Category Archives: rights

Choosing not to Understand

Posted on by
Reply

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has broadened an existing injunction that bars various Federal agencies from colluding with social media to censor speech to include the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The court wrote, in part,

CISA used its frequent interactions with social-media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech. And CISA officials affirmatively told the platforms whether the content they had “switchboarded” was true or false….
Thus, when the platforms acted to censor CISA-switchboarded content, they did not do so independently. Rather, the platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information. Thus, CISA likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ content-moderation decisions and thereby violated the First Amendment[.]

This is a preview of Choosing not to Understand. Read the full post (432 words, estimated 1:44 mins reading time)

Why Lend?

Posted on by
Reply

How can a financial entity lend? Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden now is moving to hide individuals’ medical debt from potential lenders.

[P]roposed regulations would prohibit consumer reporting companies from including medical debts and collecting information on consumer reports that creditors use to make underwriting decisions. Creditors would also be barred from using medical collections information when evaluating borrowers’ credit applications.

This on the heels of his constant attempts to render student debt holders unaccountable for their debt.

This is a preview of Why Lend?. Read the full post (205 words, estimated 49 secs reading time)

Progressive-Democrats’ Assault on American Energy and Americans’ Health

Posted on by
Reply

In addition to Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden’s and his Cabinet cronies’ direct assault on our ability to produce our own energy (among the latest attacks is this), Biden and his syndicate are attacking our energy use through attacking us ordinary Americans in our homes.

Here’s a partial list of devices we use to make our lives comfortable, even merely livable, in what used to be our castles—our homes:

  • Gas stoves
  • Ovens
  • Clothes washers
  • Refrigerators
  • Refrigerator freezers
  • Freezers
  • Air conditioners
  • Dishwashers
  • Pool pumps
  • Battery chargers
  • Ceiling fans
  • Dehumidifiers
This is a preview of Progressive-Democrats’ Assault on American Energy and Americans’ Health. Read the full post (200 words, estimated 48 secs reading time)

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline on Columbia Law’s School Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law Philip Hamburger’s Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed is spot on.

The First Amendment protects the right to hear alternative views, not merely to express them.

Hamburger went on:

People can’t develop their views with any sophistication unless they can consider opinions that enlarge, refine, moderate, or challenge their own. So, when government demands the suppression of some speech and chills even more, it reduces the diversity, value, and moderation of opinion—and thereby diminishes the opportunity for every individual to develop and express his own considered views. Censorship inhibits the output of critical voices, which lessens Americans’ intellectual input, which in turn limits their intellectual output. Reading and speaking are inextricably linked in conversation.

This is a preview of What He Said. Read the full post (306 words, estimated 1:13 mins reading time)

Fundamentally Transforming America

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written elsewhere of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s goal, and of the destructive nature of that goal.

Here is the rank and file of the Progressive-Democratic Party, demonstrating how deep-seated is that desire to destroy our Republic:

  • nearly half of Democrats (47%) support censorship, and think speech should be legal “only under certain ­circumstances”
  • one-third of Democrats (34%) think Americans have “too much freedom”
  • 75% think government has a responsibility to censor “hateful” social media posts
  • a majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media posts “under the rubric of protecting national security”
This is a preview of Fundamentally Transforming America. Read the full post (190 words, estimated 46 secs reading time)

ByteDance and TikTok

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that TikTok, a social medium heavily favored by our children, is wholly owned by ByteDance. Recall further, that ByteDance is domiciled inside the Peoples Republic of China. Finally, recall that the PRC’s 2017 national security law requires every PRC-domiciled company to collect and deliver to that nation’s intelligence community any information that community requests. A bonus memory: TikTok’s executive team has been at pains to insist that, in the United States, they operate independently of all of that.

Against that backdrop, there’s this:

This is a preview of ByteDance and TikTok. Read the full post (553 words, estimated 2:13 mins reading time)

Just Like a Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says—and he’s actually serious—that, as President, he would deport the US-born children of illegal migrants.

I favor ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents entered the country *illegally* because we shouldn’t reward those who violate the law with the intent of exploiting the citizenship rules. The Framers of the 14th Amendment never intended this & it’s arguably not even what it says (don’t forget the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause which is often ignored). That’s common sense.

For good or ill, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is quite clear on this. Here’s the first sentence of the first Article of that Amendment:

This is a preview of Just Like a Progressive-Democrat. Read the full post (391 words, estimated 1:34 mins reading time)

A Court Gets It Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Alabama’s legislature redrew its Federal House of Representative district lines, leaving the State with one black-majority district. The State’s courts objected and ordered the lines drawn, strongly encouraging a second black-majority district be created, since 27% of the State’s citizens are black. The State’s legislature sort of obliged, creating a second district with 40% of its voters being black.

A three-judge Federal panel (which The Wall Street Journal identified as a special three-judge district court) rejected the new districts. It’s on this point that I think the court got things badly wrong, and if the AP article is accurate, exposed the intrinsic racism in the way district lines are drawn.

This is a preview of A Court Gets It Wrong. Read the full post (704 words, estimated 2:49 mins reading time)

Wrong Way to Punish the FBI?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are concerned that doing away with FISA’s Section 702 would be the wrong way to punish the FBI.

I agree. But the editors are missing the point. They too narrowly justify 702 with this:

Congress created Section 702 after 9/11 to address intelligence-gathering gaps. It lets the government collect information without a warrant on non-US citizens living abroad.

This is a preview of Wrong Way to Punish the FBI?. Read the full post (360 words, estimated 1:26 mins reading time)

Occupying Floodwaters

Posted on by
Reply

It seems a Wisconsin man owns some property near Ixonia, and that property has been flooded, gets flooded fairly frequently, by the Rock River against which the man’s property lies. He’s gotten fed up with the airboats that go running across his land, taking advantage of its temporarily flooded condition, and he’s filed suit in Wisconsin’s Jefferson County Circuit Court to put an end to the practice.

This is a preview of Occupying Floodwaters. Read the full post (630 words, estimated 2:31 mins reading time)