Posted on by

The Reich Governor sets his goals

This tweet caught my eye:

I can’t say that this is a surprise, but the meaning is clear: the officially non-partisan but effectively Democrat controlled state Supreme Court will uphold the Governor’s appeal. `

Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY)

Several lawsuits were filed in state courts to stop the Governor’s emergency decrees under KRS39A. On July 17, 2020, the state Supreme Court put a hold on all lower court orders against Mr Beshear’s orders and directed that “any lower court order, after entry, be immediately transferred to the clerk of the Supreme Court for consideration by the full court.” Three weeks later, the  Court set September 17, 2020, another five weeks later, to hear oral arguments by both sides.

The Court then waited for eight more weeks to issue its decision, upholding the Governor’s orders.

The pattern was clear and obvious: the state Supreme Court was trying to give the Reichsstatthalter time to run out the clock, hoping that the COVID problem would be beaten by then, and they could simply declare the lawsuits moot. It hadn’t been beaten, so the Court decided in favor of the Governor.

Republicans in the Bluegrass State ran against Governor Beshear’s authoritarian decrees, and the voters rewarded them with 14 more seats in the state House of Representatives, a 75-25 advantage, and 2 more seats, out of 17 up for election, in the state Senate, giving the GOP a 30-8 margin. Though the Governor claims that opinion polls show that Kentuckians support his actions, in the only poll that actually counts, the one held on election day, they voted strongly against his dictatorship.

The General Assembly met beginning in January, and immediately started working on legislation to rein in the Governor’s powers. Dictators love their dictatorial powers, so the Reichsstatthalter vetoed those bills; the legislature promptly overrode his vetoes, and the Reichsstatthalter then went to court to try enjoin the new laws from taking effect.

Taking the cases to heavily partisan Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd, the Governor got what he wanted, the Judge blocking several of the General Assembly’s laws but not actually ruling against them.

And now the authoritarians’ playbook becomes obvious. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Beshear sets goal of 2.5 million vaccinated to lift capacity restrictions on bars, restaurants

By Jack Brammer | April 12, 2021 10:22 AM, Updated 11:08 AM EDT

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said Monday he plans to remove capacity restrictions on nearly all venues, events and businesses that cater to 1,000 or fewer patrons once 2.5 million Kentuckians get their first vaccines against COVID-19.

Once that goal is reached, Beshear said, “We will remove the physical distancing restrictions and the curfew we have on bars and restaurants.”

What does that mean? It means that the Governor has given the courts their timetable, a specified amount of time that he says he needs to run out the clock. All the courts have to do is do nothing, until the Governor’s goals are reached, and then they can decide if he had the authority to do what he did.

In what he called “a pretty big announcement,” Beshear said all Kentuckians should be motivated to get the vaccine.

“If you are a restaurant, a bar, a store, a public pool, a country club, a grocery, a funeral home, a wedding venue, a concert hall, a museum, if you put on festivals, if you are a distillery, this is what you have been waiting for —a clear number and a clear goal to hit,” said Beshear.

He encouraged the businesses to make sure all their staff get the shots.

How, I have to ask, do businesses “make sure all their staff get the shots”? The only obvious way is for businesses to require such as a condition of employment, and have the right to see their employees’ medical records!

Even with the easing of the restrictions, Beshear said, Kentuckians still will have to wear masks until there is more control of the virus. He also said he will address larger venues later.

So, even when the Reichsstatthalter’s ‘goals’ have been met, he still wants to exercise that visible sign of subservience.

As of today, Kentucky is about 900,000 short of reaching the goal of 2.5 million vaccinated. More than 1.55 million Kentuckians have received their “first shot of hope,” said the governor.

With the current supply of the vaccine, Beshear said Kentucky could reach the 2.5 million goal in 3½ weeks, but said it most likely will be between four and six weeks.

But wait: if 1.55 million Kentuckians have received their first shot, in a two-shot series, that still means that they aren’t fully vaccinated. According to The New York Times, while 36% of Kentuckians have received the first dose, only 24% are fully vaccinated. That would mean that roughly only one million eligible recipients have received both shots, and there’s no guarantee that, with our dishonest Governor, he won’t decide that we’ll need another month under restriction, until 2.5 million are fully vaccinated.

COVID-19 is serious, but far more serious is the assault on our constitutional rights and the sheeple allowing the government to control their lives. Freedom, once lost, is very difficult to regain, and far, far, far too many Kentuckians have silently allowed this authoritarian dictator to do whatever the Hell he pleases.

Posted on by

What #socialjustice criminal prosecution has done for Philadelphia In his eagerness to avoid 'mass incarceration,' Larry Krasner has left violent criminals out on the streets

When I wrote on Saturday that there must’ve been at least 133 souls sent early to their eternal rewards by the end of Friday, April 9th, based on a story in The Philadelphia Inquirer, I realized that it could have been an undercount. The Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page is only updated on the weekdays, so I knew the numbers when I checked this morning could be a surprise. I did check the Inquirer’s website several times yesterday, but saw no stories on city murders beyond the one referenced above.

