Monthly Archives: March 2021

Jim Eagle and Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Georgia has just enacted a law reforming and improving its voting processes. The reforms include such things as expanding weekend before Election Day voting from one Saturday and Sunday to two Saturdays and a county-level option to add a second Sunday. Instead of a hazy, subjective signature-matching bit of guesswork on absentee ballots, the State now requires a State-issued (for free) ID. It makes drop boxes mandatory, but they’re available only in in-person voting areas, they’re kept locked after hours, and they’re always under surveillance. The State now allows no-excuse absentee ballot voting.

This expansion of voter access and increased protection of the sanctity of an eligible voter’s vote is what President Joe Biden (D), in his…something…has termed “un-American,” “sick,” “pernicious.” He says, “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.”

It would be sad, were it not so insulting and racist. This is, after all, Biden (along with his Progressive-Democrats, who with their silence if not their own hue and cry, agree with him) playing the race card (and thereby demonstrating their own racism), which they do because they can’t make a rationale argument for any of their policies.

And: for those keeping score at home, Jim Crow was a creation of the Democratic Party, as was the KKK, which Biden’s partner in the administration said was the equivalent of today’s ICE.

For those keeping further score at home, Georgia’s voter law compares with Biden’s home State of Delaware, which requires a shorter in-person voting period than does Georgia’s reformed law, to the point that Delaware does not allow in-person early voting at all. Delaware doesn’t allow no-excuse absentee ballot voting.

The PRC, American Business, and Decoupling

Posted on by
1

Matt Pottinger, former President Donald Trump’s Deputy White House National Security Adviser, had a number of thoughts concerning the People’s Republic of China, and its targeting of American businesses, with unusual bluntness.

Beijing’s message is unmistakable: you must choose. If you want to do business in China, it must be at the expense of American values. You will meticulously ignore the genocide of ethnic and religious minorities inside China’s borders; you must disregard that Beijing has reneged on its major promises—including the international treaty guaranteeing a “high degree of autonomy” for Hong Kong; and you must stop engaging with security-minded officials in your own capital unless it’s to lobby them on Beijing’s behalf.
Another notable element of Beijing’s approach is its explicit goal of making the world permanently dependent on China, and exploiting that dependency for political ends.

RTWT.

What also drew my eye is this, near the end of his op-ed, in response to a PRC strawman that the US was working on decoupling our economy from the PRC’s.

No one in Washington is seriously threatening a wholesale decoupling of the two economies.

That’s sadly true, regardless of the fact that Pottinger, with that sentence, was setting aside the PRC’s nonsensical claim. Pottinger did suggest that we are decoupling in key technologies, but I think that’s inadequate.

Washington—and private enterprise—should be moving apace to decouple from the People’s Republic of China. Not just in “key technologies,” too, but all across our economy, from strategic minerals, through those key technologies, to ordinary consumer products, components, and raw materials.

It’s a wide world, and we have no need to trade with our enemies, much less one who’s clearly stated goal is to conquer us and that wide world.

Relics

Posted on by
Reply

In last Thursday’s matinee press conference, President Joe Biden (D) agreed with a reporter’s question and suggested answer regarding the filibuster:

“President Obama said he believed the filibuster was a relic of the Jim Crow era. Do you agree?” a reporter asked Biden.
“Yes,” he answered.

So, ex-President Barack Obama (D) and Biden, both of whom previously loudly defended the filibuster, have confessed themselves as racists for having done so, the filibuster being a relic of Jim Crow, and all.

Still, their racism is entirely consistent with the intrinsically racist core of the Progressive-Democratic Party of which they’re leading lights: its forebear and least-left wing of the Progressive-Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, is the Party of Jim Crow and of racism generally, and the current Progressive-Democratic Party subsumes that core into its body and actively extends it with its racist—and sexist—identity politics of rank segregation.

Bipartisanship

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) gave his definition of the term (summarized in part by The Wall Street Journal) in his Thursday slow pitch press conference—and it doesn’t begin to approach actual bipartisanship.

The president also urged Republicans to work with him to pass his legislative agenda, which includes a coming multi-trillion-dollar economic, climate-change, and infrastructure package, as well as measures on immigration and guns.

And:

“Here’s the deal: I think my Republican colleagues are going to have to determine whether or not we want to work together or decide that the way in which they want to proceed is to just decide to divide the country, to continue the politics of division,” [Biden] said.

Notice that: Republicans must work to pass Biden’s agenda. Never mind that these items are ideological anathema to Conservatives and Republicans; they should simply surrender their principles to “work with” Biden and his Progressive-Democrats.

Notice further: Republicans must work with Biden and his Progressive-Democrats on everything. Neither Biden nor his fellows have any obligation to work with Republicans. Bipartisanship is strictly a one-way affair. And anyone who disagrees with that directionality is being divisive.

This is the level of integrity that Biden has, and by extension that his Progressive-Democratic Party has.

Keep it in mind in the fall of 2022.

One Option

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D)—of the Biden-Harris administration (or is it the Harris-Biden administration?)—sees few options for dealing with the border crisis his campaign promises triggered and his actions have actualized and badly potentiated.

The situation is creating a sharp political and policy challenge in Mr Biden’s first months in office.

Biden has just exacerbated his crisis, too, by turning his back on his responsibility and utterly abrogating his role as President by wishing the matter off onto his nominal Vice President, Kamala Harris (D). That personage has long demonstrated that she doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about our southern border. And no, I’m not talking about her contemptuous, laughing scorn of a reporter’s question about her border visitation plans.

Harris was a Senator before she became VP, and she was California’s AG before that. And in both chairs, she actively supported California as a sanctuary state, welcoming all illegal aliens with open arms.

Yet there is one option Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden (Harriden? Bidris?) could take to stem the tide and reverse it. The option wouldn’t take very long to have salutary effect, either. Of course, the option is difficult politically, and Biden and Harris, individually or collectively, don’t have the moral or political courage to effect it.

That option is to withdraw Biden’s Executive Orders, emitted in the first days of his tenure in the White House’s residence wing, canceling former President Donald Trump’s border and immigration control policies. Restore the prior administration’s status quo.