Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

It’s especially dangerous in the face of People’s Republic of China aggression. Yet it’s the position of Canada’s Justin Trudeau government. Don’t angrify the bully.

The Halifax Security Forum is a congress of international security experts:

…sponsored by NATO [and by the Canadian government, the latter especially with money], draws scores of powerful military and civilian leaders. Previous speakers have included then-US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; Admiral Phil Davidson, the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command; Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan; and officials from a host of other countries, including Israel, Estonia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Poland and Japan.

And

The forum’s website states it is “devoted to strengthening strategic cooperation among democratic nations.”

But it seems that Trudeau and his coterie aren’t that devoted.

The Forum had planned on awarding its John McCain Prize to the Republic of China’s President, Tsai Ing-wen for standing strong against China’s relentless pressure. Its two prior recipients were the people of Lesbos, Greece, for their efforts to save refugees; the second, in 2019, went to the citizen protesters in Hong Kong.

But the President of the RoC apparently is a bridge too far, requiring more courage to support than Trudeau seems able to muster.

When Canadian officials learned of the forum’s plans, they made it clear that if organizers gave the honor to Tsai, the Canadian government would pull support—and funding—from HFX.

This is not a proper government for the nation whose people helped face down tyranny in world wars of the past and who helped send a later tyranny, the USSR, into the garbage can of history.

Sadly, the Forum now seems to be dithering in the face of Trudeau’s pro-PRC threats.

Kancel Kulture and Racism

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a textbook example of the intersectionality of kanceling and racism.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke last week against the idea of tampering with the Supreme Court’s makeup or structure.

To make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural change, or other similar institutional changes, such as forms of court packing, think long and hard before they embody those changes in law.
If the public sees judges as politicians in robes, its confidence in the courts and in the rule of law can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a check on other branches.

Cue the Left’s kancel outrage.

MSNBC commentator Mehdi Hasan:

Where on Earth has he been over the past two decades as the Supreme Court delivered one partisan decision after another? Napping?

And the intersection with the Left’s racism: Demand Justice immediately began an online petition campaign entitled “Retire, Breyer” that urged the justice to step down so an [sic] black woman could be appointed.

Demand Justice‘s naked racism—and sexism—is blatant in their petition:

We have waited long enough for a Black woman Supreme Court justice.

The crowd made it even more publicly and explicitly racist, with that large dollop of sexism intersected in.

We need to start the process of confirming a Black woman justice now. Sign the petition to tell Justice Breyer: Put the country first. Don’t risk your legacy to an uncertain political future. Retire now.

Because the primary criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is his race and sex. His knowledge and experience with American law and our Constitution, his commitment to adhere faithfully to the text of our Constitution and the laws that are brought before him…just don’t matter.

In Which the Court Got It Right

Posted on by
Reply

…and the 9th Circuit Court messed it up again. This case (Ritesh Tandon, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.) involves California Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on church gatherings against his more permissive approval of bar, salon, etc gatherings [emphasis added].

This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise.  See Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2020); South Bay, 592 U. S. ___; Gish v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021); Gateway City, 592 U. S. ___. It is unsurprising that such litigants are entitled to relief. California’s Blueprint System contains myriad exceptions and accommodations for comparable activities, thus requiring the application of strict scrutiny. And historically, strict scrutiny requires the State to further “interests of the highest order” by means “narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye,Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard “is not watered down”; it “really means what it says.” Ibid. (quotation altered).

Hear, hear.

The Tandon group will be able to hold their religious gatherings unfettered by Newsom or his government while the basic case wends its way on through the 9th Circuit. And likely through the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

The ruling can be seen here.

Manchin and the Filibuster

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV), says he’s against eliminating, or even “weakening,” the Senate’s existing filibuster process. He’s all about protecting bipartisanship, he claims, in a Washington Post op-ed (which is behind a paywall, so I’m citing WSJ‘s cite).

I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: there is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster[.]

On the other hand,

Some senators have floated potential changes that stop short of eliminating the filibuster altogether such as bringing back the “talking filibuster,” in which senators must be present and talking on the floor to block bills. That idea has been floated by both President Biden and Mr Manchin.

Manchin chose not to address his support for the “talking filibuster” in his op-ed. It would seem that he considers doing a talking filibuster, to be followed by a strictly party-line floor vote that eliminates all input from the minority party, not to be a weakening of the present filibuster process which blocks legislation altogether unless there’s bipartisan support.

Manchin doublespeak.

Facilitation

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress and President Joe Biden (D) enacted a $1.9 trillion Wuhan Virus Relief bill that contained a sliver of money for actual virus-related relief. The bill also included $12 billion in transfer payments for New York to “assist” that State with its budget.

This is what that bill and those $12 billion in transfers also facilitated.

The Democrat-controlled New York legislature has passed a budget deal that includes a $2.1 billion fund for illegal immigrants—including a one-time, $15,600 payment for those who lost their job during the pandemic.

Fully 17% of that Federal largesse—of average American‘ generosity—went to illegal aliens (whether us citizens agree with that or not). It’s plain that the State, at bottom, had no need for those $12 billion, since it has no need to spend the money on the citizens of New York.