Category: Rights

More from the Justice’s speech

BLUF:
If you’ve got an hour or so and you’re a legal geek like me, go watch Alito’s entire speech and read the brief that I linked above. Obviously Alito wasn’t going to say anything unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice, but I was struck by his quiet indignation over the NYC gun case, the second-class status of the Second Amendment, and the threats of “restructuring” the Court by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democratic senators. I get the feeling that Justice Alito is itching to take another Second Amendment case soon, and Lord knows there are plenty in the pipeline for him and his colleagues to accept in the months ahead.

Alito: Senators’ Threats In 2A Case “Affront To The Constitution”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s address to the Federalist Society on Thursday night is making headlines today largely for his comments about COVID-19 and the threat that the pandemic poses to individual liberties, but I’m surprised that more people aren’t talking about Alito’s reserved smackdown of five Democratic senator who threatened the Court with “restructuring” if it didn’t drop a challenge to a New York City gun law. The case, known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, ultimately was mooted by the Court earlier this year after New York City changed the law being challenged after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.

Reason has a full transcript and video of Justice Alito’s remarks, but I want to focus on what he had to say about our right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, the ultimate second tier constitutional right in the minds of some is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. From 2010, when we decided McDonald v. Chicago, until last term; the supreme court denied every single petition asking us to review a lower court decision that rejected the Second Amendment claim. Last year, we finally took another second amendment case. And what happened after that is interesting.

This isn’t the first time that Alito has complained about the Second Amendment being treated as second-class right. Alito penned the majority opinion in the McDonald case, and a decade ago he warned that the right to keep and bear arms rests on the same footing as the rest of our individual rights. Continue reading “”

Justice Alito: Pandemic Has ‘Resulted in Previously Unimaginable Restrictions on Individual Liberty’

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday said the coronavirus pandemic has “resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty” and warned that religious liberty is “in danger of becoming a second class right.”

Alito’s comments came during his virtual keynote speech to a conference of the conservative Federalist Society, in which the 70-year-old justice warned that the U.S. can’t allow the restrictions on personal liberty to continue after the pandemic has ended, noting that houses of worship have been treated particularly unfairly.

Continue reading “”

Cultural Superiority Isn’t Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best Countries

Elements of the left and their allies in the media are constantly driving this point home: White people are bad and so is the culture that they have created. Everything we value as a society is bad and, more than that, little more than an ex post facto justification for the subjugation of non-whites. Western culture is white culture, and all things white are bad.

But as with everything else which these elements of the left and their allies in the media push, this is simply false. While the overlap between white people – that is, people of European descent and some Christian populations in the Caucasus – and Western culture is undeniable, it is likewise undeniable that Western culture is no longer the exclusive domain of whites. What we can call, without the slightest bit of stretching the truth, Western culture is present not just in Western Europe, North America and Australia, but also in former British colonies such as Israel, Singapore and Hong Kong.

What’s more, a country simply being part of Europe does not make it “Western” in any meaningful sense. While there is a certain Western cultural continuum based around Christianity that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok, it would be overly simplistic (and indeed, a bit demeaning) to label the post-Soviet countries as “Western.” They have a similar set of cultural values rooted in Christianity, however, even the introduction of democracy has not made many post-Soviet and post-colonial nations more liberal in the true sense of the word – open markets, an emphasis on free speech, strong private property rights, an independent, impartial judiciary, and the primacy of the individual over that of the group.

Throughout this article we will provide some terms to define what we mean by “Western culture.” We will also make the case that Western cultural values have a universal aspect in the sense that they can be applied with success anywhere in the world, that these values are objectively superior to other value sets at maximizing human freedom, quality of life, and potential, and that the belief in this superiority has nothing to do with “racism” in the sense that it is commonly understood by ordinary people.

One demonstration of the proof that these values are objectively superior is that “people vote with their feet”, as Dr. Jordan Peterson points out: “The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid. Here’s how you know: Which countries do people want to move away from? Not ours. Which countries do people want to move to? Ours! Guess what, they work better. And it’s not because we went around the world stealing everything we could get our hands on. It’s because we got certain fundamental assumptions right – and thank God for that.”

Table of Contents

What Are Western Values?

