Tag Archives: freedom

Democracy in the Style of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

At a Deploraball pre-Inauguration celebration last Thursday, or more properly, on the approaches to the National Press Club Building where the ball was being held, celebrants were openly assaulted by “protestors” objecting to any celebration of this Inauguration.

Some of the hundreds of protesters sprayed Mace, while others were peaceful as law enforcement officers lined the streets to monitor the chaotic scene. At least one passerby reported bottles were being thrown as he showed off a gash in his head.

This is the sort of jackboot violence we avoided when we didn’t elect Progressive-Democrats to sit in the White House and to have the majority in the Senate.

A Naïve Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Michael O’Hanlon, writing for the Brookings Institution several days ago, offered an idea for smoothing relations between the US and Russia.

It is time that Western nations conceptualize, and seek to negotiate, a new security architecture for those countries in central Europe that are not now part of NATO that would guarantee their safety without bringing them into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

So far, so good.  NATO, whether obsolete or updated and upgraded to lose that obsolescence, doesn’t need to expand further.  In no particular order:

He based his idea on a misunderstanding of the Russian position after the end of the Cold War.

Many Russians [including Vladimir Putin, of “historic tragedy of USSR breakup” sentiment] feel that NATO did not win the Cold War. Rather, a new generation of leaders of their own country had the wisdom to end it. They were then rewarded for their good sense, not only by a reaffirmation of the organization that had been their nation’s adversary, but by a major expansion of that very alliance.

What O’Hanlon missed is that the reason Russia didn’t, and doesn’t, think NATO won the Cold War is because that contest didn’t end with the breakup of the USSR.  The interregnum—which is all that resulted—was simply a period during which Russia has refit, recovered, and resumed its expansionist drive, first to recover the Russian empire that was the Soviet Union, and then to continue that empire’s expansion.

O’Hanlon did assert, correctly, the legal and moral right of each nation to its own sovereignty, and that

This is as true for Ukraine and Georgia, and other countries of Central Europe, as for America’s traditional core allies or any other nation. This principle is inherent to the UN Charter. It is also central in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act….

O’Hanlon, though, omitted the Budapest Memorandum, of which Russia is a signatory, that guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty.  Yet here Russia is, having partitioned Ukraine and occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine.  There is, too, Georgia, which Russia also has partitioned and occupied.  So much for the value of Russian commitments to Charters, Final Acts, and Memoranda.

Then his naiveté exposed the danger of his naiveté:

It is important to make a proposal for a new security architecture with the willingness and ability to walk away, should Moscow begin to engage in negotiations and then escalate its demands—perhaps proposing that some new NATO members be removed from the alliance, or that the alliance itself be somehow recast or neutered.

Offer someone we want for an ally an arrangement and then walk away from it when Russia acts up—because these nations are mere pawns in a discussion with Russia.  Yeah, that’ll show our reliability.  Besides, we tried that.  We offered missile defense systems for stationing in Poland and Czech Republic, and then walked away from those after some proposals from Russia.  Worked really well.

And this danger from his naiveté:

The new security architecture would demand that Russia commit to help uphold and guarantee the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. They would also be promised their complete freedom to associate economically and diplomatically with whomever they chose. They would also be allowed to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past.

We’ve seen the value of Russian commitments to Charters, Final Acts, and Memoranda.  Add to Ukraine and Georgia Russia’s unwanted “presence” in Moldova.  There is no basis for believing Russia would honor this new set of commitments.  Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is symptomatic of what, again?

No, what’s needed to face an historically and still aggressive and expansionist Russia is a new mutual defense treaty alliance, a separate alliance from NATO, in that central Europe, one which includes such of those nations on the Russian border that wish to participate in order to maximize their ability to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.

Obama Has Threatened Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Or so he says, while continuing his partisan and petty attacks on his opponents.

The US will “take action” against Russia for alleged cyberattacks on Democratic officials, President Obama warned Thursday, hours after his spokesman claimed that President-elect Donald Trump “obviously knew” about the breaches and leaks that critics say propelled him to victory in last month’s election.

President Barack Obama’s (D) tough talk about retaliatory action against Russia comes against the backdrop of his Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to retaliate against Russia for its cyber invasions and his own threat of retaliation regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons.

Obama’s tough talk about what Trump knew and when he knew it comes against the backdrop of his refusal to let his intelligence community Directors let Congress know the same things he claims Trump already knew.

Obama in his own words:

I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action.  And we will—at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.

Sure he will.

I’m reminded of what bully wannabes on the playgrounds where I grew up used to chant: “Boy, oh boy, when I get you.”

A State Court and the Citizens of the State

Posted on by
Reply

In last month’s elections, one of the ballot items was a South Dakota measure (apologies: the Argus Leader has a really intrusive set of popup ads) to limit

how much PACs, political parties, and individuals can give to candidates.

The measure passed by a slim 51%-49% margin, but nevertheless, the passage is by the voice of the citizens of that State.  The article at the link gives a summary of those limits.

Now a South Dakota judge has issued an injunction against implementing or enforcing that law.  Circuit Judge Mark Barnett, in issuing the injunction, acknowledged that the matter likely will end up before the South Dakota Supreme Court, and he said

This is just a stop on the bus route.  This is going to a much higher power and a much higher pay grade than me.

Never mind that it’s already been to the much higher pay grade—the good citizens of the State of South Dakota, whose employee the State’s government, including the court system, is.

Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard and his Chief of Staff, Tony Venhuizen, have the beginnings of a hazy understanding of the larger issue at hand.  Daugaard said that he’d

support rolling back the measure if it isn’t struck down in court[]

and Venhuizen said that

[t]he governor views the order as a good step that will give the courts and the Legislature time to sort out the “mess [in the current campaign funding system.]”

But only the beginnings of a hazy understanding.  Whether the law passed by the citizens is a good idea or not is a legitimately debatable question.  However, the matter is a political question and only a political question.  The courts have no role to play whatsoever in this or any political discussion.

Here is a case where a court has said the people have no voice; the court speaks in their stead.