Tag Archives: politics

Of Course

Posted on by
Reply

Iran has dismissed US Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent talk of a “new arrangement” involving Tehran’s ballistic missiles, calling the idea “nonsense.”

Kerry said during a visit to the Gulf earlier this week that the US and its allies were “prepared to work on a new arrangement to find a peaceful solution” to the dispute over recent Iranian missile tests.

No need to take seriously these opening moves.  Iran knows they can just squeeze the shoes of this administration and get a much better set of concessions.

This Bears Close Watching

Posted on by
Reply

Especially in light of this administration’s—and its hoped-for Progressive successor’s—penchant for surrendering apologetically our sovereignty to extra-national entities like the United Nations.

The United Nations has launched a far-reaching initiative that could give UN-sponsored authorities sway over the biological resources of the high seas—all the waters that lie outside national territories and economic zones.

The potential shift in power involves multi-trillion-dollar issues, such as whether large areas—conceivably, as much as 30%—of the world’s international waters should be designated as no-go areas to protect biological diversity….

Because national sovereignty is so 19th century.  And the UN does such a wonderful job managing its existing tasks.

Good for the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

And too bad for Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY), who wanted to expand Government yet further and have it dictate business and free market decisions to businesses and customers.

Schumer tried to attach an amendment to a bill renewing a number of the FAA’s programs

would have blocked airlines from further reducing the “size, width, padding, and pitch” of seats, passengers’ legroom and the width of aisles.

Having more room on an airplane is certainly a nice idea, especially on long flights.  However, as with so many things in our lives and our economies, this is a matter for us to determine in a free market, not for Government to dictate in an increasingly government-controlled economy.

Fortunately, the Senate voted down the amendment.  Unfortunately, it was defeated by an essentially party-line vote: this sort of expansion of intrusive Government it all too typical of the Democratic Party.

Elections have consequences.

Irrationality or Censorship?

Posted on by
Reply

Many of you have heard that George Mason University in Virginia is moving to rename its law school after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  This, of course, has Democrats, especially those in the Virginia legislature, up in arms.

Delegate Marcus Simon (D) has even gone this far in his objection:

This is a big, in-your-face kind of a move…and trying to shape their young minds and train them in the Scalia way of thinking.  That’s troubling to me.

Because teaching law students the importance of our Constitution to our legal system and to our society is troubling to this…Democrat.  Because teaching law students the importance of the text and origin of our Constitution is troubling to this…Democrat.

Because teaching students to think differently from the Left’s approved paradigm is troubling to this…Democrat.

How irrational can Democrats get in their censorship of thinking?

Elections have consequences.

Do Your Own Work

Posted on by
Reply

Currently, per a 1996 law passed by Congress, the CDC is barred from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”  Now, some 100 or more medical organizations want Congress to lift this ban, so they can research “gun violence.”  The letter they’ve written to four Congressional committees making this request can be seen here, and it’s signed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among those 100+.

These groups admit that the ban on using CDC funding to conduct this research does not ban the research, but they claim that the lack of government funding amounts to such a ban.

No.  This is just cynicism: if these guys actually thought the research they propose had any value, they’d go ahead and do it.  They’re just demanding OPM so they don’t have to make the hard choices of priority setting.

Elections have consequences.