Rob wrote a great piece last night eviscerating David Shephard’s condemnation of conservatives who actually stand on principles on the Bull Elephant. You should really go read Rob’s fisk. He uses big words, and he didn’t drop the F-bomb even once! (Note: this is why I will never write for an actual news source or political site again. Too much effort to constrain my cursing.)
Shephard, whose claim to fame is apparently being a lobbyist in Richmond, claims that the House Freedom Caucus and its “conservative” members were never meant to be legislators, because they apparently never influence policy (Except for tanking the GOP’s shit show of a health care bill, of course. You’re welcome.) They should just hang out in think tanks and attend luncheons, proclaims a snot-nosed millennial whose contribution to the economy is lobbying and consulting.
If my eyes rolled back any harder, I’d need a pair of salad tongs and a team of Navy SEALs to retrieve them.
And that’s why, Shephard claims, Trump voters hate these guys, mmkay?
Because apparently people who want to examine legislation that has the power to affect millions of Americans and significantly impact our economy by using actual economic principles and rational thought don’t belong in government.
Rob rightfully excoriated this dick weasel.
The Trump voter, for the most part, is driven by emotion rather than logic. Trump, to his credit, seized on the undercurrent of frustration with business as usual in Washington, and rode it, against all expectations, including mine, to the White House. But let us not kid ourselves, Trump has little idea, even from moment to moment, of what he actually wants to ‘get done’. All he is interested in is ‘winning’. He is an ideologically unmoored populist. Steve Bannon, his chief political guru, has little ideological compass himself, and lacks the depth of knowledge to develop one. …And this is the guy who had the unmitigated gall to tell House conservatives in a meeting this past week “Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill.” This administration will never be an effective leader for conservative principles as it stands right now.
I have, for the most part, avoided partisan discussion on this blog, choosing instead to focus on particular issues objectively and examine them from both sides. There’s a reason for this. Partisans focus on party. As Shephard shows, they care little for actual principle, and care only about advancing the party brand. Even when the party elite try to advance pure shit legislation that the majority of Americans recognize as dreck, winning is more important than what’s good for the country.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not only a Republican problem. The majority of Americans also opposed ObamaCare, but the legisleeches back then cared more about passing legacy legislation than ensuring the good of the nation. But apparently Republicans have learned nothing from that disaster.
It’s apparently more important for them to appear to be keeping their campaign promises than to actually be keeping them. Winning. That’s how you win in politics. You manipulate public perception into believing you’re doing something, and you claim victory. It’s not about America. It’s about your party winning in Congress. So yes, when intelligent people step in and put a damper on your plans with actual facts and figures, you have no choice but to malign and bully them.
What really gets me is that Shephard has so little self awareness, that he actually thinks denigrating legislators who analyze legislation and consider its fiscal implications as worthless and “a waste of a desk and a chair,” while wrapping himself in the “conservative” mantle somehow reflects positively on him and the vapid establishment squishes who pride themselves on having no principles, but “winning” at the polls.
The Trump voters work for a living, he says in an obsequious attempt to lick the taints of the ignorant, as if the members of the House Freedom Caucus have done no real work in their lives.
Mark Meadows, the current Chairman, started a small restaurant in North Carolina, and later sold it to start a successful real estate development endeavor in Florida. Yeah, what a failure!
Brian Babin of Texas is a dentist. Obviously, he can’t relate to the working man.
Rod Blum – with his degrees in finance and business administration obviously has nothing to contribute to the conversation about legislation that would affect this nation’s people and economy, and neither does economist Dave Brat.
The caucus includes businessmen, military veterans, doctors, realtors, small business owners, as well as lawyers. Obviously, they have nothing to contribute to the health care legislation debate, and they certainly don’t have anything in common with those Trump voters who work for a living, right, jackass?
