Category Archives: ethics

Respect for Borders

Posted on by
Reply

In addition to what it is showing with its sea grab, the PRC is demonstrating it has no respect for land borders, either. The PRC is actively sending its government forces—non-military, so far—into other nations to kidnap persons there that the PRC wants and bringing them back within the PRC’s borders.

Among those who have disappeared or been repatriated amid President Xi Jinping’s growing crackdown on dissent, rights groups say, are five Hong Kong publishers of Chinese political gossip, including one who was in the territory and one in Thailand at the time. Others in Thailand include a journalist seeking refuge, two activists who were recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and dozens of Turkic Uighur minority members. Two in the group are European citizens.

Ultimately, the victim nations are going to have to start defending themselves against what is little distinguishable from PRC invasions, capture the invading forces, and either jail them for espionage or imprison them as POWs in the quiet war the PRC is inflicting on them.

This is another response to the vacuum President Barack Obama’s (D) retreat from the world has created.

Voter Identification

Posted on by
Reply

North Carolina’s Voter ID law is before the Federal Middle District of North Carolina with closing arguments just completed. The beef centers on the NAACP’s complaint (joined by the Obama administration) that voter identification is racist. Of course. What disagrees with the Left must be racist.

North Carolina’s law requires a prospective voter to have one of six forms of photographic identification, reduces the number of days of early voting, eliminates same day registration, and allows voters to cast provisional ballots if they say (not show) that they cannot meet the requirements (if a voter meets the requirements within a generous time frame after the voting, his provisional ballot becomes official).

The NAACP and the Obama DoJ think this is too onerous, and it disproportionately affects minorities.

This, though, is simply the racism of low expectations; it says the minorities are inherently less capable than other groups who do routinely meet these requirements.

Six forms of photo ID: driver license, driver license or non-operator identification, passport, tribal enrollment card, VA ID card, US military ID card. If a voter can’t get a photo ID, he has alternatives:

Provide their date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number, or present their current voter registration card or a copy of an acceptable document bearing their name and address. (Acceptable documents include a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government-issued document.)

Anyone who says minorities are unable to satisfy those alternatives is simply insulting that minority—and doing it on the basis of race. Of course, there will be an occasional exception who truly cannot, but these isolated occurrences do not invalidate the requirement, they simply fall into a special handling category.

Reduced early voting days: there’s no requirement to have any early voting days at all; this is nothing more than a courtesy to reduce the need for absentee ballot handling. There’s an advantage to the voter, too, to reducing the number of days for early voting: it allows the voter more time to collect information about the candidates—a late-breaking announcement of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s criminal indictment, for instance, or of a fifth filing for bankruptcy by a company owned by Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

No same day registration: this is no impediment at all; it works to the voter’s advantage, especially for the voter who has not been able to get a photo ID. Aside from reducing the lines at a polling place by not having to process same day registrations, it gives both the voter and the state more time to process the information the voter provides in order to cast a provisional ballot.

The NAACP and the DoJ are making a bogus beef. There are few things more central to our freedom than the sanctity of an American’s vote, and keeping that vote from being diluted or effectively canceled by an ineligible voter is central to protecting that vote. Photo IDs—proving that the prospective voter is who he says he is—is central to that centrality.

The courts have had a good track record in those cases selected by me for commentary at reaching proper decisions. Maybe this court also will reach a proper decision. An American’s vote certainly demands it.

More, Please

Posted on by
Reply

A US Navy destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles or within the territorial waters of an island [Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands] claimed by China in the South China Sea, in a sign of increasing tension in the region days after Secretary of State John Kerry visited Beijing attempting to settle long standing territorial disputes. Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to the island as well.

One small correction: the destroyer, the USS Curtis Wilbur, did not sail within the territorial waters of the PRC, even though it sailed within 12 nm of Triton in the western part of the South China Sea, roughly 250 miles east of Vietnam. The Paracels are not the territory of the PRC; its claim is just part of its overall grab for the entire Sea.

That’s part of the reason such sails-by are necessary: to emphasize the illegitimacy of the PRC’s claim and of its attempts to occupy the islands. We need more of these sailings, and we need frequent flyovers, too. These are things, though, that the Obama administration is too timid to do, or is unable to understand the necessity of the doing, or both.

Captain Jeff Davis, speaking for the Pentagon (and so for President Barack Obama (D)):

This operation was about challenging excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others, not about territorial claims to land features[.]

And

[Last] week in Beijing, Secretary Kerry refused to criticize his host publicly or accuse the Chinese of wrong doing in the South China Sea over the build-up of artificial islands worrying its neighbors in the region. …the United States “does not take sides on the sovereignty questions underlying the territorial disputes.”

This is what’s wrong. We should be challenging the PRC over its expansionist occupation. If we truly do not “take sides on the sovereignty questions,” then we really do need to challenge, explicitly, the PRC’s seizures; that’s the bare minimum necessary to preserve the balance among the competing claims over those islands, and of the Spratlys, and of the South China Sea as a whole, which the PRC has occupied (and of the East China Sea, which the PRC also has moved to occupy).

More Government Interference

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration plans to require large employers to peel back the curtain on how much they pay men and women in a push to narrow long-standing earning gaps between the genders.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will roll out details of the plan Friday to begin gathering a summary of pay data from employers with 100 or more workers.

Leave aside the lack of validity of the data so confiscated by the government.

Statisticians and economists note…that analyzing wage disparities is a complex undertaking, and that aggregating data about many occupations is especially tricky.

“You can’t compare apples and oranges in the same group and draw meaningful conclusions,” said David Cohen, president of DCI Consulting Group, a Washington, DC, firm that conducts pay-equity analyses for companies. “You’re going to get too many false positives and too many false negatives.”

Beyond that, far beyond that, the data are none of the government’s business absent a specific allegation of wrong-doing. If there is a specific complaint—not a blanket fishing expedition borne of this administration’s FDR-esque paranoia about business in general—then get a warrant upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, just like the 4th Amendment requires.

Lawlessness

Posted on by
Reply

The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a US government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

But they weren’t too damaging for Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to bruit about via her unprotected email server: to pass along to staffers lacking the clearance to have access to this sort of information, to make available to the intelligence services of our enemies, or to make available to any hacker who might have taken a notion to go look at what Clinton had on her unsecured server.

Once again, whether the emails were marked classified is irrelevant. Classified data are classified by their existence and nature; markings do not classify anything, they only indicate data that are classified.

Once again, intent in the handling of classified data is irrelevant. Simply mishandling them is a felony.

Despite these plain facts, the Democratic Party continues to support Clinton for President, and it continues to deny the lawlessness of Clinton’s behavior and to minimize the damage to our country from her lawlessness.

This is the party that would rule us after the coming elections, if we’re not very careful.