This Says It All

Posted on by
Reply

The Republic of China’s Mainland Affairs Council has issued a statement in response to a People’s Republic of China policy statement that did not include phrasing that ruled out the dispatch of Chinese troops and civilian administrators to Taiwan as had prior editions. In their own statement, the RoC, among other things,

declar[ed] that “the Republic of China is a sovereign country,” referring to the government in Taipei by its formal name.
“The CCP regime has never ruled Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu for a single day,” the statement read….

Hear, hear.

Public Pension Fund Bail-out

Posted on by
Reply

The Editors’ subheadline illustrates the mistake.

As stock prices fall, public pensions may need taxpayer help.

Quite a large number of public pension funds are in serious financial trouble as a result of their excessively optimistic expected rates of investment returns and the last several weeks of stock market drop.

No, they don’t need taxpayer “help.” What the public pension funds need is to be allowed to fail as a result of their politically-driven, rather than fiscally- or financially-driven, management.

Another Lie by Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

This one exposed by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board; it centers on immigration.

First move:

When President Biden first proposed in April to end Title 42, several Democrats joined their GOP peers in backing a bill to keep it in place.

Second move:

Republican Senator James Lankford [OK] proposed an amendment [to the just Senate-passed Build Reduced Back bill] to extend Title 42….

All of the Senate Progressive-Democrats voted Lankford’s bill down in a strictly party-line vote.

Third move:

Senator Tester [Jon, D, MT] proposed another. His version also pledged to restore the border-expulsion policy, but unlike Senator Lankford’s it lacked a funding provision. This time Mr Tester backed the amendment, joined by Senators Sinema, Kelly, and Hassan, along with Catherine Cortez Masto and Raphael Warnock.

Fourth move:

[Senate] Majority Whip Dick Durbin [D, IL] challenged the amendment on procedural grounds, saying its lack of funding violated Senate budget reconciliation rules. The amendment fell short of the 60 votes it needed to pass and was left out of the bill’s final version.

And with that dance, Progressive-Democrats can proclaim their support for immigration controls while simultaneously and deliberately doing nothing at all about immigration.

All very carefully choreographed by Party.

Term Limits

Posted on by
2

There are a number of term limits proposals on offer regarding politicians.

Then, as James Sherk pointed out in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed,

Career employees fill almost all federal jobs. Only 4,000 of the 2.2 million federal employees are political appointees. Career federal employees consequently do almost all the work of government.

Here’s my term limits offer, this one regarding civil servants/career federal employees—and I’d apply it to Federal contract employees, also.

Term limit all of them—say 10 years—and after that term, they’d no longer be eligible for Federal employment in any guise whatsoever. That won’t actually hurt them: with the valuable experience of those 10 years of government employment under their belts, they’ll have no problem finding employment on the private economy.

One more limit: cap Federal civilian employment at one million, including individual contractors. Only the uniformed military should have no cap, but should remain sized to the threat faced.

Think, too, what that would do for us taxpayers, who are on the hook for those already enormous government pensions.

A limit on initial eligibility: a minimum of 10 years of employment in the private sector, unrelated to government work, in order to be eligible for Federal employment or contract work. Yes, that includes entry level secretaries/administrative assistants.

“Sufficient Evidence”

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s (R) Mar-a-Lago home,

some legal experts echoed Pelosi, arguing there had to be sufficient evidence to secure a federal search warrant against a former president.

Sounds nice in theory. In practice, it’s not so true. One has only to look at the falsified “evidence” the FBI used to gin up some FISA warrants applications and con FISA judges into granting them.

It’s hard to believe “some legal experts” are so naïve. In fact, I don’t believe those folks, who are so awesomely intelligent, for whom words are their stock in trade, and who are steeped in the mechanics of our legal system, are naïve. Not at all.

There’s this, too, from Attorney Paul Calli:

A prosecutor “can write anything she wishes to convince the court to sign the warrant,” he explained, “and the judge reviewing it has to assume the prosecutor is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sadly, that is not always the case, and thus it is really the prosecutor who secretly controls the basis on which a warrant is issued.”

Not entirely. When the judge discovers he cannot trust the agent or prosecutor who’s presenting the material in a warrant application, he doesn’t have to sign off on the warrant. An untrustworthy agent is incapable of demonstrating probable cause. Sadly, those FISA judges, even after openly saying they couldn’t trust the FBI agents, continued issuing their Star Chamber warrants.

Judges, including magistrate judges, can be just as complicit as the agents before them in issuing…unjustified…warrants.