Conservatives should not be defined by the number of notches they carve in the “win” column. Conservatives should specifically defined by their principles and ideology, which shouldn’t changed based on the way the political wind is blowing. If Shephard is correct, and the typical Trump voter wants results that will “improve our country,” they should be thanking the members of the House Freedom Caucus for ensuring that the GOP’s dumpster fire health care legislation, which did nothing to reduce government dependence and kept much of what Americans hated about ObamaCare in the first place firmly in place, never saw the light of day.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus were elected for a reason. They were open and transparent about their views, and their constituents selected them to represent their views in Congress. Maybe they were tired of politicians who told them what they wanted to hear, and then fell right in line with the usual bullshit once they got to Washington. There’s a reason they sent the calculating, ambitious, unprincipled Republican Eric Cantor home in favor of the educated, passionate, pro-freedom economist Dave Brat, despite Brat’s considerable disadvantage in the fundraising department. There’s only so many times you can betray the principles you claim to hold, before your constituents say, “ENOUGH!”
Congress needs more ideologically committed conservatives (and liberals), not fewer. We need less notches on our political bedposts and more actual wins. We need people who stand behind what they believe and rely on knowledge and experience, not their FEELZ, and who won’t be threatened and intimidated into backing down and doing anything less than what they objectively understand to be good for the country. They shouldn’t care that some carnival barker threatens to primary them, because this shouldn’t be a career from which to profit, but an honor to serve the people who put them in office.
The fact that these are men who stood up and opposed a bill that would have been awful for the country despite attempts to threaten and intimidate them speaks volumes about their love of their country and their respect for their constituents and yanks the curtain open on the puppetmasters, shining a stark spotlight on their lack of values and respect for America.
Trump promised us during the election that we would win so much, we’d get tired of winning.
Perhaps our definitions of “winning” need a tweak.
And perhaps if President TwitterFingers spent more time studying and understanding the alliance, instead of tweeting about it, he would have known this as well, instead of going on one of his infamous Twitter seizures on the heels of that “great meeting” he had with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week.
So, in case you were wondering how the alliance funding works, lemme ‘splain.
No, the United States does not spend 73 percent of NATO. That number refers to our defense budget compared to those of other NATO allies. Given the fact that we’re YUUUUGE, and they’re small, it makes sense that our total defense spending – even at a reasonable 3.6 percent of GDP will be much higher than theirs.
In other words: The United States defense budget ($664.1 billion) / the sum total of all NATO allies’ defense budgets, including the United States ($918.3 billion) = .72. The United States defense budget comprises 72 percent of the sum total of defense budgets of all NATO allies. OK?
Each country decides how much it will spend on its own defense.
NATO recommends that member nations spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on their own defense. It has other recommendations, vis-a-vis defense budget breakdowns, but none of these benchmarks are requirements. Nations decide for themselves how much to spend on their defenses.
Currently, maybe 5-6 NATO allies meet that standard, including the United States, Great Britain, Poland, Greece and Estonia. A number of other countries have committed to increasing their defense spending – not because Trump demanded it, but because they see the resurgent, aggressive Russia as an increasing threat, and since that’s why NATO was created in the first place, it’s a pretty logical turn of events.
NATO members do contribute some funds to common funding projects via direct contributions. This is where NATO members’ costs are assessed by the alliance based on nations’ GDP. The United States, being the biggest, baddest, and strongest member of the alliance pays roughly 22 percent of that figure. The UK pays about 9.8 percent, France pays 10.6 percent, and Germany pays 14.6 percent.
NATO is a treaty obligation for us, but members are not required to participate in all NATO operations. For NATO missions, each member decides how much they will contribute, if at all. The only exception is when NATO engages in an Article 5 collective defense operation, which requires the participation of all alliance members. Know how many times NATO invoked Article 5? Once. Know when? After the September 11 attacks on the United States. So yes, after terrorists attacked the United States, NATO members stood together and declared that an attack on the United States was an attack on all of NATO. But once again, there’s no size requirement. Allies contributed as much or as little as they assessed they could.
And no, we don’t provide defense to Germany, or any other NATO ally. We are NATO’s biggest partner, and we’re the leader of the alliance, but that doesn’t mean we give other NATO allies a penny, and that certainly doesn’t mean they owe us, considering the only time the Article 5 collective security guarantee was invoked was after an attack on US.
There are varying opinions about whether or not NATO is even needed today. Hardcore Libertarians (read: those who have no comprehension of how the alliance – or really human nature – works, and who will immediately call you ignorant and unaware of America’s oh-so-evil history of interfering in other nations’ affairs, blah, blah, blah) are screeching the alliance should be disbanded, as it’s no longer needed. I’m not even going to get into the vast numbers of conspiracy theories out there spewed by some of these nutjobs! Use your Google-fu, if you really are that interested in the crazy.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with the derpapotomi, given Russian aggression over the past several years, but that’s not what this post is about.
