Category Archives: rights

A Progressive-Democrat Threatens

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Some Key Moments

Posted on by
Reply

From the oral arguments regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case currently before the Supreme Court. And my responses to them. Because you know I don’t lack for hubris.

Perhaps the most famous example of overturned precedent was the 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling, which reversed Plessy v Ferguson….

Well, there was another, preceding case—the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dred Scott v Sandford, which needed a Civil War to overturn because the Justices on the Taney Court and later lacked the integrity, the morals, the courage to overturn the ruling on their own.

And from CJ Roberts,

If we look at it from today’s perspective, it’s going to be a long list of cases that we’re going to say were wrongly decided.

If those rulings were wrongly decided at the outset, of course they should be reversed. Wrong doesn’t become right through the hoariness of age.

If the conditions of those rulings no longer exist, of course they should be reversed. The convenience of the Court isn’t relevant to any of that.

Additionally, Stewart gave Roberts a way out by saying Roberts’ examples are settled.

And,

“What would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life, that the line really doesn’t make any sense—that it is, as Justice Blackman himself described it, arbitrary?” Alito asked Rikelman.
Alito noted that while a woman may still want to terminate a pregnancy after viability, a “fetus has an interest in having a life” both before and after.
Rikelman replied[,] “It is principled because in ordering the interests at stake, the court had to set a line between conception and birth.”

Rikelman evaded Alito’s question. The baby always has an interest—the primary interest in the ordering of interests—in its own life.

Finally,

…a Supreme Court that has undergone enormous changes and currently sits at a 6-3 conservative majority.

No, it doesn’t. At best it sits at a 5-3-1 majority.

Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

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.

The Control of the People’s Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

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.

He Said It Out Loud

Posted on by
Reply

While using the subject of reparations and the claimed need for them, as his tool, Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D, NY) said the truth out loud.

When you analyze the landscape of the country, and when you see the leaders of our corporations, the CEOs, the majority of the presidents of this country, and when you look at who in this nation has wealth and power and influence and it doesn’t represent you, that is a trauma in and of itself[.]

This has nothing to do with reparations, whether or not such a thing is warranted based on events of more than 160 years—six and seven and more generations—ago. This, Bowman made crystalline, is all about jealousy of success and all about capping those successful, taking what they’ve earned away from them and giving it to others for no reason but those others aren’t as rich.

This call for redistribution also calls those who aren’t jealous of the wealthy’s success liars for their insistence that they aren’t jealous, that they aspire to become wealthy, also.

This call for redistribution also denies those who aren’t wealthy their opportunity to achieve their own wealth—they’ll only be capped in their turn.

This call for redistribution only concerns the Progressive-Democrats’ drive to “fundamentally change America,” to turn our nation into a socialist State.

One other thing: listen to Bowman’s (who’s black, which matters only in this context) phrasing.

intergenerational trauma that our people have experienced…. …form a commission to study the impact of these traumas on our people.

Our people. Not “Americans.” Not “the American people.” Bowman doesn’t even consider 10s of millions of Americans actually to be Americans. He’s segregating them out from America. That’s the Progressive-Democrats’ racist identity politics in action.