are Playing For The Same Team

So Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against Michigan's 1931 law banning abortions - even though it is not in effect, has not been enforced nor even threatened to be enforced against anyone,  and thus there is no case nor controversy before the court. But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood which has sought an injunction to prevent the law that is not being enforced from possibly being enforced in the future.

"Defending" the law, but not really, is AG Dana Nessel, who is busily acceding to the Defendant;s injunction of the law and hasn't argued that it should be dismissed due to the lack of case or controversy. She has also graciously announced she will not appeal the judge's decision to place an injunction on the law. How convenient.

Considering that AG Nessel has already announced she would not enforce the law under any circumstances, before she even "defended" this case, her lack of basic legal diligence defending on behalf of the People of Michigan it is rather unsurprising.

So that's both sides working together for the same result.

Even better, the judge in the case? She's a donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented Planned Parenthood in a major case in 1997.

Gleicher disclosed early on in the case that she was an annual donor to Planned Parenthood and had represented them in the key 1997 abortion rights case. Gleicher said she could remain unbiased.

Sure, of course she could.  

By the way, that 1997 case, Planned Parenthood lost and the Court of Appeals said there was no state right to an Abortion - but in this case Judge Gelicher is now finding one and trying to ignore and get around the 1997 ruling and claim there is a such a right in the Michigan Constitution.

In short, all three players in this case, Plaintiff, Defendant, and Judge are on the same side here. That's not how this is supposed to work.

Again, this should have been dismissed outright as there is not yet any case or controversy nor any attempt to even enforce the 1931 law yet.  Instead its been heard and all players are busy working to get the same result. This is the Democrats playing with the justice system for purely political ends and

Regardless of your thoughts, feelings, or views on abortion, this is a travesty of the law and not how the court system is supposed to operate. 

Update:  It turns out not only is Nessel importantly and improperly declining to appeal, but Nessel threw the case from the outset and the fix was well and truly in from the get-go:  Michigan conservative activists want Court of Appeals to overturn abortion law injunction:

"The attorney general, who already declined to file a motion to dismiss or file a brief opposing the requested preliminary injunction on the merits, now cheers her own defeat and the Court of Claims’ purported injunction," reads a portion of the center's filing with the court of appeals.

So, she did not file a motion to dismiss for lack of a case or controversy, and she didn't even file a brief opposing the injunction. This would be called malpractice if it was any other attorney and any other client.

That didn't take long at all. Gov Whitmer Grandstands On The Leak

The Detroit News: Whitmer says she'll 'fight like hell' for abortion access in Michigan after court leak

Then again if she'll fight like hell for abortion to the same extent she's fighting to "fix the damn roads",  those who are against abortion have nothing to worry about from our Governor.

The most interesting part of that article is how many law enforcement officials are publicly announcing they will not do their duty and enforce a law:

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel repeatedly has said she would not enforce the law, arguing that doing so would “drive women to back alleys again."

"I will never prosecute a woman or her doctor for making the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy," said Nessel in 2019, suggesting that doing so would be "sending women to be butchered."

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald on Monday issued a similar promise: “If Roe v Wade is overturned, I will do everything in my power to protect the over half a million women in Oakland County and their right to make choices over their own bodies."

Quite an interesting precedent, that.  I can't wait for Republican prosecutors to announce which laws they will flatly refuse to enforce in turn on their preferred issues.  No need for legislative change, just get a prosecutor elected who will not enforce the law that is counter to your ideology or preferences, so much easier. 

Biden And The CDC Just Thumbed Their Noses At The Supreme Court

The CDC's eviction moratorium, properly found to be unconstitutional, but then it was inexplicably permitted to last until it expired July 31 by the Supreme Court as they promised it would end as scheduled.

So what does Biden and the CDC announce today?

An extension of the moratorium with an announced "temporary" moratorium lasting until October 3, covering about 90% of the country and possibly more depending on how you read the footnotes in the order.

Biden is expecting the moratorium will last long enough to achieve some of the Democrat's goals, even as its unconstitutional as it will take time for any litigation to make it to the Supreme Court review:

Biden said that pending litigation will "probably give some additional time" for rental assistance funds to flow. The president said his hope is the new targeted action would in some way cover close to 90% of Americans who are renters.

In short Biden and the CDC just made Kavanaugh their bitch for his ridiculous decision to allow the moratorium to continue even as he declared it was unconstitutional based on a false promise from the government that it would end as scheduled.   Let's see if he falls for that again, assuming the Court even gets a chance to renew it before the CDC declares a new temporary moratorium after October 3.

Gov Half-Whit: 6 Feet Social Distance? Meh.

It is still a potential $1,000 fine for violating the 6 foot social distancing requirement in Michigan right now.

The Detroit News: With little social distancing, Whitmer marches with protesters

You know, the one she castigated protestors against the lockdown for violating .

For our dear governor Half-Whit those rules of course don't apply. And of course she lies about violating her own rules:

Whitmer spokeswoman Tiffany Brown told the Detroit News that Whitmer wasn't in violation of her executive order.

Note that her own FAQ states:

"Q: Does Executive Order 2020-110 prohibit persons from engaging in outdoor activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
A: No. Persons may engage in expressive activities protected by the First Amendment within the State of Michigan, but must adhere to social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including remaining at least six feet from people from outside the person’s household."

Who you gonna believe, Gov Half-Whit or your lyin' eyes?

Note she's not even close to a half-foot of social distance, much less her demanded 6 feet.

Rules for thee indeed.

Hillary's Song Today: Damn, It Feels Good To Be A Clinton

Anyone else would have been indicted.

But thankfully for Hillary, thanks to a 'chance' meeting on the tarmac between Lynch and Bill Clinton, as well as the fact that the Justice Department is run by Democrats and wasn't about to indict their candidate for office for crimes that anyone else would have been and indeed have been prosecuted for, she's going to be the next President of the United States.

When the director of the FBI comes out and indicates that laws were indeed broken but he feels a prosecutor will not indict you know the fix is in. Funny as to what prosecutor could possibly have told him that, right? Oh, you can put your hand down now Ms. Lynch.

So the Direcotr of The FBI has now stated he won't recommend charges. It is a sad day for the rule of law in this country and a smack in the face to law abiding Americans. Politics blatantly trumped the rule of law today, make no mistake.

People I know with security clearances are furious with this decision, and rightly so. This decision, and the final comment that such leniency and getting a kitchen pass certainly would not apply to them is a terrible insult. (Note: I do not have nor claim to have a security clearance, nor do I play one on TV).

The just application of laws in this country now seem to only apply to the little people, namely those whose last names aren't Clinton and those who are not affiliated and highly connected with the Democrat party.