Category Archives: ethics

Democratic Party Lawfare

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri state legislature has a supermajority of Republicans in the House.  And legislator, of any party, can require a bill to be read aloud on the House floor prior to the House’s final vote on it.  Last spring, Democratic Party legislators initiated a filibuster by requiring each bill being brought up for its final vote to be read aloud.  So far, so good.  The Republican Speaker one-upped the Democrats by having the bills read by computer with the speed control dialed up.  Again, so far, so good.

But, since the Democrats lost their dispute from within the House, they’ve sued in open court.  They know they have no case, but they didn’t get their way, so they’re trying to go around the House rules—rules to which both parties agreed when the rules were developed and then adopted—to impose their way.

They have no case?  They have no case because legislatures set their own rules for how they’ll conduct their legislative business; courts have no jurisdiction here.  Even the Missouri Supreme Court seems to be recognizing that.

The court said weeks ago that justices…will quiz attorneys about how the Legislature conducts its own business, and they will consider whether the judicial branch has any say in settling a dispute among lawmakers.

This is what we can look forward to in the Federal government, too, as demonstrated by the recent Democratic Party’s calculated cancelation of democracy in the Federal House of Representatives by preventing the people’s business from being done in the People’s House because they couldn’t get their way.  This was demonstrated earlier, too, as Democrats left Wisconsin and Indiana explicitly to prevent those legislatures from conducting the people’s business because the Democrats couldn’t impose their will.  It’ll only get worse under a third Democratic Party-controlled White House and Democratic Party-controlled Congress.

If we Democrats can’t get our way, there’ll be no democracy for you.

Why is this even a Question?

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans officially petitioned the administration Thursday to deny Hillary Clinton access to secret information as Democrats’ presidential nominee, and some GOP lawmakers said if the intelligence community won’t do it, they’ll pass a bill to do it themselves.

Oh, wait—it’s a question because

The White House has said it won’t deny Mrs Clinton access….

On the excuse of tradition, don’t you know.

Never mind the tradition, and the requirement in most serious security régimes—like in a government—of revoking existing security clearances and denying further access to those who’ve committed security violations as egregious as even FBI Director James Comey has documented Clinton having done.

Some rules, some traditions, just don’t apply.  Not when they’re inconvenient.

Permanent Court of Arbitration Demurs

Posted on by
Reply

This Hague Court has been hearing the Philippines’ complaint about the People’s Republic of China’s invasion and seizure of the South China Sea, an invasion that occurred at the direct and deliberate expense of the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, and other nations rimming this Sea.  It ruled against the PRC, publishing its unanimous ruling last Tuesday.  In its essence, the Court has ruled that the PRC’s Nine-Dash Line, which the PRC used to define the extent of its manufactured historical claim…couldn’t hold water.

China’s claims to historic and economic rights in most of the South China Sea have no legal basis….

And even further,

China [isn’t] entitled to an exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, extending up to 200 nautical miles from any outcrop in the Spratlys archipelago including the largest, Itu Aba, which is claimed by China but controlled by Taiwan.

The EEZ aspect of the ruling is important in another way, too: it renders the PRC’s terraforming, including its military base building illegal.

This will have implications, too, for the legality of PRC behavior and military buildup in the Paracel Islands off the Vietnamese coast and which are claimed by Vietnam and for PRC occupation efforts in Scarborough Shoal, which are Philippine islands.

With the PRC’s Foreign Minister’s office officially rejecting the Court’s ruling, we now can expect an accelerated military buildup throughout the Sea and more aggressive behavior by the PRC’s navy and air force.

Climate and Lawless Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Democratic Party State Attorneys General and the Virgin Islands territorial Attorney General have subpoenaed private enterprises for all correspondence related to objections to political agendas touting climate warming and the need to redistribute wealth to “green” energy crony companies.  These subpoenas are intended to gain access to correspondence with anyone at all, and the companies have been threatened by these AGs with RICO proceedings if the victim target companies don’t comply.

In response to that, several of those target companies have countersued, demanding the AGs’ documents related to the AG cases, among other things under FOIA.  The AGs have refused to supply the requested documents, citing…secrecy.

Democratic attorneys general led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman are seeking to block efforts to obtain documents about their efforts by invoking an overbroad claim to secrecy in ongoing legal proceedings, according to the Energy and Environment (E&E) Legal Institute.

According to Chris Horner of E&E,

These activist AGs are trying to write themselves out from freedom of information laws their legislatures have written them into.  …they are hiding behavior that seems to be precisely the sort of abuse lawmakers sought to expose to sunlight when deciding to cover their States’ chief law enforcement officers under FOIA laws….

In fact, these AGs appear to have preemptively colluded in their secrecy.  The AGs involved

circulated a common interest agreement in March that detailed their cooperation in the Exxon matter.  It explicitly prohibited signatories from sharing information about the legal campaign.

The agreement stipulated that if any relevant information “is demanded under a public records law, the party receiving the request shall … refuse to disclose any shared information unless otherwise required by law.”

Oddly, that agreement was discovered in the course of a prior E&E FOIA request; hence the apparent effort to ignore current FOIAs.

Because facts upset their predetermined narrative and undermine their political standing.

Another IRS Assault

Posted on by
Reply

This time on private enterprise and a private economy company that’s nominally outside the scope of the government economy.

US tax officials sued Facebook Inc to force the company to hand over documents related a transfer of assets to Ireland in 2010, part of a yearslong investigation into whether some of those assets were undervalued “by billions of dollars.”

Because, of course, John Koskinen and his IRS minions know better how to value a private enterprise than does the private enterprise.

Alternatively, Koskinen has reason to believe the company has falsified its valuations, which raises the question: what’s your probable cause, Mr Koskinen?