Tag Archives: freedom

A Hidden Thought from the Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

Buried at the bottom of a Japan Times piece on the history of the Island of Taiwan that purports to recount the politics since 1947 of the island and then of the nation on the island was this bit:

On May 20, 2016, Tsai Ing-wen, the chair of the Democratic Progressive Party, was inaugurated as president of Taiwan. During her inauguration speech she said that the “goal of transitional justice is to pursue true social reconciliation, so that all Taiwanese can take to heart the mistakes of that era.”

As [postdoctoral research fellow at Academia Sinica, Ian] Rowen argues, Tsai’s call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) “was a sharp contrast with the deafening quiet across the Taiwan Strait, where Chinese government officials and state media marked the 50th anniversary of the violence and depredations of the Cultural Revolution with muted and terse statements.”

According to Rowen, the TRC “signals a departure from Taiwan’s authoritarian past and draws a distinction from China’s authoritarian present, while demonstrating adherence to international norms of human rights, democracy and self-determination.” He adds, “Taiwan’s truth commission will no doubt further highlight these differences between its political culture and that of China. This distinction, which posits Taiwan as a democratic nation capable of admitting the state’s role in past violence, appeals to Taiwanese nationals, realigns Taiwan regionally, and legitimates Taiwan internationally.”

Tsai also is a staunch advocate of the RoC’s independence from the People’s Republic of China.  I have to wonder, then, whether there might be an additional, longer-ranged motive for her insistence on this TRC.  A motive to (finally and thoroughly) unite native Taiwanese and RoC Chinese (and the factions within those Chinese) to strengthen the RoC domestically in preparation for a later more overt push for independence.

The EO That Banned Muslim Entry into the US

Posted on by
Reply

Or at least that’s what House and Senate Democrats, along with the NLMSM, claim President Donald Trump’s Executive Order does.  It’s certainly true that the EO suspends, for a time, entry from seven countries with predominantly Muslim populations: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.  Wow, that’s a lot.  That’s 199,200,000 Muslims.

However.  There is some small bit of information that’s carefully ignored by those Democrats with their badly manufactured tears and by the NLMSM.  The EO doesn’t touch some other predominantly Muslim nations; their ability to come and go into the United States is deliberately left untouched.

Minor nations like Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, The People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, Russia, Niger, Philippines.  And on and on.  Globally, there are roughly 1,700,000,000 Muslims.

That terrible order that’s targeted at the terrorist or terrorism-sponsoring seven that ex-President Barack Obama (D) himself designated as terrorist or terrorism-sponsoring affect a small minority of Muslims and it does that much solely as a side effect of the effort to keep out terrorists.

Democrats Abscond

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Democratic Party’s virulent and overt attack on democracy in Wisconsin and Indiana too few years ago.  Now the Democratic Party has spread its assault to the United States Senate.

Led by Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D, OR), the Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee, the body doing the initial vetting of Senator Tom Price (R, GA) for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin  for Secretary of the Treasury, are boycotting the committee—absconding from their duties there—for the explicit and sole purpose of preventing the committee from going about its business.

This is a shameful attack on democracy, and it demonstrates the Democratic Party’s autocratic fabric: if Democrats can’t have their way, they’ll shut down democracy altogether.

Here are the disgraceful Democrats on the Committee who are refusing their duty:

  • Ron Wyden, OR, Ranking Member
  • Debbie Stabenow, MI
  • Maria Cantwell, WA
  • Bill Nelson, FL
  • Bob Menendez, NJ
  • Tom Carper, DE
  • Ben Cardin, MD
  • Sherrod Brown, OH
  • Michael Bennet, CO
  • Bob Casey, PA
  • Mark Warner, VA
  • Claire McCaskill, MO

Mark their names well, and take appropriate action in the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022.  These persons are unfit for government service.

The Party of Hell No

Posted on by
Reply

Not now, not ever.

In legislative proposals, campaign promises, donor pitches and even in some Senate hearings, Democrats have opted for a hard-line, give-no-quarter posture, a reflection of a seething party base that will have it no other way.

Democratic Party strategist and Party Leader, in fact if only unofficially, David Brock:

I predict the coming divide in the Democratic Party won’t be ideological so much as it will be between those who resist and oppose and those who accommodate and appease[.]

And Jehmu Greene, one of the candidates for officially leading the party:

We have an opportunity as a party to be that place of resistance. So we have to form a solid resistance as a party. And no, it is not about working with Donald Trump.

It’s not only in Congress, either.

Other sessions [at Brock’s weekend donor and Party MFWICs conference] detailed a massive pushback operation that featured expansive litigation plans and opposition research efforts.

This is nothing more, or less, than destructive of the nation’s welfare, and it’s all for petty, bruised egos.

Definitely Not the People

Posted on by
Reply

The British Supreme Court has thrown a monkey wrench into Great Britain’s going out from the European Union, but in the process, it has thrown a double handful of sand into the gears of liberty in the birthplace of John Locke.

The Court has ruled (by an 8-3 margin; it certainly wasn’t wishy-washy in its attitude) that Parliament must agree to invoke Article 50 and trigger negotiation over terms of separation from the EU.  David Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, reading the judgment:

The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK Constitution, namely by an act of Parliament[.]

So much for consensual government, government by the people, the sovereignty of the people over their government.  The citizens of Great Britain cannot be permitted to change their own law, and never mind that no change was required in the present case, anyway, since the outcome of their referendum, saying as it did, “We want to leave the EU,” was quite clear as to what should happen from their vote.  The Court claimed this was not instructive.  The people did not say to Government, “Mother, may I?”

Naturally, Gina Miller, who’d brought the suit with intent to force Parliament into the decision, agreed, insisting (as paraphrased by the AP) that

[l]eaving the EU will change the fundamental rights of citizens and this can’t be done without a vote of lawmakers[.]

Nor can the people be permitted to define their rights for themselves and instruct their government as to those rights.  That’s for their rulers to do for them.

The people of Great Britain are not sovereign in their nation.  Government is sovereign, and the people are subordinate.