A Progressive-Democrat Threatens

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has issued a threat to try to destroy one of our most fundamental rights as Americans: our right to keep and bear Arms. He’s doing it, too, while drawing a disingenuous parallel between Arms possession and abortion—and in the process, threatening an even more fundamental right, one imbued in all humans not just in Americans.

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives.
We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA[.]

In the process, Newsom ignored a critical distinction here. Gun rights are in our Constitution.

The right to abortion exists only in a Supreme Court ruling and has only the force of statutory law—which is explicitly subordinate to our Constitution.

Regarding Newsom’s disingenuous claim about using legal authority to protect people’s lives, he’s also ignoring that our gun rights exist in critical (but not exclusive) part to defend lives and to defend against overreaching government. That the tools occasionally are misused to illegally kill only emphasizes the need to better catch and punish the killers, not to punish the vast majority of us for the crimes of those few. And to not keep letting the accused killers back out on the street with little to no bail.

Abortion laws, on the other hand, kill babies and tend toward blocking legal voices from speaking for them in court. That’s not very protective of our very youngest people’s lives.

The Petra Principle

We’re hearing increasing numbers of reports (I know, it’s the NLMSM, but still) of turmoil in the Kamala Harris (D) Vice President staff, and we have a number of those staffers hitting the bricks.

One journalist, Miranda Devine, who writes for the New York Post, had a thought on that during a Fox News Primetime interview. She suggested that the Harris half of the Biden-Harris Presidency is

elevated above her ability….

And

[Y]ou want your Vice President to be ready to lead. She can’t even lead her own office.

Could be. Certainly, her performance is an illustration of what happens when someone is chosen for a job on the basis of her race and her sex and not on the basis of her talent or experience.

Cowardice

Nadia Murad, sold into sex slavery by Daesh when she was 14, escaped that existence and wrote a book about it: The Last Girl: My Story Of Captivity (due out next February).

She was scheduled to speak with students from some of the 600 schools that are part of the Toronto District School Board about her book and the life it describes, but her presentation and discussion were canceled by Helen Fisher, one of the board’s Superintendents of Education.

But, according to Fisher’s concerns, the event might actually foster Islamophobia. Because Canadian schoolboys and girls are all a bunch of snowflakes who can’t understand such things. Of course, to the extent that’s actually true, that would be a coarse illustration of what Fisher’s Education facility is turning out.

Tanya Lee, proprietor of a book club for teenage girls, A Room Of Your Own—and mother—had a different take:

This is what Islamic State [Daesh] means. It is a terrorist organisation. It has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims. The TDSB should be aware of the difference.

But apparently Fisher’s terror has clouded her awareness. Indeed, even though a statement put out by the school board’s Director of Education, Colleen Russell-Rawlins, claimed to apologize to Murad (and to another, whose event was similarly canceled), the board has not un-canceled or rescheduled Murad’s speaking, even these two-plus weeks later.

Never mind that Murad also is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, UN Goodwill Ambassador, and “a leading advocate for survivors of genocide and sexual violence.” And that she might know something of her subject and that subject’s implications outside of terrorism.

This isn’t just rank political correctness. This is raw cowardice by the Precious Ones of the Toronto school board.

These are not the Canadians who fought with such courage in WWII. Or only yesterday in Afghanistan.

An Important Point

Deroy Murdock made one.

Recall that the City Council of New York City is contemplating—seriously—letting noncitizens, all 808,000 of them in New York City, vote in city elections.

Yet, as Murdock emphasized, there is no such thing a as a noncitizen.

Rather than non-citizens, these people are foreign citizens. While they are not American citizens, they remain citizens of the foreign nations from whence they came—Mexico, Haiti, Russia, Singapore, New Zealand, and dozens more.

He went on:

The New York City Council aims to dilute the local votes of American citizens by extending the franchise to 808,000 foreign citizens. This would include letting approximately 117,500 citizens of communist China select the mayors, City Council members, district attorneys, and other officials of America’s most-populous municipality.

Imagine the citizens of our enemy nations selecting who governs us. These elections, so far, are at the local level, but it’s the local levels that are the foundations on which are built that our higher jurisdictions.

It’s at the local level that our ordinances and laws are created—by elected lawmakers that citizens of our enemies have a say in electing. Which gives those foreign citizens a say in the local ordinances and laws that govern us. Those local ordinances and laws are the foundation on which the statutes enacted by our higher jurisdictions are built.

One city, albeit one of our largest, might not seem much of a threat, and it’s not. But it’s more than a start: Progressive-Democrats in other local jurisdictions have already done the deed. They’ve

already empowered foreign citizens to vote for San Francisco school board and in local races in two Vermont cities and 11 Maryland communities.

The Control of the People’s Republic of China

The nation appears to be close to running the United Nations as its own PR firm. Emma Reilly was an Irish Human Rights Officer with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Then she gave an interview to Le Monde [Google Translate is friendly enough] in which she described the UNHCR as having giving up the names of Chinese dissidents who were to travel to Geneva to testify before the UNHCR to the People’s Republic of China, just because the PRC demanded the information.

Indeed,

Since the beginning of September, this 42-year-old Irishwoman…has no longer had access to her professional emails. This is the price to pay for denouncing the privileges that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has granted to China under pressure.

That objection was raised first with High Commissioner for Human Rights, who chose not to respond, then with a number of governments, including ours, also with nary a meaningful response. Only then did she go to the press.

She was fired from the UN the day after her Le Monde interview, with no objection from any of the UNHCR members or from the UN membership at large. Not even the Biden-Harris administration directly or via the administration’s ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, dared issue a peep of objection. Not even when she raised the problems with the Biden-Harris administration’s UN missions in New York and in Geneva.