Category Archives: politics

Trouble in Balochistan

Posted on by
Reply

Balochistan is a resource-rich province of Pakistan with a handy coastline on the Arabian Sea and an extensive border with Iran. The People’s Republic of China is busily developing the province’s wealth of minerals and then importing the output. The PRC also is developing both a seaport and an airport in the province to support both those imports and to facilitate its Belt and Road and Maritime Silk Road ventures. There also has been an “uptick” in terrorist violence in the province.

Pakistan alleges that the uptick in violence in Balochistan is due to backing from its rival and neighbor, India; that nation denies involvement.

It’s certainly possible that India would reach all the way across Pakistan to interfere in Balochistan, though that seems unlikely. There are other possibilities, however. One is that the terrorism is tacitly supported, if not covertly instigated, by the People’s Republic of China as it seeks to reduce competition for those resources. That would be especially effective in reducing or eliminating American competition, since American business managers are famous for their timidity in the face of uproars.

Another possibility is that Iran is behind the terrorism as the mullahs look to incubate and develop another client terrorist entity in the aftermath of the decimation of its Hamas and Hezbollah clients.

“Our Democracy”

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Butler, a deputy editor at The Wall Street Journal‘s Free Expression, had a good piece on Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ defense of our democracy. The TL;DR of it (it really isn’t that long; it’s a good read in its own right) is this:

Party politicians and the Left generally aren’t talking about our nation’s republican democracy or our democracy in the lazy phrasing too often fallen onto; they’re talking about our democracy, and the rest of us can join them or go hang. This is illustrated by the remarks of Party’s ex-President Joe Biden:

In a 2022 speech, President Biden agreed with a federal judge’s assessment that “Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans” are a “clear and present danger” to “our democracy” and called on Americans to “unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy, regardless of your ideology.”

This is Party’s attitude toward American citizens: you’re either with us, or you’re separate from us, and we’ll simply ignore you while we take care of our version of the nation of the United States.

Constitutionally Questionable

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline lays out the problem:

Refusal of older officeholders to cede stage to younger faces is prompting fresh calls for a limit on how long they can serve

Statutory limits on how long Congressmen and -women can serve in Congress are constitutionally highly questionable. Here’s what Article I, Sections 2 (on Representatives) and 3 (on Senators) of our Constitution says about eligibility to serve in Congress:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

And

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Our Constitution places a floor on age, but it places no ceiling on age, nor does it place any limit on the length of service or number of terms an individual may serve. In many venues, it’s possible for lower jurisdictions to tighten standards of higher jurisdictions, but with our Constitution, such efforts have been routinely disallowed under the Supremacy Clause, which unequivocally states, along with Marbury v Madison, that our Constitution is our supreme law, and Congressional statutes are subordinate to it. It’s most likely that imposing an upper age limit would require an Amendment to our Constitution.

In any event, limiting by age for how long a congressman might serve is a decidedly suboptimal solution to this perceived problem. A much better solution is the term limit that was used in our erstwhile Articles of Confederation. That document’s Article V limited a Congressional delegate to three terms out of six, with no bar on serving further in subsequent six term runs.

The Articles were written for a unicameral Congress, but it’s easily adaptable to our present bicameral Congress. This also would require an Amendment to our Constitution, but it would be a better one that makes medical improvements to the abilities of aging citizens irrelevant.

A Thought on VMI

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat-led government of Virginia is moving toward taking Virginia Military Institute fully and solely under State control, the better to inflict implement DEI characteristics in the Institute management and teachings. VMI has long been a source of quality military officers, in addition to the several Military Academies. That seems about to change.

Here’s Assistant SecDef for Public Affairs, Sean Parnell, on the potential:

For generations, the unique military environment at VMI has made the Institute a vital source of commissioned officers for the Armed Forces.
The stability of this proven leadership pipeline is a matter of direct national security interest and any action that could disrupt the ecosystem requires our full attention. DoW reserves the right to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of VMI and our commitment to the cadets and midshipmen currently training there remains steadfast.

The most effective “extraordinary measure” and one that would protect our officer corps from the pollution of DEI is this. Stop accepting VIM graduates into the officer corps if the State enacts its bill to bring the school fully and solely under State control. VMI graduates under the State’s planned control would no longer meet the training requirements for commissioning. Require all VMI graduates after the Class of 2025 who wish to become American military officers to undergo officer training from scratch through any of the other officer training programs, which include ROTC, OCS/OTS, any of our Military Academies.

Middle Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Andy Kessler touted San Jose Mayor and California candidate for Governor, Matt Mahan, as presenting a sufficiently centered (Progressive-)Democrat who opposes Party’s supposedly (they promise!) one-time billionaire tax on those Evil One-Percenters’ wealth, whether liquid or not.

But, Mr Mahan goes on [says Kessler], “I don’t believe that high-net-worth individuals should be able to borrow against appreciated assets endlessly as a way to avoid paying capital gains.” The mayor of the country’s 12th-largest city thinks that rather than impose wealth taxes, California should press Congress to eliminate the step-up in basis at death, so that estates or heirs would pay a tax on the appreciation of a decedent’s assets. (California has no estate tax.) That wouldn’t put “our economy, our engine of innovation and prosperity, at risk.”

Three guesses where that would take our economy. Here’s a hint:

No one wealthy would own capital assets, whether personal or enterprise—they’d lease them. That would thoroughly alter the structure of our private economy, real, financial, business ownership, and it would do so in ways that we won’t know until it starts happening. That’s dangerous.

And that doesn’t get to the ability of parents to leave to their children what those parents spent a lifetime building—at least not in any substantial way. That’s even more dangerous.

This is an example of careless compromise: Mahan’s position doesn’t move things to the extreme left, but it does move things toward the left, rather than making an even split, much less moving things a little bit to the right. That’s a loss, not just for Conservatives, but for all of California’s citizens, wherever they are on the political spectrum.