Category Archives: rights

National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

The Paris Peace Forum met earlier this week; fortunately, we didn’t send any government representative to it.  National sovereignty, this claque held, is a danger to the world.

French President Macron advocated for multilateralism and a “balanced cooperation” between the nations.

Balanced cooperation is good, but that requires not the open borders and come one, come all—no matter who the one or the all are—but coalitions built for specific times and purposes.  And those coalitions, even treaties between or among States requires…nation-states with actual borders, nation-states with internal, coherent cultures, nation-states that put their own interests first.

Easy immigration, certainly, but immigrant prospects who are carefully vetted before they’re allowed in, immigrant prospects committed to assimilating into the culture of the nation they wish to enter and become a part of.

National sovereignty, nationalism.

Emmanuel Macron doesn’t want this.

… unilateralism is “very risky. …  Nationalism is war.”

Never mind that balanced cooperation requires nations actually to be willing to cooperate with each other to do something that’s necessary.  The necessary thing needs doing, though, whether or not nations are willing to cooperate, and that requires, occasionally, unilateralism.  Occasions like Iran, openly and bluntly committed to the destroying Israel and supporting terrorism throughout the world, rapidly pursuing nuclear weapons—while Europe not only stands by, but actively funds Iran’s effort with trade and efforts to circumvent unilaterally applied economic sanctions.

Occasions like the People’s Republic of China seizing and occupying the South China Sea, with only the US willing even a little bit to object, the PRC’s economic, intellectual property, and technology thefts while Europe not only stands by, but actively seeks out new trade deals with the PRC.

Occasions like Russia occupying and partitioning parts of Georgia and Ukraine, engaging in cyber war against each of the Baltic States, deploys tactical and intermediate range nuclear weapons on its western border while Europe stands by and watches—and actively facilitates Russia’s ability to export natural gas to…Europe.

But nationalism, putting one’s own nation ahead of an amorphous multiculturally international entity is anathema.

This is who one of our putative friends is.

“Enemy of the People”

Posted on by
Reply

The good citizens of Hong Kong continue to protest the despotism of PRC President Xi Jinping’s satrap government in Hong Kong, and Xi’s Governess, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam is coming unraveled as she’s squeezed from one side by the ongoing protests against her rule and from the other side by Xi’s increasing demand that she get this right.

Her police, for some time, have taken to shooting protestors at point blank range, firing water cannon with dyed water so protestors can be identified and arrested for their effrontery—260 arrests from Monday’s protests alone—siccing Hong Kong’s mafia-esque thugs on the protestors.

Lam now is calling the protestors “the enemy of the people.”

No.  The protestors are the people.  Neither the despot in Beijing nor his satrap in Hong Kong seem capable of understanding that.

Stonewalling

Posted on by
Reply

We’re seeing it already in the witnesses that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) will permit the minority Republicans on his committee to call during the public hearings the Progressive-Democrats are holding, beginning tomorrow, pursuant to their partisan effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

The Republican list—required to be submitted before Schiff identified the scope and subject matter of his hearings in sufficient detail to allow a proper list to be assembled—is this:

  • Devon Archer—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in Ukrainian corruption in general, central to Trump’s desire to be sure of the degree to which the new Ukrainian government is getting corruption under control
  • Hunter Biden—knowledge of Burisma’s alleged role in that corruption: “Mr Biden’s firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine’s pervasive corruption….”
  • Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer—alleged to have worked with Ukrainian embassy to the US to “gather political dirt” on Trump’s then-campaign for office. Also admitting to providing such dirt to the DNC and to Hillary Clinton’s then-campaign for the same office. “…Ms Chalupa is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs—”firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador Yovanovitch’s recall from Ukraine…[and] Hale’s communications with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukrainian matters….”
  • Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the NSC—three House Progressive-Democrat-run committees have questioned Morrison; those transcripts are not yet released. Morrison was present on the telecon in question and worked with the NSC immediately afterward. If LtCol [Alexander] Vindman is called to testify, Morrison must be as well.
  • Nellie Ohr, former contractor for Fusion GPS—she “is a prime fact witness…understanding facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.”
  • Ambassador Kurt Volker, former US Representative for Ukraine Negotiations—”primary interlocutor and trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government” and firsthand knowledge of discussions, including those with Rudy Giuliani, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor
  • The anonymous whistleblower
  • All witnesses used by the whistleblower “in drafting his or her second hand complaint”

