Tag Archives: ethics

Progressive Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

…are what government says they are.  Last week, though, the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, struck down a San Diego County, California law that asserted exactly that.  This law

requir[ed] residents to show a “pressing need” in order to get a permit to carry weapons in public.

However,

The judges found that in order to receive a permit, a person need only show a desire to defend himself outside the home.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, writing for the court, clearly does understand the situation.  Addressing three other Appellate Court rulings upholding public carry restrictions (a fourth Appellate Court struck such restrictions), he wrote

they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense reasons.

Jon Lowy, Director, Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, demurred, however:

Neither history nor precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined…have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

Rights are what a Progressive government says they are, according to this Progressive.

No, Mr Lowry.  You clearly do not understand inalienable rights, nor our Constitution.  The right to life is inalienable, and it carries with it the inalienable right to self-defense.  Neither are “concocted rights.”  These rights, moreover, carry within them the right to possess the means with which to carry out that defense.  Everywhere.  These inalienable rights are not at all limited to places convenient to government.  Full Stop.

Moreover, the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution says this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The binding document, within which our governments—at all levels—must operate, has said all there is to say on our right to keep and bear arms.  Especially in public.  Governments have very little at all to add regarding “good cause or qualifications.”  Full Stop.

Keystone XL’s Fate

Posted on by
Reply

Here are two Congressmen who oppose building this pipeline.

  • Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA):
    • $15k-$50k stake in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, intent on building a Keystone competitor pipeline
  • Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D, CA):
    • $15k-$50k stake in Enbridge Energy Management
    • $1-$15k in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
    • $15k-$50k stake in Kinder Morgan Management; these three also are intent on building Keystone competitor pipelines

Crony capitalism, indeed.

Silencing Critics

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t enough that the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, are so terrified at the Conservative message that the President sicced his IRS on Conservative political entities in an effort to suppress their political speech as it was expressed as financial support for Conservative and Republican candidates in the 2012 elections.

Now they’re attempting to codify that suppression with a new Treasury rule for the IRS regarding what Democrats will permit 501(c)(4) entities to do in the coming elections.

Here is what a 501(c)(4) entity is, according to the Legal Information Institute:

(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

It’s that educational part that’s important: educating the public about political matters and about where politicians stand on those matters is, well, educational.  It’s just that overt political activity can’t be the predominant activity of a (c)(4) entity.  This is one of the outcomes of the Supremes’ 2010 Citizens United decision regarding the unconstitutional ban of a Hillary Clinton documentary in the runup to the 2008 Democratic Party primaries.

Here are excerpts from Treasury’s new proposed rule for executing that suppression:

1.  Communications

Communications that are made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.
…
3.  Activities Closely Related to Elections or Candidates

Holding an event within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) at which a candidate appears as part of the program.
…
Treasury and the IRS are planning to issue additional guidance…public focus regarding the proportion of a section 501(c)(4) organization’s activities that must promote social welfare.  Due to the importance of this aspect of the regulation, the proposed guidance requests initial comments on this issue.

This timing of activities, also, was addressed by the Supremes in Citizens United.  Moreover, Treasury is moving to keep their follow-on rule regarding proportionality under the radar until after the 2014 elections, thus leaving the claimed ambiguity in place for further 2012-style IRS suppression of Conservative entities.

Clearly, Treasury is intent on facilitating the IRS’ ability to harass and to outright silence government-disapproved organizations—especially those impertinent enough to disagree with the administration.

All of this is in an election year, no less.

The full text of Treasury’s announcement concerning the rule can be seen via The Washington Post.

A Conservative’s Thoughts on Rights and Duties, their Duality, and some Implications

Posted on by
Reply

I have a new pamphlet out, A Conservative’s Thoughts on Rights and Duties, their Duality, and some Implications; a link to the Kindle version of it (the only version, currently) has been added to the sidebar at right.

I touched on rights and duties and their duality in my book A Conservative’s Manifesto, but only tangentially to a larger discussion of Conservative principles.  However, an understanding of individual rights and individual duties, especially their nature as individual endowments rather than as attributes of groups of men or as grants from some men acting in a “government’s” name, forms a critical part of Conservative thought.  Now, with us Americans broadly divided on what our rights and duties really are, or even whether the government should have them instead of us, is the time to expand on that peripheral discussion and to address the matter directly.

My central thesis is this: our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties, as endowments from and by our Creator, and as duals of each other, are a part of the fabric of our existence—both as individual rights and duties and in the capacity of those duals.  Further, just as importantly, our inalienable rights and our inalienable duties are in each of us as individuals; they are not in groups of us, they are not in the whole of us as a nation.  Each one of us is possessed of them entirely in ourselves.

This, of course, has implications for the role our government, and especially for the roles of “civil law” and “civil rights,” in our lives.

I hope you enjoy the pamphlet.

Free Speech, Progressive Style—Renewed

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has the sordid tale.  A week and a half ago, Third Way Founder, Trustee, and Andrew Cuomo ex-aide Jon Cowan and Third Way Founder and Chuck Schumer ex-aide Jim Kessler wrote an opinion piece.  The Third Way is a think tank that thinks from the Left.

Maybe you remember the op-ed: Cowan and Kessler used it to suggest that Americans aren’t quite as liberal some might think based on New York City’s strong election of someone like Bill de Blasio as mayor, that Social Security is nearly bust, and that wealth redistribution actually is pretty unpopular with most of us.

Well.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, et al., demanded among other things, that Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D, PA), walk away from Third Way.  She’s a Third Way Honorary Co-Chair (along with other Progressive luminaries like Congressman James Clyburn (D, SC), Senator Chris Coons (D, DE), and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius), and she also wants to be governor of Pennsylvania.  Responding to her instructions, she denounced the op-ed, in the WSJ‘s words, “faster than you can say Reeducation Camp.”  (Although she’s still listed by Third Way as an Honorary Co-Chair.)

Not to be outdone, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) sent letters to six large banks which she regulates from her perch on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and in those letters she demanded those banks disclose all their donations to think tanks.

Don’t talk, PCCC and Warren are saying to these miscreants.  Just read from the script we’ve given you.  When we want your opinions, we’ll give them to you.