But I will admit it: I hadn’t guessed that there would have been 139 homicides by the end of Sunday, April 11th! The above linked Inquirer story began with, “Two men are dead and six others injured in a total of five shooting incidents in less than nine hours Friday night into Saturday morning throughout Philadelphia, police said.” If there were no other attempted homicides, that could mean that five of the six wounded expired over the weekend, or it could mean that there were more murders, unreported by the Inquirer, over the weekend.

No matter: I’ve said it several times: to the editors of the Inquirer, killings in Philadelphia aren’t newsworthy unless the victim is a child, someone who was a ‘somebody,’ or a cute little white girl. We need to stop pretending that #BlackLivesMatter because in the City of Brotherly Love, it’s very apparent that they don’t.

Of course, the Inquirer did mention the homicide rate, just not in the context of the victims:

Philly DA Larry Krasner and challenger Carlos Vega enter election homestretch as gun violence surges

Krasner’s reelection campaign against primary challenger Carlos Vega is a key test for the reform movement that helped make him one of the most liberal big-city prosecutors in the country.

by Chris Brennan | April 12, 2021

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner is pitching his reelection campaign as a fight for criminal justice reform — and against a return to injustices of the past.

“Do you want the future, where we are going to continue to keep those kinds of promises?” Krasner, 60, asked voters during a candidate forum last month, citing his reform-based 2017 campaign. “Or do you want the past?”

Carlos Vega, his challenger in the Democratic primary, is offering voters a hybrid: A reform-minded, experienced homicide prosecutor who says Krasner is making the city “vulnerable and unsafe.”

“We need a more responsible approach to criminal justice reform, as well as prosecuting violent criminals,” Vega, 64, told the same Philadelphia Bar Association forum. “Four years ago, we were promised that, through justice, we’d have a safer city. Philadelphia is more dangerous now than it’s been in the last three decades.”

There’s a lot more at the original, but one thing stands out: ‘progressive’ law enforcement has not been law enforcement at all!

An Inquirer analysis last month found that although arrests for illegal gun possession have nearly tripled during Krasner’s time in office, conviction rates have fallen from 63% to 49%.

The District Attorney wants to blame everything and everyone other than himself for the increased homicide numbers in the City of Brotherly Love, but the truth is that Mr Krasner, then a liberal defense attorney, asked for the responsibility to prosecute criminals, and the voters very irresponsibly gave it to him. Even the editors of the Inquirer realized how poor a fit Mr Krasner would be as a prosecutor, endorsing Rich Negrin in the 2017 Democratic primary, and after Mr Krasner won the primary, shockingly endorsed Beth Grossman, his Republican opponent, in 2017.

We’ll see if the editors endorse Republican Chuck Peruto in the general election if Mr Krasner wins the Democratic primary.

“If you don’t believe punishment is a deterrent to crime, then leave,” Peruto said. “Because you’re stupid. Crimes must have consequences.”

Philadelphia Police Officers and FOP members block District Attorney Larry Krasner from entering the hospital to meet with slain Police Corporal James O’Connor’s family, because Mr Krasner’s policies had kept Corporal O’Connor’s killer out on the street in the first place..

Mr Krasner isn’t stupid; Mr Krasner is just plain evil. A stooge of anti-American financier George Soros, it isn’t that Mr Krasner doesn’t believe that punishment is a deterrent to crime, it’s that he doesn’t believe that crime is a serious problem, even as the dead bodies keep piling up in Philadelphia. Mr Krasner ran against ‘mass incarceration,’ when the real problem is that too many criminals who could and should have still been locked up were out on the streets early committing even more crimes.

One of the people who wasn’t in jail on Friday, March 13, 2020, was Hasan Elliot, 21. How did the District Attorney’s office treat Mr Elliot, a known gang-banger?

  • Mr Elliott, then 18 years old, was arrested in June 2017 on gun- and drug-possession charges stemming after threatening a neighbor with a firearm. The District Attorney’s office granted him a plea bargain arrangement on January 24, 2018, and he was sentenced to 9 to 23 months in jail, followed by three years’ probation. However, he was paroled earlier than that, after seven months in jail.
  • Mr Elliot soon violated parole by failing drug tests and failing to mate his meetings with his parole officer.
  • Mr Elliott was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine on January 29, 2019. This was another parole violation, but Mr Krasner’s office did not attempt to have Mr Elliot returned to jail to finish his sentence, nor make any attempts to get serious bail on the new charges;he was released on his own recognizance.
  • After Mr Elliot failed to appear for his scheduled drug-possession trial on March 27, 2019, and prosecutors dropped those charges against him.

On that Friday the 13th, Police Corporal James O’Connor IV, 46, was part of a Philadelphia Police Department SWAT team trying to serve a predawn arrest warrant on Mr Elliott, from a March 2019 killing. Mr Elliot greeted the SWAT team with a hail of bullets, and Corporal O’Connor was killed. Had Mr Elliot been in jail, as he could have been due to parole violations, had Mr Krasner’s office treated him seriously, Corporal O’Connor would have gone home safely to his wife that day.

