Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta rights. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta rights. Mostrar todas las entradas

miércoles, 27 de enero de 2021

Overflowing outrageous orders...


Off to a flying start...ominously so. The image left is from a tweet HERE that shows what O'Biden* said only a few months back. The new WH chief of staff, Ron Klain said only 10 days ago that the "new president's planned executive orders would be "a restoration of an appropriate, constitutional role for the President."...seems odd then that in his first week Biden has signed more than DOUBLE those of The Donald, Obama, Bush II and Clinton COMBINED. Think about that for a minute...**

Check the numbers at the Federal Register and or The American Presidency Project [APP EO Link].

Anyhow... the point is that one of those (maybe two actually) sounds innocuous enough [Whitehouse] but could highlight "The End of Women's Sports?" in the USA; the Campaign for Working Families suggests so:
"But the executive order I want to focus on this morning is ironic. All the polling data show that young women voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. And his response to those young women was to issue an executive order that may well eliminate women's sports as a place for young women to excel."
Joe Biden’s war on women [Spiked]. "On his first day in office, the president signed away women’s sex-based rights." And it will get serious: "One of the first acts of Joe Biden's presidency was to gut sex anti-discrimination laws and eliminate critical protections for women in the federal government" say The Women's Liberation Front WoLF,
"With this action, Biden is bypassing the legislative process to implement the most controversial provisions of the Equality Act"
And [WoLF Tweet] :
"Gender identity is not a fringe issue, it is an ideological hydra that threatens to undermine everything from language to our most basic human rights
Where's the outrage? Where's the march on Washington, the million women pink hat mob (didn't they occupy government buildings?). Here's a guy that - to be as kind as I can - clearly cannot think straight and has in his first week signed off on - as previously mentioned - more than double the last four presidents combined, with more still coming: almost seems the Swamp had it all ready for years and knew they would win the election...oh.  

* OK, I won't be using that as an excuse for blog-post titles LOL.
** in their first weeks, not total! Mind you Sleepy Joe has already reached 15% of DJT's total for 4 years!

domingo, 24 de mayo de 2015

Obliged obedience or oppression?...




More interesting stuff: Samizdata blog in yesterday's quote of the day quoted Rand Paul:


"With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies….I'm a physician, that means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me, it means you believe in slavery. It means you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the assistants, the nurses…There’s an implied threat of force, do you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away, and force me to take care of you? That’s is ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be."

Now that may sound a bit harsh, silly even ("slavery"?) but he has a point. On Samizdata two concepts of liberty (negative and positive: Isaiah Berlin) is mentioned whereas also IMHO, the distinction between negative and positive rights (not the same) comes into play: witness almost the exact thing Rand Paul mentions, "In the field of Medicine, positive rights of patients often conflict with negative rights of physicians" [Wiki]. Going further: the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (IEP) provides reams in a 'philosophical analysis of the concept of human rights': Moral vs. Legal Rights [IEP]; Claim Rights & Liberty Rights [IEP] ...we can see how easy it was for politicians to make a dog's breakfast of all this.

Obliged obedience or oppression?...


More interesting stuff: Samizdata blog in yesterday's quote of the day quoted Rand Paul:
"With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies….I'm a physician, that means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me, it means you believe in slavery. It means you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the assistants, the nurses…There’s an implied threat of force, do you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away, and force me to take care of you? That’s is ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be."
Now that may sound a bit harsh, silly even ("slavery"?) but he has a point. On Samizdata two concepts of liberty (negative and positive: Isaiah Berlin) is mentioned whereas also IMHO, the distinction between negative and positive rights (not the same) comes into play: witness almost the exact thing Rand Paul mentions, "In the field of Medicine, positive rights of patients often conflict with negative rights of physicians" [Wiki]. Going further: the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (IEP) provides reams in a 'philosophical analysis of the concept of human rights': Moral vs. Legal Rights [IEP]; Claim Rights & Liberty Rights [IEP] ...we can see how easy it was for politicians to make a dog's breakfast of all this.