Sunday Ethics Refresher, 3/24/2019 [PART II]: Bill of Rights? What Bill Of Rights? [CORRECTED]

Now it’s “Good afternoon!”

Sunday’s depressing ethics potpourri continues…

3. Psst! San Antonio! This is unconstitutional! The San Antonio City Council rejected  Chick-fil-A ‘s application for a site at its airport this week because the company’s foundation has contributed to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage

Councilman Robert Treviño told the news media that the council made the decision based on “inclusivity.”

“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion. San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior. Everyone has a place here and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport.”

Have these fools and censors even read the Bill of Rights? A government can’t penalize a business because it doesn’t like the opinions of its owner or management. This is viewpoint discrimination, and a screamingly obvious First Amendment violation. As Chick-fil-A accurately pointed out in its response, no one has ever been refused service or treated differently in one of the company’s restaurants because of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s their LGBTQ “behavior,” not their entirely legal and protected choice of charities and non profits.

Once again from the Democratic Party and the Left we whiff the rotten stench of nascent totalitarianism. Believe as we do, or be punished. This is the same company several Democratic mayors said were not welcome in their cities. Once again, this unconstitutional and undemocratic act by San Antonio’s Democrats is assured of a reversal by the Supreme Court, and if Justice Ginsberg still has most of her marbles and Sotomayor isn’t chasing rainbows and unicorns, it ought to be a 9-0 vote.

Local government actions like this ought to concern followers of both parties equally. The First Amendment should not be a partisan issue.

4. When you combine the New York Times’ bias  and the San Antonio City Council’s contempt for the Bill of Rights, you get…this offensive editorial by the Times editorial board. New Zealand’ government, employing the “Barn Door Fallacy” that silly governments have resorted to forever when the vox populi is shouting “DO SOMETHING!”, reacted to the Mosque terror attacks by banning “assault-type weapons.” The Times applauds, and figures out a way to insult President Trump in the process, with the title “America Deserves a Leader as Good as Jacinda Ardern”: New Zealand’s prime minister moved swiftly to ban weapons of mass killing after a gunman attacked two mosques.”

This is dishonest and stupid in oh so many ways. First of all, there is no reason to think the terror attacks would not have occurred if the “ban” were already in place. The terrorists, who got their guns legally, would then get their guns illegally anyway. Moreover, if they were determined to attack, there are many other ways to kill people. Recent data has finally surfaced that suggests that the wonderful Australian gun ban celebrated by, among others, Hillary Clinton, has had little effect on reducing violent crimes. Then there’s that inconvenient Second Amendment. The ongoing irony, lost on the resistance, is that President Trump’s foes, while calling him a Nazi and nascent dictator, continue to advocate policies that if enacted by Trump would be laying the bricks for a dictatorship. I don’t know about you, but when High Empress Ocasio-Cortez sends her brown shirts to confiscate my car, board up my vaulted ceiling and force me to term my winter thermostat to 60 degrees, I will make sure my trusty AR-15 is within reach to make certain, as William Barrett Travis memorably said, that victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse…than a defeat. The measure that the leader of the Kiwis so brilliantly pushed is illegal here, and may it always remains so.

Leave it to the Times demagogues to blur and distort the issues:

“That attitude stood in stark contrast to the way the National Rifle Association and its political allies in the United States have resisted any restrictions on weapons like the AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in several mass killings. In New Zealand, it took one mass shooting to awaken the government. In the United States, even a string of mass killings — 26 dead in a school in Newtown, Conn.; 49 in a nightclub in Orlando; 58 at a concert in Las Vegas; 17 in a school in Parkland, Fla. — has not been enough. Nor has the fact that 73 percent of Americans say that more needs to be done to curb gun violence, according to recent polling.”

Anyone semi-educated on the realities of this issue should be able to spot the Times’ dishonesty. The NRA’s job is to protect that Second Amendment, not to weaken it. The AR-15 wasn’t used in Newtown, or Las Vegas. At least 73% of the American public couldn’t correctly recite a single one of the Bill of Rights amendments. That’s why we don’t have a direct democracy: the mob is ignorant, emotional and stupid. Citing polls to justify policy is a signal that one has run out of real arguments.

