Tag Archives: ethics

Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

Folks from the “caravan” have begun arriving in the Mexican border town of Tijuana preparatory to their effort to enter the US and ask for asylum.

These folks, claiming to flee government persecution and/or criminal assaults (which isn’t an asylum criterion, anyway), in their home countries, succeeded in escaping those things when they succeeded in entering Mexico—especially with Mexico having offered them asylum (and job opportunities) after that entry.

Now they need to say what they fear about their Mexican hosts that drives their need to flee Mexico and get asylum in the US. Since they haven’t experienced any of that in Mexico, and they have rejected Mexican asylum from their home countries, they should be denied entry into the US and those that do make it in need to be denied asylum here—their requests can only be shams.

Bodies

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Hennessey, of The Wall Street Journal, had some thoughts on this, as it pertains, I suppose, to (groups of?) people.

One of the most vexing recent developments in the world of words is the tendency to refer to human beings as “bodies.”

I’ve picked out a couple for comment.

California Progressive-Democratic Party Senator Kamala Harris, during the Brett Kavanaugh attempted lynching confirmation hearing, asked the good judge,

Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?

Just to pick out one body of examples, we have a variety of criminal laws that lock up the male body and restrict its avenue of motion and its state of being.

And

The country has done a lot of soul searching over the years about what to call members of minority groups.

All along there has been the obvious term for such folks: Americans.

Projection

Posted on by
Reply

The projection is especially strong in Mary Anne Marsh, as she demonstrated in a Fox News op-ed last Monday.  Here are just a few examples.

If the House impeached Trump would the Senate do the same? It is clearly a concern for the president….

Heh.  Leaving aside the pedanticism that the Senate cannot do the same as the House—it can only try a case based on a House impeachment—the foolishness of this claim is demonstrated a couple of ways.  One is that the Senate will not convict—that would take 67 Senators—as the votes aren’t there, especially since evidence to support any sort of conviction the Progressive-Democratic Party’s House might dream up isn’t there.

The larger foolishness is that a Progressive-Democrat impeachment isn’t anything to be feared by President Donald Trump.  On the contrary, it’s a move devoutly to be wished; such a thing would demonstrate the irrationality of that Party.  Just as the Republicans’ impeachment of Clinton ended badly for the Republicans, any impeachment of Trump will end badly for the Progressive-Democratic Party: 2020 is only two years off.

Trump’s appointment of conservative justices who are indebted to him for their new posts….

This is an especially blatant projection.  Progressive-Democrats do, indeed, expect their appointees to rule according to the debt they owe their appointers.  However, Conservative judges, by their nature, rule in accordance with the text of the Constitution and of the law; they don’t rule in repayment of any debt.  Republicans know that, and so they have no expectation of repayment when they nominate and confirm.

Aside from that, a lifetime appointment, which is what Justices and Federal judges get, inures them from any sort of debt—were there any (arguendo), there can be no consequence for not honoring it.  Most folks understand that.

his [Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s] confirmation hearing left many unresolved questions, pointedly asked by Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) and others….

There were no unresolved questions at the end of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, especially after the unusual additional episode of sworn testimony by both Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.  Harris “and others” asked no serious questions of him.

Trump is also now hedging his bets with the House by supporting Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Or so he thinks. Trump clearly believes he can flatter his way into Nancy Pelosi’s heart by promoting her as Speaker….

More projection.  Trump—and lots of other Republicans—would love to see a Speaker Pelosi, given they don’t have the majority in the coming Congress.  Pelosi will be a two-year gift for Republicans.

Last but not least is the nuclear option: Fire Mueller.

Last, but not least, this is what Progressive-Democrats would do in spades.  Trump, though, has spent all of the time since Mueller’s appointment disparaging him and his pseudo-investigation.  Disparaging and ridiculing and complaining about Mueller and his…investigation…nearly every day since that early 2017 appointment.  Mueller still is on the job, unimpeded.  Trump has made clear in word and deed that he has no intention of firing Mueller.

These are all things Progressive-Democrats would do or worry about were the shoes on the other feet.  They assume, from that, that everyone else would do the same.

Again: heh.

