Tag Archives: responsibilities

Public Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment is brief and crystal clear:

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 Supreme Court has already ruled, several times, that a well regulated militia is an outcome facilitated by individuals keeping and bearing arms, it’s not the purpose of that. The Court has further clarified that to mean shall not be infringed is nearly all-encompassing, with only a few carefully enumerated locations that can bar individuals from bringing their firearms. That short list includes locations like polling places, post offices, public-accessible private facilities like places of business that post clear signs prohibiting them on the premises. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc, et al. v Bruen is one example of this.

Hawaii wants to outlaw carrying firearms altogether, having devised and enacted a State law that bars carrying anywhere—private enterprises, even other folks’ homes—unless those places are explicitly posted permitting the carrying. As the Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly note,

A shop could theoretically post a sign on the door—or the parking lot entrance?—saying it doesn’t object to concealed carry. But it’s easy to see why a proprietor might hesitate, since a “Pistols Welcome” banner might alienate other customers. Businesses have an incentive to accept whatever is the default.

Hence the effective ban on carrying firearms that the State is attempting. The State argues that

[a] default of no guns…fits Hawaii’s custom and “unique history,” dating to King Kamehameha III, who banned weapons in 1833.

Bruen, though, says otherwise.

[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Nation’s historical tradition, not any particular State’s personal choice. Bruen is as crystalline as is our basic right under the 2nd Amendment. Hawaii’s statute needs to be struck down completely.

He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Woodson, Woodson Center Founder and President, wrote in the lede of his Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed this:

Black America must declare a one-year moratorium on whining about racism. Not because racism has disappeared, and not to soothe the sensitivities of white America—but because grievance has become a shield protecting predators within our own communities. Accusations of racism are routinely weaponized to silence accountability, excuse corruption, and reward moral cowardice.

That’s absolutely correct. One of the Critical Items in American culture, currently under direct assault by open borders and the detritus remaining from that, is that our republic can survive only with acceptance and action on personal responsibility. Government is a last resort in that, not the default solution.

Then Woodson expanded on that in a way that too few folks who should know better have the courage (or integrity, I add) to do.

Civil-rights leaders and politicians remain conspicuously silent, waiting instead for the next police shooting or racial controversy they can exploit for media attention and moral posturing. Call out this silence, and you will be accused of racism—bullied into retreat by those who profit from outrage while ignoring the suffering in their own backyard. This silence isn’t compassion. It is cowardice.

He’s especially right about that last. It’s also an especially cowardly form of cowardice. Bullies have only the power over their victims that their victims consciously, deliberately, choose to grant those bullies. These grown, adult, allegedly rational civil-rights “leaders” and politicians assuredly know that. Yet they still bow down and if not actively kiss the boots of their bullies, passively cower under their desks, hoping to go unnoticed.

These folks are unworthy of their civil-rights or political desks, and they should be disregarded by the rest of us.

What is a Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said under oath at her confirmation hearing that she could not define what a woman is. Now we have a gynecologist, Dr Nisha Verma, Physicians for Reproductive Health Fellow, who also was under oath and who specializes in treating women, saying that she cannot define what a man is. During a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing centered on Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs, Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) asked her—repeatedly—whether men could get pregnant.

Hawley: Do you think that men can get pregnant?
Verma: I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going, or what the goal was. I mean I do take care of patients with different identities, I take care of many women, I take care of people with different identities, and so that’s where I paused. I think…I wasn’t sure where you were going with that.
Hawley: Well, the goal is just the truth, so can men get pregnant?
Verma: Again, the reason I paused there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question….
Hawley: The goal is just to establish a biological reality. You just said a moment ago that “science and evidence should control, not politics.” So, let’’ just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?
Verma: I take care of people with many identities, but I take care of many women that can get pregnant. I do take care of people that don’t identify as women….”
Hawley: Can men get pregnant?
Verma: I totally agree, science and evidence should guide medicine….
Hawley: Do science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant? Biological men—can they get pregnant?
Verma: [Paraphrased by OANN] shifted her strategy, arguing that yes/no questions are “a political tool.”
Hawley: Yes/no questions are about the truth, doctor. Let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding[.]
Verma: [Paraphrased by OANN] accused the congressman of “trying to reduce the complexity” of her patients” experience, then of “conflating male [and] female with men and women.”

