Tag Archives: freedom

Mexico Says It’s Not a Safe Country?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that the US and Mexico have reached an agreement—at least in principle (although Trump is his usual more definitive self)—that those seeking asylum in the US will remain in Mexico until their asylum cases have been heard and acted on by the US.  The Washington Post has claimed to quote incoming Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero as saying so, too.

However, Sanchez Cordero says that she said no such thing to WaPo.  In fact, she says that no such deal, no Remain in Mexico program—”of any sort”—exists.  Given that newspaper’s record of honest reporting, I believe Sanchez Cordero.

What interests me about her statement, though, is this:

The future government does not consider […] that Mexico assumes the status of “safe third country” for Central American migrants, or from other countries, who are on Mexican territory or for those who will reach it in the future[.]

There are a few interpretations for this statement.  One is that Mexico doesn’t consider itself to be a “safe” country of any sort—a recognition that would be consistent with the corruption rampant in the Mexican police at all jurisdictional levels and with the broad power held by the several drug cartels that operate freely throughout Mexico.

Another is simply that Mexico doesn’t want the legal liability that would accrue from accepting that status.

A third is that rejecting the status is not the same as declining to make an exception for the current “caravan” of persons claiming to seek asylum in the US after having explicitly rejected Mexico’s offer of asylum.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Unfair Elections

Posted on by
Reply

At least they’re unfair if a Progressive-Democrat doesn’t win, if a Republican wins instead.

Progressive-Democratic Party ex-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:

If she [Georgia Progressive-Democrat candidate for Governor Stacy Abrams] had a fair election, she already would have won[.]

Never mind that, according to Abrams and her team, all the votes haven’t been counted.  Just declare the Progressive-Democrat the winner and skip all the time wasted on petty counting of votes.

Progressive-Democratic Senator from Ohio Sherrod Brown:

If Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.  It’s clear, I say that publicly.

Because the only way a Progressive-Democrat could lose is by the other side stealing.  Why, no one should even bother running against Progressive-Democrats.  It’s all theirs, by right of…they say so.

New Jersey’s Progressive-Democratic Senator Cory Booker:

I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her, using what I think are insidious measures to disenfranchise certain groups of people[.]

There it is, again.  The Progressive-Democrat should be declared the winner because she exists.  If too few people voted for her, it can’t be because too few people wanted her; it can only because too many people weren’t allowed to vote.  People who weren’t residents, who weren’t citizens, who couldn’t identify themselves….

In Florida, Broward County, after completing a State law required machine recount of the Senate race votes cast, withheld reporting the results of its recount until after the reporting deadline.  That means that the county’s count as of the prior Saturday will be the official count, an outcome that strongly favors the Progressive-Democratic Party candidate Bill Nelson.  That recount, the one Broward chose not to report on time, added nearly 800 votes to the Republican Rick Scott’s total.  But Nelson is the proper winner; he’s the Progressive-Democrat.

That, from the Party that pretends to decry voter disenfranchisement while disenfranchising nearly 800 voters.

Keep this in mind in 2020.  They’ll be at it again, in spades.

May’s Brexit Surrender

Posted on by
1

The terms include these, via Deutsche Welle:

  • The rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be protected
  • EU citizens living in the UK can be joined by close family members…who live in a different country at any point in the future.
  • Workers and self-employed people will be broadly guaranteed the same rights they currently enjoy

All of which negate one of the motives for leaving the European Union. EU citizens resident in the UK will be magnets for drawing in others for the UK’s generous welfare system—and EU citizens still will be able to seek work in the UK preferentially, availing themselves both of the UK’s higher wage rates and that welfare system.

  • There will be a 21-month transition period ending December 31, 2020
  • EU rules would continue to apply in the UK subject to the terms set out in the Brexit agreement
  • After the transition period, a joint committee co-chaired by the EU and the UK would police the final withdrawal agreement, taking decisions by mutual consent and whose verdicts would be binding

Meaning that the UK would remain unable to enter into separate, independent trade agreements during this “transition” period EU laws would remain in effect inside allegedly sovereign Great Britain, and the EU will retain veto power, via that mutual consent requirement, on post-transition moves—including those independent trade agreements and moves to supplant EU laws with domestic, UK, laws.