This is a much too short list, driven by Schiff’s withholding the scope of his “inquisition.”  I would have liked to have heard directly from Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, and Vindman, also, all of whom seem to have lied to one degree or another during Schiff’s secretive Star Chamber questionings.

Withal, though, Schiff already has barred Biden, the whistleblower, and presumably by extension the whistleblower’s “sources.”  It’s plain that the Progressive-Democrats only want those “facts” convenient to their predetermined outcome to be heard by us average Americans.  All the facts seem to be anathema to the Inquisitors.

Free Speech vs No Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party vs the Republican Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party icon—and proud progressive—Hillary Clinton wants to ban free speech, and the first step is Twitter’s Jack Dorsey’s ban on the free speech of political advertising, done with her wholehearted and full throated support.

Twitter made the right decision to say, “Look, we don’t want to get into the judging game.” I think that should be the decision that Facebook makes as well.

Never mind that banning political ads—a form of the speech explicitly protected under the 1st Amendment—is a most fundamental bit of judging speech.  Note that Clinton desire to extend the ban to Facebook:

If you were to say to your expert engineers, our algorithms really favor the explosive, the inflammatory, the blatantly false, and we love to hook people into them and they seek more of it and then they get absolutely barraged by all of this information, we need to tweak the algorithms[.]

Never mind whose judgment—not that of us average Americans, whose judgment plainly is inadequate, we being merely a gang of deplorables—would be used to make those definitions of falseness; never mind whose judgment—certainly not our own—would be used to determine the badness of “inflammatory” or “explosive.” This is a move to protect the established, the elite, the Know Betters.

On the other hand, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) objected to such limits on free speech.  He objected, as paraphrased by Fox News,

the new Twitter policy as an effort to undermine the First Amendment right to free speech.

He went on: the ban on political advertising—on a form of political speech—would

just amplify the already privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms. It would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same tools to fledgling speakers who are not already famous.
[It does] not bolster our democracy. It would degrade democracy. It would amplify the advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other established elites while denying an important tool to the Americans who disagree with them[.]

There’s that judgment bit again, and how it would work were the Progressive-Democrats’ attack on our speech successful.  Of course Dorsey, Clinton, and Party leadership know this full well—they’re just after protecting their narrative and their positions atop the political pantheon.

And, with Dorsey’s established practice of censoring Conservative speech in general, a more insidiously subtle effort to expand that censorship.

Remember this next fall.

How Terrible Is That?

Posted on by
Reply

Jeremy Corbyn, British Labour Party’s MFWIC, has “accused” British PM Boris Johnson of pushing for US-style deregulation of health care.  The horror.

As the UK election campaigns got underway, Corbyn said his rival wanted to “unleash Thatcherism on steroids” once the country was no longer bound by EU trading treaties and regulations.

Channeling our own Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), Corbyn thinks “capitalism” is a dirty word.

He went further:

Corbyn also said…that Johnson wants to strike a trade deal with US President Donald Trump to sell off parts of the UK’s National Health Service, or make it easier for US pharmaceutical firms and medical companies to sell into the UK healthcare market.

Because all that foul capitalism would lower health costs to British citizens and deprive Government of control over their health choices.

Then Corbyn made plain the breadth of the wicked that the Brits’ way comes:

They want to move us towards a more deregulated American model of how to run the economy.

It’s clear that Corbyn—and his fellow Labourites—think British citizens are just too blind stupid to make their own health decisions; he and his insist those unwashed masses must be led by his Know Betters.  Just like our own Progressive-Democrats.