Given that a lot of high profile actors and athletes (at least the most outspoken ones) lean politically left, I strenuously disagree with their worldviews. But demanding they "shut up" about what's happening in society? Sorry, I'm not on board with that. Sure many of these celebrities are out-of-touch elitists who haven't the faintest clue about the challenges a middle class family endures. But this idea they can't freely express themselves in a country in which they're citizens?!?! Absurd.
It would have been perfectly appropriate for Ingraham to criticize the substance of James' comments about Trump. But to query why guys like James feel the need to "run their mouths like that" borders on hypocrisy given how she continually propped up Trump's coarse rhetoric as "authentic" and "telling it like it is."
- Speaking of sanctimonious celebs.....
Jennifer Lawrence is set to take a break from acting.
"Hunger Games" star Lawrence revealed her plans while promoting her latest movie "Red Sparrow," sharing with Entertainment Tonight her ambitions to "fix" democracy in America while she takes a Hollywood hiatus.
Anybody who saw Lawrence's film Mother! would argue that she was already taking a break from acting.
- In the aftermath of any mass shooting, leftists usually shriek for "gun control" before the fatally wounded have even been identified. But when asked for specific proposals, proggies either have none or suggest things which would violate other civil liberties.
With that in mind, National Review writer (and attorney) David French seems to have appealed to the sensibilities of both the right and left in his latest piece about an actual "common sense" gun control proposal.
What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5.The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
Definitely read the whole thing.