That is what the City of Brotherly Love has for a District Attorney! Mr Krasner is more concerned about not locking up people than he was with the safety of both police officers and civilians, and Corporal O’Connor is stone-cold graveyard dead because of it.

‘Progressive’ policies have encouraged criminal behavior. When idiotic prosecutors like Mr Krasner don’t try to seriously punish lesser crimes, the bad guys remain out on the streets, and move on to bigger and badder crimes, and decent people get killed. Real #socialjustice would be trying to make neighborhoods, and, let’s face it, in Philadelphia we mean poorer, minority neighborhoods, safer for the people living there.

Posted on by

Show me a bad kid, and I’ll show you rotten parents, part 2

My good friend William Teach tweeted a story which follows up on my Show me a bad kid, and I’ll show you rotten parents:

And here’s the story:

Prosecutors: Boy shot by police was with man who fired gun

Associated Press | Saturday, April 10, 2021 | 5:43 PM

CHICAGO (AP) — A young man who was with a 13-year-old boy fatally shot by a Chicago police officer last month fired the rounds that drew the officer’s attention, prosecutors said Saturday.

Ruben Roman, 21, is seen on video firing the weapon that brought police to the Little Village neighborhood on the night of March 29. He and 13-year-old Adam Toledo fled the scene together, with officers in pursuit, prosecutors said.

Roman was arrested as another officer chased Toledo, who was holding a gun when the officer shot him, prosecutors said. That gun matched the spent cartridge casings that were found in the area where Roman was firing, prosecutors said.

“If the defendant does not bring the 13-year-old with him, if he doesn’t bring his gun with him while on gun offender probation, if he doesn’t shoot that gun seven to eight times on a city street with the victim standing in arms length of him while he’s firing those shots … none of it would have happened,” Assistant State’s Attorney James Murphy said in court, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Roman’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender Courtney Smallwood, vigorously rejected the implication that Roman is responsible for Toledo’s death, noting that the gun was allegedly recovered from Toledo.

“The victim is dead at the hand of the Chicago police officers, not my client,” she said, calling Toledo’s death “tragic.”

There’s a lot more in the Chicago Tribune’s story, but it leaves as many unanswered questions as answered ones.

Toledo kept running as an officer ordered him to stop, then paused near a break in a wooden fence, Murphy said. The officer ordered Toledo to show his hands. Toledo was standing with his left side to the officer and held his right hand to his right side, Murphy said.

The officer told Toledo “drop it, drop it,” as Toledo turned toward the officer with a gun in his right hand, Murphy said.

The officer fired one shot, hitting Toledo in the chest. The gun Toledo was holding landed a few feet away, Murphy said. The officer radioed for an ambulance and began chest compressions on Toledo, who was ultimately pronounced dead at the scene, Murphy said.

The story does not say that young Mr Toledo raised his right hand or pointed the weapon at the officer. That’s an important detail, which responsible journalism would have covered.

One officer tackled Roman as Toledo kept running. As Roman was being arrested, he dropped a pair of red gloves, Murphy said. Those gloves tested positive for gunshot residue, according to Murphy.

We are not told why Mr Toledo was holding the firearm Mr Roman fired. That’s another bit of poor journalism.

Why was 13-yeaqr-old Mr Toledo with a 21-year-old convicted felon? We aren’t told. Why wasn’t young Mr Toledo at home with his parents? Why was a 13-year-old kid out in dark alleys at 2:35 on a Monday morning? No answers to those questions were in the Tribune.

This story reads like one in which a wannabe thug was with an adult criminal, engaged in criminal acts, and things went predictably bad.

The Tribune noted that, as of April 8th, 155 homicides had been recorded in the Windy City, 27 more than on the same date last year. As we noted back in January:

People think of Chicago under its ridiculous Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, as the nation’s murder capital. In 2020, the Windy City saw 769 homicides, 270 more than Philadelphia. But Chicago has a population of 2,710,000, while Philly’s is 1,579,000. Crime rates are compared by rate per 100,000 population, and that leaves Chicago with a homicide rate of 28.38 per 100,000.

Philadelphia laughs and says, “We can beat that!”, checking in with a murder rate of 31.60 per 100,000.

As of January 25th, Chicago had 44 homicides, compared to Philly’s 37, but the disparity in population means that the City of Brotherly Love was far ahead.

Nothing has changed, of course: Chicago is still ahead in absolute terms, but the City of Brotherly Love, with 132 murders recorded as of that same date, April 8th, is ahead when population is considered. Had the two city’s the same murder rate, Philadelphia should have seen 90 murders on the same date Chicago had 155; if Chicago had Philly’s homicide rate, the Windy City should have seen 224 bullet-riddled bodies on April 8th, not ‘just’ 155.

So, as ridiculous as Mayor Lightfoot is, Philadelphia’s Mayor Jim Kenney, District Attorney Larry Krasner, and Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw are doing an even worse job!

