Tag Archives: freedom

The PRC’s Sea Grab

Posted on by
Reply

The PRC has just announced its new East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone.  An ADIZ is something that any modern nation does as it exercises measures to increase the safety of its territory.  An ADIZ is a device, well published, that allows a nation to identify approaching aircraft with enough warning time to be able to react should that aircraft have nefarious intentions.

As can be seen, though, the PRC’s new ADIZ carefully includes the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory (although the Republic of China also claims them as the Tiaoyutai Islands).  What makes the PRC’s move especially…suspect…is its ongoing grab of the entire East China Sea, claiming this mostly international water as PRC sovereign territory.  This is a direct, deliberate challenge to Japan and to the US, who is a close ally of Japan, and it’s intended to be so, as the US fades from the global stage.

As an aside, this move also is a direct, deliberate challenge to the RoC, and to the US, who is a close ally of the RoC.  Recall that the PRC considers the RoC as sovereign PRC territory, too, and that the US, to our shame, long ago supported the ejection of China from the UN Security Council in favor of the PRC.

By contrast, here’s the US ADIZ:

We don’t extend our zone very far at all.  Peaceful nations, with no designs on territorial expansion, have no need of masquerading an identification zone as a territorial claim zone.

Some Thoughts on Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Daniel Hannan, Member European Parliament for South East England, has a few.  His book, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World, was excerpted by The Wall Street Journal a couple weekends ago.  Here are some of Hannan’s thoughts from that excerpt.

Asked, early in his presidency, whether he believed in American exceptionalism, Barack Obama gave a telling reply.  “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

The first part of that answer is fascinating (we’ll come back to the Greeks in a bit).  Most Brits do indeed believe in British exceptionalism.  But here’s the thing: they define it in almost exactly the same way that Americans do.  British exceptionalism, like its American cousin, has traditionally been held to reside in a series of values and institutions: personal liberty, free contract, jury trials, uncensored newspapers, regular elections, habeas corpus, open competition, secure property, religious pluralism.

…

What made the Anglosphere different?  Foreign visitors through the centuries remarked on a number of peculiar characteristics: the profusion of nonstate organizations, clubs, charities and foundations; the cheerful materialism of the population; the strong county institutions, including locally chosen law officers and judges; the easy coexistence of different denominations (religious toleration wasn’t unique to the Anglosphere, but religious equality—that is, freedom for every sect to proselytize—was almost unknown in the rest of the world).  They were struck by the weakness, in both law and custom, of the extended family, and by the converse emphasis on individualism.  They wondered at the stubborn elevation of private property over raison d’état, of personal freedom over collective need.

And a warning:

There is, of course, a flip-side.  If the US abandons its political structures, it will lose its identity more thoroughly than states that define nationality by blood or territory.  Power is shifting from the 50 states to Washington, DC, from elected representatives to federal bureaucrats, from citizens to the government.  As the US moves toward European-style health care, day care, college education, carbon taxes, foreign policy and spending levels, so it becomes less prosperous, less confident and less free.

…

Which brings us back to Mr. Obama’s curiously qualified defense of American exceptionalism.  Outside the Anglosphere, people have traditionally expected—indeed, demanded—far more state intervention.  They look to the government to solve their problems, and when the government fails, they become petulant.

What he said.

Hannan’s book, from which this excerpt of an excerpt comes, can be found here and here.

Another Failure of Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Two Gonzaga [University] students are facing possible expulsion from the University after they pulled a weapon in self defense as a six time felon attempted to get into their on campus apartment.

It seems these two students were confronted, on a recent Thursday night, by a six-time felon with an active arrest warrant on him (which, of course, the students couldn’t know at the time) who tried to force his way into their apartment, demanding money (which, of course, the students understood very clearly at the time).  It was only when one of the students brandished a pistol—for which he has a concealed weapons permit—that the thug left (to be arrested later based on the students’ subsequent report to the police).

It’s also interesting to note that the student did not fire his weapon.  There turned out to be no need to fire; the thug left on seeing it, and the restraint demonstrated the judgment of permit holders, generally.

Nevertheless, Gonzaga is holding firm to its policy of no guns at all and to its intent to discipline the students for the crime of successfully defending themselves without University oversight.

Gonzaga released a statement speaking of their long standing weapons policy that has been in effect.  The University says the policy has been in place to reduce threats to the school.

Which it took a gun to reduce….

Update:

Executive Vice President Earl Martin said Monday the university will try to turn the incident into a teachable moment by re-examining its no-weapons policy.

Yeah.  In the meantime, these young men remain on Gonzaga’s probation, and Gonzaga still has their weapons, which the University “confiscated” in the aftermath of this self defense action.  And these young men now have no defenses against the next thug to come by.

When the bad man comes, and seconds count, the police will be only minutes away.  What are these two to do in those intervening minutes, after their seconds are up?

Who Gets to Decide?

Posted on by
1

White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer claimed Sunday on ABC’s This Week that millions of Americans lost insurance their insurance policies because ObamaCare had deemed them inadequate.

[I]f the president were to allow people to have those plans…or insurance companies to keep selling barebones plans…he’d be violating even more important promise to the American people, that everyone would have a guarantee to access of quality…health insurance[.]

Ex-Obama advisor Dr Ezekiel Emanuel (and University of Pennsylvania Vice Provost) said much the same thing on Sunday’s Fox News Sunday.

WALLACE: Dr. Emanuel, simple question—why does Betsy Tadder need you or President Obama telling her what insurance she needs?

EMANUEL: For two reasons: first of all, if she goes in and that insurance doesn’t cover enough…

WALLACE: But she likes her plan.

EMANUEL: But we’re cost shifting.

Plainly our Know Better Progressive Government is the only one qualified to decide.  Not us, not about our insurance, not about our money.

There’s Hope, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Both Colorado State Senators, including the President of the State Senate, facing recall over their gun control legislation lost those recalls Tuesday.  These were solid defeats, too, nothing cliff-hanger-ish about them: State Senator John Morse (D), the Senate President, lost 51%-49%, and his colleague, State Senator Angela Giron (D), lost 56%-44%.

Moreover, these were not California-style recalls, where the firing occurs in one election and a separate election is held later (in which the just-fired incumbent could be a candidate).  These Colorado recalls were elections themselves, and on losing the recall, Morse and Giron were replaced by their opponents—Republicans Bernie Herpin and George Rivera.

The State Senate remains in Democrat hands, and it remains to be seen whether Herpin and Rivera will be any more responsive to their bosses, the citizens of their districts, but this is a clear step in the right direction: those who try to limit our individual liberties—in this case, try to foist onto honest citizens restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights—can expect to be fired forthwith.