I would submit that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, who ostensibly is ultimately in charge of all matters concerning our military and foreign policy, should at the very least know how America’s most significant alliance works!
And instead of once again using injudicious language on Twitter, perhaps he should spend more time studying that about which he tweets, so he doesn’t make us look like utter jackasses.
You all know I’ve been super critical of the President on a number of foreign policy and national security issues, including those he chose for his national security team, but I like to think I’m fair, and aside from the thankfully defunct Michael Flynn and the unfortunately current Darth Badhair McHobo and MiniMogul, his national security team is actually shaping up pretty well. Jim Mattis and John Kelly are perfect Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security respectively. I’ve heard nothing but good things about H.R. McMaster, and I literally did a happy dance at the selection of Fiona Hill as White House senior director for Europe and Russia. I’ve referenced her articles on Putin before. She’s an expert and a realist. What’s not to like?
I also like to think I’m fair on domestic policy issues. So, yes, TrumpCare, or whatever we’re calling it this week, is a dumpster fire and the constant Twitter seizures and unsubstantiated claims of wiretapping and unemployment data manipulation by 44 are getting old.
That said… the left’s apoplectic paroxysms of outrage about proposed Trump budget cuts are giving me giggle fits. Fiscal responsibility involves sometimes tough choices, and I think we finally have a President who is willing to make them, who is willing to look at all the multiplicative, wasteful, and downright unconstitutional programs the federal government is funding and say, “Enough!”
Let’s remember that the vast majority of the federal budget is non-discretionary, which means it’s mandatory spending. We have to pay certain bills, and we don’t have a choice about it. Among them is entitlement spending, such as Social Security. It is spent based on existing laws rather than the budgeting process, and without actual entitlement reform, we must pay it. Discretionary spending constitutes a pretty small portion of the federal budget, which means we need to be judicious about how we spend that money, which includes funding for our military, education, international affairs, environment, etc.
Discretionary Spending is the portion of the budget that the president requests and Congress appropriates every year. It represents less than one-third of the total federal budget, while mandatory spending accounts for around two-thirds.
Trump’s budget proposal does exactly this, but the left is, of course, hyperventilating about it, because they’re all about MOAR SPENDING! The Washington Post this morning helpfully shows what program cuts will help fund $54 billion in proposed defense spending increases. I’m good with this, quite frankly, because national defense is one of the very few constitutional functions of our government. And guess what’s not on that list!
|Agency/Program||What it does|
|21st Century Community Learning Centers||Provides funding for after-school programs for students in high-poverty areas|
|Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program||Provides loans to automotive manufacturers developing fuel-efficient technologies|
|African Development Foundation||Invests in African businesses|
|Appalachian Regional Commission||Invests in projects for economic growth in the Appalachian region|
|ARPA-E||Funds research into new energy technologies|
|Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing||Provides housing assistance to low-income families|
|Chemical Safety Board||Investigates industrial chemical accidents|
|Chesapeake Bay Restoration||Provides funding for cleanup and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed|
|Community Development Block Grant||Provides housing assistance to low-income families|
|Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants||Provides support to financial services in underserved communities|
|Community Services Block Grant||Provides funding for projects that alleviate poverty|
|Corporation for National & Community Service||Runs AmeriCorps, City Year and other public service programs|
|Corporation for Public Broadcasting||Provides federal funding to local radio and television stations across the U.S.|
|Delta Regional Authority||Funds infrastructure and economic programs in the Mississippi River delta region|
|Denali Commission||Provides economic assistance in Alaska|
|Economic Development Administration||Provides funding for economic development projects across the U.S.|
|Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account||Provides emergency funding for humanitarian crises around the world|
|Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program||Tests pesticides and other chemicals for adverse effects on humans and animals|
|Energy Star||Provides assistance for energy efficiency programs|
|Essential Air Service program||Provides funding for air transportation to rural communities|
|Global Climate Change Initiative||Provides financial assistance for climate change initiatives in developing countries|
|Great Lakes Restoration Initiative||Provides funding for cleanup and protection of Great Lakes watersheds|