Cultural Superiority isn't Racism: Why Western Values Underpin the World’s Best Countries

Before going any further, it is necessary to define what we mean by “Western values.” Indeed, what we mean by this is very specific and has a basis not in the West at large, but specifically in Anglo-Saxon culture. Virtually all of the values that we will identify in this article as being “Western” are perhaps more accurately termed “Anglo-Saxon values.” However, as the former term is more concise, succinct and in greater general use, we will use “Western values” throughout this article.

So what are these values? What is their origin? Where do they come from?

Again, it is our belief that what we call “Western values” are rooted firmly in the Anglo-Saxon tradition above all else. The formalization of these values can be found in the Magna Carta, but this simply codifies values that had been practiced in long standing in post-Anglo-Saxon Britain and likely long before it in some sense, going back to the days when the Angles and Saxons roamed the border regions between what is now Germany and Denmark.

While the Magna Carta is a complicated document, for our purposes it means something succinct and simple: it means that the king is not above the law.

There are a number of principles that flow from this general recognition that form the bedrock of Western civilization: Legal norms apply to everyone regardless of social class. The right to a fair trial by a jury of one’s peers and the right to face one’s accuser in open court. The right to one’s own property and the right to defend that property using deadly force. While these rights have all been hemmed in – in extreme ways in some cases, particularly since the events of September 11, 2001 – the point is that they form the bedrock of our legal structure and value culture in the West.

To boil this down to a single sentence: the West believes that men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that these rights can only be deprived through due process of law. Both national constitutions and prevailing moral attitudes prevent angry mobs or powerful oligarchs from systematically depriving unpopular and powerless minorities of their rights. Continue reading “”

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

As a professor for over 35 years, I thought I had seen it all. I was wrong. Who would have thought that the first words of our Miranda rights, rights enjoyed even by suspected criminals, would no longer be something ordinary people could expect to enjoy from members of their own community?

Now it seems that a desire to keep one’s thoughts to oneself can be regarded as immoral because “Silence is Violence.” Increasingly, people who are minding their own business are being pressured to make politically correct proclamations while in public, at work, and, incredibly, even at school. This includes colleges and universities, where free speech and free thought are supposed to be cherished. These are very dangerous developments for any free society because they are inconsistent with freedom.

For many years there were calls against politically incorrect speech, things you were not supposed to say because they were deemed politically repugnant by some group.

Over time, especially on college campuses, this flipped into a duty to be politically correct. This is a much more onerous and destructive requirement that forces thought and speech. Too often, it also has the effect of shutting down independent thinking far more than a mere insistence against politically incorrect utterances.

Our society is now running in reverse, demanding conformity from adults that was once demanded only of children. Small wonder, then, why increasing political correctness has increasingly infantilized adults. What’s the point in thinking for yourself if it can only get you into trouble?

One of our greatest freedoms is the right to remain silent — to mind our own business. But today, some activists threaten shaming and even violence against those who don’t take the initiative to endorse what they deem to be politically correct.

Not long ago, if someone made such threats, others would automatically say, “Hey, leave that guy alone. He has a right to his opinion, and he has the right to keep it to himself.”

Not long ago, most adults believed that not having an opinion was often a sign of maturity, an indication of waiting to hear all sides on an issue before making a judgment. Such persons were not presumed to be cowards. They were presumed to be thoughtful, mature, and wise.

So, when did opining about everything become a virtue? And when did repeating the party-line in lockstep with the mob become an act of courage?

The internet has allowed a great deal of opining to be done anonymously, which has dramatically sped up positive reinforcement for repeating popular ideas and negative reinforcement for failing to do so. Because we are hard-wired to crave acceptance, this has produced several generations of cowed adults. We are, as a society, forgetting how to think for ourselves and how to have civil arguments over important matters.

Those who love freedom and free speech need to be ready for the next time they see someone being badgered into stating any party line. Coercion to speak is just another form of bullying, and it must be pointed out. It is indecent, and it is un-American.

David C. Rose is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, author of Why Culture Matters Most from Oxford University Press, and a member of the Missouri Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights since 2014.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
To find out more about the Ghost Gunner and reserve their machine for a $500 deposit, readers can visit www.ghostgunner.net .

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine – Defeating Gun Control One Cut at a Time

A couple of years ago, I tested out the Ghost Gunner 2 by Defense Distributed. The Ghost Gunner 2 was great for taking an 80% lower and turning it into a fully working firearm. In November of 2019 AmmoLand News reported the next GG3 would be a ground-up redesign.  So when Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed gave me the chance to review their new Ghost Gunner 3 CNC machine, I couldn’t say no. Before we get into my review of the latest Ghost Gunner, we have to talk about what it does and why it is groundbreaking.

