Tag Archives: rights

Couple Problems

Posted on by
Reply

…with the New Jersey Middlesex Borough schools assistant superintendent response to a parent’s objections to the district’s refusal to reopen its schools for in-person, and socializing, teaching and learning.

Following repeated virtual learning complaints from a New Jersey parent, a school official fired back with an email shaming that mom.
“We know that parents and students are not following the same CDC guidelines that you continue to share with us that detail the importance of social distancing and mask wearing,” assistant superintendent of Middlesex Borough schools Paul Rafalowski wrote, according to a Feb 11 email obtained by NJ Advance Media. “Case in point, we were provided a number of photos that illustrate the precise reason our school community remains in Phase 1 (virtual).”

A fair enough beef, were the response accurate.

However.

The first problem is that school district’s management is not acting in accordance with the science. That science strongly indicates that it’s safe for the kids to be in school—safer, in fact, than keeping them home and asocial—and safe for the teachers and school staff, who are not at risk of the kids spreading the Wuhan Virus to teachers and staff (not to each other).

The second problem was pointed out by one of the parents responding to the assistant superintendent’s shameful response. Middlesex Borough parent Roger Sanchez regarding the photos that Rafalowski published along with his email:

The point is a government body should never be allowed to document the lives of private citizens and their children.

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

Another in the annals. This one, in Australia, illustrates another failure of those secondary schools that are trapped in the gaols of the Woke Left.

Australian National University have a new Gender-Inclusive Handbook out—fortunately not authoritative, only “advisory,”—giving “guidance” on the correct terms professors should use.

A couple examples:

  • not “mother,” but “gestational parent”
  • not “father,” but “non-birthing parent”
  • not “breastfeeding,” but “breast/chest feeding”
  • not “mother’s milk,” but “human/parent’s milk”

After all, according to a Lauren Dinour bit of…research…

heterosexual and woman-focused lactation language…can misgender, isolate, and harm transmasculine parents and non-heteronormative families.

Right.

I have a question. What if the father identifies as the mother?

OK, two questions. Why is the handbook only in English? There are five Asian and Middle eastern languages spoken in Australia, and over 250 indigenous Australian languages spoken there. I thought they were serious about inclusivity.

Too Far

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) has reintroduced his Terror Intelligence Improvement Act, his bill to allow Government to block suspected terrorists from obtaining firearms. This bill, far from improving anything, is a long step back from our rights under our Constitution. As Dana Loesch summarized it in her newsletter (behind a paywall after this month; subscribe now for a discount on her subscription price),

The bill would also provide more authority for law enforcement agencies to go after suspected terrorists, while safeguarding law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment and due process rights.

But, as Loesch goes on to point out, that’s internally contradictory. It’s simply not possible to restrict American citizens’ rights while protecting those same American citizens’ rights. A suspect is just that—a suspect, and so still innocent, regardless of suspicion.

Then, however, Loesch makes her own mistake.

If lawmakers want to stop suspected terrorists placed on a watch list from buying firearms they need to indict them.
I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem with that. All a prosecutor has done with an indictment is convince a secret group of men and women that he has probable enough cause to hale the indictee—possibly an infamous ham sandwich—into criminal court for trial.

The indictee still is innocent; he hasn’t been proven otherwise in that criminal court.

It’s true enough that we do restrict innocent men—we lock them up; we make them wear ankle bracelets; we make them pay a significant something of value to be released, under restrictive conditions, from jail pending trial; and so on.

But those restrictions are done in open court where the prosecutor must convince the judge that his proposed restrictions are warranted, and he must do so in the face of the defendant’s right to answer the proposed restrictions.

Simple indictment isn’t enough. If the suspected terrorist must be denied his 2nd Amendment rights (in the present context), let the prosecutor show in open court that his suspicion is well enough founded that his suspect should be locked up.

As a practical matter, too, that’s the only way to deny such a suspect firearms—outside of jail, there simply are too many means of access to firearms, legal or not.

Beyond that, there’s another, better, way to protect us from terrorists, whether those persons are armed or not. That is for Government to get out of the way of the first responders to any situation—us citizens who happen to be already on scene when the action goes down—carrying our own firearms.

Coverup

Posted on by
2

And so it begins in earnest, again.

The Biden administration will ask U.S. attorneys appointed by President Trump to resign from their posts….

In particular,

…John Durham, the US district attorney in Connecticut who was named special counsel to investigate the origins of the FBI probe into the 2016 election, will resign from his position, but he will stay on as special counsel….

Special counsel. Sure. With much more circumscribed authorities and duties. Durham’s investigations will be slow-walked, now.

As will DoJ’s “probe” into Hunter Biden’s tax behaviors, People’s Republic of China business dealings, and “other transactions”. Even though the prosecutor overseeing that activity will stay on that task, look for it to be slow-moving as well, ultimately just petering out quietly.

Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the Senate put Progressive-Democrats on the record on a number of amendments to Party’s budget reconciliation move—itself a deliberate act to sideline any dissent—which Republicans offered during a Thursday afternoon through Friday morning vote-a-rama. Party’s budget reconciliation then was voted up strictly along party lines.

Here’s some of what the Senate’s Progressive-Democrats oppose. Notice that every one of these would have enhanced Americans’ national security, economy, and individual liberty had they had the support of even a single Progressive-Democrat.

  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to support the border wall
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment supporting the free exercise of religion
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to oppose packing the Supreme Court
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing stimulus checks for people in prison
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing the Biden administration’s move to restrict oil and gas leasing on federal lands
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing a federal carbon tax