Chicago will be better off with Mr Roman back off the streets. He is a convicted felon who, on probation, appears to have continued his felonious ways. Young Mr Toledo? Given the path he was on, is there any reason to believe he would not turn out like Mr Roman? It is easier to see a 13-year-old boy, apparently without any substantial parental guidance, clearly consorting with adult felons, winding up as just another gang-banger in Chicago rather than as the next Barack Hussein Obama, had he lived.

Posted on by

This is not a great victory It helps, but still leaves open the possibility that the State can regulate whom you allow to enter your home

Hypocrite Gavin Newsom violates his own orders on private gatherings.

I admit it: I had never heard of Governor Gavin Newson’s (D-CA) prohibition on gatherings of people from more than three households in private homes, but I can’t say that I am surprised; only liberals would think that the government has any authority on whom you can invite into your own home. Fortunately, thye United States Supreme Court invalidated it, at least for in-home Bible study groups:

Supreme Court again blocks California Covid restriction on religious activities

By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer | Updated 1:31 AM ET, Saturday, April 10, 2021

(CNN) The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote on Friday blocked another state Covid-19 restriction on religious services, with another late-night order, over protests from California officials that the limits affecting some Bible study sessions did not impinge on religious rights and were to be lifted within days.

The unsigned order for the high court majority also revealed the deep ideological fissure, with conservatives (including the three appointees of former President Donald Trump) in control and liberals dissenting bitterly.

Chief Justice John Roberts also dissented, although he did not sign the statement by the three justices on the left, written by Justice Elena Kagan.

“In ordering California to weaken its restrictions on at-home gatherings, the majority yet again insists on treating unlike cases, not like ones, equivalently,” Kagan wrote, adding that “the law does not require that the State equally treat apples and watermelons.”

“And (the majority) once more commands California to ignore its experts’ scientific findings, thus impairing the State’s effort to address a public health emergency.”

Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, religious adherents have implored the justices to prevent certain state health restrictions affecting religious services and they have notably prevailed since October’s addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, succeeding the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Then we must thank God that Justice Barrett replaced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because Justice Ginsburg had voted to allow such restrictions before she went to her eternal reward. By what right does the government, whether local, state or federal, have the authority to determine whom we allow into our homes?

I know, I know, Governors in many states issued such restrictions, including Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY). I am happy to state that we violated Governor Beshear’s authoritarian decrees on both Thanksgiving and Christmas (he ordered no more than ten persons, from no more than two households), and had the Governor himself showed up at the door, I would have given him the finger and told him to get the f(ornicate) off my property.[1]Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, … Continue reading

But a whole lot of the sheeple accepted this, accepted the idea that the State could tell them whom they could invite into their homes, with whom they could associate, and how. The decision in Tandon v Newsom was based on the Pyrite State treating religion differently, and more strictly, than some other gatherings — the Governor’s attorneys claimed that the in-person Bible study sessions were being treated no differently than any other in home gatherings — but that ignores the fact that the state was limiting freedom of association as well as freedom of religion. From the unsigned Per Curiam order:

(N)arrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing the spread of COVID. Where the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied.

This paragraph accepts the idea that the government’s “interest in reducing the spread of COVID” extends into the individual homes of the American people; the decision simply holds that California’s orders were not well-written enough.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time”; and the State has not shown that “public health would be imperiled” by employing less restrictive measures.

Translation: if the State could show that public health would be imperiled by not intruding into people’s private homes, the Court could allow it.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifies that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What are we to conclude that, if the State could demonstrate that public health — or whatever other “compelling” government interest the authoritarians could dream up — would be imperiled, it would be reasonable for the authorities to enter your home and siese the “persons or things” to be removed, even if there was no crime committed?

I get it: the Supreme Court likes to narrowly tailor its own decisions and precedents, but this decision, while a victory for freedom or religion, does not go far enough, and leaves open the possibility that the State can control who enters your private home.

References

References
↑1 Though the gatherings were of fewer than ten people, they were from three households. More, when my sister, who didn’t attend the dinner itself, came by to pick up a Thanksgiving dinner plate, that constituted a fourth household. Up yours, Governor Beshear!
Posted on by

Killadelphia

While I normally check the Philadelphia Police Department’s Current Crime Statistics page in the morning, I don’t on the weekend, because “statistics reflect the accurate count during normal business hours, Monday through Friday.” But I did check it today, after seeing an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about two more people being killed. The page still shows the 132 listed as having been killed in Philly at the end of April 8th, but noted that at the end of Friday, April 9th, there had been an even 100 homicides in the City of Brotherly Love on that date in 2020.

2 dead, 8 shot in violent overnight in Philly

Two of the five shootings involved a total of three victims on their way to the store. And a triple shooting occurred at an illegal after-hours club, police said.

By Diane Mastrull | Saturday, April 10, 2021

Two men are dead and six others injured in a total of five shooting incidents in less than nine hours Friday night into Saturday morning throughout Philadelphia, police said.

All but one of the shootings were in North Philadelphia, and three of the victims had been on their way to the store when struck by bullets, according to police. One incident was a triple shooting outside of an illegal after-hours club, police said.

