Tag Archives: freedom

Timidity, or What’s the Point?

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is claiming to be dismayed with the People’s Republic of China and with Russia over their

“targeted” campaigns to spread health hoaxes and false information about the [Wuhan Virus].

In a “statement,” the European Commission wrote

Foreign actors and certain third countries, in particular Russia and China, have engaged in targeted influence operations and disinformation campaigns in the EU, its neighborhood, and globally….

And

a “massive wave” of health care hoaxes, false claims, online scams, hate speech, and COVID-19 coronavirus conspiracy theories circulating on social media platforms—as well as attempts by foreign actors to insert themselves in domestic EU issues.
“Such coordination [by third country actors] reveals an intention to use false or misleading information to cause harm[.]”

Strong words, it would seem, and maybe the EU is finally starting to stand up against such misbehaviors.

Not so much.

The Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell

assured China’s foreign minister that the bloc “is not going to embark on any kind of Cold War with China.”

Never mind that the PRC has been waging its Cold War for a long time.

Just…never mind, I guess.

Progressive-Democrats Sue

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats, in particular the Democratic National Committee the Arizona Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are suing the

Arizona secretary of state and a gaggle of county officials over a rule in the state that automatically rejects mail-in ballots without signatures, whereas voters whose mail-in ballot signatures do not match their voter registration are given five days to remedy the situation.

This might seem, superficially, a valid beef.

However.

Mismatched signatures and missing signatures aren’t close to the same thing. Voting monitors are not handwriting experts; it’s easy for them to mistake signatures and think there’s a mismatch.

It doesn’t take a handwriting expert to see the difference between a signature and no signature at all.

Nor would it be difficult functionally to stuff ballot boxes with deliberately pre-marked and unsigned ballots followed by operatives of any party using the “remedy” facility to sign those ballots—with no proof available that the Johnny-come-lately signers actually are the ones who filled in the ballots. Or even that each ballot was individually marked by separate individual voters.

The parties to the suit claim, with wide-eyed innocence, that automatically rejecting those unsigned ballots would disenfranchise voters. This is nonsense. Allowing these pre-marked, unsigned ballots to be signed later, with no way of knowing that the signer is the person who voted a particular ballot—and only that ballot—would disenfranchise the legitimate voters by having their votes diluted, if not canceled altogether, by all those illegitimately cast false votes.

The DNC, ADP, DSCC suit can be read here.

Irredeemable, Deplorable

Posted on by
Reply

That’s not the Progressive-Democrat Hillary Clinton. This time it’s the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Do we really think this is as good as we can be as a nation? I don’t think the vast majority of people think that. There are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there who are just not very good people, but that’s not who we are.

Ten to fifteen per cent of us Americans just aren’t very good. Between thirty-three million and fifty million of us Americans are just beneath contempt.

Biden’s contempt for Americans generally is an expansion of his contempt for, his outright bigotry toward, black Americans, which he exposed when he said to a black interviewer,

I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black[.]

This is the second Party campaign in a row where the Progressive-Democrats demonstrate such utter contempt for Americans.

This is the Party that wants to rule over the United States.

What kind of government can we expect from a ruling organization that so hates the subjects over whom it would rule?

Who’s Insulting Whom?

Posted on by
Reply

As most of you are aware, the government men of Hong Kong, on instruction from their masters in the People’s Republic of China government, has imposed on the people of Hong Kong a law criminalizing “disrespect” for the PRC national anthem.

Holden Chow, Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, a staunchly pro-PRC member of Hong Kong’s “legislature,” strongly supports this law.

This is simply about protecting the dignity of the national anthem and deterring people from insulting it[.]

Far from it. A national anthem symbolizes its nation. A government that is so terrified of dissent that it outlaws that dissent, that makes speaking against an anthem that symbolizes that fear a crime, isn’t the one being insulted, and such an anthem has no dignity.

Making such dissent criminal is the insult, and this government has gravely insulted both the good people of Hong Kong and the good people of the PRC.

America’s Problem

Posted on by
Reply

…according to Walter Russell Mead, in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed. He suggested that the world will only wait out the Trump administration, and that the next administration, Trump’s or Biden’s, will face a world grown unresponsive to American leadership, not believing that American society is capable of the role any further.

He closed his piece with this:

Whatever happens in the election, the US administration next year will face a problem even more daunting than the intellectual challenge of crafting a national strategy for an increasingly dangerous time. It will have to convince the world that this time, America really means what its president says.

This overstates the case, and it perpetuates a myth that has suffused too many administrations for far too long.

We don’t have to convince the world of anything, nor should we be defining ourselves in terms of other nations’ approval/disapproval of us. We have only to do what’s best for the United States—which will include ad hoc purpose-designed coalitions, but very few hard treaties.

Putting our nation first—which is not putting our nation alone, as a mendacious press and today’s crop of Progressive-Democrats claim—simplifies Mr Mead’s problem.