  • If appropriate customs arrangements are not agreed to, a backstop arrangement would kick in. A joint “single customs territory” between the EU and UK would apply from the end of the transition period…
  • Under the backstop arrangement, the UK must observe “level playing field” commitments on competition, state aid, taxes and employment and environment standards

Are not agreed to means the agreement will be in accordance with EU diktat or there will be the backstop arrangement. This is what the EU wants, so there will be no agreed customs arrangement.  The EU wants the backstop because those terms require the UK to keep its Northern Ireland inside the EU’s competition, state aid, taxes and employment, and environment laws in perpetuity. This is the beginning of prising Northern Ireland out of the UK—the beginning of dismantling the UK.  This is part of the EU’s demonstration to restive members of the EU and a warning of their fate if they become impertinent, too.

The bottom line for the UK here is that, under this “agreement,” these terms of surrender, the nation will become a speechless, toothless satrap of the EU, and its dismantling will be begun.

May, with her abject surrender to Brussels, has betrayed her nation’s referendum.  And she has betrayed other members of the EU similarly dismayed with Brussels’ interference in their domestic affairs.

It’s no wonder that members of her Cabinet are resigning in droves, her coalition government is falling apart, and her own party is in (sub rosa, for now) revolt.

Doctors and Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Many in the medical profession have gotten their panties in wads because, on the matter of guns and gun rights, someone was impertinent enough to suggest that they’re really not that expert.  The National Rifle Association, it turns out, had demurred from an American College of Physicians paper calling for ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a threat—with “threat,” of course, defined by the ACP.

“We have an intimacy with our patients that nobody else has,” she said. “We open them up. We put our hands inside their body. And to have somebody say to you ‘You don’t belong here, this isn’t your lane’ is really condescending and really inappropriate. It’s time to post the pictures. Let’s show people what it looks like to work in a trauma center.”

With that first hand knowledge, doctors should be looking to minimize the opportunities for and occasions of gun violence. Moving to disarm honest Americans will only increase gun violence and increase doctors’ ER work load.

What’s condescending and really inappropriate is doctors pretending that gun violence is the fault of guns in the hands of honest Americans, freely carried as our 2nd Amendment—an outgrowth of our right to life and to defend that life—acknowledges our right to have and to do.

The ACP objects to domestic-violence offenders having access—never mind the corollary limitations on access by those living with the offenders (and never mind the hazy definitions of such offenders outside the clear core of that crime)—to guns.

More generally, the ACP objects to laws requiring States to honor each other’s concealed carry permits.  I don’t hear, though, the ACP objecting to laws requiring States to honor each other’s drivers licenses.  The outcomes of motor vehicle accidents are at least as horrific and far more numerous than the outcomes of gun encounters.

Perhaps the medical profession’s arrogance and hypocrisy disqualifies them from pontificating on gun rights.

A European Army

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a nascent move afoot to create a European army to which, presumably, all the member nations of the EU would contribute men, equipment, and money.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggested to the European Parliament last Tuesday that such a force

would complement NATO.

I’ll leave aside the question of how the EU’s member nations would pay for such an establishment when they’re having so much trouble finding ways—or reasons—to pay for their commitment (of all of 2% of their respective GDPs) to NATO.

There’s another question that badly wants answers.  While the US—and the free individual nations of Europe and of Asia—have benefitted from the existence of their standing armies, our own Founders had misgivings about such an establishment, to the point that for some years after our own birth, we had neither standing army nor standing navy.  Such a thing was, they feared, the stuff of tyranny.  Even though the formal raison d’etre of a standing army was, and is, outward-looking and for defense of the nation against foreign threat, a standing, professional military facility (they feared) ultimately would become a domestic threat: Government would come to use the thing to suppress and then to oppress the people over whom such a well-equipped Government ruled.

So far, those fears have not been realized in those nations where the people remain free enough to choose at more or less regular intervals the persons they will have as members of their governments.  Such free peoples have checked the power of their governments.

But what of the European Union?  That organization does not have a universally freely elected governing body.  The European Parliament, to be sure, is elected by the citizens of the member nations.  However, that body has no governing authority; it can only make recommendations.  The real power of the EU’s Government is shared among the European Council, which consists of the heads of state of the EU’s member nations; the President of that Council; and the President of the European Commission, whose members are European Council appointees.  That’s a lot of power concentrated away from the will and the choices of the citizens of the member nations.

It’s a power that gets freely and broadly exercised, too, as illustrated by the EU’s Government presuming to reach inside a member nation—Italy—and dictate to that nation what its domestic budget must be.  Were [Italy] to remain intransigent, and were the EU to have its own standing army, what might be an outcome of a future dispute between [Italy] and the EU?

The peoples of Europe, the citizens of the individual member nations, need to think very carefully whether they want to arm so well a system of governance over which they have so little say.