Tag Archives: politics

Jumping the Gun

Posted on by
Reply

The headline is…optimistic.

China Loses a Foothold in Panama

The headline heads off an op-ed centered on the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling that the contracts giving management of, and so control over, the Panama Canal ports to CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Co unconstitutional, and so illegitimate.

That’s a good, solid step in the right direction, but follow through is required.

CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd, which owns Panama Ports Co, which in turn is the owner of the port concessions at either end of the Panama Canal, has not withdrawn its subsidiary, nor has it withdrawn itself. Both are People’s Republic of China companies, and so both are obligated to the PRC government and to that government’s intelligence community.

The PRC does still control the canal, and it will until CK Hutchison and Panama Ports are both gone.

Reapportionment

Posted on by
Reply

There is a flurry of domestic migration from Blue States to other States, usually Red. That could prove costly to the Blue States’ representation in the US House of Representatives.

The left-leaning Brennan Center has taken a look at the Census and finds Democratic-controlled states are likely to lose at least 10 House seats.
If recent trends in population growth and migration continue, the Brennan Center projects that Texas would gain four seats, Florida three, and Georgia, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, and Idaho one each in the reapportionment after the 2030 Census. California would lose four, and New York two. Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island would give up one apiece.
This would give Southern states 164 House seats, which is 19 more than in the 2000s. The Northeast would have 81 seats, down from 92.

That representation reallocation isn’t all. That’s also a shift of Electoral College votes from Blue States to Red to the tune of 30 votes shifting right.

Which is why the Progressive-Democrats are so shrilly against requiring US citizenship as a criterion for voting in Federal elections, requiring proof of US citizenship in order to get a ballot for Federal elections, and—especially—against excluding non-citizens present in their States from the census count that’s used for apportionment. It’s also why Progressive-Democrats so shrilly push for open US borders and welcoming all comers, including illegal aliens, into their jurisdictions. If they succeed in keeping non-citizens in the apportionment count and blocking Voter ID, that would strongly favor apportionment toward them, even with the ongoing domestic outmigration from those States.

Progressive-Democrats are more interested in their political power than they are in free and fair elections.

Stop Wasting Time Arguing the Matter

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary and Bill Clinton have ignored Congressional subpoenas to testify under oath at deposition(s) before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the Epstein Files matter, and they are currently being considered for Contempt of Congress and referral to DoJ for prosecution.

Now the Clintons’ lawyers are dickering over mechanisms for getting some of their testimony, and Committee Chairman James Comer (R, KY) has rejected the lawyers’ latest stall effort offer.

It’s long past time, I say, to stop wasting time arguing this inarguable matter. The Clintons are bound by law—those subpoenas—to appear and sit for the depositions.

The Committee, through its Chairman, should invoke the precedent set by Jurney v MacCracken and send the Capital Police to arrest the Clintons and hold them in House custody until they agree to be deposed as subpoenaed and do, in fact, sit for those depositions.

Stop wasting time arguing with obstinate intransigents.

Update: since I wrote this and scheduled it for posting.

Attorneys for the Clintons said their clients would “appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates” and requested the lower chamber not to move forward with its contempt vote on Wednesday.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” spokesmen for the Clintons said in a statement. “They told under oath what they know, but you did not care. But the former president and former secretary of state will be there.”

That’s an improvement, but there’s no need for “mutually agreeable dates.” There’s no need for anything beyond setting a date and haling the Clintons, via Jurney if needs be, in should they choose to ignore the new date. The House should proceed with its contempt vote this morning, just in case. The House can easily rescind its contempt finding should the Clintons actually appear for the depositions.

And: there being nothing to negotiate, there can have been no bad faith negotiation by anyone.

One last thing: the Clintons should testify separately, not at the same time.

Update update: Success. The Clintons have agreed to sit for their depositions on 26 and 27 Feb, they will be closed door (which supports a no holds barred and no time limits imposed) transcribed, filmed, and last as long as the House deems necessary for each of them. Even more important, the reason for the two days is that they’ll be deposed separately: Hillary on 26 Feb and Bill on 27 Feb,.

Free Speech in Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

Particularly, free speech in Progressive-Democratic Party reigned-over Illinois. A charitable organization, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, wants to register as a charitable organization in Illinois, but it’s being blocked by the State’s Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias’ rationalization is that a State law, the General Not for Profit Corporation Act, bars the use of terms like “regular democrat,” “regular democratic,” “regular republican,” “democrat,” “democratic” or “republican”  in any organization’s name without the party’s prior permission. It doesn’t matter that these terms are entirely generic and not—nor being generic, can they be—trademarked or copyrighted in any way.

DIAG is being blocked from registering in Illinois because it opposes Party’s support for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions so they more closely resemble the opposite sex over those procedures’ permanent effects, especially in children. The use of “Democrats” in the organization’s name is just an excuse, and DIAG, along with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have sued the State and Giannoulis over the legitimacy of that part of the law.

This is the level of free speech that Party allows in Illinois: what is freely spoken is what Party says its subjects are free to speak.

An Alternative Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is considering settling his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over that agency’s illegal (and politically motivated, I say) leak of his tax data to the New York Times. His thought is to send the proceeds to charity.

I have an alternative thought. Require, under the terms of the settlement, the IRS to send the settlement funds to the 401(c)(3) NGOs that it had blocked from certification or whose certifications it had slow-walked. Or, require the IRS to agree to allow Trump to spread the settlement funds across those entities in the IRS’ name.

Sometimes poetic justice also is legitimate justice.