Monthly Archives: June 2021

An Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of socialism’s control of private enterprise. California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom has issued this diktat for how California-domiciled businesses must operate vis-à-vis the waning Wuhan Virus situation in that State.

Businesses were told by the state that they will have three options related to vaccines and mask mandates. Business owners can provide information to customers and not require anything at all. They can implement “vaccine verification” to determine which people must wear a mask, or they can require everyone to wear a mask.

Those three, and no other, options. Never mind that a business might wish, instead, to provide separate (not necessarily masked) seating for those not vaccinated. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to not ask at all a customer’s medical status regarding the virus. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to discriminate between not vaccinated by individual choice and not vaccinated by already having had the virus and recovered from it, and so not needing vaccination (another individual choice). That’s not allowed.

No business decision to do nothing at all, including not spending money on a State-mandated information campaign aimed at business’ customers. That’s not allowed.

No business decision to…. Don’t even think about it. That’s not allowed.

No, this is the socialist government dictating to private enterprise how it must operate. This is the socialist government dictating to private enterprise the government-allowed performance options.

Socialism: government control of the means of production. Government control of private enterprise.

Socialism: private enterprise isn’t private—it’s government enterprise.

Domestic Terror Threats

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration have a new strategy—and specific (more or less) targets—for combating domestic terrorism. “Domestic terrorism” is defined by the NSC:

activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And

[D]omestic terrorists] espouse a range of violent ideological motivations [including] racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred, as well as anti-government or anti-authority sentiment. … exhort[] and target[] violence toward specific communities …. militias.

Who are Biden’s domestic terrorists [paraphrased by Fox News]?

White supremacy and “militia violent extremists” currently present the “most persistent and lethal threats.”

No mention of antifa, which assaults government facilities with a view to burning them down or otherwise destroying them. Antifa also routinely assaults others who object to their destruction, including police, civilians, anyone actually taking pictures or filming antifa persons or their activities, even journalists.

No mention of BLM, which freely riots, loots, burns down private businesses, especially targeting small mom and pops.

Biden made it explicit:

Domestic terrorism—driven by hate, bigotry, and other forms of extremism—is a stain on the soul of America….

Unless, of course, it’s antifa, BLM, and the like on the Left. They are exempted, their behavior excused.

Of course Biden—and his Party—won’t name antifa or BLM or the like as domestic terrorists, regardless of their activities intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion…by mass destruction.

Those entities are grassroots supporters of Party.

An Illegal Offering?

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration intends to lease some Federal lands in the waters roughly between Long Island and New Jersey, ostensibly to build a wind farm there.

The problem with that intent is this:

The proposed “competitive lease sale”…the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) [an arm of the Interior Department] is seeking feedback on several mandates tied to the sale, including the requirement “to create good-paying union jobs and engage with all stakeholders and ocean users[.]”
The “announcement of new proposed lease stipulations puts a priority on creating and sustaining good-paying union jobs….”

And there’s the problem. In addition to President Joe Biden’s (D) administration picking and choosing winners and losers in this enterprise—unethical at best, and completely out of bounds for the government of a free nation—the openly stated requirement for union jobs is illegal to the point of unconstitutional.

Picking winners and losers: the lease sale is, by design, not at all a competitive offering. Open shop companies—companies that are not unionized—are deliberately excluded from even bidding on the contract. That also creates artificially inflated costs to us taxpayers for any of these leases through that lack of competition and through the unions getting a free hand to raise their wage demands.

Illegal, unconstitutional: those non-union companies are denied their statutory rights to competitively bid at all for these Federal contracts. Beyond that, those non-union companies are denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment by being denied an opportunity to compete at all, much less on an equal footing, for participation in the contracts.

All non-union employees of those companies, individually and severally, are denied their equal protection under the 14th Amendment by being denied any opportunity to earn a paycheck under those contracts solely on the basis of their not being union members.

Coalitions, the G-7, and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial in which The Wall Street Journal‘s editors went on at length about President Joe Biden’s (D) meeting(s) with the leaders of the other nations of the G-7, there was some discussion about the G-7’s final communique, in which the G-7 had pretty words about the need do some things about some conditions and to do them together.

The subtext of those meetings, though, was this.

The nations of the G-7 want the coalition to act together, but they emphasize the “together” part while deprecating the “act” part. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has bought into that cynical vapidity.

Further, when Biden gets to Brussels, he’ll see most of the NATO member nations celebrating the United States being back. Back to being most of those nations’ NATO treasury and blood bank while they continue to decline to commit their own money and blood for mutual defense. Here, those nations emphasize “defense” while deprecating “mutual.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration will actively celebrate that version of “back.”

Congressman Colin Allred (D, TX) Makes the Case

Posted on by
Reply

The good Congressman tried to make the case for HR1 in his Letter to the Thursday Wall Street Journal

What HR1 does is simple: it sets national standards for access to vote by mail, early voting, and voter registration so that our democracy isn’t radically different from state to state.

HR1 also nationalizes a number of other aspects of voting currently set by the individual States (as well as giving the Federal government veto authority over any moves a State might make in contradiction, but that’s an extra little fillip).

Unwittingly, though, the Progressive-Democratic Party Representative from Texas has made a critical aspect of the case against HR1.

Our 50 States do not exist merely as counties to the central government, existing solely for the convenience of enforcing laws handed down from the center. They are, instead, 50 different, enthusiastic, ongoing experiments in democracy. The good citizens of Maine have different imperatives than those of Illinois or Texas, and those citizens have different imperatives than those of California or Oregon.

And that’s a core strength of our nation.