Tag Archives: ethics

“You Do Not Need….”

Posted on by
Reply

In Canada, too. There’s a petition—one that drew a record number of signatures—in Canada calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw his Order in Council (roughly analogous to our Presidents’ Executive Orders) regarding his gun control overreach [emphasis added, but that’s a side issue].

We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Prime Minister to immediately scrap his government’s May 1, 2020, Order in Council decision related to confiscating legally owned firearms and instead pass legislation that will target criminals, stop the smuggling of firearms into Canada, go after those who illegally acquire firearms, and apologize to legal firearms owners in Canada[.]

Trudeau’s Order was instituted through taking cynical advantage of the upset over a mass murder in Nova Scotia a short time earlier, and he executed it in the absence of Parliament, which was not sitting due to the Wuhan Virus situation in Canada. His Order banned more than 1,500 models and variants of rifles, including AR-15s, Mini-14s, and firearms that the Nova Scotia gunman used. Trudeau, in the arrogance of government, rationalized his Order:

You do not need an AR-15 to take down a deer[.]

Those in government can’t conceive of the need for those being ruled over to defend themselves against criminals, including home invaders, rioters, looters—and crazed gunmen—when it’s so plainly the government’s police who are solely responsible for such defense, and it’s the responsibility of the attacked citizens to wait patiently on the government’s police’s arrival.

Those in government can’t conceive of the need for those being ruled over to defend themselves against that very government.

Those in power are oblivious to their own arrogance. That obliviousness itself creates an entirely separate need for the citizenry to define for themselves their need for and their purpose in having weapons.

That obliviousness itself creates an entirely separate need for an armed citizenry, one armed with the weapons of their individual choice, not those permitted by government.

He Misspoke?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke to a few reporters who, along with a few union bigwigs, were his entire audience (carefully unfilmed by the press, in contrast to the frequently done panning across President Donald Trump’s audiences with a view to “worrying” about masks and social distancing) at his Warren, MI, campaign stop the other day.

At that campaign event, Biden said that our armed forces had seen 118,984 cases and 6,114 deaths.

Stop and think about that. The context of that particular claim was Biden taking Trump to task for the latter’s alleged mishandling of our nation’s Wuhan Virus situation, haranguing him over the deaths that have resulted and how Trump should have done better. It was within that, that Biden made his charge of hundreds of thousands of Wuhan Virus cases and thousands of Wuhan Virus deaths in our military.

Shortly after Biden made that charge, his Deputy Rapid Response Director, Michael Gwin, “clarified” Biden’s remarks: the military has had only 7 deaths from the virus; Biden mistakenly had read the wrong datum from his notes and had read off Michigan’s virus statistics.

Now think about that. Biden, knowing full well the vanishingly small number of virus-generated deaths in our military, accidentally and unquestioningly read off Michigan’s far larger numbers in support of his castigation?

That’s what Gwin would have us believe. Never mind that Biden had those data written down in his notes.

No.

Biden’s error was not a misspeak, nor was it a “senior moment,” as others might think.

Biden’s error was in his thinking he could utter such an obvious lie and get away with it.

On the other hand, maybe I can interest Gwin’s audience in investing in a bridge across Lake St Clair that I hear the Biden Infrastructure Program is planning on building.

Let Them Pound Sand

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the Marie Antoinette double standard of the Progressive-Democratic Party rubbed in our faces. In Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) San Francisco, yet.

Gyms within government buildings in San Francisco have been open for months, despite privately owned establishments being ordered to close due to the coronavirus.

Wow. The brazen chutzpah of Party.

He Ain’t Black

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not just Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s attitude about blacks who don’t support him or otherwise toe the Party’s line.

It’s the Progressive-Democratic Party as a whole.

Black ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Tennessee State Representative John DeBerry, Jr, has been purged from Party.  He didn’t toe the Party line, so he’s not black enough for Party.

I’ve never had a Republican opponent. My opponents have always been those of my own party who refuse to allow me to have my own opinions, my own beliefs and to make my own stands. If I don’t walk the chalk line, talk like they tell me to talk, then I am therefore not a Democrat[.]

JtN cited him further:

The veteran state lawmaker said that the party took issue with his biblical values, including his “belief in the Scriptures, a biblical standard of morality, a biblical standard of ethics, in life, in marriage, in parental responsibility and parental authority.”

‘Course, this speech likely didn’t endear him to Party.

This is the Party that wants to reign over us.

A DA Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diane Becton has decided that looters’ “needs” should matter in a prosecutor’s assessment of whether he should charge them with their crimes.

Becton’s full guidelines for charging an individual with looting are:

  1. Was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneous to the declared state of emergency?
    1. Factors to consider in making this determination:
      1. Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency?
      2. What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the business?
      3. What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted?
      4. Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?
      5. Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn’t adequately address the particular incident?

A defendant’s “needs” are centered on his motive for committing the crime of which he’s accused. As such, they’re best considered by a jury during the penalty phase of the trial. “Needs” have no place in deciding whether the public, or the specific victims of the crime, should be allowed access to justice after having been, in the present context, looted, their property vandalized, destroyed, or stolen.

Even a California district attorney must understand this.