The first of the shootings was reported just after 10 p.m. Friday at Front and East Champlost Avenue. There, on the 5900 block of North Front Street, police said they found a 20-year-old shot multiple times. He was transported to Einstein Medical Center Philadelphia, where he was pronounced dead at 10:47, police said.

That makes the total 133 by the end of Friday; the Philadelphia Police close their daily count at 11:59 PM each day.

For every three people murdered in Philadelphia last year, four have been killed so far this year.

The second murder victim was pronounced dead a few minutes after midnight, at 12:12 AM Saturday morning at Temple University Hospital. I suppose that he will be counted as part of today’s statistics.

Still, 133 dead, compared to 100 last year, is a 33% increase, a very neat 1/3. For every three people murdered in Philadelphia last year, four have been killed so far this year.

Yeah, that’s a kind of ghoulish calculation, but I’m kind of a numbers guy. I like hard data, information not tainted by politics, and the raw numbers of homicides isn’t something that can be massaged.

The Philadelphia Police Department and District Attorney Larry Krasner like to claim that, overall, crime has decreased in the city. The obvious question is: is that true?

There are two kinds of crimes: crimes of evidence and crimes of reporting. If a man rapes a woman on the streets of Philadelphia, as far as the police are concerned, if it wasn’t reported, it didn’t happen. It is commonly assumed that most rapes go unreported, with some guesstimates being as high as 90% not reported. Crimes like robbery might go unreported if the victims do not trust the police or think it will do any good, or are fearful of revenge by the criminals. When your city is stuck with a District Attorney like Mr Krasner, who doesn’t believe in prosecuting criminals, or sentencing them harshly when they are prosecuted and convicted, what reason is there to report that you were robbed?

But murder is different: it is a crime of evidence. It isn’t easy to dispose of a dead body in a way that it won’t be found, especially if you haven’t carefully planned things. You’re looking at 100 to 300 pounds of dead meat, bone and fat, and something which will put off a strong and nasty odor after very little time. The vast majority of dead bodies get found.

Of course, in Philadelphia, a whole lot of murders are open and in public: drive up or drive by shootings, essentially public executions, in which the shooters are only concerned with escape, not hiding the fact that someone was killed.

So when I read that most crime had decreased in Philadelphia, I just flat don’t believe it. Murder isn’t normally an entry-level crime; guys who shoot other people have usually been bad guys before that. And if they’ve been bad guys before that, District Attorney Krasner and his ‘social justice’ prosecution policies don’t really believe in getting them locked up for long anyway.

That’s something that the reporters and editors of the Inquirer ought to investigate. Send reporters door-to-door in the same neighborhoods in which the majority of the murders have occurred, and investigate, ask the public whether they have been crime victims and have decided against reporting such to the police. It will take a while, and it will take more than one reporter, but isn’t that what investigative reporting requires?[1]The Inquirer article author, Diane Mastrull, lists as her biography blurb, “I’m a distance runner – in real life, as a breaking news editor, and as president of the NewsGuild.” I … Continue reading

References

References
↑1 The Inquirer article author, Diane Mastrull, lists as her biography blurb, “I’m a distance runner – in real life, as a breaking news editor, and as president of the NewsGuild.” I will be forwarding this article to her via e-mail and Twitter.
Posted on by

Judge Phillip Shepherd once again decides that his judgement supersedes that of our elected representatives He just loves enabling authoritarian dictators . . . as long as those dictators are Democrats!

Franklin Circuit Judge and Authoritarian Enabler Phillip Shepherd. Photo: Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts.

We have thrice reported on Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd, a continual thorn in the side of Republican Governor Matt Bevin, and a partisan supporter of current Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat. Judge Shepherd blocked several of the bills passed by the General Assembly to limit the Governor’s emergency powers, not actually ruling against those laws, but imposing a temporary injunction and partially stayed the effectiveness of the three new laws. The laws remain on the books, but cannot be enforced, and the Judge has yet to tell us when he will rule on Governor Beshear’s lawsuit.

Shepherd said the court “is mindful that the challenged legislation seeks to address a legitimate problem of effective legislative oversight of the governor’s emergency powers in this extraordinary public health crisis” but “is also mindful that the governor and the secretary (Health and Family Services Secretary Eric Friedlander) are faced with the enormous challenge of effectively responding to a world-wide pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Kentuckians and over 500,000 people in the United States.”

The judge said all parties in the case “are acting in good faith to address public policy challenges of the utmost importance” but “the governor has made a strong case that the legislation, in its current form, is likely to undermine or even cripple, the effectiveness of public health measures necessary to protect the lives and health of Kentuckians from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Translation: the Judge recognized the legislature’s authority to change the law, but didn’t think that the legislature’s actions were wise ones. Who knew that a judge had the authority to decide that a legitimately passed law was simply unwise?

One of Governor Beshear’s arguments was that the legislature might not approve extensions of his executive orders, which the held-in-abeyance Senate Bill 1 limited to 30 days without legislative approval. The legislature passed House Joint Resolution 77, passed to go along with Senate Bill 1, which granted the Governor extensions on some, but not all, of his executive orders.

