"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."
-- Proverbs 29:18, King James Bible (KJV)

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Why Has the Apple CEO Not Been Charged With the Crime of Obstruction of Justice in the FBI-Apple Case?

Howard Mintz at Santa Cruz Sentinel News headlines that Apple vs. FBI: Feds ramp up legal assault.

That is a nice headline as a matter of media marketing -- it caused us to look at it too -- but of course this is not a legal assault by anyone but rather the government very gingerly proceeding against Apple where your average citizen would long ago have been charged with the crime of obstruction of justice.

We ask why the appropriately responsible person at Apple who has refused to comply with a court order -- surely the CEO -- has not been charged with the crime of obstruction of justice?

See the relevant legal analysis of Obstruction of Justice Charges in California by The Justice Firm at the Southern California Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Political Demonstrations in Chicago in 2016? How About 1968 and its Consequences in Leading to a Richard Nixon Presidency?

Protests and political demonstrations in Chicago in 2016? What is new?

It is virtually a law of human society that people do not learn from history.

We refer here to the political demonstrations in Chicago in 1968, quoting from the Wikipedia entry on the 1968 Democratic National Convention:
"After the Chicago protests, the demonstrators were confident that the majority of Americans would side with them over what had happened in Chicago, especially because of police behavior. They were shocked to learn that ... [Mayor] Daley ... had received 135,000 letters supporting his actions and only 5000 condemning them. Public opinion polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans supported the Mayor's tactics. It was often commented through the popular media that on that evening, America decided to vote for Richard Nixon." [emphasis added]
Was the organized left-wing (Democratic Party sanctioned ?) anti-democratic disruption of a Donald Trump rally yesterday in Chicago the start -- for many citizens -- to consider voting for Trump for President, where they may previously not have been supporters? We think that may turn out to be the disruption consequence, for the following reasons.

As a political centrist -- and it is the people in the middle who cast the deciding votes in most Presidential elections -- we appreciate both sides of the political spectrum and the interests which they defend. We are equally interested in the arguments raised by a Bernie Sanders as we are in those raised by a Donald Trump. Arguments on important issues arise where there is a reason for them. Not all is right in America and much must be corrected.

However, there is one area of society on which we have an ironclad opinion, and that is the importance of the "Rule of Law" for modern life. Civilized society is possible only when law and order prevail. Whenever and wherever law and order break down, civilized society disintegrates and the mass of citizens are the losers. We have many examples of this in the world today. "Law and order" has many deficits, but the alternatives are ALWAYS worse.

Protesters (and their financers) who disrupt the peaceful political process of Presidential elections -- and we do not care what political spectrum they come from, left or right -- deserve to be ostracized and, as required, sanctioned.

The political process gains nothing from targeted disruptive protests, demonstrations or riots -- indeed, they almost always have the exact opposite impact of what the disrupters intended.

On the whole, these disruptions make average people ANGRY.
Voters do not applaud such protests, rather, they vote for the other side.

Do political protesters actually think that your average citizen sees THEM, i.e. uncontrolled process-disrupting thugs or even violent protesters, as representing a viable political "alternative"?

If they do, they are greatly deluded and misled. We see such protesters as people who have no respect for the opinions of others and who believe in the democratic system only if it is going their way. The average citizen does not need them -- and -- long-term, they never win. Mostly they are people who need to learn more about the world before they try to influence it.

It is therefore all the more appalling that this kind of an inexcusable disruption of the political process is not being LOUDLY castigated from all political quarters. ALL Presidential candidates worthy of a citizen's vote should be standing up and loudly and clearly be distancing themselves totally from this kind of behavior by their potential voters and supporters.

In what reality-removed dream world are many of these politicians, mainstream media, and news commentators living?

Are there not enough shocking examples worldwide already of what happens when law and order break down and when the rule of law is ignored?

The results of the fail of the rule of law as we see daily on our TV screens are millions of migrating people, moving on without homes, without jobs, without security, lost in a world without law and order -- i.e. CHAOS.

We oppose CHAOS.

There are many injustices in this world and many people and institutions on all sides of the political fences are working hard to remedy them. That is the only way that true progress is ever made, and it does not happen at once.

Violent political protests such as those in Chicago at a paid-for Trump Presidential Election Rally serve to do the exact opposite.

People in the middle of the political spectrum, both Democrats and Republicans, are more likely now to vote for Trump than before, because they will -- in increasing numbers -- reject the anti-democratic alternative demonstrated in Chicago, which is not the America THEY want. No way.