Monthly Archives: April 2019

Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

A 9th Circuit District Judge has said that illegal aliens claiming to seek asylum in the US cannot be sent back to Mexico to wait for their day in court.  The judge’s ruling held, in essence, that

…the administration lacked a legal basis under current law for adopting the policy. He also found the policy ran afoul of the US’ legal obligations not to remove people to a country where their lives or freedom are threatened.

This is wrong on both counts. The whole point of Executive Actions of any sort is to fill a gap in “current law” and so to accomplish something that a President determines needs doing.  The laws authorizing such things explicitly authorize a President to fill such gaps.  Certainly, a President cannot create new law; his Orders, Proclamations, and so on, must fit within the existing legal system—and, not being law, they can be undone by subsequent Presidents via the same mechanisms.

What’s required is a law that prevents this or that policy from being adopted by Executive Action, and that law does not exist.  This Federal judge is legislating from the bench, and that’s a violation of his oath of office.

The other wrong is the judge’s claim that moving purported asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait for their case to be heard is moving them to a nation where their lives or freedom are threatened.  This is simply nonsense. Mexico has offered these folks asylum in Mexico, and that nation has gone further: it’s offered them job opportunities so they can earn their way while they wait—or in the event they choose to stay.  Mexico is a far safer nation than any of the three Caravan Triangle nations whence most of these purported asylum seekers began their trek.  Indeed, the judge’s ruling on this aspect misreads the law.  Claimants must make their claims on the basis of the country they’re leaving, not the country from which they originated.  That’s Mexico, not Honduras, or El Salvador, or Guatemala.

There’s one other factor here, too.  These folks should have no case when their claims do come up in court.  They can’t possibly be seeking asylum when they’ve already been offered precisely that from the nation they’re trying to leave to enter the US, and rejected it.

Tax that Rich Man Behind the Tree

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democrats, in their fever pitch to increase taxes, want to tax phantom profits.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) [is] reviving plans to make capital gains taxes due annually….

Another Progressive-Democrat, Jon Summers (ex-Communications Director for ex-Senator Harry Reid (D, NV)) rationalized this chimera tax this way:

We’re spending way more money, billions of dollars more, a year than what we are actually bringing in in revenue. We’ve got a debt of $22 trillion, a record debt that has only skyrocketed under this administration. So, Democrats are trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity back[.]

No, they’re not.  They just want to tax anything they can dream up. Were they serious about trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity, they’d look for ways to cut spending—but that’s literally inconceivable to them.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of revenue flows—know that there are no gains, capital or otherwise, unless and until the underlying asset is disposed.  Until then, any perceived change in value is nothing more than hope or dismay.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of the American sense of property—know that the asset, the unrealized gain or loss, and the eventually realized gain or loss are those of the asset owner; they’re private property.

Sadly, Wyden and his cronies don’t believe that.  They act as though the asset and the associated money is Government’s, and those men of Government only let a citizen use the things for a time.

Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Mayor (South Bend, IN) and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg used to insist that, in addition to Black Lives Mattering, Blue Lives and All Lives Matter, also.

Not so much, anymore.

What I did not understand at that time was that that phrase just early, into mid-, especially 2015 was coming to be viewed as a sort of counter slogan to Black Lives Matter….
And so this statement that seems anodyne and something no one could be against actually wound up being used to devalue what the Black Lives Matter movement….

What utter, timid nonsense.

The devaluing was only in the fetid imaginations of those demanding the meanings of words be changed to suit their whims and not be kept in their true meanings.

All Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter do not in any way devalue the fact that Black Lives Matter or alter the premise of the Black Lives Matter movement that black lives matter.  Proclaiming the one in no way devalues the other; the two exist easily side by side without contradiction, without dialectic.

Buttigieg’s meek apology for uttering truisms is just his surrender of our lexicon to a narrow, activist move.

The governments of both Russia and the People’s Republic of China are well-known for their doublespeak and their…alteration…of the meanings of words and phrases to suit their political wishes.  Would a President Buttigieg further surrender our lexicon to them and speak using only terms and meanings of which they approve, too?

Is this another example of Progressive-Democrat flexibility to be offered to our enemies?

Nonsensical

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister Theresa May has written to the EU begging for an extension until the end of June before Great Britain leaves the EU.  France is continuing to claim it opposes any further extension beyond the current 12 April date if Great Britain cannot form a coherent, reasoned plan for departure to offer the EU that would earn a longer extension for departure.

It’s nonsensical that this even should be an item of discussion.  Over two years ago, the citizens of Great Britain voted to leave the EU.  That’s the bottom line.  Everything after that is just arguing over the terms of the departure. The British government has shown itself incapable of forming a coherent, reasoned set of terms, and Brussels has refused to negotiate in good faith any set of terms, coherent and reasoned or not, and those failures have unnecessarily complexified things.

But that artificial complexity is irrelevant, as are any terms of departure.

The vote was to leave. The people have spoken.  Great Britain must leave, and the EU must stop its obstruction and hold the door open.  To that end, it’s necessary that Prime Minister Theresa May’s request for another extension be rejected.

It’s time to end this shabby charade.

Releasing the Mueller Report

Posted on by
3

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress are in full uproar over the Mueller report—they want it released right damn now, and they want it unredacted. They’re not alone on the first; all of us want the report released as soon as possible.  Which leads to the second: it’s illegal to release grand jury proceedings and classified intelligence information, both of which are present in the report.  The Progressive-Democrats, of course, know this; they just don’t think laws or regulations matter when they become inconvenient.

AG William Barr also agrees with that first part.

Mr Barr has made clear that he appreciates the public interest in seeing as much of Mr Mueller’s report as possible.

Barr should emphasize that appreciation by releasing the (redacted as required) Mueller report to the public a week or more before he releases it to the public’s elected employees in Congress.

Then there’s the House Intelligence Committee MFWIC:

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff recently tweeted that “Barr should seek court approval (just like in Watergate) to allow the release of grand jury material. Redactions are unacceptable.”

How disingenuous. Were Schiff serious, he’d seek court approval—and an associated release order—himself. He’s just cynically posturing.