But that’s not all! The Times apparently thinks a strong and virtuous leader would also gut the FIRST Amendment for our safety and “the greater good.” [Special Thanks  to Neil Dorr for pointing me to this issue.] Yesterday, New Zealand’s government  banned the gunman’s racist, angry manifesto, arguing that the 74-page document “promotes murder and terrorism.” You know—you’ve been hearing this from Democrats, progressives, Chris Cuomo, Howard Dean and others now for years. It’s bad speech, dangerous speech, hate speech. The government should be able to decide what people read. It is wise. It is benign.

Again, it is the beginning of the end of liberty and democracy. Says the censorship-happy Times,

“Earlier in the week, she told Parliament that social media sites must address the ease with which the internet can be used to spew hate and images of violence. “We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published,” she said. “It cannot be a case of all profit, no responsibility.” Ms. Ardern didn’t propose immediate measures to limit the reach of Facebook, Twitter and other internet publishers, and it’s not obvious what could be done without trampling freedom of speech.”

Yes, and that’s because you can’t mandate censorship of social media without “trampling” free speech. When President Trump made ill-considered “do something” comments about changing libel laws to be able to punish irresponsible journalism, The Times and other media outlets screamed with indignation. A New Zealand leader who suggests stifling speech, however, is the kind of “good” leader America deserves.

35 thoughts on “Sunday Ethics Refresher, 3/24/2019 [PART II]: Bill of Rights? What Bill Of Rights? [CORRECTED]

  1. The following laws were in place on April 20, 1999.

    * The 1934 National Firearms Act
    * The 1968 Gun Control Act
    * The 1986 Hughes Amendment
    * The 1993 Brady Bill
    * The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
    * The 1996 Lautenberg Amendment

    It is a good thing these laws were in place; otherwise, someone at school might have gotten shot that day…

  2. (3) I don’t understand why these actions should be disturbing to Democrats. It is obvious they want a totalitarian state and have for some time. You can see the demands for censorship everywhere. From Amazon’s banning of books critical of to cities like San Antonio, they are one big Ministry of Truth.

    (4) It was leaked that the British government rejected the asylum application of an Iranian former Muslim who converted to Christianity. The man claimed that he converted when he discovered that Christianity was a religion of peace and he no longer wanted to part of a religion of violence. The British government rejected his application saying that it wasn’t believable. They stated that no one could come to that conclusion because it is obvious that Christianity is a religion of violence and Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity must now be denied access to the internet and social media now.

  3. I really have to fight backlash mentality in these trying times. Hearing the manifesto was banned made me want to mass e-mail it to everyone I know and upload it on ever subreddit thread I can find. Not because it’s worth reading (it isn’t), but because someone else has concluded I can’t decide that for myself.

    • NZ has also banned the video that the killer uploaded that showed his rampage. Many US social media sites also banned the video. This has actually lead to some unintended consequences because there is a loud and growing group of people who are claiming that the reported attack on the mosque is a false flag operation designed to curtail the freedoms that exist in NZ. Several gifs have been making the rounds that purport to show that the video was created with a green screen and video effects. This likely would not gain as much traction as it has if the video was widely available for people to see that the gifs are actually quite misleading.

      I had zero desire to see the video until the false flag accusations started to pop up. At that point, I did find a copy of the video and viewed it (not easy to find). I think that it is pretty clear from the raw video that this was not a green screen production, but the ability to demonstrate that to themselves has been taken away by the NZ government by censoring the video. This opens them up to the accusations of a false flag operation – now if they release the video, how can they defend against those who will double down and accuse them of doctoring the original so that it no longer looks false flag?

  4. Since these totalitarians occupy the halls of where history is written, it is clear many, if not all, Constitutionalists are the wrong side their history and require re-education or worse. It is odd to feel like an alien in your own homeland. Yet this is exactly how it feels to be living through this perverse time.

