Yesterday, I made this post, linking to a link which quickly disappeared. Like others, I searched for the original article, and only found it in a couple of places--not even Fox seemed to carry it. Today, the only thing I see is that the original claim was refuted, and that the raid--which may have used a "wait 30 seconds before breaking down the door" tactic instead of the classic "no knock" raid--was predicated on an "ongoing fraud investigation."
The apparent response from the government here is that (1) we will intimidate media outlets into taking the original story down and (2) they apparently think that a fraud investigation involving otherwise law-abiding, nonviolent individuals ought to involve beating down a man's door at 6am and keeping him (and his kids) in a hot car in his skivvies until noon. I certainly know that if the police came to my door at 6am most days, I wouldn't have been able to get to the door in 30 seconds or less.
In short, despite the clarification, the whole thing reeks of a reckless disregard of the 1st and 4th Amendments. Which is, I suppose, exactly what we ought to expect with a leader who thinks laws regarding oil drilling permits, foreign military actions (the War Powers Act), voter intimidation (the Black Panthers case from PA), the FOIA, restrictions on czars, and more simply do not apply to him.
It would seem that someone who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seriously needs to read some Samuel Rutherford and understand why Lex Rex is a good idea, and foundational for our system of law. I would have anticipated a Harvard Law grad would understand this already, but then again, I would have thought a Harvard Law grad would understand some of the implications of the 1st and 4th Amendments, too.
Why relativism leads to totalitarianism - I’d like to spin off from our reflection a comment Lars Walker made, as we blogged about yesterday in the post The Bible and Liberty: As Paul Johnson notes...
32 minutes ago