Daily Archives: 25 January 2017

Lies of the Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Among other things that President Donald Trump did last Monday was sign an Executive Order preventing federal money from being provided to international NGOs that perform abortions or provide information about them and also preventing federal money from going to groups that lobby to legalize abortion or promote it as a family planning method.  Here’s what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had to say on the matter (David Smith, author of The Guardian piece at the link, who labeled Pelosi the Senate Minority Leader, might want to consult with Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY).  He might also want to consult with House Speaker Paul Ryan, about whom Smith offered speculation concerning why Ryan didn’t bring the TPP treaty up for a vote, another bit of ignorance later in his piece):

Now, foreign non-governmental organisations will be forced to give women incomplete medical information, advice and care in order to participate in US-supported programs abroad.

Of course, Pelosi knows better.  NGOs are not forced to give “incomplete” information; they just don’t get to do it with American citizens’ tax dollars.

This, in addition to Schumer’s stated goal of being as obstructionist as he can in the Senate, is the level of Progressive-Democrat integrity to which we can look forward the next four years.  It’s sad, indeed, that that Party has sunk to such a level.

Definitely Not the People

Posted on by
Reply

The British Supreme Court has thrown a monkey wrench into Great Britain’s going out from the European Union, but in the process, it has thrown a double handful of sand into the gears of liberty in the birthplace of John Locke.

The Court has ruled (by an 8-3 margin; it certainly wasn’t wishy-washy in its attitude) that Parliament must agree to invoke Article 50 and trigger negotiation over terms of separation from the EU.  David Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, reading the judgment:

The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK Constitution, namely by an act of Parliament[.]

So much for consensual government, government by the people, the sovereignty of the people over their government.  The citizens of Great Britain cannot be permitted to change their own law, and never mind that no change was required in the present case, anyway, since the outcome of their referendum, saying as it did, “We want to leave the EU,” was quite clear as to what should happen from their vote.  The Court claimed this was not instructive.  The people did not say to Government, “Mother, may I?”

Naturally, Gina Miller, who’d brought the suit with intent to force Parliament into the decision, agreed, insisting (as paraphrased by the AP) that

[l]eaving the EU will change the fundamental rights of citizens and this can’t be done without a vote of lawmakers[.]

Nor can the people be permitted to define their rights for themselves and instruct their government as to those rights.  That’s for their rulers to do for them.

The people of Great Britain are not sovereign in their nation.  Government is sovereign, and the people are subordinate.