More Government Overreach

And by the SEC, yet, which already has its extra-judicial structure of accuser, judge, punisher administrative law judge system in the Federal courts over the legitimacy of such an arrangement.

Now it’s the SEC-proposed rule that would require private enterprises—which by definition are outside the purview of the Securities and Exchange Commission—to open their books to public scrutiny and SEC approval.

Worse, a broad range of elites are supporting this naked overreach:

University endowments, insurance funds, and retirement funds serving teachers and firefighters are urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to move forward with a proposed rule that would ensure private-fund investors receive annual audits and quarterly statements.

Such a move would destroy the private nature and purpose of private enterprises—i.e., enterprises that are wholly owned by a small group of entity operators and which do not sell ownership shares on the open market or permit the owners’ own equity portions to be traded about on open markets.

But the rule-supporting elites give their game away:

Many pension plans are having a hard time meeting their payout obligations to members, the result of decades of underfunding, benefit overpromises, and unrealistic demands from unions.

So they want to get into private entities, even though those entities do not want the elites’ involvement—it’s part of why they’re, you know, private. But in order to do so, those private companies must open their books to the SEC—and the public.

It’s a bad rule, and it should be withdrawn by a serious SEC or blocked outright by Congress. This is a free market matter: if an investor doesn’t like the information he gets—doesn’t get—when he looks into a company with a view to investing, he’s free to not invest.

Full stop.

I Disagree

(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.

Red Flag Laws

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.

“Refuse to Enforce”

That’s the position of a large number of leftist District Attorneys regarding State abortion-related laws that are likely to take effect or get enacted if the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, significantly restricts or overrules Roe v Wade. The DAs are going on record as saying they won’t enforce anti-abortion laws that might take effect.

District attorneys in metropolitan areas including Atlanta, New Orleans, Dallas, and San Antonio have said they won’t prosecute abortion providers or others, including those who assist a woman in obtaining the procedure.

Those aren’t the only regions, either. An Arizonan is running for District Attorney on her promise to refuse to enforce any Arizona anti-abortion law. A sitting DeKalb County, GA, District Attorney says she won’t prosecute abortion providers—Georgia law be damned, apparently, when it doesn’t suit her personal whim.

Object to anti-abortion laws if they disagree with them, certainly. DAs also should work to change those laws, if they disagree with them. But blithely disregard or disobey them?

Only the Left views laws as suggestions to be heeded or ignored at convenience.

DAs—officers of our governments—who ignore these laws or any others they find inconvenient are breaking those laws, and they’re violating their oaths of office.

Those are offenses worthy of prompt removal from office.

That’s Their Goal

The Progressive-Democratic Party is pushing bills in the House and Senate—the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act is the House version—that would attach price controls to gasoline sales. The Taxpayers Protection Alliance says, correctly, that such a move could lead to a return to the gas lines of the 1970s. That’s the period of then-President Richard Nixon’s (R) price control regime which he implemented in response to OPEC’s oil embargo against us.

But gasoline lines and limited supply of oil- and gas-based (and coal-based) energy are Party’s and President Joe Biden’s (D) purpose. Those are intended to drive us off hydrocarbon-based energy altogether in favor of the Left’s phantasmal “green energy” utopia.

Recall that Biden’s mentor and BFF, then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama (D) campaigned on a promise to apply regulations that would price coal plants completely out of business.

Recall that then-Presidential candidate Joe Biden (D) campaigned on a promise to end oil and gas production and force us onto solar- and wind-powered energy.

Recall that newly sworn President Joe Biden (D) canceled Keystone XL, a pipeline that would have brought 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil into the US for refining and supply. He then implemented Executive Orders and instructed his various Cabinet Departments to implement regulations that would severely inhibit domestic oil and gas production.

Recall that Biden still is having his Cabinets slow-walk leasing for oil and gas production on Federal lands, and is even slower-walking permits actually to do anything with those leases that are eventually granted.

What we have now is President Joe Biden (D) implementing his own oil embargo against us and his Party syndicate in Congress looking to tighten the embargo.