Tag Archives: freedom

Another Excuse…

Posted on by
Reply

…for Leftist-dominated governments to grab power. Farmers Insurance, and other insurance companies, are moving to restrict policy sales in California and Florida due to rising payout costs from a recent spate of natural disaster claims. Public Citizen said that such moves are

prime example of the insurance industry’s hypocrisy on climate change.

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians insist that insurance companies aren’t doing enough to combat global warming and want to impose requirements on them to do more. Connecticut’s Leftist politicians are proposing a 5% surcharge on “any premium payments from any fossil fuel company” to any insurer licensed in the state.

Insurers, in a free market economy, are in the business of insuring risk—transferring the risk of a business venture, or ownership of a home, from the venturer/homeowner to the insurer in exchange for a fee based on the risk’s likelihood of occurring and its cost should it occur.

Insurers, in the Progressive-Democrat economy, are tools of the State, usable by the State to achieve the Progressive-Democrats’ personal goals.

“I Don’t Understand”

Posted on by
1

Andy Kessler’s op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centers on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, Kessler’s putzing around with a variety of firearms at a Nevada firing range, and his assessment of the effect of Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of an individual’s right to keep and bear any of a variety of Arms on the national firearm debate.

The importance of that debate is summarized in Kessler’s statement about having an AR-15, but which he implied was about a much broader matter:

…I still don’t understand why you would want to own one.

It doesn’t matter a whit that Kessler doesn’t understand. He’s only a journalist, though, and his level of understanding also is not all that important.

Far more importantly, is the fact that it’s the individual’s right to keep and bear; us American citizens, individually or as groups, do not require a government permission slip to do so, and that makes a government man’s level of understanding of the matter irrelevant, except to the extent that man attempts to act on his level and therewith move to restrict our individual right.

The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, along with recent Supreme Court acknowledgments, make all of this crystalline, and they make the government man’s move to act on his level of understanding unconstitutional.

Channeling Fauci

Posted on by
Reply

Anthony Fauci, late of the Federal government, infamously claimed that an attack on him was an attack on science.

Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science[.]

Now Attorney General Merrick Garland is echoing that self-important, arrogant sentiment and broadening it to include all of the Department of Justice, and not just him personally.

Some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department… This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy.

Because DoJ and every part of it are above criticism.

In the clip at the second link above, the question put to Garland concerned impeachment considerations regarding FBI Director Chris Wray and other men and women in leadership positions in the FBI and elsewhere in DoJ. Garland cynically talked, instead, about the quality of performance of the line agents in the FBI and elsewhere in DoJ.

That government attitude—that we’re above criticism, and government men don’t have to answer your questions—is what is an attack on American democracy.

Journalism Revisionist History

Posted on by
Reply

The Irish Times ran a story claiming that using fake—spray—tans was somehow cultural appropriation, and the news outlet chastised white women who used it.

The story itself turned out to have been faked. OK, no big deal; embarrassing as the IT‘s error was, it really falls in the category of stuff happens. That’s not the problem.

On discovering that the paper had been victimized by “a deliberate and coordinated deception,” the editorial staff took “corrective” action. The error—the being duped—

…prompted us to remove [the fake article] from the site and to initiate a review….

This is cowardly and dishonest. Kudos to The Irish Times Editor Ruadhán Mac Cormaic for acknowledging the error (on Sunday after the fake article’s Thursday publication, a pretty prompt response given the research required to confirm the fakery); however, the honest response would have been to leave the article up with a disclaimer, one that summarizes Mac Cormaic’s editorial, posted at the head of the article.

Instead, those journalists have chosen to erase that bit of real history and, as the editorial response fades into memory on Monday or Tuesday, to pretend that that history never actually happened.

This is yet another example of why the press guild cannot be trusted.

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.