Ghost Gunner 3 CNC Machine

To put it simply, The Ghost Gunner is a purpose-built CNC machine that lets anyone turn an 80% lower receiver into a fully working firearm. Defense Distributed designed the Ghost Gunner not only to finish 80% AR15, AR10, AR9, and AR45 lowers, but it also complete 1911 and Polymer 80 frames. In 2021 they will be releasing a cutting code for an AKM. The operator doesn’t need to have any machine skills to use the Ghost Gunner. Continue reading “”

Gun owners rally outside Newport News Police headquarters in support of Second Amendment rights

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Armed protesters gathered outside the Newport News Police Department headquarters exercising their Second Amendment rights, which they say are being taken away from them.

A city ordinance passed over the summer now bans open carry of firearms at city buildings, facilities and parks.

“We ain’t running! We ain’t here to run!”

Dozens of gun owners with their weapons in hand gathered outside the police headquarters, protesting against the ordinance they say is unconstitutional.

“We are all here, and we are all heavily armed. We are unified, and if you mess with one of us, you are going to mess with all of us this time,” said organizer Mike Dunn.

Dunn was arrested last week for trying to go into Huntington Park with his gun. In response, he organized a protest in front of the police headquarters with Police Chief Steve Drew’s “OK.”

“I thought it was good dialogue. They didn’t have to talk to me – I appreciate they did, but I think it shows good faith,” said Chief Drew.

According to Chief Drew, the group did not defy the city ordinance since they were outside headquarters. Continue reading “”

How To Learn From Tech Reformers And Make Gun Rights A Populist Issue

The state of the Second Amendment is a barometer for the strength that individual Americans have in relation to their government. Civilian disarmament will weaken millions of Americans — culturally, economically and politically — so why do so many wish to gut the Second Amendment against their best interests?

The principles of the Constitution are too easily eroded by a constantly expanding list of restrictions we are assured only apply to criminals, and gun control is often presented as a way to improve our quality of life through simple, unobtrusive laws.

Magazine capacity is limited because only criminals need standard capacity. Silencers must be heavily regulated because those are tools for assassins. AR-variants must be banned because only murderers use them. Many Americans will yield: “I’m not a bad guy, so if this limits the harm that bad guys can do, it isn’t a restriction on me.”

Americans are both principled and practical — hallmarks of our culture often at odds. At this crossroads, the Second Amendment gets pinned and trimmed. Arguing that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” doesn’t stand a chance against appeals for gun control that seem practical.

Every piece of gun control shifts the cultural and political power to the politically connected. An unarmed population is, by definition, defenseless against the state. Reclaiming these powers requires us to seize the opportunity presented by our current populist moment.

The Populist Opportunity To Strengthen The Second Amendment
Populism is the self-conscious resistance to the ruling class by the politically, financially and culturally disenfranchised. Americans may not be ready to pinpoint specifics, but they recognize that power has been concentrated in a few institutions and social classes that are immune from economic, cultural, and political consequences.

A good example of using the populist appeal is the effort to reform Big Tech, which includes many of the online platforms we all use every day, like Google and Facebook.

The debate on Big Tech isn’t on the merits of their platforms, but the control they exercise against individuals and throughout society. These massive companies abuse outdated communications laws to mute voices that don’t fit the starchy views of Silicon Valley. Continue reading “”

Yeah, and I wonder what those 17% would think if their own rules were used to give them a swift kick in the posterior.
Do you think they’d reconsider then?

17% of Students Say Violence is Sometimes Acceptable to Censor Speakers They Disagree With

At least before lockdowns started, there was an increasing trend of students using social media to organize the physical blocking of speakers who they disagreed with from attending events on campus.

The results of a new survey has now revealed shocking revelations about what US college students think about violence as a way to shut down speech. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Real Clear Education, and College Pulse conducted a survey across 55 colleges across the US and asked 20,000 students about free speech issues in their campuses.

Surprisingly, almost one out of five students that have taken the survey were fine with deploying violence for shutting down someone’s speech in cases where they disagreed with the speaker.

They were also questioned if blocking people from attending events was acceptable.

“While 57% of students say their college would defend a speaker’s right to express his or her views in the case of a controversy over ‘offensive’ expression, a disturbingly large minority, 42%, believe their college would punish the speaker for making the statement.”