|Institute of Museum and Library Services||Provides grants and research for libraries, museums, zoos and similar institutions.|
|Inter-American Foundation||Provides development assistance to Latin American countries|
|Legal Services Corporation||Provides legal aid to low-income Americans|
|Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program||Assists low-income families with heating and cooling costs|
|McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program||Provides school meals and nutrition programs in poor countries|
|Minority Business Development Agency||Provides technical assistance to minority-owned businesses|
|NASA Office of Education||Supports STEM education initiatives|
|National Endowment for the Arts||Provides funding for arts projects|
|National Endowment for the Humanities||Provides funding for cultural institutions like universities and museums, as well as projects by individual scholars|
|Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation||Provides housing assistance to low-income Americans|
|Northern Border Regional Commission||Economic development in northern New England|
|Overseas Private Investment Corporation||Helps U.S. businesses invest overseas|
|Senior Community Service Employment Program||Funds job training for low-income, unemployed seniors|
|State Energy Program||Provides funding and technical assistance for energy efficiency and clean energy|
|Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program||Provides grants to improve education quality|
|Targeted Air Shed Grants||Provides grants for air pollution control|
|TIGER Discretionary Grant program||Provides funding for transportation projects across the U.S.|
|Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program||Provides loan guarantees for new energy products|
|United States Institute of Peace||Works on international conflict mitigation|
|United States Interagency Council on Homelessness||Coordinates federal response to homelessness|
|US Trade and Development agency||Promotes U.S. exports in developing countries.|
|Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program||Provides funding for water infrastructure in rural areas|
|Weatherization Assistance Program||Provides grants for weatherizing low-income homes|
|Woodrow Wilson International Center||Foreign policy think tank|
The Post reports that a number of these federal programs have failed to show efficacy and that the private sector can perform these functions better.
Why the hell are we funding a foreign policy think tank? So it can produce written opinions on policy that, because they’re funded by the government, will invariably become a mouthpiece of said government.
Why are the feds giving money to businesses that want to invest overseas? Let these businesses assume their own risk and invest how they see fit, instead of the taxpayers funding businesses who will inevitably assume more risk, because it’s not their money to play with!
Why are U.S. taxpayers giving money to USAID through the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program to subsidize school lunches to foreign students? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it’s the function of the government to give school lunches to our own kids, let alone to ones in other countries! I get that we want to appear to be generous and bighearted, but as a wise man once said, voting for the government to give poor people money is not compassion.
Neither is forcing the U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for investments in African businesses. If someone wants to plop down their hard-earned dollars to invest in an African enterprise, great! Good for them! But to arbitrarily take money away from Americans and send them overseas tells us that bureaucrats know better how to spend our money and where to invest it (in businesses that likely prop up the political agenda, or in which the bureaucrats and politicians have interests). I’ll remind you how Solyndra worked out.
And don’t even get me started on government funding for the arts!
So yes, we need to be judicious with our spending. We need to focus on programs that are effective, efficient, and constitutional, and all this crap above ain’t it.
So, I’ve been in Miami the past few days. I generally like TDYs, but not to Miami, because it’s a) hot, b) humid c) filled with the kind of annoying drunken coeds on spring break that make you want to climb a tower and start picking them off with a high-powered rifle.
Also, whenever I go to Florida, I invariably wind up with a three-day headache. This trip was no exception, so it made the numerous meetings I had to attend that much more miserable.
That said, we did have some excellent food, saw some very cool art in the Winwood district between meetings, and I got to talk to a class full of high school students about careers. Yeah, I know. Someone allowed me to speak to kids. I actually corrupted young minds. You can blame my buddy Tim, who is a high school teacher, and somehow thought it was a cool idea to expose his students to my special brand of crazy. I did not drop the F-bomb during my speech. I did, however, drop one several times as we walked outside. In front of kids. Apparently, that’s a no-no or something… as if they never heard the word, “fuck” before.
I did take some very cool photos in Winwood with my phone, and they have this awesome taco joint, where we got to sit outside, eat amazing food, and get glared at by feral kittens.
So what happened while I was gone?
