Monthly Archives: October 2015

Democrats’ Habit of Ruling by Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

Keep in mind President Barack Obama’s penchant for Executive Orders and Executive Actions whenever he can’t get his way with Congress, our elected representatives—and so whenever he can’t get his way with us. He issues these EOs and EAs, sometimes strictly legally and sometimes unconstitutionally, but nearly always in contravention of the will of Congress—of us.

Now we get Hillary Clinton’s (Democratic Presidential candidate) plans for when she’s President. Using gun control, that long-time Democratic Party attack on our 2nd Amendment, as her venue, Clinton intends to “use executive authority”—EOs and EAs, governance by fiat in the finest Democratic Party tradition—as the centerpiece of her Presidency.

Recall that Clinton has identified herself as a Proud Progressive.

Recall the words of one of her movement’s founders, Herb Croly:

To be sure, any increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy. But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of constructive national democracy…. [T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

Recall all of this in the fall of 2016.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

So long as the government determines what’s free to be said.

There’s this American rock band, all of whose members are of Asian heritage, who call themselves The Slants. When they tried to trademark their name, the US Patent Office refused, claiming the name is “disparaging.” The matter is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the appellate court that hears such cases. The Court is hearing the matter en banc, or the whole court is handling the appeal instead of the usual three-judge panel.

The government is censoring naming. At oral argument,

Judge Kimberly Moore asked what would happen if the government started rejecting copyrights for controversial art or other expressive works as it is doing with trademarks.

Would there be “no more porn? No more crucifixes in urine?”

The government is arguing, and it’s serious,

[T]he law governing trademark registrations does not violate the First Amendment…. Its purpose is not “to help people to make a political statement or prevent people from making political statement[.],

Indeed. However, the government’s lawyer, Daniel Terry, is arguing that Government is the one that will determine what is political speech that the government must protect and what is not political speech that the government gets to censor. And Terry argued with that claim that Government has determined that a name can never be political speech.

Mass Shooting and Gun “Control”

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama, in his crocodile tears speech after the Oregon shooting, called for some statistics on gun control and gun deaths. Here’s one under a surprisingly misleading headline by The Wall Street Journal.

The researchers counted 23 mass shootings in 13 European nations plus Russia from 2000 to 2014, with a total of 203 deaths. During that time, the US saw 133 shootings and 487 dead….

Twenty-three mass shootings averaged almost nine deaths per mass shooting. In the US, the 133 mass shootings averaged a bit over three and a half.

When a gun is hard to get, you have to make it count. Or, just maybe, good guys, who are able to have guns, are able to cut short the mass shooting events.

Of Course Not

Posted on by
1

David Cameron, British Prime Minister, has added his lack of understanding regarding Russia and Syria to President Barack Obama’s. He chimed in with this:

It’s absolutely clear that Russia is not discriminating between ISIL and the legitimate Syrian opposition groups. As a result they are actually backing the butcher Assad and helping him.

NSS. He is indeed not interested in killing terrorists. He really is in Syria to prop up his client Bashar al Assad.

And there’s the usual timidity of these two “leaders:”

We should be using this moment now to try to force forward a comprehensive plan to bring political transition in Syria, because that is the answer to bringing peace to the region.

“This moment now” has lasted for four years. What is your comprehensive plan, exactly, now that it’s so thoroughly prepared over these four years?

Can’t Prepare?

Posted on by
Reply

Joe Olson, who retired in June as president of the Umpqua Community College told the Associated Press the school had three training exercises with local law agencies in the past two years, “but you can never be prepared for something like this.”

I won’t comment on the “training exercise” rate. This sort of preemptive giving up, though, ranks right up there with gun free zones as a major contributor to mass killings. Of course it’s possible to prepare for “something like this.” It just takes a willingness to conceive the possibilities from not waiting for the police who are only minutes away. Interminable minutes, during which the killing proceeds apace. Unless the true first responders—those who are already on scene—are allowed to defend themselves and allowed to exercise initiative.

We need, too, a society that knows better than to wait for government to do for them rather than the meek, professional victim, Big Daddy Government society Progressives are pushing.

As President Barack Obama said in all his crocodile tear fulsomeness the day of Umpqua’s mass killing, we do need sensible gun laws. The gun control foolishness needs to get out of the way so we can have them.