Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Why would people support laws that encourage criminal behaviour?
New Jersey Assembly passes bill that would allow illegal immigrants to obtain professional licenses
Immigration is the sole domain of the federal government; states have no direct say in who is allowed to immigrate to the United States. When states pass laws like this they are aiding and abetting the violation of federal law, and should be penalized like any other criminal for their actions.
…it sure seems like the next Democrat administration might seek to end the filibuster in the senate. And what better way than aligning the filibuster with racism?
“If all of this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.”
The truth is that the filibuster has proven a very useful tool in encouraging consensus on the senate. In any event, the filibuster long predates “Jim Crow” laws, so it looks like Obama is simply pulling the race card hoping to leverage the current turmoil. Nice job, Obama; thanks for fanning the flames further.
In any event, the filibuster has been weakened over the years, and is not nearly as effective as it has been in the past. Still, I hope that it can be maintained to prevent what many consider “the tyranny of the majority”.
Long live the filibuster, Mr. Smith.
Free political discussion should never have a minimum age.
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute recently gave a live-stream presentation challenging the BLM narrative and providing statistics regarding police shootings culled from federal data. However, the resulting video was taken down by YouTube as violating their “community guidelines”. After an inquiry to YouTube by National Review the video was reinstated, but it now appears to have an age restriction that requires you prove your age before it can be can viewed (you must sign in to prove your age).
And this from a social media giant that denies any political bias? Well, at least Facebook it allowing access to the video without an age check.
Editor’s note: I do not think that the YouTube age restriction for this video has anything at all to do with age. I think they want to know who is watching this video (remember, viewers have to login which allows them to be identified) so that they can properly profile users in preparation for the election propaganda campaigns. And you were worried about Russian interference?
I wonder how many doctors work at Instagram?
In this story, Instagram flags a video regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine shared by President Trump and Madonna as containing false information. However, not every doctor agrees as to the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the treatment. The doctors in the video believe it may help in some cases. Are we to believe Instagram, or the doctors themselves?
It appears to simply be another attack on Trump, refuting his claims of fake news by implying that he himself is a source of fake news. However, a disagreement among licensed doctors does not make one side of an argument “false”, and Instagram should be rightfully ridiculed for implying that only the doctors who agree with them are telling the truth.
I’d suggest leaving the treatment decisions to your doctor, not Instagram.
Politico accidentally reports Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate
Truly terrifying…. I cannot think of a more self-serving, soapbox-stealing demagogue of a politician than Kamala Harris. With Biden just waiting for the 25th amendment to rear its ugly head, we might as well address her as Madam President from the start.
Pelosi is starting to look good as 3rd in succession…
I know it’s futile, since the people who buy into the extreme-left position have already made up their mind (as have those who disagree with them), but at this point the rhetoric has become absurd. Want proof? Read on…
In the latest news from Portland, the city is fining the federal government $500 every 15 minutes for the “illegal” fence it erected around the federal courthouse when local officials refused to protect it from rioters. Their argument?
City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly said in a statement Tuesday that the fencing is obstructing the street outside of the courthouse.
The protestors are obstructing access to public roads and walkways every night; where are their fines, Commissioner? But wait; there’s more!
“We intend to collect,” said Eudaly, who added that she was “committed to doing everything in my power to end this federal occupation and move forward with our community’s reckoning with racial injustice and our efforts to transform our approach to policing and public safety.”
Federal occupation? Of federal property?? And how does this in any way prevent Portland from moving forward with its “…efforts to transform our approach to policing and public safety”?
But wait; there’s even more!! City Commissioner Eudaly also quoted as saying:
Typically, we would send a maintenance crew or contractor to remove such an obstruction, but I will not send workers into harm’s way,” she said. “Yes, I am afraid to direct workers to do their job and enforce our laws against the federal government—I hope that gives everyone reading this pause.”
Yes, it gives me pause – to believe the Commissioner might be insane. Making the claim that federal officers would harm city workers attempting to do their jobs is a baseless and reckless claim. I think there is a much better chance of them being harmed by the Commissioner’s beloved protesters/rioters.
And a final highlight from Commissioner Eudaly:
“Each and every one of you has a constitutional right to exercise your freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble,” she said.
Yes – peacefully being the operative word. And to protect that right to peacefully assemble authorities should stop those who are not peaceful, obstruct the public right-of-way, or destroy public or private property. Where are your concerns for the people whose right to access the public right of way has been denied, Commissioner? Where are your concerns for those whose property has been destroyed, or for the taxpayers who will have to pay to rebuild damaged government infrastructure – like the federal courthouse that has been under nightly siege?
