Tag Archives: freedom

Cowed by the PRC?

Posted on by
Reply

Canberra confirmed last week that the Australian Navy won’t conduct freedom-of-navigation patrols in the international waters of the South China Sea, giving China’s bid to dominate the strategic area a boost.

And

An international tribunal ruled in July that China’s bid to claim most of the sea violates international law. But the verdict will be rendered moot unless law-abiding states are willing to push back. That would give Beijing effective control over the 60% of Australian trade that transits the sea.

However, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop appear to have gotten their marching orders from PRC President Xi Jinping and Wang Yi.  Embarrassingly (did Turnbull have the grace for embarrassment), Turnbull has decried opposition to this acquiescence as “highly political,” and a measure of “immaturity and unreadiness to take responsibility for these issues.”  Bishop is terrified that enforcing freedom of navigation imperatives—even international law—would “escalate tensions.”

You bet the matter is highly political, Turnbull.  Enforcing international law—or surrendering the rights involved to the biggest bully—is purely political.  In what venue would you place it otherwise?  Your inability to understand that, or your timidity in acting on an accurate understanding, marks your own political immaturity and unreadiness.

Escalating tensions?  The PRC is already doing that with its seizure and occupation of the South China Sea, and it’s actively pressing its advantage gained from your backing away from tension.

You guys used to be made of sterner stuff.  What happened to the Australian government that faced down a rampant Japan on your doorstep just 75 years ago?

Or are you thinking you have no support from the US, which already is in retreat before the PRC?  That, at least, would have a ring of shameful truth to it.

Pay to Play, or Slants

Posted on by
1

From a Kimberley Strassel column in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal comes this nugget.

…the Associated Press’s extraordinary finding this week that of the 154 outside people Mrs. Clinton met with in the first years of her tenure, more than half were Clinton Foundation donors. Clinton apologists, like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, are claiming that statistic is overblown, because the 154 doesn’t include thousands of meetings held with foreign diplomats and U.S. officials.

Nice try. As the nation’s top diplomat, Mrs Clinton was obliged to meet with diplomats and officials—not with others. Only a blessed few outsiders scored meetings with the harried secretary of state and, surprise, most of the blessed were Clinton Foundation donors.

What she said.

And yet the NLMSM insists—brags, really—that it’s entirely appropriate to take sides against Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump, not in their opinion pieces, but in their “fact” reporting pieces, also.  Objective journalism be damned.

Here’s Ezra Klein, of JournoList infamy:

The media has felt increasingly free to cover Trump as an alien, dangerous, and dishonest phenomenon[.]

And Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

It’s made starkly clear by Jorge Ramos, of Univision:

…journalists cannot be objective when they are confronted with “racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorships or violations of human rights.”

These views of Trump, in opinion pieces, are entirely legitimate, but it’s interesting to note that none of this criticism, this assumption of nefariousness, is evident in the same press’ coverage of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, despite her plain lawlessness and her evident conflicts of interest.

If the press feels free to be this proudly biased against one party, one candidate, it can only feel free to be similarly biased toward any other politician, any other party.  Too much of the Fourth Estate has transformed itself into a fifth column.

On an Ohio Early Voting Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

The 6th Circuit has ruled on Ohio’s Golden Week of voting, which allowed an extra week of early voting together with same-day voter registration.  Ohio had withdrawn that week in 2014 legislation, leaving 29 days before November’s formal voting day for voter registration and early voting.  The appellate court, in response to Democrats’ suit and win in trial court, overturned the trial court and allowed the removal of Golden Week to stand.  As a result, Ohioans will have those 29 days, instead of 36 days, in which to register to vote and then to vote.

Democrats had challenged the procedural changes, arguing they imposed disproportionate burdens on African-Americans, who made greater use of the golden-week voting….

How blatantly disingenuous of the Democrats.  That a particular group of Americans uses a week’s early privilege more than other groups of Americans in no way burdens the particular group when they lose that week, given the vast amount of time remaining in which all groups of Americans can exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How insulting of the Democrats toward a particular group of Americans to assume that members of that group are too stupid or lazy to make use of the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How utterly racist of the Democrats to assume that blacks are simply too stupid to use the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote and so need the protection of their Betters to take care of them.

California’s Disdain

Posted on by
Reply

…for religion is made manifest by its SB 1146, Equity in Higher Education Act, currently under consideration before the California Senate.

As it currently stands, parochial schools—church schools, religious schools, schools run according to a clearly stated set of religious tenets—are exempt from discrimination laws where such discrimination is centered on religious beliefs.  Schools and their students are free to follow their conscience and to require employees, and students, to adhere to certain basic sets of behaviors.  As Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake put it in their piece,

Current California law exempts religious schools from nondiscrimination laws in cases where applying these laws “would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
…
For years now, this policy has worked well, enabling church-run colleges and universities to hire personnel and establish policies and expectations regarding religious practice and personal conduct that reflect their beliefs and values.

California State Senator Ricardo Lara’s (D) bill seeks to destroy this (Gomez and Blake are more polite about Lara’s motive and his bill’s overall impact.  I don’t agree, though, that Lara doesn’t understand what he’s doing).  His bill would only exempt seminaries or other schools that train clergy and ministers; it would rescind that religious freedom protection everywhere else.

Any other faith-based school that receives state monies or enrolls students who depend on the Cal Grants financial aid program would be forced to change their policies to accommodate practices that in some cases would be contrary to their beliefs and teachings.

Detailed provisions in the legislation include rules for bathroom use and sleeping arrangements in dormitories. The bill even has the government setting guidelines for what “religious practices” and “rules for moral conduct” will be acceptable on these campuses.

All in the guise of “protecting” individual choice.  Never mind, though, that Lara knows full well that those who wish to work or study at these schools are making their choice at that point.  Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well that his bill allows those who disagree with the school’s religious tenets can attend, or get hired, and then force the school to violate its own tenets to accommodate these.

Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well the damage his bill will do to those he claims to be trying to help, low-income and minority families—including millions served by our respective faith communities here in Los Angeles.  As Gomez and Blake note—and as Lara surely knows—60% of these religious schools’ students are minorities and nearly 90% need financial aid.  Aid that Lara’s bill would cut off unless these schools kowtow to his demands.

It shouldn’t take elders of the religious community to point this out.  Any lay person—me, for instance—can see this plainly.  Which means, in particular, that Lara, whose bill this is, sees it plainly.  And doesn’t care.

Keep in mind one other thing, too.  Rights granted by Government, or presumed granted by Government, can be withdrawn by Government, too, and at that Government’s whim.  Lara’s bill is a clear demonstration of that.

A Judicial Error Regarding the 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

A Federal trial judge in Seattle has ruled that it’s OK for the Federal government, in the form of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to ban ammunition originally “designed” for AK-47 rifles.  The ammunition in question, Russian-manufacutered 7N6 armor-piercing rounds had been imported prior to BATF’s ban, to the tune of 100 million rounds, and as the importer, PW Arms Inc noted in its suit—the one in which the trial judge ruled for BATF—none of those rounds had been misused.  PW Arms noted in its suit

In fact, before ATF banned 7N6, this ammunition was used lawfully by sportsmen as rifle ammunition for target shooting.

In 2014, though, BATF decided it didn’t like this and instituted its ban.

The Seattle-based Federal judge screwed this one up badly.  As we all know, a ban on ammunition is a ban on the weapons that use them—which is a violation of our right to keep and bear those Arms.

This is another example, too, of the jeopardy in which our judiciary will be under a Clinton White House and Democratic Party Senate.