Category Archives: regulation

Opening up for Election Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law yet another pathway to illegal voting. This new election law

allows people to register online to vote in the state by providing the last four digits of a Social Security Number and an electronic signature.

Never mind that those “last four” are broadly publicly available. Never mind that electronic signatures far too often don’t even remotely resemble a person’s actual signature: it’s done by clicking a link labeled with words to the effect of “by clicking this link, you’re certifying you are who you say you are and electronically signing,” or by presenting a signature field wherein you squiggle something with your finger or with your mouse.

Now anyone can vote in Washington, and do so multiple times; the putative voter needs only access to multiple “last fours,” and then he can “electronically” sign multiple voter forms.

What a boon for Washington citizens, especially the non-real ones.

Gone Too Woke

Posted on by
Reply

Speak the truth, and be fired. Hurt someone’s feelings with that truth, and be banned altogether from your profession.

That’s what has happened to a teacher in Great Britain, a public school teacher who happens to be Christian, after having mistakenly “misgendered” (can there even be such a thing in a sane world?) a secondary school student and then compounding his sin by speaking honestly about his thoughts on gay marriage when a student asked.

The United Kingdom’s Teaching Regulation Authority, which regulates teaching and deals with serious misconduct, found that [the] former math teacher at a public secondary school in Oxford, failed to treat a student with “dignity and respect” by “misgendering” biologically female student who identified as male, the Christian Legal Centre, which has been representing [the teacher], said Tuesday.

The TRA followed up by banning the teacher from teaching indefinitely, although the agency magnanimously permitted him to appeal in 2025. Sure. As a saying goes in the US military, “Disapproved. Resubmit in 90 days for further disapproval.”

This is where our nation is headed, if we don’t step up. “Be like Europe” is the Left’s mantra, and this business in Great Britain is an example of the disaster that would be.

Government “Overreach”

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law a collection of bills that move to outlaw a potful of firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. Inslee’s rationalization for this is this:

No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family….

No. Government does not get to dictate to us citizens what our needs are for the Arms we choose to keep and bear. That right, as our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment makes clear, shall not be infringed. Indeed, it’s precisely against this degree of Government misbehavior for which we have our uncaveated 2nd Amendment.

Full stop.

Actually, not just overreach. This is Government seeking to disarm us Americans, looking to render We the People defenseless against its reign. Which emphasizes the need [sic] for, as well as the uncaveated nature of, our 2nd Amendment.

Fuller stop.

A Parallel Solution

Posted on by
Reply

DoEd Secretary Miguel Cardona (D) wants to enact a rule that would expand Title IX (illegally, but that’s a separate problem) to require State education systems to include transgender athletes in all heretofore women’s sports programs and all on heretofore women’s sports teams. Half of the governors of our States object.

If it comes down to it, Cardona’s move is very likely to fail in the courts. That will be an expensive and time consuming enterprise.

I propose another solution to be pushed in parallel with the lawsuit effort. It also would be expensive and time consuming to put into effect, but I think it would have a more permanent, and more beneficial, outcome.

States should stop taking Federal dollars altogether into their education systems. That would put the States beyond the reach of Title IX, which applies only to those State systems that take Federal dollars.

Not taking the government’s lucre would be expensive, certainly, but only until the States’ budgets adjusted. However, the move would do more than place those States’ education systems beyond the reach of Title IX’s strings, it would free the States from a potful of Federal education strings—and demonstrate that States can get along just fine without those dollars and those strings and so encourage them to decline ever more Federal dollars and reap the increasing value of being free of those strings.

A Red Flag Law

Posted on by
Reply

This one waiting to be signed by Michigan’s Progressive-Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

A judge would have 24 hours to decide on a temporary extreme risk protection order after a request is filed. If granted, the judge would then have 14 days to set a hearing during which the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. A standard order would last one year.
Lying to a court when petitioning for a protection order would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The law starts out being unconstitutional: the flagged person would have to prove they do not pose a significant risk. No. As with all other moves to limit an individual liberty or to circumscribe an individual right, it must be on Government to prove the “flagged person” is a risk.

Then, since the matter is claimed to be urgent, the court should be required to complete its adjudication within an additional 24 hours after having granted the temporary order.

Beyond that, the sanction for dishonestly petitioning for a red flag order must not be left to the wrist slap of a misdemeanor punishment. Falsely petitioning for a red flag order should carry a jail sentence—not reducible—of one year, the same duration of the red flag sanction if a petition is upheld.

And one item not addressed in this red flag law proposal, or in any of the others: the police department that took possession of the weapons on execution of the temporary extreme risk protection order must produce them in court, and in the event Government fails to make its case of significant risk, release them to the now no longer flagged person on the spot.

There also are no protections for the rights of other members of the “flagged person’s” household regarding their lawfully possessed weapons. Those weapons also are subject to seizure under the Michigan red flag law and other such laws. That seizure is an unconstitutional infringement of the non-flagged persons’ right to keep and bear Arms.

As with all the red flag laws on the books or currently proposed, this one is fatally flawed and a deliberate attack on our Constitution’s Second Amendment.