Unfair Elections

Posted on by
Reply

At least they’re unfair if a Progressive-Democrat doesn’t win, if a Republican wins instead.

Progressive-Democratic Party ex-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton:

If she [Georgia Progressive-Democrat candidate for Governor Stacy Abrams] had a fair election, she already would have won[.]

Never mind that, according to Abrams and her team, all the votes haven’t been counted.  Just declare the Progressive-Democrat the winner and skip all the time wasted on petty counting of votes.

Progressive-Democratic Senator from Ohio Sherrod Brown:

If Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.  It’s clear, I say that publicly.

Because the only way a Progressive-Democrat could lose is by the other side stealing.  Why, no one should even bother running against Progressive-Democrats.  It’s all theirs, by right of…they say so.

New Jersey’s Progressive-Democratic Senator Cory Booker:

I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her, using what I think are insidious measures to disenfranchise certain groups of people[.]

There it is, again.  The Progressive-Democrat should be declared the winner because she exists.  If too few people voted for her, it can’t be because too few people wanted her; it can only because too many people weren’t allowed to vote.  People who weren’t residents, who weren’t citizens, who couldn’t identify themselves….

In Florida, Broward County, after completing a State law required machine recount of the Senate race votes cast, withheld reporting the results of its recount until after the reporting deadline.  That means that the county’s count as of the prior Saturday will be the official count, an outcome that strongly favors the Progressive-Democratic Party candidate Bill Nelson.  That recount, the one Broward chose not to report on time, added nearly 800 votes to the Republican Rick Scott’s total.  But Nelson is the proper winner; he’s the Progressive-Democrat.

That, from the Party that pretends to decry voter disenfranchisement while disenfranchising nearly 800 voters.

Keep this in mind in 2020.  They’ll be at it again, in spades.

May’s Brexit Surrender

Posted on by
1

The terms include these, via Deutsche Welle:

  • The rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be protected
  • EU citizens living in the UK can be joined by close family members…who live in a different country at any point in the future.
  • Workers and self-employed people will be broadly guaranteed the same rights they currently enjoy

All of which negate one of the motives for leaving the European Union. EU citizens resident in the UK will be magnets for drawing in others for the UK’s generous welfare system—and EU citizens still will be able to seek work in the UK preferentially, availing themselves both of the UK’s higher wage rates and that welfare system.

  • There will be a 21-month transition period ending December 31, 2020
  • EU rules would continue to apply in the UK subject to the terms set out in the Brexit agreement
  • After the transition period, a joint committee co-chaired by the EU and the UK would police the final withdrawal agreement, taking decisions by mutual consent and whose verdicts would be binding

Meaning that the UK would remain unable to enter into separate, independent trade agreements during this “transition” period EU laws would remain in effect inside allegedly sovereign Great Britain, and the EU will retain veto power, via that mutual consent requirement, on post-transition moves—including those independent trade agreements and moves to supplant EU laws with domestic, UK, laws.

  • If appropriate customs arrangements are not agreed to, a backstop arrangement would kick in. A joint “single customs territory” between the EU and UK would apply from the end of the transition period…
  • Under the backstop arrangement, the UK must observe “level playing field” commitments on competition, state aid, taxes and employment and environment standards

Are not agreed to means the agreement will be in accordance with EU diktat or there will be the backstop arrangement. This is what the EU wants, so there will be no agreed customs arrangement.  The EU wants the backstop because those terms require the UK to keep its Northern Ireland inside the EU’s competition, state aid, taxes and employment, and environment laws in perpetuity. This is the beginning of prising Northern Ireland out of the UK—the beginning of dismantling the UK.  This is part of the EU’s demonstration to restive members of the EU and a warning of their fate if they become impertinent, too.

The bottom line for the UK here is that, under this “agreement,” these terms of surrender, the nation will become a speechless, toothless satrap of the EU, and its dismantling will be begun.

May, with her abject surrender to Brussels, has betrayed her nation’s referendum.  And she has betrayed other members of the EU similarly dismayed with Brussels’ interference in their domestic affairs.

It’s no wonder that members of her Cabinet are resigning in droves, her coalition government is falling apart, and her own party is in (sub rosa, for now) revolt.