Kentucky governor notches another court victory for his emergency COVID-19 orders

By Jack Brammer | April 8, 2021 | 9:26 AM EDT | Updated April 8, 2021 | 12:45 PM EDT

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd has added another legislative measure to the temporary injunction he issued earlier this year to block laws that limit Gov. Andy Beshear’s powers to deal with the coronavirus pandemic and other emergencies.

The judge’s nine-page order handed down late Wednesday afternoon temporarily blocks House Joint Resolution 77. The move keeps Beshear’s COVID-19 restrictions in effect, including the mask mandate.

The resolution, sponsored by House Speaker David Osborne, was enacted by the legislature to implement Senate Bill 1, which would limit the governor’s emergency orders, such as one that requires Kentuckians to wear a face covering in public, to 30 days unless the legislature extends them. . . .

In blocking the resolution, Shepherd said, “In general, it appears that the General Assembly has ratified the governor’s actions related to economic relief for regulated businesses and professions but has attempted to impose a general termination of executive authority to impose public health restrictions (such as masking in public, social distancing, seating capacity or limitations on public gatherings.)“

“Whether HJR 77 represents a valid exercise of legislative authority or an unconstitutional usurpation of executive authority” is a legal issue that supports the issuance of a temporary injunction, Shepherd said.

The judge called Beshear’s existing executive orders and emergency regulations “proper responses to a public health crisis.”

“They should remain in full force and effect until the entry of a final judgment or until after notice and a hearing on any motion to terminate any such specific executive action,” he said.

That pretty much tells you how Judge Shepherd will rule; he thinks that the Governor’s orders were the proper responses.

Fortunately, our would be dictator isn’t having it all his way!

KY judge blocks Beshear’s COVID-19 orders at some restaurants and bars

By Jack Brammer | April 9, 2021 | 01:18 PM EDT | Updated April 9, 2021 | 4:00 PM EDT

A Kentucky judge has temporarily blocked the state from enforcing some of Gov. Andy Beshear’s executive COVID-19 orders against several restaurants and breweries.

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Scott Circuit Judge Brian Privett runs counter to recent actions by Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd, which blocked the implementation of new laws that would have ended some of Beshear’s emergency restrictions against the coronavirus pandemic.

Oliver Dunford, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who represented the businesses, said the differing rulings “probably will expedite all this going to the Kentucky Supreme Court for a final court decision.”

“We are thrilled that Judge Privett issued the injunction, which prevents the governor from enforcing the restrictive orders against our clients,” said Dunford “The order recognizes that the governor is obligated to follow the laws, just like everyone else.”

Beshear spokeswoman Crystal Staley said late Friday afternoon that Privett’s ruling has been appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Well, of course he has!

Judge Privett’s orders are narrow in scope, but by appealing them to the state Court of Appeals, this may well move the decisions out of Judge Shepherd’s court, where he has been slow-walking everything in what appears to be an effort to give Governor Beshear as much time as possible on his repugnant orders before a legal decision is reached.

“This action, at its most basic level, is simple,” said Privett in his order “The governor has two kinds of power: those given to him in the Constitution, and those given to him by the legislature under statute. The emergency powers of the governor at issue in this case are not inherent.”

The state constitution limits the General Assembly to a thirty-day session in odd-numbered years, and the legislature is done for the year, unless the Governor calls them back into a special session, which he will do about as soon as Hell freezes over, unless the state Supreme Court eventually upholds Senate Bill 1. We can expect no saving by the legislature now before next year.

But what really needs to happen is for the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to vote out this wannabe dictator in the 2023 elections. He needs to be sent home, his tail between his legs, and a conservative Governor, one who respects our constitutional rights, elected to replace him.

Posted on by

The Philadelphia Inquirer tries to make the Derek Chauvin trial about racism and stereotypes rather than the arrest of a criminal It seems that Cassie Owens doesn't like the fact that Mr Chauvin's defense attorney is actually trying to defend him

I confess: it might seem that my many referrals to The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer may seem close to an obsession, but, let’s face it, the paper seems to provide more silliness and stupidity every single day. You’ll love this one!

Stereotypes of larger Black men still persist at the Derek Chauvin trial

Research shows that big and tall Black men are more likely to be seen as threatening, and these notions trace back to slavery.

by Cassie Owens | April 9, 2021

During the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged with killing George Floyd, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson has repeatedly pointed to Floyd’s size.

Nelson raised size again Tuesday, when he confirmed with a police instructor that officers are trained to consider size difference for use of force. He first brought it up during opening statements in late March.

“You will see that three Minneapolis police officers could not overcome the strength of Mr. Floyd,” Nelson said. “Mr. Chauvin stands five-foot-nine, 140 pounds. Mr. Floyd is six, three, weighs 223 pounds.”

In the conversations around victims of police brutality, pointing to a victim’s size to justify or disregard the violence has become a feature, not a bug. Prominent examples include Eric Garner, Alton Sterling, and Michael Brown. But why is size so often mentioned in these cases?

