Category Archives: rights

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.

Hypocrisy of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Sanctuary City San Francisco has

proposed new city regulations, which could only be aimed at High Bridge Arms, would have required the shop to take and preserve video of all transactions and turn customers’ personal data over to police on a weekly basis.

There was only one gun shop left in San Fran at the time these new rules were proposed. That shop already had 17 cameras installed and turned video over to the police on their request. However, as the shop’s General Manager said,

it’s the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods[.]

Rather than accepting that increased invasion, not just of an honest business doing business, but of the privacy of honest Americans doing honest business, the gun shop is closing.

Clearly, the Sanctuary City’s government and the residents that elect them care more about the ability of illegal immigrants with long records of violent crime to get guns than they do about honest Americans’ ability to defend themselves.

Democratic Party Policy Regarding New-borns

Posted on by
Reply

The House recently passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which requires that babies who survive an abortion attempt are to be cared for as though they’d been born more normally. The Act opens with these two paragraphs:

Sec. 2. Findings

Congress finds as follows:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

President Barack Obama has said he’ll veto this bill that protects babies newly born under a procedure that was intended to have a different outcome. His…rationale…is this:

HR 3504 [Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act] would impose new legal requirements related to the provision of abortion services in certain circumstances, which would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care.

If the President were presented with HR 3134 [Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015] or HR 3504, he would veto them.

This is nonsense. The Born-Alive bill has nothing to do with abortion, per se, only with its aftermath. The abortion ended with the removal of the baby from the mother’s womb. The task now is to care for a newly born baby. That this particular baby was born via a procedure that is not one of the more normal birthing procedures is wholly irrelevant to that.

Of course, Obama knows that. His decision—in advance of seeing the bill actually passed—to veto a bill that explicitly protects the life of a newly born infant, and the silence of his fellow Democrats on his veto threat, says volumes about the Democratic Party’s policy toward new-born babies.