While Eudaly’s cult-like followers might appreciate leftist propaganda, the claims made by the Commissioner are beyond reason and insult the senses. These claims make Commissioner Eudaly part of the problem in America today – not the solution.
The right “…to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…” is not unlimited. For instance, the 1st amendment calls out that the assembly must be peaceful; you cannot impair the rights and liberties of others while exercising your right to assemble. In addition, if you want to use a public venue for your protest then your assembly time and location may be reasonably limited so as to not unnecessarily impair the rights of others to use that same public space.
However, the protests that are currently racking the country are not peaceful. The protestors have ignored the rights of others to their life, liberty and property, and have commandeer public space without regard for the public as a whole. But all that is needed to restore order is for the laws of our nation – in particular the same Constitution that the protestors claim excuses their actions – to be upheld.
There is no right to protest violently; there is no right to protest at the expense of others. Protests must be peaceful, and respectful of public and private property as well as the rights of non-protestors. When protestors violate these rules, they can and should be stopped. When protestors commandeer highways or block roadways, preventing public use of public property without prior agreement, arrest them. When protestors damage public or private property, arrest them. When protestors attack police or others people, arrest them. Law enforcement should be allowed to use whatever level of force is necessary to put an end to violations of the rights of others and to arrest the perpetrators.
I do not know the motivations of the city leaders who are allowing the rights of their non-protesting citizens to be trampled, and their cities destroyed, by the lawless few. Perhaps it is political, and they hope that the blame for these violent protests will be place at the feet of the federal government (and thus the President in an election year) rather than their own. But it was not federal forces who killed George Floyd or any of the others for whom the protests rage; it was instead local police that inflicted harm. The protests – and the actions to correct the trespasses that spawned them – should be aimed at the local officials who are truly to blame.
It’s time to end these violent protests that are trampling the rights of so many others. Local officials should enforce the rule of law and protect the all of their citizens, and acknowledge that there is no right in the Constitution to violently protest. Also, local officials should stop using these protests as a means to a political end; political gain should not come at the expense of local constituents.
Ok – let’s be serious: How would you feel if you were wondering around and noticed that there were many statues honoring Hitler? Or Mussolini? Or that teenagers were painting Nazi swastika flags on the roof of their cars to commemorate the 3rd Reich? While each is a form of speech protected by our constitution, we’d consider the maintainers of these monuments idiots and shun them for their views.
The reality is that maintaining monuments honoring the losing side of a war, particularly a civil war fought over a now universally-despised practice such as slavery, is just plain dumb. At the time I can imagine that the purpose of these monuments was to act as a balm, something to ease our pain and heal the wounds of the nation. But the time for reconstruction is over; we need to move on. We should recognize the idiocy of maintaining monuments for those whose ideas we now find abhorrent.
That being said, destroying the monuments is rather dumb, too. It will not change history; in fact, removing these monuments entirely – and their reminder of what we’ve been through – would only leave us vulnerable to making the same mistakes again. These monuments should be preserved in museums to remind us of how far we’ve come – and the perils of ignoring our past.
…not as we do, Part II.
Ellen DeGeneres, an advocate for gun control (here and here for example), had her Montecito home burglarized recently. Her response (according to this news site): armed guards.
It’s easy to say people don’t need arms to defend themselves and should rely instead on police when you have your own armed security force. I wonder how Ellen would feel if we told her that her guards could not carry guns, either? Yeah; that’s what I think, too.
Editor’s note: I’m for sensible gun control. This means gun control measures that have a disproportionate impact on criminals and little impact on law-abiding citizens. My recommendations:
1) Universal voluntary instant background checks, with free or low-cost (<$10) firearm transfers facilitated by the local police or sheriff’s department. Use of this service immunizes the transferer from prosecution in the event the transferee is prohibited from owning firearms.
2) If you give, sell or otherwise transfer a gun to a prohibited person, you go to jail. Doesn’t matter whether or not you knew they were prohibited. After all, there is a free or low-cost transfer service available to immunize you from prosecution if you had even the slightest doubt (see #1 above).
3) Every crime gun is traced. If the perpetrator was someone prohibited from owning a firearm, the source of the firearm is charged (see #2 above).
I think that’s enough for now. Let’s see how these work out before we commit to disarming the entire U.S. population for the actions of a few criminals.
It’s time to renew your subscription to one of the last bastions of free thought in America: