Tag Archives: ethics

Speaking of Rule of Law….

Posted on by
Reply

At any rate, I am, even if our Attorney General disdains to, or even to operate under it.

Federal US code 1507, states that any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a US court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” will be fined, or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Never mind that the avowed purpose of the protesters is to influenc[e] any judge while protesting near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge. Indeed, the purpose of any protest is to influence the target of the protest.

Yet Attorney General Merrick Garland refuses to take any action at all regarding such protestors, much less arrest them and hale them into criminal court to stand trial for their actions. This, even after the Justices’ home addresses were made public, even after one Justice became the target of a murder attempt, even after the children of another Justice became targets of the…protesters. Or in an atmosphere created by a Progressive-Democratic Party Senator openly threatening two Justices by name.

Again, I say: we dodged a bullet—one of President Joe Biden’s (D) hated large caliber 9mm ones that he’s so desperate to ban—when we didn’t get Garland on our Supreme Court.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his equally progressive crony DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas now intend to move illegal aliens crossing our border into the interior of our nation, at taxpayer expense, where they will live in accommodations also provided at taxpayer expense.

The plan is designed to lessen the crowding now taking place along the border, where illegal immigrants have flooded the shelters in many cities, causing Customs and Border Protection agents to reportedly release the crossers onto the streets.

This, of course, is the wrong answer to the (over)crowding now occurring along our border.

The right answer is to not have the crowding at all, by not allowing the illegal aliens to come into our nation in the first place, and to promptly deport those who do cross our border illegally and are subsequently caught.

No one—not armies, not individuals, not collections of individuals—has any intrinsic right to enter another country without that country’s prior permission. No country has any intrinsic obligation to grant that permission. Borders and permission-granted entries are how a nation protects its own culture—and in the particular case of the United States, it’s how we protect the American culture and opportunities that make our nation a desirable place to live and to come to.

But the Biden administration knows this. The flooding of our nation with illegal aliens is one aspect of Joe Biden’s and his predecessor and BFF/mentor, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D), promises to fundamentally transform America.

“every company should be free to support what they want”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s part of the typical response of Floridians regarding Governor Ron DeSantis’ (R) veto of the Tampa Bay Rays’ training facility being built with taxpayer money, at least as reported by Fox News.

After vetoing the funding, DeSantis said Friday that he doesn’t “support giving taxpayer dollars to professional sports stadiums” and that “it’s inappropriate to subsidize political activism of a private corporation.”

Most Floridians agree with the first part of DeSantis’ statement that taxpayer money shouldn’t be spent on a private sports facility.  Many—most?—disagree with the last part.

Governor DeSantis wants everyone to be free and have freedoms. I think that every company should be free to support what they want.

Certainly. And companies are. But they should express their views, support the causes they choose, on their own dime. Taxpayer dollars have no business being spent on a private company’s individual activism.

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.

On the Matter of the Capital Police…

Posted on by
Reply

…officer entering a Republican Congressman’s Capital Building offices and photographing his writings on his office white board. There’s this from the Capital Police Department Inspector General:

The officer reported that during a routine patrol he found the door to [Congressman Troy (R, TX] Nehls’ office was wide open and “nothing was being used to prop the door open.” The officer said he entered to ensure there was no danger, then discovered the writings on the white board and photographed them because he considered them suspicious.
But the inspector general reviewed the doors to Nehls’ office and could not replicate keeping any of the congressman’s office doors open without having them propped by an item.
“All three doors only opened inward into the office suite and would close automatically when released,” the IG noted. “All three doors also automatically locked when closed during the examination.
“The only method of keeping one of these doors open on its own would be to prop it open with an object or to set the lock bolt in place when the door was open, in which case the door would only partially close due to the lock bolt preventing the door from fully closing.”

The officer personally considered what was written on the white board—legislative plans, according to Nehls—”suspicious.” And he lied about the door being wide open and unpropped.

Hmm….