The survey revealed that nearly 20 percent of students were okay with violence to shut down speech and stop an event. Going deeper into the details reveals that one percent of the students are under the impression that “violence” is acceptable in all cases, with three percent saying that violence is acceptable in some cases, and thirteen percent saying that violence can be acceptable in rare cases only.

Summing it up makes it clear that 17 percent of students endorse violence in at least some cases to shut down speech. Moreover, the concept of free speech in students is influenced by their political ideology.

“Students’ assessment of free speech on campus is, at least in part, driven by their political ideology, and whether or not they align with the majority viewpoint at their college.

Modern-Day Militias Rise in Virginia

Militia groups in Virginia will tell you that a militia is not really something you have to join—if you’re between 16 and 55 and able-bodied, you already belong. 

Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution says that a well-regulated militia is “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms” and represents the “proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

“I’m a member of the militia, as are you,” said Nelson County resident Paul Cangialosi. “It exists, we’re in it, and my position is that we have an obligation to be well-prepared. We have neglected that for well over 100 years, so now we’re trying to put it back together.” 

Cangialosi volunteers on his own and in conjunction with the Virginia Militia Alliance (VMA) to help stand up local militias across the state, and there’s no shortage of interest. The VMA, whose motto is “Revive, Reestablish, Restore,” counts more than two dozen militia groups in central and southwest Virginia that have formed in just the past year, and hopes to eventually support one in every county in the Commonwealth.

Unsurprisingly, the ascendant movement has generated a lot of questions from neighbors and observers about its methods and aims. Continue reading “”

What part of “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” did the left think was optional?  Hmmm. I’ll take “All three” for $500, Alex

President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

The legislation requires medical care for babies who survive abortion. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
One gets the sense that a certain kind of liberal arts education is, for some extremely sensitive far-left students, no longer preparing them for the real world, or at least not in the sense this was traditionally intended.
Indeed, the real world had better be prepared for them.

Students Demand Skidmore College Fire an Art Professor for Observing a Pro-Cop Rally
David and Andrea Peterson didn’t even participate in the rally—they just watched it. The students don’t care.

David Peterson is an art professor at Skidmore College, a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. In late July, the professor and his wife, Andrea Peterson, attended a “Back the Blue” rally—not as supporters of the cause, they say, but as curious spectators.

“Given the painful events that continue to unfold across this nation, I guess we just felt compelled to see first-hand how all of this was playing out in our own community,” he later told the student newspaper.

They stood on the edges of event, watching pro- and anti-law enforcement demonstrators argue with each other. After 20 minutes, the Petersons left to eat dinner.

But unbeknownst to Peterson, the couple’s attendance at the rally was noticed. Now Skidmore students are demanding that both Peterson be fired for “engaging in hateful conduct that threatens Black Skidmore students,” according to Times-Union columnist Chris Churchill, who wrote about the controversy.

Andrea Peterson is not an employee of the college, according to Churchill.

“The Petersons weren’t wearing pro-police T-shirts,” notes Churchill. “They weren’t carrying a banner, holding a sign or waving a black-and-blue flag. They appear to just be listening. But merely listening to an opinion that some Skidmore students find objectionable is apparently enough to get a professor in hot water. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
It is fatuous to dismiss concerns over the rinsing-out of religious freedom as the overwrought fretting of culture warriors. The commitments in the Democratic platform are plain, and there can be no reasonable doubt that those commitments will be given legislative and regulatory effect by a Democratic administration in league with a Democratically-controlled House of Representatives and a Democratically-controlled Senate.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: BLEACHED, BLANCHED, AND RINSED OUT

Father Richard John Neuhaus put two Big Ideas into play in American public life. The first was that the pro-life movement (of which Neuhaus was an intellectual leader) was the natural heir to the moral convictions that had animated the classic civil rights movement (in which Neuhaus was also deeply involved). The second was that the First Amendment to the Constitution did not contain two “religions clauses” but one religion clause, in which “no establishment” (i.e., no official, state-sanctioned Church) was intended to serve the “free exercise” of religion. Neither of those Big Ideas is welcome in today’s Democratic Party, in which Neuhaus (then a Lutheran pastor) was once a congressional candidate, and of which he remained a registered member until his death in January 2009.