Uhhh, maybe because all of these suspects were big men? If you do a Google search for George Floyd gentle giant you’ll get 2,690,000 results, including George Floyd: “Gentle Giant” Who Became Symbol Of Fight Against Racism, which lists Mr Floyd’s height as 6’4″, not 6’3″, Friends Remember George Floyd As A Gentle Giant, and George Floyd was ‘very loving’ and a ‘gentle giant,’ friends and family say.

Read more: The Chauvin trial so far, by John Hinderaker on Powerline.

When I searched for eric garner gentle giant, I got 878,000 results, including Friends: Eric Garner was a ‘gentle giant’, ‘Gentle Giant’ Dies After NYPD Cop Puts Him In Chokehold, and Friends: Man in NYC chokehold case ‘gentle giant’. The latter article stated that Mr Garner was 6-foot-3, and 350-pounds.

St George of Floyd

My search for alton sterling gentle giant yielded 480,000 returns, including returns which noted that he was a convicted felon, was brandishing a firearm at police when he was killed, and a registered sex offender for knocking up a 14 year old girl; he had a long criminal record and spent much of his life behind bars. Giant maybe; gentle, not so much.

My search for michael brown gentle giant yielded 8,270,000 results in 0.69 seconds, including Michael Brown remembered as a ‘gentle giant’, and Brown Remembered As a Gentle Giant, even though Mr Brown, all 6’4″ of him, was caught on video roughing up an elderly shopkeeper during a robbery just minutes before his ‘encounter’ with Officer Darrin Wilson.

So, why was the size of these criminals — and let’s make no bones about it, they were criminals — mentioned? Because they were all large men, men who used their size for physical advantage.

Back to the Inquirer:

Anna Mollow, a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based disabilities studies expert who sees similarities in the cases of Barbara Dawson and Tamir Rice, said in a recent interview this reflects forms of oppression that are familiar in our society.

“I would, indeed, say that the defense’s comments about George Floyd’s size do draw upon, and do recirculate, stereotypes of Black people as possessing superhuman physical strength,” wrote Mollow, “while at the same time calling up dehumanizing stereotypes about Black people’s supposed moral and intellectual inferiority — for example, the notion that they need to be brought ‘under control,’ as Chauvin said of Floyd.”

Cassie Owens, the Inquirer article author, is trying to claim that Eric Nelson, Derek Chauvin’s defense attorney, was playing on stereotypes, but Mr Nelson is doing his job the best he can, in trying to defend his client. It is not playing a stereotype to note that George Floyd, a drug-addled convicted felon caught in the act of passing counterfeit money, was significantly larger than Officer Chauvin. At 5’9″, Officer Chauvin was very much of average height, in the 50th percentile of adult male height, while the 99th percentile begins at 6’3½”, roughly where Mr Floyd stood. Mr Floyd outweighed Mr Chauvin by roughly 80 lb, more than half again the officer’s mass.

Miss Owens is, of course, utterly appalled that Mr Nelson is doing something really radical like defending his client.

Ben Brooks, a diversity and inclusion expert who was one of the first Black officers to enlist in the Pennsylvania State Police in 1961, said that bias, in general society, isn’t well understood. People use bias to detect danger, Brooks continued, and for some, their danger detectors don’t respond fairly to Black people. . . .

“If you approach [an] individual with dignity, respect, and self worth, then you’re on an even keel,” he said. “But when it’s anything other than that, that means psychologically the temperature rises.”

Empathy, he said, is critical for officers: “When you can approach members of the public with an empathic approach, you’re more likely to make an emotional connection and see them on a human level.”

(Anna Mollow, a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based disabilities studies expert) noted that it was important to be mindful of how different forms of oppression, like racism and sizeism, intersect. Thinking that way, she said, invites more space for self-criticism for everyone across groups, rather than thinking confrontationally: “It’s more about continuing to really explore the way that we might be perpetuating forms of oppression without realizing it, and then to explore the ways that we can work together and change that.”

In all of this, in all of her attempts to paint Mr Floyd as a victim of racism and stereotypes, Miss Owens, whose Inquirer bio says, “I cover sociocultural dynamics, as well as how Philadelphians contend with them these days,” ignores that Officer Chauvin was called to the scene by the officers who arrived there first, noting that Mr Floyd was acting drugged up. Mr Chauvin would already have been on alert when he arrived, in that the suspect was described as acting erratically and irrationally, and was resisting arrest.

Yes, Officer Chauvin (probably) was “thinking confrontationally,” given that he was called as backup to a confrontation with a resisting perpetrator. While it is certainly arguable that Officer Chauvin used excessive force against Mr Floyd — that Mr Floyd dies while being restrained certainly makes the officers’ actions subject to question — this trial is about the proper use of force against a resisting criminal suspect, not about racism. But the left want to make it about racism, so they’ll have yet another excuse to riot and loot and burn if Mr Chauvin is acquitted or even just convicted on a lesser charge than second-degree murder.

Posted on by

How NBC News tried to obscure falling #COVID19 cases in states dropping restrictions

NBC News has noticed that states like Texas have seen decreases in the numbers of COVID-19 cases, while the states with the greatest restrictions have seen increases. Naturally, NBC wants to explain that away.

Now, if you open the video, you’ll see that NBC is trying to claim that the states with decreases just aren’t testing enough. As we noted previously, the moving seven day average of new COVID-19 cases in the Lone Star State has declined dramatically since Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) lifted the mandatory mask order, effective March 10th. On March 10th, the moving average was 4,909 new cases. On April 7th, it was 3,702.

Perhaps someone wiser than me can tell me how NBC News wasn’t engaged in propaganda rather than journalism, because I sure can’t figure it out!

Look further down the chart. On March 10th, the moving seven day average of tests performed was 75,452; on April 6th, it was 73,373, a bit lower, 2.8% lower, but not significantly so; certainly not so much lower as to have been responsible for a 24.6% decrease in the number of new cases.[1]April 7th data were not available on The New York Times link.

But, let’s assume that it somehow was the testing. COVID-19 makes people sick, and some people get hospitalization-sick. On March 10th, the moving seven-day average of number of patients hospitalized was 5,362; on April 7th it was 3,373. That’s a 37.1% decrease in hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

How about actual deaths from the virus? On March 10th, the moving average was 190 per day; on April 7th, it was 76, a 60.0% decrease.

Yeah, if there are fewer tests run, fewer positive cases will be found, but that can’t cover for the fact that far fewer hospitalizations and deaths due to the virus have happened. The report specifically cited Alabama as running a low number of tests. Using the same dates, Alabama saw hospitalizations drop from 643 to 426, a 31.6% decrease. Responsible journalism would have included that fact, but no one said that NBC practiced responsible journalism.

What about the far more restrictive Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? On March 10th, the Keystone State’s moving average of tests was 47,117; on April 6th, it was down to 43,019, an 8.7% decrease. On March 10th, average daily cases was 2,490, which had moved up to 4,241 by April 7th. An 8.7% decrease in tests still yielded a 70.3% increase in cases. Average number of hospitalizations moved up from 2,002 to 2,646, a 32.2% increase, and deaths, from 39 down to 27, thankfully a 30.8% decrease, so at least there was some good news.

Of course, NBC could have looked up those numbers just as easily as I did; they are on The New York Times website, not exactly an evil reich-wing source.

But they didn’t do that, did they? Nope, they simply blamed what they claimed were lower testing rates. Perhaps someone wiser than me can tell me how NBC News wasn’t engaged in propaganda rather than journalism, because I sure can’t figure it out!

References

References
↑1 April 7th data were not available on The New York Times link.
Posted on by

I am wryly amused

As my too-few regular readers know, I have not been exactly charitable in my writings concerning The Philadelphia Enquirer Inquirer.[1]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, which brings to my mind the National Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.

Thus, I was somewhat amused when I received this in my e-mail:

<

Dear Dana,

We wrote to you earlier this week to share the news of our $20,000 match to raise support for The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism. Your generosity ensures that The Philadelphia Inquirer can continue to tell important stories like the recent Under Fire series on the tragedy and impacts of gun violence in Philadelphia.

We invite you to support this kind of public service journalism by making a gift to support The Philadelphia Inquirer’s High-Impact Journalism Fund.
Yes, double my gift!

Best,
Rebecca

Rebecca Forman
The Lenfest Institute for Journalism

Of course, being the [insert slang term for the rectum here] that I am, I had to respond:

Dear Miss Forman:

 
I might consider making such a gift when the Inquirer stops referring to “gun violence” and starts calling it what it is: criminality on the part of a criminal population.
 
I know, I know: it isn’t politically correct, but you can never solve a problem if you are not honest about what the problem is, and the Inquirer is not honest. Guns do not have some sort of malevolent intelligence all their own, like the One Ring of Sauron, but are inanimate objects which are picked up and misused by criminals.  
 
I live out in the country, where almost every home has a firearm or three, yet people out here, despite a too-large illegal drug problem, simply aren’t killing each other at anywhere near the rate that Philadelphians are. 
 
When I lived in Jim Thorpe, from 2002 through 2017 just seventy miles up the Northeast Extension of the Turnpike, the county went eight entire years without a homicide, and when that streak ended, the murder was committed not with a gun, but by strangulation. The next murder, a few years later, was committed with a knife. All of this, in a county with thousands of hunters, a county in which firearm ownership was widespread. And Carbon County was under the same gun control laws as Philadelphia, as the rest of Pennsylvania. Perhaps the Inquirer ought to ask why this disparity exists, but I’m certain that such a question cannot ever be asked, because the answers that might be found could never, ever, be published.
 
I have written frequently on what passes for journalism in the Inquirer; you may read my articles at your leisure.
 
Sincerely, Dana R Pico.

I do not anticipate a response. 🙂

References

References
↑1 RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, which brings to my mind the National Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but I thought it very apt.