Apparently, someone leaked 45’s tax returns from 2005. After getting her acolytes in a frothing frenzy about the shock and awe contained in those documents, Rachel Maddow broadcast on her show that…
…Trump paid his taxes.
At a higher rate than Romney, Obama, and Bernie Sanders.
Wow… well, that was a letdown, eh unhinged leftists?
And guess what! I know you’ll be shocked at this, but not only did he pay his taxes in 2005, he’s still President!
I’ll let you take a woosah moment.
What else happened?
I was watching the news this morning at my hotel room, when they decided that this was somehow newsworthy.
Mom jeans. With plastic panels, so when you wear these monstrosities, everyone can see your knees. Because what you need more than anything in the world is plastic panels that make your skin exude oodles of moisture to sweat up these clear panels on a warm day. Because, see, plastic doesn’t exactly allow for air circulation.
Is there anyone in the entire universe who would pay $95 and actually wear these things? They’re like chaps for your knees.
Perhaps Nordstrom needs to fire a buyer or two.
Next up is the fiasco of a health care bill the GOP decided to excrete out of its wrecked anus. Rob blogged about this dumpster fire, previously, as did our buddy Jason Pye at FreedomWorks. The Congressional Budget Office savaged the bill, and some Republicans are now running from it like a BLM protester after breaking the window of a convenience store.
Here’s a clue, GOP. You don’t take a horrible law, and make it worse by adding your own even more horrible law on top of it, and then expect everyone to do a happy dance, because “Oh, look! We did something!”
It’s time Republicans stopped being stupid, but I guess that’s too much to ask for.
Oh, it snowed in DC. From the looks of it, we got maybe an inch or two, but that apparently didn’t stop the panicked doofi from stampeding grocery stores like so much rabid cattle. It was in the 70s in Miami, and today was a positively frosty 60 degrees. Yes, be jealous.
Also, apparently, Amy Schumer had a
comedy tragedy special on Netflix recently. Let’s put aside the fact that she really does remind me of a potato, and apparently has the IQ of one. She was apparently so unfunny and terrible, that the makers of “Ishtar” are breathing a sigh of relief, because their unwatchable dreck is no longer at the bottom of the cinematographic heap.
This was painful to watch. Save yourself the time and don’t bother watching this train wreck (that lame pun was better than anything in this special). I have never been a big fan of Amy but she was better when she was stealing other people’s jokes. Maybe she search some old comedy tapes for new material. 1 star is generous for this slop.
If this show was a smell, it would smell of fermented beans and disease.
Mercifully it ended but I’ll never be able to get those wasted hours back. Amy if you ever read any of these reviews I have a special message for you: suicide is still an option.
On my flight back to DC, I finally got a chance to watch “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” I loved it! Not because I’m a Harry Potter fan… well… not only because I’m a Harry Potter fan. I thought the design was stunning, Eddie Redmayne is a phenomenally talented actor, and he was at the same time shy, innocent, and a brilliant badass, Colin Farrell was just right for the role of the ultimate bad buy pre-Voldemort, and JOHNNY DEPP!
And finally, I’m excited, because Wonder Woman is finally coming out this June! As a kid, I watched Lynda Carter transform into Wonder Woman on TV every day, and I wanted to be her so badly! That series resulted in my wearing “bracelets” made of tin foil on my wrists and a desire to change my name to “Diana.” And now, Gal Gadot will bring one of my favorite superheroes to the big screen! And it looks terrific, so I’m more than excited!
And yes, now that I’m back from TDY, I will blog more regularly. Thanks for caring.
A few weeks ago, my buddy Jason Pye from FreedomWorks appeared on Fox Business alongside a smarmy “law enforcement officer” named Paul Babeu to discuss civil asset forfeiture. The short debate came on the heels of Donald Trump making a not so amusing joke about destroying the career of a Texas state senator who introduced legislation requiring suspects to be convicted before their property can be seized. The President seems to oppose reforms – vocally enough that he makes jokes about destroying the careers of those who believe reform is necessary.
Civil asset is not funny, however. While I fully understand the need to go after assets connected to illicit activity, blocking assets, freezing them, or confiscating them should be an action taken after at the very least a reasonable legal standard proving wrongdoing has been met!