Those who point out that the 2020 Democratic platform has the most radical pro-abortion plank in American history, and that the same platform promises to hollow out religious freedom in service to lifestyle libertinism, risk being labeled “culture warriors.” Well, so be it. “Culture warrior” is snark masquerading as thought. Facts are facts. And one of the sad facts of this unhappy political moment is that Neuhaus’s effort to rescue the Democratic Party through two Big Ideas was frustrated because those two ideas got linked—and then rejected, thanks to the corruption of rights-talk that preceded, made possible, and was then accelerated by Roe v. Wade and its abortion license. Continue reading “”

Virginia Militia rallies in Richmond to protect gun rights

RICHMOND, Va. — An open carry rally organized by the Virginia Militia marched through downtown Richmond on Tuesday.

They then rallied outside the Siegel Center, on the campus of VCU, where state lawmakers were holding a special session of the Virginia General Assembly.

They’re speaking out against potential action lawmakers might take that they see as an infringement to their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“The tyrannical head of Virginia’s current legislation continues to infringe and chip away at our rights,” the group posted on Facebook. “Calling multiple special sessions within one fiscal year to pass law after law of new restrictions against the law abiding citizens of our state. We must not give them an inch, we must not take our attention off for a second.”………

Megachurch holds service in defiance of Los Angeles order

Los Angeles megachurch Grace Community held indoor services Sunday in defiance of a local public-health order, just hours after an appeals court blocked a ruling that would have allowed the evangelical services to go forward legally.

Pastor John MacArthur, who has led the congregation in Sun Valley for 50 years, told worshipers who packed the 3,500-seat sanctuary that “the powers of the city were not happy” about the church’s decision to file a lawsuit Friday challenging the novel coronavirus mandates.

“They don’t want us to meet, that’s obvious,” Mr. MacArthur said from the pulpit. “They’re not willing to work with us. They just want to shut us down. But we’re here to bring honor to the Lord.”

He said it was “hard to figure out exactly what the city is trying to do with us and to us,” but insisted “we’re not meeting because want to be rebellious, we’re meeting because our Lord has commanded us to come together and worship Him.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant rejected Friday Los Angeles County’s request for a temporary restraining order to stop the church from holding indoor worship, and the church agreed to have parishioners practice social distancing and wear facial coverings until the full hearing Sept. 4.

“They were going to be asking us to do two things, social distance and wear masks,” said Mr. MacArthur. “We agreed, [saying] look, we’ll comply for a few weeks. They asked that for three weeks. We’re not wanting to be defiant. We will do what is reasonable. That was not enough for the city. They went to the appellate court Saturday late, and had that order removed.”

The California Court of Appeal issued a stay of the judge’s order, ruling that the dangers of COVID-19 outweigh the right to hold services at the popular church, where Sunday attendance has in pre-pandemic years topped 8,000. Continue reading “”

Your Rights Come Before Politics

Politics are real. Politics sets priorities between competing public interests. The process is never perfect. It gets ugly when existing political interests work against your individual rights.

Let’s take an easy example first. Suppose you want to gather people together and voice your opinions. The government says you need a permit for a public gathering. The rationale is that we don’t want several groups trying to use the same space at the same time. Now you learn that there is a permit process, a required interview, and an application fee. The bureaucrats say they are busy and schedule your interview for nine months from now due to Covid-19. Clearly, your right of free speech has been infringed. Continue reading “”

Only in the pea sized brains of idiots and tyrants.

DO AMERICANS HAVE EXCESS FREEDOM?

By Elizabeth McGuigan

Amazingly, a new “study” is making headlines, despite the fact that it relies on obviously faulty assumptions, irrational methodology and has not been peer-reviewed.

The authors cite themselves as support for spurious statements like “Surges in firearm purchasing…have been well documented in association with mass shootings and significant political events and are followed by population-level increases in firearm violence.” Crime data for the most recent months isn’t available yet, but we know history proves otherwise.

Sure, Americans tend to buy more of something they think will soon be scarce. Just as there was an increase in toilet paper buying during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, adults are more likely to legally purchase a certain firearm they have been thinking about when there is a political discussion of banning that firearm. Does that mean those purchases are, as the author argues, “excess” firearms?

Any chef will tell you they require different types of knives for different kitchen tasks. Any hunter will tell you they would not rely on the same firearm for self-defense as they would in the field. All guns are not the same and do not meet the same needs for law-abiding citizens that choose to exercise their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The difference is, although there are more homicides each year committed with knives than with Modern Sporting Rifles, no one seems to argue seriously against owning any knives or for limiting the number that a home may possess because more than one is excessive.

Continue reading “”