The
American electorate is in the midst of a lawfare attack. Lawfare
is defined as the “use of law as a weapon of war,” according to the Lawfare Project.
It denotes the abuse of Western laws and
judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends. Lawfare is
inherently negative…It is the opposite of pursuing justice. It is filing
frivolous lawsuits and misusing legal processes to intimidate and frustrate
opponents…
The
election results of 2010–2016 were devastating to the Progressive Left.
Eventually, The White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, most
Governorships, and most state legislatures were won by Republicans, many of whom
ran on platforms denouncing failed left-wing policies which led to a devastated
middle class, a ruined health care system, a weakened economy, diminished race
relations, and unprecedented dangers to U.S. national security.
This
occurred despite vigorous attempts by a biased media to assist progressive
candidates, a move which didn’t sway the voting public. The oppressive
environment against centrists and conservatives within the nation’s
universities, both by intimidating professors and radical students, did not
produce campaign gains. A vehement effort by Hollywood to portray Republicans
as villains was equally ineffective.
Lacking
success with other approaches, it appears that a lawfare attack was launched.
Unlike a simple move to outspend an opponent (which would be rather difficult
to do in this case) in a single suit by simply filing a costly legal action,
the approach now underway is multi-faceted and designed more to discredit those
who have won office by establishing doubt in the electorate’s mind. Uniquely,
it also involves attempts to influence the outcome of aggressive actions by
insuring that decision-making personnel favorable to the Left are in positions
of responsibility.
In
the wake of repetitive failures at the ballot box, leftist attorneys general
have sought to gain voter support by filing groundless legal actions aimed more
at disparaging Republican elected officials than at actually enforcing the law.
Hans
Bader, writing for The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), outlines the various ways that some state
attorneys general have abused their office for partisan political purposes,
aimed primarily at implementing leftist agendas rejected by the voters or
prohibited by the Constitution. The CEI report outlines the various means
leftist state attorneys generals have abused their authority:
1.
The Ethical Breaches and Selective
Applications of the Law. Using campaign contributors to bring lawsuits. Using
the attorney general’s offi ce to promote personal gain or enrich cronies or
relatives. Favoritism towards campaign donors and other uneven or unpredictable
application of the law (including refusal to defend state laws or state
agencies being sued when plausible defenses exist).
2.
Fabricating Law. Advocating that
courts, in effect, rewrite statutes or stretch constitutional norms in order to
make new law—for example, seeking judicial imposition of new taxes or
regulations, or restrictions on private citizens’ freedom to contract.
3.
Usurping Legislative Powers.
Bringing lawsuits that usurp regulatory powers granted to the federal
government or other state entities, or that are untethered to any specifi c
statutory or constitutional grant of authority.
4.
Predatory Practices. Seeking to
regulate conduct occurring wholly in other states—for example, preying on
out-of-state businesses that have not violated state law and have no remedy at
the polls.
Mindful
of the ability of district attorneys or state attorneys general to defeat the
will of the electorate by lawfare, Progressive financiers have invested heavily
in what used to be comparatively low-key races.
Fox News reports
that, Big bucks from George Soros
helped turn a Pennsylvania district attorney election on its head, in the latest
example of the liberal billionaire’s influence in local U.S. politics. On April
28, Soros poured nearly $1.5 million into the Philadelphia Justice and Public
Safety PAC, which supported candidate Larry Krasner in the Democratic
primary. Krasner won on Tuesday, and by a wide margin…The race marked the
first time a super PAC has supported a D.A. candidate in Philadelphia.
Krasner, as the Daily Caller
puts it,
benefited from ‘the kind of capital typically reserved for
important national political campaigns.’
Last August, Politico reported that Soros had
channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in
six states over the past year. A Daily Caller review
noted how this has became a fairly standard lawfare practice
The outcome of the Philadelphia district attorney’s
race followed a now-familiar playbook. A candidate aligned with Soros’
left-wing politics emerged victorious thanks to the
billionaire’s willingness to flood local races with the kind of
capital typically reserved for important national political campaigns…In
one such instance, Soros poured $600,000 into the Houston district attorney’s
race last fall…Soros spent more than $7 million influencing local prosecutorial
races in 2015 and 2016, The Washington Times reported.
Comments
This
couldn’t happen if campaign contributions were restricted to registered voters,
who would be the only ones who could make campaign contributions and only for
those who appear on their ballots.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment