Tag Archives: government

Rights from Men, Not from God

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the view of Virginia’s Progressive-Democrat Senator Tim Kaine.

The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator—that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities. And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.

Kaine is deliberately distorting (because I don’t believe so intelligent a man doesn’t know better the logic he’s tacitly using) the situation: he claims that because others make similar claims, they must all be equally false. Analogies, as Kaine is using here, can be useful in clarifying phenomena, but they also can be useful, as Kaine is doing here, to obfuscate and to seem to disprove phenomena (without any capability to prove or disprove anything).

Kaine chooses to ignore the differences between a culture, one the one hand, in which its citizens believe fundamental rights come from our Creator and that government is subordinate to the sovereign people. In our culture, our laws are intended to defend and implement those fundamental rights, not to create them.

That’s in contrast with nations (not necessarily the cultures of those nations) whose governing men and women insist that government is sovereign and its people subordinate and whose governing men and women speak words of rights coming from God but who appoint themselves as God’s interpreter and then define those rights for themselves, adjusting them from time to time at need to maintain their power.

In Kaine’s view, our fundamental rights would come from men like Kaine, who Knows Better and would define our rights in accordance with his superior knowledge, and women like Kamala Harris, whose handed-down rights would be salads of words, or Nancy Pelosi, whose handed-down rights would be State Secrets, allowing us to know what is in them only after she chooses to publish them.

In Kaine’s world, too, “rights” would evolve as the men and women in power change over time, and that would evolve as the men and women in power change their minds over time while they’re in power. Because they are rights created by men and women, they cannot be fundamental, intrinsic in our being. They are merely political rights, politically granted and politically taken away as the men and women in power deem fit.

This is entirely consistent with the Progressive-Democratic Party’s goal of fundamentally transforming our nation (Barack Obama) and of fundamentally changing our economy (Joe Biden). This is the risk we face in 2026, 2028, and subsequent elections.

H/t ralflongwalker

The Core of the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

It’s moving ever closer to Party’s grass roots. The face of that core is Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and his parallel membership in Democratic Socialists of America. DSA’s core position is

“dismantle and move beyond” America’s capitalist society and create a “wholesale socialist transformation of our national and global economy.”

DSA’s platform is specific, too, including such nakedly socialist things as these:

  • city-run grocery stores
  • free bus rides
  • increased public funding for hormone therapy and surgery for transgender people
  • rent freeze, not just rent control
  • ending “all misdemeanor offenses”

It’s not just Mamdani, either. The Progressive-Democratic Party selected its own socialist candidate for mayor of Minneapolis, Omar Fateh, who is a carbon copy of Mamdani. It’s true enough that Party then unendorsed (leaving him on the ballot) Fateh, but only on a technicality regarding their convention nominating process and only in response to some opprobrium. But here, Party spoke their truth in selecting Fateh and now only is covering its political behind.

In the end, the two, these most public two, are simply concretizing prior Party commitments: then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s brag just prior to his first election that he was just “days away from fundamentally transforming” our nation, and then-Progressive-Democratic Party President Joe Biden in his State of the Union address saying that he intended to “fundamentally change” our nation’s economy.

This is Party initially acting at the national level and now trying to move down into our cities.

“Unprecedented Violation of Norms”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Greg Ip said about removing Federal Reserve Bank Presidents in his Wall Street Journal piece decrying (otherwise generally legitimately) the Federal Reserve’s potential loss of its independence.

Removing bank presidents would be an unprecedented violation of norms. But Trump has demonstrated repeatedly he is willing to violate norms.

Couple things wrong with that claim. First, such a removal would certainly go against norms, but there would be—can be—no violation. Norms are habits, even traditions, but there is nothing at all binding in them. Calling moves against norms “violations” is exaggeration even if the phrasing is…the norm.

Second, and most importantly, using the idea that such a move would be unprecedented, never before done, to argue that it ought not be done here is, at best, singularly bad logic. Everything humans do—every single thing nature does—was once done for the first time, was once unprecedented. If we never did anything that had never been done before, 10,000 years of human hunter-gathering, civilization, and advance would never have happened, and we’d still be competing with apex predators for road kill on the savannah.

Tending to not doing something never before done, tending to stay within “norms,” is highly useful: it lends a measure of stability and predictability to human actions, and that’s especially useful in matters of law. That cannot, though, be allowed to prevent doing something better just because that better something is unprecedented.

Tying back to the center of Ip’s piece, removing Fed Bank Presidents before their term is up, removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook before her term is up, may or may not be good ideas, but they should be decided on the merits of the individual cases, not on the never-been-done-before nature of the removals.

An Alternative

Posted on by
Reply

Or two. The Trump administration is kicking around the idea of taking a stake in companies that receive Federal funds pursuant to the 2022 Chips Act (formally the Chips and Science Act), 10% in Intel being one of the ideas in play. I have an alternative, although it likely would require a legislative modification to the Chips Act: structure the funding as a loan, the [10%] stake as collateral, and dissolve the stake when the loan is repaid.

Another alternative, also likely necessitating modification to the Chips Act, would be to structure the funding as a grant, with the stake dissolved after a [five] year period on satisfactory performance under the grant—suitably boosted domestic research and manufacturing.

Either of these alternatives would mitigate the risk of government-run “capitalism” by getting government back out of these enterprises once performance has been confirmed durably established. They’re similar, too, to the government bailout program of the Panic of 2008, with the critical addendum of a hard withdrawal of government on clearly measurable achievement of tightly defined milestone.

Mail-in Ballots

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News headline lays out the error.

Trump’s push for ending mail-in ballots and voting machines means process likely to fall on states

This is what Art I, Sect 4, of our Constitution says about elections:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Whether Congress chooses to tailor a ban on mail-in ballots (other than, I say, for military personnel stationed outside their voting precincts and businessmen on extended business-related travel outside their precincts) and electronic voting machines to each of the 50 States or enact a nationwide ban, such a move would be entirely constitutional.