Tag Archives: government

Foreign Meddling

Posted on by
Reply

More European nations have recognized the Guaidó government as the legitimate government of Venezuela following the passing of those nations’ Sunday deadline for Maduro to schedule free elections with no action by Maduro (though left unaddressed is the conundrum of how Maduro could schedule anything if he’s not the legitimate head of government).

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin demurs.

…domestic issues should be solved by Venezuela and its people. “Attempts to legitimize usurped power” constitute[] “interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs….”

Two things make Putin’s position risibly hypocritical.  One is the idea that calling the Guaidó administration a usurped power is itself a blatant interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs.  The Venezuelan legislature—the legitimately elected one, not Maduro’s puppet show—constitutionally asserted its authority and with that authority swore in Juan Guaidó as interim President, pending free elections of a new President and legislature.

Take careful note of that: the legislature swore in a temporary President, not a President-for-life as Maduro’s henchmen have done.

The other thing is the right and duty of a people—acknowledged in so many words in our Declaration of Independence, but entirely applicable to all peoples—when faced with a Government embarked on a long train of abuses and usurpation [that] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Again, contra Putin, the Venezuelan people are exercising their right and duty to solve Venezuela’s problem.

It is the right and duty of all other free nations to support the Venezuelan people’s effort.  It is the right and duty of all other free nations to block despotic nations from interfering with these people’s quest for freedom.

Full stop.

Emergency Powers

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump is giving very serious consideration to declaring a national emergency so he can reallocate certain funding toward building the border wall that’s so necessary in various places and that the Progressive-Democrats are so dead set against funding, even though they’ve voted, within the last decade, an order of magnitude more money for a wall than Trump is requesting.

Trump clearly has the legal authority to declare such an emergency and to carry out the funds reallocation.

Trump, though, has another way to force the Progressive-Democrats’ hand.  Here’s what Article II, Section 3 says, in pertinent part:

…he [the President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them….

The next time Congress takes a break of any sort—this just ending weekend, for instance—Trump should call both Houses back into active session and refuse to let them have any break, interruption, recess, or other departure from active presence on the House and Senate floors until demonstrably good faith negotiations over border wall funding are well in progress and initial (successful) votes conducted.

Religious Bigotry?

Posted on by
Reply

North Dakota wants to let its high schools teach a Bible studies class, and the ACLU (among others) has gotten its institutional panties in a twist over it. State Congressman Aaron McWilliams (R) has a bill moving through the State’s legislature that would achieve that.  He said

The intention of this bill is to provide an option to schools to teach a class on the bible from a historical perspective.  My position is that no religious text should be excluded from being taught as it relates to the historical or philosophical influences in our history or on our society today.

The class would be an elective amounting to 1/6 of the total social studies requirement for graduating from a North Dakota high school.

The ACLU thinks that teaching a religious document even from a historical or philosophical perspective, even when it’s not a required course, is somehow the State establishing or supporting a particular religion.  That plainly isn’t the case; even the august personages of the ACLU know that—or American history wasn’t a safe space for them and they were triggered to unconsciousness by their grade school lessons and their junior high civics lessons.

Heather Smith, Executive Director of the North Dakota chapter of the ACLU does have a point, though.  Sort of.

A school could teach comparative religious classes, or you could talk about the Bible’s relationship to literature, art, or music[.]

But not its relationship with our history or culture, or with western civilization’s history or culture generally?  Not its relationship with our national philosophy, such as it is, or with philosophy generally?  Apparently, Smith was triggered by her high school logic class, too.

On the other hand, the comparative religion concern has some validity.  Perhaps McWilliams’ bill could include an option to teach an additional elective course, also worth 1/6 of the total social studies requirement, that teaches the Torah and the Talmud “from a historical perspective.”  After all, we are a Judeo-Christian nation, with a staunch Judeo-Christian history and underpinning.

Such a broadened perspective on who we are, how we began, and how we came to be where we are now—including these incessant attacks on our Christianity and Judaism—would strengthen our American culture, and it might inform even the members of the ACLU.

Side tidbit: the first Georgian patriot to die in combat in our Revolutionary War was a Jew.

Center of the Political Spectrum

Posted on by
Reply

Where is it?  The German news outlet Deutsche Welle seems to typify Europe’s view of it, and its view is illustrated in this article about the inauguration of Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro.

DW labeled Bolsonaro a right-wing politician.  Why? Because he’s “pro-gun, anti-corruption,” as though wanting a safe population living and working in an honest market with an honest government is somehow not what everyone wants.  Oh, wait—here it is: Bolsonaro said on his assuming Brazil’s presidency that Brazil has been

“liberated from socialism and political correctness.”

And in his separate inauguration speech, Bolsonaro had promised to

unite the people, value the family, respect religion and our Judeo-Christian tradition, combat the ideology of gender, and preserve our values.

These run contrary to modern Liberal, Progressive goals.  Instead, they’re today’s Conservative goals, entirely consistent with the Classical Liberal views of our own Founders.

There’s more.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was among the foreign leaders present for the inauguration; he’s also labeled “right-wing”.  US’ Secretary of State Michael Pompeo also was present; DW made no characterization here (Pompeo was mentioned only in passing), but the outlet has made no bones about its view of the right-wing and irrational nature of the Trump administration in other writings.

On the other side of the political spectrum’s center were national leaders that were not invited to the inauguration: Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Cuba’s Miguel Diaz-Canel.  These are only “Leftist” in DW‘s view.

Hmm….

Of Course They Can

Posted on by
Reply

President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China increased pressure on the Republic of China to surrender and be “unified” with the PRC.

Mr Xi said differences in political systems can’t be used as an excuse to resist unification.

Of course they can. Those differences are what makes the two nations separate from each other.  Never mind that the two have been independent of each other ever since the mainland under Mao Tse-tung won then-China’s civil war and drove the Kuomintang off the mainland onto the island of Taiwan, with Mao then creating the PRC.  The reason for the civil war was precisely those differences, differences over which the Communists were willing to kill those who opposed them.

Xi went on.

He promised Taiwanese people a peaceful and prosperous future with the mainland….

Right.  Just ask the folks on Hong Kong, who were the victims of the same promise and who now see their freedoms eroded and in many cases outright eliminated.  They’re not even allowed to elect their own political leaders; they must choose from a list the Communist Party of China provides them.

Xi’s word is worthless, and the citizens of the RoC, along with their government, know that full well.  RoC President Tsai Ing-wen: Xi’s

framework would place the island under China’s rule with limited autonomy, as has been done in Hong Kong.
…
“Taiwan will never accept ‘one country, two systems,'” Ms Tsai said. “The vast majority of Taiwanese public opinion also firmly opposes ‘one country, two systems.'”
…
“China must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China, Taiwan,” she said…. She said [that] Beijing must “not reject the democratic system that the Taiwanese people have built.”

We need to stand loudly, overtly, and practically with the RoC.  We need to increase naval patrols of the Taiwan Strait, set up a naval basing right agreement for Kaohsiung City along with an Air Force basing agreement for Ching Chuan Kang and Tainan Air Bases.  We need to increase sales of modern air and naval weapons systems to the RoC.  We need to increase our trade ties with the nation, and we need to more actively support it diplomatically.

That’s just a start.