  5. 3. San Antonio

    Yes, it is blatantly and transparently unconstitutional, but I doubt anyone will sue to enforce Chick-Fil-A’s rights.

    Have these fools and censors even read the Bill of Rights?

    If they have read them, they don’t understand them. More likely they just don’t care what the Bill of Rights says.

    They think opposition to expansive LBGTQ%@#^^ rights of even the most dilute sort are grounds for a scarlet letter and banishment. No land of opportunity for you, alternate sexual-identity haters! Bill of Rights? Pshaw. No rights for wrong-think.

    4. New Zealand

    The NRA’s job is to protect that Second Amendment, not to weaken it. The AR-15 wasn’t used in Newtown, or Las Vegas.

    I don’t think this is right. Steven Paddock almost certainly used AR-15’s in his rampage. He had so many guns of diverse calibers in his room, it’s hard to say without reports of what was recovered, but it would’ve been one of three types of semiautomatic firearms — an AR-10, an AK-47 or derivative, or an AR-15 pattern rifle. All three types along with bolt-action rifles were found, most high-end models like Daniels Defense.

    But to your point, you’re right about what the NRA is doing.

    But more importantly, it’s impossible for America to do what New Zealand did. NZ is a parliamentary democracy, and the ruling party effectively has complete control over what laws are passed.

    The USA is a constitutional republic, designed to thwart the will of the people in cases of high passion or fear, and force deliberation. In addition, our Constitution explicitly forbids what NZ did, even if Democrats don’t believe that.

    So not only is the Times spouting nonsense, it is making the public dumber by suggesting that political will alone is all it would take to ban semiautomatic firearms overnight. This is transparently false, and the Times knows it.

    In other words, they are dissembling and creating a fictitious narrative. Deliberately.

    That’s not “opinion” in any meaningful sense. It’s deception. Dare we call it lying?

    Finally, lawsuits challenging Trump’s attempt to do something along the lines of New Zealand, i.e. the “bump stock” ban, have been granted TRO’s in two different jurisdictions, the Tenth Circuit and DC circuit. This is only for the specific complainants, but it’s an ominous sign for the regulation.

  6. On point one: if San Antonio is embracing inclusion why does it create a policy to exclude those with different beliefs from the main? Do they not see their own hypocrisy?

    • As you know anything to the right of AOC is the equivalent of thinking fire in a theatre and therefore must be excluded for the common good as decided by as few as possible in possession of the proper thinking credentials.

  7. So the Government here in New Zealand has banned the gunman’s manifesto. How can it? With the internet it is impossible to stop anyone from downloading it as I quickly found out. But I do wish we in New Zealand had the equivalent of the first amendment so that it wouldn’t even try to ban it.

  8. 3. We have a Chick-Fil-A opening a few miles away soon & my wife & I can’t wait. Folks forget after the Pulse nightclub shooting, Chick-Fil-A staff donated blood to victims & gave out free food. How homophobic can the restaurant chain be when they responded in such a way? We have to drive about 35 min to get to the closest one and the staff have always been professional & courteous. We even chatted up the manager & asked about the supposed homophobia & he noted on his own staff there were both gay & transgender workers.

    Not to mention Chick-Fil-A pays a decent wage & the staff never have to work on a Sunday. I’ve been jokingly threatening to bring a sign on the first day the new one near us opens that would say “I’m gay & like Chick-Fil-A.” I won’t because virtue signaling is so 2018.

  9. I live roughly 20 miles South of San Antonio, near an intersection of a major loop around the city and an Interstate highway. We have, near that intersection, a Burger-King, a What-A-Burger, a Sonic and a Subway. I would be pleased if this idiotic decision by San Antonio’s City Council would cause Chick-Fil-A to join this group of fast-food chains. Barring that, I hope that they sue.

    • We both know that SACC will simply spend the public’s money on a lawsuit they know they cannot win, for the sake of making the other side spend money as well.

      Even if they then have to pay both side’s legal expenses (not a forgone conclusion) it is not SACC’s money, is it?