Ferpetessake, even the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that administers the Department of the Treasury’s sanctions program has to meet an evidentiary standard before freezing the assets of bad guys! Hell, OFAC just sanctioned drug trafficker and Venezuelan Vice President Tareck el Aissami and his buddy Samark Jose Lopez Bello “for providing material assistance, financial support, or goods or services in support of the international narcotics trafficking activities of, and acting for or on behalf of, El Aissami” under the Kingpin Act, and they still had to meet legal sufficiency. And there are specific steps (that don’t cost a life’s savings) to petition for removal from the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.
Oh, and by the way, OFAC doesn’t keep the funds that are frozen to buy cool gadgets with.
But no, apparently police departments nationwide face no such constraints.
As Jason noted recently, law enforcement too often permanently seizes the property of innocent people as a revenue generating measure. That’s a no go.
According to the Institute for Justice, thirty-one states require prosecutors to show only a preponderance of the evidence, or a fifty-one percent likelihood that property is connected to illicit activity, to subject property to forfeiture. Basically, it’s a coin flip. Thirty-five states and the federal government put the burden of proof in forfeiture proceedings on the property owner, denying American citizens their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and the presumption of innocence.
In his debate with Babeu on Fox Business, Jason made some very logical points that this is an issue of constitutional rights.
Babeu countered with the usual talking point about just how much money cartels have compared with law enforcement and how it’s a tool to use against criminal syndicates. He brought up the seizure of cash and property in Arizona from the Sinaloa cartel and claimed that the legal standard of “preponderance of the evidence” was a sufficient burden of proof to meet when it comes to relieving individuals of their very basic right to keep what they have earned.
You should watch this video just for the satisfaction of seeing Jason refute Babeu’s claim that only bad guys get snared in these asset forfeiture traps by bringing up an example of an innocent woman who was relieved of her property and was only able afford even challenge this forfeiture in court with the help of the ACLU.
Babeau’s oh-so erudite response: *snort* The ACLU.
Jason’s counter: Civil liberties are civil liberties.
Well, I think we now can make a pretty high confidence assessment about why Babeu is such a big supporter of civil asset forfeiture.
Federal authorities have launched a probe of Pinal County’s top two former law enforcement officials and whether they inappropriately used profits from seized property for personal and professional expenses.
County officials confirmed they are cooperating with FBI inquiries into former Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and County Attorney Lando Voyles over the use of funds from suspects’ confiscated possessions.
Newly elected Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer said he also has asked the Arizona auditor general to review Pinal County’s asset-forfeiture records to determine if monies were properly used. He asked the auditor general to recommend the best way to use those funds.
Now, an investigation does not necessarily mean guilt, or that it will lead to a guilty verdict, but it’s awfully interesting to me that Babeu – a two-time loser as a candidate for a Congressional seat – is suspected of participating in a scheme to funnel money to a private group – the Arizona Public Safety Foundation, which for years operated out of the sheriff’s office and was staffed by sheriff’s deputies – used RICO funds from Pinal County to help support sheriff’s office activities and functions and bought things for him and his department. By funneling money to this private group, “Babeu is able to avoid procurement laws and other transparency regulations which usually apply to government purchasing,” a lawsuit cited by the Arizona Republic stated.
And Babeu had no comment about the allegations, either.
Look, there are tools that the government can and should use in its efforts against illicit financial flows and other types of criminal activity. They are effective tools when used properly. When they’re used to pad budgets and purchase goodies, we’re incentivizing theft, and encouraging the blurring of legal standards of guilt and innocence and corruption. It shifts the burden of proof from the state to the defendant, forcing them to spend thousands of dollars to prove their innocence and get their property back, instead of putting the onus on the state to show their guilt before allowing confiscation. It ruins livelihoods. It destroys financial stability. It infringes on the property rights of the people. It stands the very concept of “innocent until proven guilty” on its ear and imposes punishment based on that dangerous reversal.
It would be ironic, wouldn’t it, if Babeu had his property confiscated before actual guilt or innocence could be determined?
After all, if he’s such a proponent of wealth confiscation before innocence can be determined, he won’t mind getting his shit stolen and then spending thousands of dollars in court fees to get it back… maybe… almost definitely not, right?