On the first part of Verma’s last answer, she’s conflating her patients’ experiences with who her patients are. There’s no doubt her patients’ experiences can get highly complex, whether they’re women or men trying to set themselves up as women, however sincerely the latter. There’s nothing complex, though, about who her patients are; that’s a simple, binary matter: her patients are either women, or they’re men. That’s the simple, straightforward biology of the matter.

Verma’s determined refusal to answer Hawley’s simple question is her confession that she cannot define what a man is. Of course, as I noted above, women are her specialty, and a la Brown Jackson, she’s not a specialist in maleness.

Contradictory and Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out, with Valero, California’s major refinery operator, at the center of the contradiction and foolishness.

A refining company proceeding with its plans to idle its gasoline refinery in California announced Tuesday it will help out California consumers by importing gasoline, which will help shore up the state’s dwindling supply.

The refining company is Valero, and it’s being forced to close its refinery by California’s hostile regulatory environment for oil and natural gas production and for gasoline and ICE engine-powered vehicles in particular. The contradiction is Valero’s decision to close its gasoline-producing refinery as no longer economically viable while deciding to import gasoline from outside the State.

The foolishness is Valero’s decision to import gasoline into the State after closing its refinery in the State.

As Tim Stewart, US Oil and Gas Association President, put it as quoted by Just the News,

Governor Newson trumpeting his leadership is like the captain of a sinking ship taking credit for handing out life jackets after he’s crashed the ferry on the rocks. It was the lack of leadership on energy policy that got California to this point….

It’s not entirely Newsom’s fault, though; he had help from his Progressive-Democrat-run State legislature, which passed the laws he signed, and from his regulators, who wrote the implementing regulations.

Much more than that, though, the fault lies with California’s citizens. If those folks really were concerned about their gasoline availability and pricing and their ICE vehicles, they’d stop electing representatives and governors who are overtly hostile to gasoline and local production of gasoline supplies and to ICE vehicles.

“Multicultural”

Posted on by
Reply

A news writer for The New York Times, Peter Baker, in typical journalism guild, misstated American culture in an interview with the left-wing network PBS‘ Washington Week With the Atlantic, as excerpted by The Wall Street Journal.

One of the things that they’ve [the Trump administration] been very successful at, and I would expect to see more of, is their war on DEI, on the notion of diversity, equity and inclusion, the notion that diversity is an admirable goal, even if you don’t necessarily want quotas. They have managed in just a very short amount of time to create a new culture in the country—not just in the government, across the board—where private employers feel the need to retreat from DEI. And you’re going to see, I think, an acceleration of that in the second year…. I think the question, though, is in a multicultural country, at some point does that begin to go too far for people and by the midterms?

Leave aside Baker’s blithe assumption that there’s nothing intrinsically racist or sexist in DEI, which favors approved races and the approved gender at the direct, deliberate expense of disapproved races and the disapproved gender. Those favoring criteria, however far down the selection tree they might be, are explicitly and by design racist and sexist.

More than that, the United States is not a mix of race, of old-world cultures, of religions, or of whathaveyous. The Unites States is a nation of a single culture, one unified by a common belief in a basic system of intrinsic rights: to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness and of a limited government granted to which by our nation’s sovereign citizens only enough power and authority to protect those intrinsic and basic rights.

Baker’s bald claim that the United States is a multicultural country is as cynical as it is wrong.

Even that queen of European identity politics, Germany’s ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, ultimately recognized that multiculturalism is an abject failure. And that’s something that Americans have known since our inception, if unevenly put or kept in effect.