  10. “if Justice Ginsberg still has most of her marbles”

    I’m not going to say the ship has already sailed on that, but the mooring lines have been detached and the wind is picking up…

  11. Too late New Zealand, I already have my full copy of the manifesto.

    And it’s a good thing. It was very hard to get, and the “official” news sites only revealed a few very brief snippets.

    Some of those same “official” news sites also described the killer as a “Christian terrorist,” a claim I know to be false now because I’ve READ THE FULL MANIFESTO which they didn’t want me to have.

  12. A little late to the party, but some thoughts on NZ.

    In the wake of 9/11, when terrorists killed 2,605 Americans, including 55 members of the military, 71 law enforcement officers, and 343 responding firemen, ABC continued its policy against its reporters wearing any sort of lapel pin, including American flags in support of the response and memory of the slain.

    In March 2004 Islamic terrorists killed 194 people in the Madrid train bombings. I don’t remember any display of red and gold by either government officials or the media. In fact there was criticism of a Mass for the slain being held as uninclusive.

    In 2015 Islamic terrorists killed 130 people and injured 415 in a series of coordinated attacks in Paris. I don’t recall anchors or government officials wearing tricolor or Eiffel tower pins.

    In May 2017 an Islamic terrorist bomb killed 23 and injured nearly 200, half of them children, in Manchester, England. I am quite sure no officials or news personnel donned Union Jack pins or pins that displayed the flag of Manchester. I bet most people outside that city don’t even know what its flag looks like and wouldn’t look like it if they saw it.

    This past October a kook and anti-Semite murdered 11 Jewish Americans at prayer in their synagogue in Pittsburgh. I don’t recall either government or media wearing the Jewish prayer cap or the Star of David, in fact that would probably have been thought of as disrespectful, and rightly so, for reasons I don’t think we need to go into. I also don’t recall the Kaddish being played over the city via PA.

    This past November Paris observed the centennial of the armistice that ended WWI. I don’t recall too many cornflowers worn by the media, although the prime minister did wear one to the ceremony.🇫🇷
    Every year the UK conducts Remembrance Sunday in honor of the glorious dead of its many conflicts. To this day some of the media, like John Snow (no relation to the much more heroic GOT character) resist wearing the traditional red poppy and call it fascistic.

    I daresay that if there were a mass attack directed at Catholics the odds that you would see either high officials or the media wearing crosses, or crossed key pins (one symbol of the Vatican) or even a white and gold ribbon (the colors of Catholicism) are very small. I also think the odds of them encouraging the churches to all ring their bells at a set time are next to nothing. In fact I submit that the political left would be all over any gesture like that as blurring the line between church and state, killing press
    neutrality, and so on.

    So, can anyone tell me why, in the wake of the admittedly tragic and wrong mass shooting at the mosque in Christchurch, both New Zealand’s prime minister and multiple members of the media have appeared for their duties wearing the hijab? It isn’t just a fashion accent, you know. It’s a symbol of Islam, specifically of Islamic purity culture that dictates a woman must hide her hair from everyone but her spouse and family, the antithesis of Western values. Can anyone tell me why they are booming the Islamic call to prayer over the whole place, a deliberately exclusive confession of faith that proclaims no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet? Sympathy is one thing. Acknowledgement of wrong is one thing. Welcome is one thing. However, the west isn’t required to bow and scrape to the traditions of the east. You are not required to act like you are conquered to please the gods of political correctness. You are certainly not required to conquer yourself. NZ might as well replace the Southern Cross with the white flag.

  13. … The Times applauds, and figures out a way to insult President Trump in the process, with the title “America Deserves a Leader as Good as Jacinda Ardern”: New Zealand’s prime minister moved swiftly to ban weapons of mass killing after a gunman attacked two mosques.”… The terrorists got their guns illegally anyway.

    The TV news reports here in Australia have stated, correctly or otherwise I know not, that the terrorist (singular) got his guns legally.

    • That’s correct,and I don’t know why I wrote that, since I knew they got their guns legally. What I think I started out to write was “But terrorists will get their guns illegally if they can’t get them legally anyway.” I’ll fix it. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.