Category Archives: rights

I Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

(Surprise.)

Oklahoma’s Attorney General John O’Connor (R) thinks banning “assault weapons” (whatever those are in the real world) looks like a big action, but it really isn’t.

Banning assault weapons looks like it’s a big action, but it really isn’t a big impact. We’re going to dance around all this, Neil, for a long time, but the fact is it’s criminals and people with some type of either long-term or temporary mental illness or depression. That’s the culprit. Only those people shoot people outside of our military.

He’s wrong. While such a ban would have little impact on availability to criminals and the insane, it would have a very large impact on us average Americans‘ ability to see to our own needs and purposes.

But the truly large impact would be on our Constitution and so on our individual rights (and duties). If allowed to stand, such a ban would degrade our 2nd Amendment, weakening it against additional and steadily broadening bans until our 2nd Amendment no longer exists in any material form.

Rank Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Did these European nations learn nothing from WWII, or are they gone soft in their wealth and safety under our American umbrella? Or do they ignore the fresh lessons the nations of eastern Europe—freed from Russian occupation only a generation ago—would teach them?

Some European Union states have floated the idea of giving President Vladimir Putin an off-ramp that would make it easier for him to justify a de-escalation to his domestic audience in Russia, while a peace plan drawn up by Italy proposed autonomy for Ukraine’s Crimea and Donbas.

Our own Henry Kissinger—who negotiated our preemptive surrender in Vietnam—is an especial embarrassment. Pontificating in Davos, he actually said with a straight face

…”ideally, the dividing line should return to the status quo ante,” suggesting that Ukraine should allow Russia to retain the Crimean Peninsula, which it annexed in 2014, and swaths of the eastern Donbas region seized by Moscow-backed separatists the same year.

And

pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine … but a new war against Russia itself.

That is Kissinger once again practicing his politics of preemptive surrender, ceding to Russia the occupied territories of Ukraine, a Kissingerian ownership based solely on their seizure by Russia at gunpoint.

It’s certainly easy enough for those far away from the fight for national survival, sitting in their air-conditioned offices, blithely to tell that nation to just give up some land and we’ll have peace in our time.

Never mind that giving away any square inch of a nation’s territory is giving away pieces of that nation’s existence. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had the right characterization of Kissinger’s words.

I get the sense that instead of the year 2022, Mr Kissinger has 1938 on his calendar. And that he thought he was addressing an audience not in Davos, but in erstwhile Munich.

One of Zelenskyy’s advisors, Oleksiy Arestovych, was more blunt:

Get lost with suggestions of this sort, that Ukraine should trade some of its territory. Children are dying here, soldiers are stopping shrapnel with their own bodies, and they’re telling us to sacrifice territory. It will never happen.

And from the second link just above:

they are telling us to sacrifice our land? Bite me, f*ckers.

Indeed.

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.