Tag Archives: rights

Red Flag Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Some thoughts on necessary criteria for them, particularly as they’re intended to apply to the mentally unstable.

  1. Define “mentally unstable”
  2. Identify which “mentally unstable” are dangerous and which are not
  3. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” are to be disarmed without disarming—leaving defenseless—those around him
  4. Specify how quickly—including appeals—a court case must be finally decided and the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his weapons back after successfully defending himself
  5. Specify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” will be made financially whole after winning his court case
  6. Specify how an accusation will be separated into a frivolous one and one made in good faith
  7. Specify the sanctions to be brought against the accuser if the “dangerous mentally unstable” wins his court case
  8. Identify how the “dangerous mentally unstable” gets his reputation and his life back after winning his court case, whether it was brought in good faith or bad

That’s just a start on the idiocy and intrinsically virtue-signaling nature of red flag laws.

Typical of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

And a measure of how radical and extreme our nation’s Left has become, is New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s (D) op-ed, wherein she advertised her State’s protection of the “right” to abortion as an inducement for businesses to return.

A couple of letter-writers in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section are more accurate.

The humor in the governor’s invitation peaks with her description of the “freedom” and “respect” that New York offers its business communities. High tax, high cost, high crime—surely New York’s reputation speaks for itself? The joke may be on the governor.

But especially this:

New York’s Governor Hochul is angered at the possibility that her newborn granddaughter will inherit a “fight” to save abortion. Yet if she had taken advantage of Roe, her descendants would have avoided this fight simply because they would have ceased to exist. Ms Hochul is not fighting for her descendants to fall victim to abortion. She is fighting for yours to do so.

Just Be Quiet

Posted on by
Reply

…and do what you’re told. We wouldn’t have accused you if you weren’t guilty.

The SEC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, Gurbir Grewal, doesn’t like it when lawyers defending their clients from SEC accusations get too much in his way.

The SEC also is seeing instances where lawyers repeatedly interrupt witness testimony to lodge frivolous objections….

Of course, it’s Grewal’s definition of frivolous. If he were serious, he’d be in court getting the frivolity sanctioned. And this:

In some instances, lawyers are representing companies and individuals in cases where they have a conflict of interest[.]

If that were true, he’d be objecting in court. Where are his objections?

And some lawyers are asserting legal privilege to shield documents from the eyes of SEC staff in cases where that privilege doesn’t apply[.]

Again, that’s Grewal’s position. And he asserts it as if, because he’s asserted it, it must be so.

And this:

Mr Grewal said he had recently learned about an entity with billions of dollars in assets that produced a mere 200 documents in a six-month period, after being served with a request for customer account and trading data.

Grewal is being disingenuous on two counts with this bellyache. One is that he’s been the Enforcement Director for nearly a year; how is it that he’s only just “recently” learning of this situation? Is he in charge, or isn’t he? If he is, does he read his staff’s input, or doesn’t he?

The other count is his beef that this represents an accused company’s delaying tactic. If he didn’t like it the slow production, why did he allow it to persist for so long? Why wasn’t he trying to force the pace—in court if necessary?

Grewal gave the SEC’s game away with these, as cited by the WSJ:

…[he] called on lawyers to work more cooperatively with the agency….

And

Lawyers who do cooperate in a genuine way with the SEC are better positioned to win credit for their clients in the form of a more lenient resolution of the agency’s investigation

This is one more reason the SEC cannot be trusted. I’ve mentioned another earlier.

Silence is Violence

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the Left likes to say when folks of whom they disapprove don’t talk/tweet/Facebook post/whatever about events on which the Left casts opprobrium.

There has occurred the firebombing of an Oregon Right to Life facility in the Salem, OR, suburb of Keizer.

It’s been more than a week since that cynically timed for Mother’s Day attack, and Oregon’s Progressive-Democratic Party elected politicians are being determinedly quiet about it.

Governor Kate Brown, Senator Jeff Merkley, and Senator Ron Wyden all declined to respond to multiple requests for comment via phone and email from Fox News Digital regarding the firebomb attack….

And

The Twitter accounts of Brown, Wyden, and Merkley also did not mention or condemn the attacks and all three have tweeted about other issues since Sunday, including Wyden, who warned Americans that their geolocation data could be “weaponized” against them if they seek an abortion.

Silence by the Progressive-Democrats. Except when they’re being overtly pro-abortion.

…pro-choice protesters across the country have stormed Catholic churches and some have called for vandalism in the Roe v Wade debate.

Caroline Reilly, of the Rewire News Group, has been particularly explicit (Jerry Dunleavy, of the Washington Examiner, had to retweet Reilly’s call because Reilly subsequently tried to rewrite her history and pretend she’d not called for murder by deleting her tweet):

Rot in the ground. Tweeted out Mother’s Day evening, shortly after the firebombing.

But the Progressive-Democrats are silent on the matter of violence against those who disagree with them.

I Sympathize

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine is preparing to put a captured Russian soldier on trial for a variety of war crimes committed over the course of the Russian barbarian invasion of Ukraine, an invasion still in progress. The 21-yr-old soldier stands accused of

fir[ing] several shots from a Kalashnikov rifle at the head of an unarmed 62-year-old man, who died on the spot just a few dozen meters from his own home in the village of Chupakhivka in Ukraine’s Sumy region[.]

Ukraine Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova says the murder occurred on February 28. The soldier is a tank commander, which in the Russian army makes him a junior NCO.

The soldier absolutely stand trial for the crime, and I think the 10-15 years to life in prison should he be convicted is light. This is the sort of crime that should draw capital punishment.

However.

It occurs to me that before those who are no more than foot soldiers are tried for the war crimes they’re accused of committing, their officers—who created the environment within which their subordinates felt free to commit these atrocities—should be tried for their complicity in war crimes.

Unfortunately and especially in the present case, where so many of the Russian barbarian officers have evaded capture (or those few of them remaining have been killed in action), it will be hard to bring the foot soldiers’ officers in, try them, and if convicted, execute them.

Put this 21-yr-old on trial, certainly. But be sure he’s being tried for what he did, and punished suitably for it if convicted; do not use him as a scapegoat for not being able to get at the officers who allowed, if not actively encouraged, these atrocities.