Tag Archives: rights

Unsafe at any Quickness

Posted on by
Reply

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn is being asked by some 20 Senators—Republican; no Progressive-Democrat wanted any part of this—to take the abortifacient Mifeprex or mifepristone off the market.

The senators say that based on FDA reporting the drug has resulted in the death of more than 3.7 million unborn children and two dozen pregnant women.
They also said the drug has caused at least 4,195 negative reactions in pregnant women including hemorrhaging, excruciating abdominal pain and severe, life-threatening infections.

The drug is unsafe for a significant fraction of the mothers who take the drug. It’s 100% unsafe for the 3.7 million unborn babies that have been killed with it.

Ethnic Cleansing

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t limited to the Uighurs, and it’s much more insidious and consideredly humiliating than merely killing or exterminating through forced sterilization.

The People’s Republic of China is trying to exterminate Mongol culture and force them to live mainland Chinese culture.

Thousands of students in Inner Mongolia have taken to the streets during the past week to rally against the government’s three-year plan to push Mandarin-language education across the northern region and phase out local history, literature and ethnic textbooks in favor of national coursebooks, according to rights group Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center.

And

Under President Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist Party has intensified efforts to promote Mandarin and push the country’s ethnic minorities to adopt a uniform Chinese identity.

And

On Tuesday, the first phase of the new policy in Inner Mongolia launched to coincide with the start of the fall semester. It requires all schools to teach Mandarin using national instead of local course material starting in first grade—one year earlier than under the old system.
That means ethnic Mongolian children won’t be able to master the fundamentals of their own language before starting their Mandarin studies, [clothes seller in Xilinhot] Daguulaa said.

This is part of the threat all of us face from an acquisition-minded People’s Republic of China.

An Objection to a Recall Effort

Posted on by
Reply

There is in progress in Seattle an effort to recall Progressive-Democratic Mayor Jenny “Summer of Love” Durkan. Durkan objects.  A State trial court has said, over Durkan’s objection, that the recall effort can proceed, so Durkan has taken the matter to the State’s Supreme Court.

Remarkably, neither Petitioners nor the trial court identified the particular “policies and safety measures” Mayor Durkan had a duty to implement, but failed to enact.

Here are a couple that were evident to the trial court, are evident to the recall petitioner defendants, and are blindingly obvious to the Seattle residents.

Instead of ordering the city’s police to retreat and abjectly surrender their precinct headquarters and surrounding blocks to a rabble, she could have—should have—reinforced those police with more police, including State police (or at least asked for them; Governor Jay Inslee’s (D) support for police also is an open question) and not surrendered.

When it became obvious that the occupying rabble had no legitimate objective—they engaged in enthusiastic vandalizing, looting, extortion of uninformed visitors, rape, murder—she could have sent in the police to retake the area much sooner instead of wasting weeks, businesses’ lives, people’s lives pleading negotiating with the rabble.

Instead, she declared a Summer of Love while pretending to deal with the…situation.

The residents of Seattle, citizens of Washington and of the United States that they are, deserved, and deserve, better.

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.

Suicide Pact

Posted on by
Reply

The Thomas More Society has filed suit in Federal court against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) edict barring gatherings of more than 10 people indoors and more than 100 people outdoors.

[T]he nonprofits Election Integrity Fund and One Nation Michigan [plaintiffs in the Thomas More case] argue that Whitmer’s order functions as an abridgment of their right to free speech and assembly under the US Constitution.
Whitmer’s orders “constitute direct restrictions on [the groups’] right to engage in protected speech and assembly and therefore violate the First Amendment,” the suit argues, stating that any restrictions on constitutional rights “must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.”

Lower (State) courts have ruled that the Wuhan Virus situation is sufficiently important and dangerous that Government restrictions on Constitutional freedoms and rights must be overruled.

However, there is no clause in our Constitution that allows the Government to restrict individual liberties whenever it thinks something is more important than those liberties. In particular, the 1st Amendment says this in pertinent part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….

Hence the need for narrow tailoring of any intended restriction and the need even then—especially then—for that restriction to achieve a compelling government interest, not just one convenient to it. The Government has no interest, compelling or otherwise, in restricting these basic freedoms because of the virus, especially since it’s increasingly apparent that such restrictions cause more medical and economic harm than the virus itself.

Along these lines, Supreme Court Justices Robert Jackson (Terminiello v City of Chicago) and Arthur Goldberg (Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez) have argued that our Constitution “is not a suicide pact.” Indeed, it is not. However, deviation from our Constitution would lead quickly to national suicide.

The Thomas More case would be a slam-dunk were it not for a collection of self-serving politicians and a similar collection of activist judges.