Tag Archives: freedom

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.

Government Attacks on Us Citizens

Posted on by
Reply

First, it was Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland agreeing with a National School Boards Association letter to him labeling American parents who object to school board decisions regarding sexualizing their children’s education as domestic terrorists and his subsequent ordering an FBI investigation into our parents. The NSBA has since retracted the letter, and Garland insists he meant no such thing, but where is the evidence that he’s called off the FBI’s investigation, or that the FBI has stopped?

Then it was Biden’s DoJ’s FBI memorializing in an internal memo the FBI’s position that traditional Catholics should be considered, and treated consonantly, to be in the same category as violent extremists. FBI Director Chris Wray has since claimed to have ordered the memo’s rescission, but where is the evidence the FBI isn’t still investigating traditional Catholics—or any other Catholics, or any group of Americans of any other religious adherence?

Now it’s Biden’s Department of Homeland Security. The subheadline says it:

Clergy, spouses, bartenders should keep tabs on “middle-aged” women who are “increasingly fervent” against abortion, white men who rant about government online and go to rallies, domestic terrorism materials say.

This tab-keeping actually is an older assault, dating from 2021, but they’re only now being exposed, pursuant to an FOIA request by America First Legal.  The “concerns” are the outcome of a series of Choose Your Own Adventure videos intended by DHS to instruct us ignorant American citizens in identifying and mitigating “radicalization and potential violence.” Because pro-life Americans, along with white male Americans who disagree with the government and attend political candidate (or other) rallies, and (divorced) mothers suspecting government connections to child abuse and trafficking are domestic terrorists.

JtN notes that it’s not clear whether DHS ever actually made the videos, but DHS didn’t respond to JtN‘s Sunday (7 May) requests for comment. DHS’ decision to remain silent on the matter emphasizes the lack of clarity of whether the department did not make the videos or, more importantly, whether the department is acting sub rosa on the information garnered during the proposal stage.

This is part and parcel with Progressive-Democratic Party members constantly deriding the concept of MAGA—we’re all MAGA extremists, or MAGA Republicans—in their disdain for the concept of Making America Great Again. Instead, it’s disagree in any way with the Progressive-Democratic Party-run government and be labeled, in one form or another, an Enemy of the State.

Elections do, indeed, have consequences, and we need to inflict some in the fall of 2024.

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.

Permit to Buy

Posted on by
Reply

The Delaware legislature is trying again to infringe on American citizens’ right to keep and bear Arms; the Know Betters of the legislature are renewing their drive to require the State’s citizens—who, for those Progressive-Democrats not keeping up at home, also are American citizens—to get the State’s permission just to buy a firearm.

A proposal filed Wednesday in the state Senate would require prospective handgun owners to complete a state-authorized firearms training course and submit an application that would include fingerprinting and an extensive background check. If approved, Delaware’s Department of Safety and Homeland Security would issue a free 180-day permit.

A permit just to buy. The duration of this…requirement…is laid out in the proposed bill:

A handgun qualified purchaser permit is valid for a period of 180 days from the date of issuance….

I have no conceptual objection to requiring training on the firearm, so long as neither the training itself nor the cost of it, are constructed as barriers to the getting and subsequent keeping and bearing, and so long as any license (not permit to buy) is issued on a will-issue basis.

I do object to fingerprinting the prospective firearm keeper and bearer of his weapon. No government has any business keeping track of which of its citizens have weapons and which of them do not. That’s a need only with regard to criminals, and acquiring a firearm is not, by definition, a criminal act.

But beyond that, these worthies are carefully ignoring the key phrase in our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment [emphasis added]:

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plainly, getting Arms, including the purchase of one or more of them, is a necessary precondition to the keeping and bearing of them. Restrictions on buying a firearm—which is what a State-granted permission slip, of any duration, is—is just that infringement. No permit to buy, no matter its construction, is legitimate; such permission slips start out unconstitutional and they are incurably so throughout their existence.

 

The bill on offer can be read here.