Category Archives: politics

Abortion “Rights”

Posted on by
1

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants to further erode Federalism in our nation’s structure and have the central government pass on certain kinds of State laws before those laws can be…permitted…to take effect.  Harris’ position and proposal is well summarized in the sub-headline of the article at the link:

The Democratic presidential hopeful wants the Justice Department to review state laws restricting abortion before they would take effect

Since a core principle of our nation, acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, centers on our Creator-endowed right to life, and it is the duty of any government, especially including ours, to protect the lives of those in its care—or even simply within its jurisdiction—I offer an alternative requirement, albeit one that parallels Harris’ attack on our federal structure.

The Justice Department should review state laws permitting abortion, particularly with a view to assessing their impact on life, before they would take effect

This would enable the central government to protect the baby’s life from being aborted in any but the most extreme circumstance.

It should be clear, after all, that abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women’s right to control their own bodies and everything to do with the baby’s—who in any abortion procedure has no one to speak for him—right simply to maintain his body.  Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women’s “rights” generally and everything to do with the baby’s right to life.

Except in the minds of Progressive-Democrats.

An Economic Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and ex-President Barack Obama mentee Joe Biden had this to say about our economic progress over the last couple of years.

I know President Trump likes to take credit for the economy and the economic growth and the low unemployment numbers.  But…President Trump inherited an economy from [the] Obama-Biden administration—that was given to him….

The Obama-Biden “recovery” from the Panic of 2008 was the slowest on the post-WWII era record, though, and it was years behind schedule on the Obama-Biden promises of unemployment recovery and actual jobs creation recovery, and their “recovery” never did fulfill their promise of GDP recovery.  On that latter bit, Obama and Biden even asserted (proudly?  Certainly loudly) that under 2% GDP growth was the norm, and Biden’s hero even ridiculed the idea that better trade deals (and so better economics) could be done—”Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

Robert Southey anticipated Biden, I think.

“Now tell us what ’twas all about,”
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
“Now tell us all about the Panic,
And what the upset all was for.”

…

“They say it was a shocking sight
After the Panic had run;
For many thousand bailouts here

Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.

“And everybody praised the Veep
Who this recov’ry did win.”
“But what good came of it at last?”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why, that I cannot tell,” said he;
“But ’twas a famous victory.”

 

An Inapt Analogy

Posted on by
Reply

With friends like this….

I’m a firm believer in tightly secured borders with legal entry points established at one-mile intervals along it and the elimination of visa quotas for those who want to come here legally, whether with a goal of gaining citizenship or just for long-term residency and work—so long as they pass tight vetting procedures.

A Letter to the Editor writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal tried to make the same point, but his point was, and is, counterproductive.

In saying that demanding specialized skills as the criterion for entry might work for the short-term but was long-term short-sighted compared to a come one, come all (presumably subject to vetting) criterion, the letter writer offered this:

Our nation historically has been more like the Milwaukee Brewers than the New York Yankees.

Well, no.

The Brewers are perennial losers, having never won a World Series and whose last pennant win was in 1982.  That’s not the United States I know.  The Yankees, on the other hand, have 27 World Series titles and 40 pennants.  That, though, isn’t the United States I know, either; although, it’s closer to the mark.

The US benefits from taking on all comers who want to become Americans (not many all-comers stay with either the Brewers or the Yankees), and we also gain from taking on those who have specialized skills that directly and quickly benefit us, whether they want to become Americans or want to be here as long-term residents.

Blowing Up Settlements

Posted on by
Reply

The one being sabotaged here is between Facebook and the FTC over the FTC’s proposed settlement of Facebook’s “mishandling” of consumer privacy data, including surrendering millions of consumers’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.

FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has the (Republican) votes he need to impose the settlement, from the FTC’s perspective, on a 3-2 partisan vote.  He’s quite rightly trying to get at least one of the Progressive-Democrats on the board to vote with him, but they’re bleating that a $5 billion fine and other controls don’t go far enough.

This is naked obstruction, though, based on a cynically manufactured beef.

Another impediment to the settlement is a textbook example of why Federal agencies ought not be spring-loaded to settle cases with miscreants.  “Settlements,” should be vanishingly rare, and they should occur only after the teeth from a history of court cases have been manifested.  This time, the block is whether

to name Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a respondent in the complaint that would be filed by the agency as part of the settlement. Naming Mr Zuckerberg as a respondent could make him liable for future privacy missteps—and give the FTC leverage if it should seek to remove Mr Zuckerberg from the company’s management in the future.

Whichever party wants this included, it’s an entirely legitimate inclusion.

“Facebook representatives,” though, object, and they say Facebook will not accept a settlement that includes this.

There’s nothing here for Facebook to accept or reject, though. Facebook screwed up with consumers’ private, personal information, and the screwups identified in this putative settlement are just the latest in a long string of such…errors.  That those prior misbehaviors are not part of this case does matter in determining the price to be paid in this instance, but they should inform the FTC’s willingness to go to court rather than itself settle for a settlement.

There should be no settlement on the table or on offer in any guise.  The case should be in the courts, moving apace—the FTC should not allow Facebook’s lawyers to drag things out, and neither should the courts—with a court judgment sought. That judgment should include, at minimum, a company fine of $5 billion or more, Zuckerberg named as correspondent, and Zuckerberg personally fined for his role as the MFWIC condoning, if not actively authorizing, such privacy invasions and sales.

In Which Adam Schiff Demurs

Posted on by
Reply

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump authorized Attorney General William Barr to declassify any documents concerning surveillance of Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign.  Trump also instructed the Intelligence agencies and “the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community” to cooperate with Barr in that declassification.  This exposure of underlying data is something Republicans have been calling for since that surveillance itself was exposed.

Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA) is up in arms over this move.  The

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the move as an attempt to “weaponize law enforcement and classified information.”

Because exposing inconvenient truths is weaponizing.

Of course, this is the same Adam Schiff who said over a year ago that he had lots of plain, clear evidence of criminal activity done by Trump.  And refused to provide any of it.

So much for Progressive-Democrat calls for transparency.