Tag Archives: political parties

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to stop trading with and to bar exports altogether to (and imports from) the People’s Republic of China.

A US manufacturer of X-ray equipment had a decade-old patent invalidated by a Chinese legal panel. A Spanish mobile-antenna designer lost a similar fight in a Shanghai court. Another Chinese court ruled that a Japanese conglomerate broke antitrust law by refusing to license its technology to a Chinese rival.

This is the PRC weaponizing its legal system as that nation prosecutes the economic axis of its cold war against the US and against the West in general.

This goes further, to include efforts to extend PRC legal jurisdiction into other nations:

In December, the EU sued China in the World Trade Organization on behalf of Swedish telecom-equipment maker Ericsson AB and other companies, complaining that China has barred EU companies from suing to protect their patents in courts outside China. The EU called China’s policy “extremely damaging,” saying Chinese companies requested the intervention “to pressure patent right holders to grant them cheaper access to European technology.”

This is just naked theft by a nation that insists on using its laws and courts as weapons of war rather than as tools for protecting its citizens.

It’s time for us and for the EU to stop technology transfers—under any guise—to the PRC, and that must include what I wrote in my lede: bar all exports to the PRC and stop trading with that enemy nation. The transition will be deucedly expensive, but it’ll only get more so the longer we dither and delay taking that step.

A Terse View of Law

Posted on by
Reply

This is from Ron Wyden, a Progressive-Democratic Party Senator from Oregon:

In the coming days a lawless Trump-appointed judge is expected to ban access to abortion medication nationwide. I’m calling on the FDA to protect the safety of every woman in America by keeping the drug on the market no matter the ruling.

He insists that doctors also ignore the court’s ruling, and the law of the land, if that ruling goes against the Progressive-Democrat’s personal views.

This is the contempt that Party has for law, for court rulings, for our Constitution, and for us average Americans. Law, courts, our Constitution are not even suggestions; they’re simply to be ignored because these Know Betters are above all that petty stuff.

We need to remember this despotic attitude of Party in 21 months. And inject backbone into our non-Progressive representatives at all levels of government in the meantime.

Maybe End a Boycott?

Posted on by
Reply

San Francisco is beginning to contemplate ending its travel ban to States of which the city’s governing Council disapproves because those States hold values that are too conservative to suit the Councilmen.

The move was largely seen as a boycott to pressure other states and prevent the city from engaging in business with those whose values it deemed antithetical to its own.

City Administrator Carmen Chu issued a report that suggests a negative outcome of the city’s move.

No states with restrictive LGBTQ rights, voting rights, or abortion policies have cited the City’s travel and contract bans as motivation for reforming their laws.

And especially [emphasis added],

Since 12X [the banning ordinance] became operative, the number of banned states has grown from 8 states in 2017 to 30 in 2022. This increase suggests that the City’s threat of boycott may not serve as a compelling deterrent to states considering restrictive policies. Only 1 state has ever been removed from the list.

Ya think?

However.

Even if San Francisco does lift its boycott, I still won’t travel to that city. The crime rate remains shockingly high, the threats of harassment and of assault by the homeless remains rampant on the city’s sidewalks, drug use and the threat of drug infections—even from the used drug needles lying about on those same sidewalks—remains too widespread, the vast piles of human and other animal feces on those same sidewalks remains too thick; the risks go on and on.

Further, San Francisco’s mayor and city council, despite all of that, continue to disparage the police and limit their ability to function.

San Francisco remains not worth the trouble of traveling to, much less doing business in or with.

Moderately Stern Letter to Follow

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims he wagged his finger very sternly warned his Chinese counterpart against providing Russia with “lethal support” in the invasion of Ukraine and he made it very clear that China must never violate US airspace again.

Blinken told CBS News‘ Face the Nation in an interview aired Sunday that he sent a strong message to Chinese Communist Party Central Foreign Affairs Office Director Wang Yi at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
“I made very clear to him that China sending a surveillance balloon over the United States, in violation of our sovereignty, in violation of international law, was unacceptable, and must never happen again[.]”

And this from State’s UN Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, to CNN:

If there are any thoughts and efforts by the Chinese and others to provide lethal support to the Russians in their brutal attack against Ukraine, that is unacceptable[.]

Sure. The PRC will back right down in the face of face-saving words from the man who so meekly accepted his a**-chewing at his first meeting with his…counterparts (the ellipsis because it’s mildly insulting to lower the PRC’s foreign ministers to the weak levels of our State Department) or from any of his subordinates.

“Common Sense”

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party is attempting to use its Newspeak Dictionary to redefine “Nonsense” as “Common sense.” The latest example of this is President Joe Biden’s (D) latest call for “common sense” gun reforms. He made his latest demand in response to a series of murders with guns in Mississippi. In that series, the murderer used a shotgun and two handguns to murder six people across three locations in his single rampage. Biden’s demand:

That includes requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, fully closing the boyfriend loophole to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, requiring safe storage of guns, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

Because any of that, like banning mythical devices—assault weapons and weapons of war on our streets—would have kept shotguns or handguns away from this murderer, or any other. And surely “high capacity magazines,” of whatever definition that becomes convenient from time to time to an overreaching government, would have kept shotguns and handguns away from criminals.

Holding gun manufacturers liable for the abuses of their products by criminals will only limit the availability of firearms to us honest ­average Americans. Oh, wait: that’s the goal of Party. Party members know full well that laws are ignored by criminals; that’s at the core of what makes them criminals.

Nonsense is common sense to Party. And Party expects us meekly to accept that. Or else.