Tag Archives: politics

Contemptibly Unsurprising

Posted on by
Reply

Israel has uncovered evidence that UNRWA operatives personnel participated in Hamas’ 7 October ’23 butchery inside Israel, and the nation has passed that evidence along to relevant authorities, including to the UN.

The commissioner-general of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East announced Friday that UNRWA was suspending the alleged participants and launching an investigation.

Suspended their employees—ooh—that’ll show them. UNRWA will conduct an investigation? Say, rather, UNRWA will whitewash itself.

This unsurprising behavior by the UNRWA is merely an extension of its long and active support of the terrorist gang that is Hamas and its Gaza Strip predecessor, the Palestinian Authority, reaching at least as far back as the terrorists’ 2014 attacks on Israel, when the UN agency served as weapons storage facilities for Hamas’s predecessor.

It’s long past time for our own government to stop its timid finger-wagging and take more serious action about the UNRWA’s terrorist support than temporarily paus[ing] all additional funding to the agency and the moderately firm words of welcome[ing] the decision to conduct such an investigation and Secretary General Guterres’ pledge to take decisive action to respond, should the allegations prove accurate.

That more serious action should begin, but not stop, with formally announcing that, aside from permanently halting funding to this UN terrorism-supporting agency, all further statements by the UNRWA will no longer be heard and no action in response to them will be taken, and more concretely on the one hand, getting out of the way of Israel and letting that nation prosecute its existential defense in the war Hamas is waging, and on the other hand, actively supporting the nation in its defense for its own survival.

GOP Weakness Continues

Posted on by
Reply

Aside from the Republican party’s timidity in its Congressional “negotiations” regarding budgeting and border security, here’s another example, laid out in crystalline terms in the lede.

The House subcommittee chairman [Congressman Barry Loudermilk (R, GA)] leading the January 6 investigation is declaring that the Biden White House’s foot-dragging has been “unacceptable” and he is putting both presidential aides and the Georgia county prosecutor pursuing Donald Trump on notice that Congress is prepared to pursue evidence, up to and including subpoenas and contempt.

Stop yapping and issue the subpoenas. Republicans asked once, politely, for the materials and been rebuffed. Stop meekly wasting time, and get on with the investigation. The Biden administration’s own foot-dragging does not need the Republican contribution to delays in the investigation.

A Department of Veterans Affairs Fail

Posted on by
Reply

Yet another in an appallingly long list of Veterans Affairs fails.

This time it’s the VA’s conscious decision to deprecate, if not outright ignore, our nation’s veterans and to give priority access to limited resources to illegal aliens instead. Yes, yes, they signed a contract with ICE to do this, but they were not forced to do so. Here’s Senator Marsha Blackburn (R, TN):

We checked this week; it is up to one million claims for healthcare and benefits. As we were doing some oversight work of the VA, we realized that what they were doing was using some of their resources and their money to allow veterans—to approve veterans for community care—and to process claims, or to approve community care, for illegal immigrants, not for veterans, and then also to process claims for illegal immigrants.

And

When you’ve got a backlog of a million veterans that are waiting to get healthcare, and are waiting to get benefit answers, and you find out that money that should be being used to solve their situations is being used for illegal immigrants…it is absolutely maddening[.]

Indeed.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Valid Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

Several States’ Attorneys General have filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case centered on whether Texas and Florida statutes that limit Big Tech’s ability to censor speech done on their platforms are legitimate. The analogy they draw is one valid argument.

[Summarized by Fox News]: [G]iving Big Tech the ability to moderate or censor users’ content would be like giving cable or telephone companies permission to cut phone lines on speech at their discretion. The AGs note that under federal “must-carry requirements,” those companies are banned from subjugating any speech on their lines.

And:

The Eleventh Circuit concluded social media companies could censor content because they have “historically exercised” power to refuse transmission of disfavored ideas.
But telegraph companies have a much longer history of censorship. Social media is less than two decades old. Congress did not impose must-carry requirements on telegraphs until 1888, 50 years after their invention[.]
Yet it is well recognized today that those must-carry regulations were constitutional—even though this Court declared that telegraph companies are “not common carriers.” History thus provides no basis for dismissing the striking similarities between social media companies and telegraph and telephones by dubbing social-media censorship “editorial judgment[.]”
While the earlier laws applied to telegraphs and telephones, it is no different when the companies carrying other people’s speech are digital rather than analog[.]
The States thus have a paramount interest in urging this Court to affirm that longstanding, historic authority of States to protect freedom of speech and enable representative government by prohibiting dominant communication networks from censoring[.]

There is one more argument that is, IMNSHO opinion, dispositively on point. This is the status of those Big Tech platforms—X (nee Twitter), Meta’s Facebook, and Alphabet’s YouTube, for instance—as public forums. Indeed, some of these platforms have explicitly stated that they intend to be public squares for public discourse, even as they also provide mechanisms for exchanging private correspondence.

The public square is precisely where speech may not be censored except within a very few very narrowly defined boundaries—incitement to riot, explicit threats of violence against particular persons. Whether any Big Tech platform has explicitly styled itself a public square, each of these platforms have grown so large—become so dominant—that each one of them is, de facto, a public square. Their censorship practices must be barred.

Why Donald Trump Shouldn’t Get a Second Term

Posted on by
Reply

Or so advise the august Editors of The Wall Street Journal. They only consider one side of the question. My august self considers some additional sides.

Start with the fact that Mr Trump would be an immediate lame duck. He can’t serve more than one more term, and if he does win it will be narrowly with little political capital.

This is a wash. If Biden is reelected, he’ll also be a lame duck with little to no political capital.

If the first term is a guide, Democrats will oppose anything Mr Trump proposes that isn’t one of their priorities.

And if Biden is reelected, he’ll most likely face a similarly split Congress and get nothing passed that isn’t a Conservative/Republican priority. Another wash.

The internal opposition will still be implacable, the leaks unending, the press relentlessly hostile.

It may well be that one of things Trump has learned is how to get rid of the internal opposition that puts their whims ahead of their duties as administration employees—including leakers, who are intrinsically dishonest regardless of which party they claim to favor.

Aside from that, while there are reasons to oppose a Trump Presidency, moving to stop him simply because internal opposition will still be implacable, the leaks unending, the press relentlessly hostile would simply be to vindicate those groups’ dishonesty and encourage further obstructionism.

It also isn’t clear Mr Trump could attract first-rate advisers.

He eventually figured that out in the latter stages of his term. Biden has already demonstrated that he has no first-rate advisors; there’s no reason to believe that he could find any for his second term.