Tag Archives: government

Socialism and Good Intentions

Posted on by
1

Carol Roth, in her op-ed for FOXBusiness, said that Socialism begins with good intentions.

No, socialism does not.  Perhaps the first attempts did, but with its unbroken history of wealth concentration, power concentration, and utter failure—even for those in the concentrated top—before us and well known, that much is clear.  On the contrary, those proselytizing for and instigating socialist regimes have as their sole goal the accretion of wealth and power to themselves—and this time it’ll be different, this time they’ll pull it off.

Roth’s piece had a number of internal contradictions that illustrate the origins of socialist regimes, even though she seems to have missed them.

The first is her quote from Margaret Thatcher:

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Those pushing socialism know this a priori, though.  They have no concern for the future, just the current seizure of all that OPM.  They’ll get theirs, and to hell with anyone else.

Then she wrote,

Socialism is quite like robbing Peter to pay Paul….

That’s not starting out with good intentions.  Unless it’s a Good Thing to rob someone, especially if it’s someone you don’t like.

And this bit:

Socialism starts out with noble intentions, preying on the envy of the population….

It’s noble to “prey on” the base instincts of the poor?  It’s noble to take advantage of others’ envy, to encourage the weak immorally to act out that envy?  How does that “logic” work, exactly?

Socialism, in each of its iterations over the last 100 years has not started with good intentions.  It has started with the greed of the few with the skill to peddle snake oil.  Socialism accelerates downhill from there.

The Tyranny of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing saga of the Progressive-Democrats, and others, to get their hands on President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Congressman Richard Neal (D, MA) requested demanded the IRS surrender several years of those documents to him by 10 Apr.  The deadline came and went as IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said they needed more time to study the Neal-cited law to be sure they could turn over the returns.  After all, other laws demand that tax records be kept private, as the personal information they are, for all Americans, and the cited law only permits tax records to be given to the House Ways and Means Chairman (and/or to two other Congressional positions) and only under tightly circumscribed conditions.

Since neither Rettig nor Mnuchin said, “Yes, Sir” and meekly and unquestioningly submitted, Neal now has sent a letter to Rettig giving a 23 April deadline or he, Neal, would yank Rettig into Federal court over the latter’s disobedience.  That letter says, in part,

It is not the proper function of the IRS, Treasury, or Justice to question or second guess the motivations of the Committee or its reasonable determinations regarding its need for the requested tax returns and return information[.]

Because the Executive Branch is not a coequal branch of our Federal government with the Legislature and the Judiciary.  It, together with its subordinate Departments and Agencies, are the obedient servants of Progressive-Democrat committees of the House of Representatives.  The Executive is not permitted to make its own determination of the legality of complying with Neal’s demand.  They’re supposed merely to shut up and deliver.

Law be damned.  Constitution, especially, be damned.  These are just more-or-less guidelines to be ignored whenever they show themselves inconvenient to the Left and their Party.

Inconsistent

Posted on by
Reply

Venezuela’s interim President—and only legitimate President—Juan Guaidó has sent his emissaries, his ambassadors around the globe to represent his government to other nations, as ambassadors are designated to do.  He has sent Otto Gebauer to Germany to represent his government to the German government.

There’s the rub.  Germany recognizes Guaidó’s presidency, but that government refuses to recognize his ambassador.

For the purposes of conducting official talks, on March 13 the government described him as the “personal representative of interim President Juan Guaidó….”

The rationalization for this inconsistency has been articulated by the Social Democratic Party’s Helge Lindh (and per his resume, Head of Working Group “Strengthening Foundations” (together with Andreas Bialas MdL):

Recognizing Guaidó was a political decision and a signa.  But, in the current situation, it doesn’t make sense to confirm Guaidó’s shadow ambassadors, as that ignores the fact that the power remains with Maduro and his system.

Sadly, Maduro’s ability to cling to power is facilitated by this willingness to continue to recognize—to tacitly support—his power. This paralysis also contributes to Germany’s maintaining Maduro’s policy of denying entry into Venezuela even the most basic survival foods and medicines, solely on the basis of their originating from the wrong nations.

It’s time for Germany to get off the dime, accept Gebauer as Venezuela’s ambassador, and eject the Maduro man.

Germany’s Hans-Joachim Heintze, of the Ruhr University Bochum’s Institute for International Law, is worried about America’s past gunboat diplomacy and doesn’t want Germany to make the same mistakes.  This is another misguided rationalization, here borne of Germany’s guilt complex over a four generations removed war.

Still, if Germany truly is worried about our unilateral action (of which there has been very little related to the current crisis), Germany should work with the OAS and with individual South American nations—particularly Brazil and Colombia, who are bearing the brunt of the flow of Venezuelan refugees—to assemble a South American military coalition to enter Venezuela, force Maduro out, and allow the Guaidó government to function.

Dithering serves only to prop up the thug to the continued abuse of the Venezuelan people.

Risks

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps, threats.

Take careful note of this tweet from Matthew Brennan.  Not only does this system know who Brennan is without any input from him (this time).  It knows where he is and where he’s going.

Imagine that identification and tracking ability in the hands of Government.  The government in the tweet is the PRC’s, but that’s not the only government spreading surveillance systems around the nation like butter on warm toast.

 

H/t to ralf.

Time for a Clean Break

Posted on by
Reply

No more bad faith pseudo-negotiations by Brussels.  No more dithering and bad-skilled pseudo-negotiations by Theresa May.

The UK asked the European Union to delay its departure from the bloc until June 30, an extension that if approved would give Prime Minister Theresa May just weeks to break an impasse in Parliament over her withdrawal deal.

It’s not just an internal impasse between the PM and Parliament. It’s also and more importantly an impasse between Great Britain and Brussels.

Cut the cord.  The other 27 nations of the EU, or at least that one of them with sense and integrity, should reject the request for more time.  It’s time that only will be wasted by both sides, each for its own reasons.

Update: The EU, lacking even that single nation of the 27, has voted to grant Great Britain’s request for more time before leaving. In fact, the EU offered a couple of options for more time.

  • Option 1: If the UK parliament votes for the withdrawal agreement next week, it can delay exiting until May 22 to ratify the text.
  • Option 2: If it does not approve the deal, the EU will offer a shorter extension until April 12.
  • If it rejects the deal and takes the shorter extension, it can then decide whether to seek a much longer delay and vote in the European elections or leave on April 12 without a deal.

The withdrawal agreement the Parliament is expected to vote on is the same one it’s rejected twice before.  The EU isn’t serious about that thing being accepted on the third try.

This is a sham offer, designed only to drag things out; Brussels is continuing to deal in bad faith. The continent has, perhaps, one or both of two motives for this disingenuousity.  It’s still looking to make an example of Great Britain as a warning to other member nations that might be thinking of leaving.  It’s looking to dismember Great Britain by taking Northern Ireland out of the nation with its demand of an open, unguarded border between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

If the Brits have any sense at all left (an increasing question), they’ll reject the deal and go out from the EU on schedule, on 29 March, and with no deal at all.  No amount of time is going to get them a better deal, incessant delay will only give the Remainers on both side of the Channel time to find a way to keep Great Britain trapped in the EU cage.