Tag Archives: politics

Free Speech vs “Free Speech”

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom pretends to favor free speech even as he attacks it and seeks to limit it. Under Newsom,

California law requires companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue that “do business” in the state—which can mean having a single employee or contractor in the state—to detail how speculative climate-related risks could affect their businesses.
Companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue will also have to report their CO2 emissions, including those from suppliers, customers, and contractors. Some 10,000 companies will have to comply with the first rule, and more than 5,000 with the second.

This is nothing but government-mandated speech, which is antithetical to speech freedom

Activist Federal judges are playing their role in this limitation [emphasis added].

A lawsuit by the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups argues that the mandated climate disclosures violate the First Amendment by compelling business to speak on an intensely controversial subject. The state claimed in response that it is regulating business conduct, not speech—ergo, the First Amendment doesn’t apply.
Federal Judge Otis Wright in August rejected this defense, but he agreed with the state that the climate disclosures are constitutionally kosher because they implicate commercial speech, which merits a lower level of scrutiny under the First Amendment. This blurs a crucial distinction between commercial and non-commercial business speech.

This is even worse. Wright demonstrated his activist judicial bent by directly tying in our 1st Amendment and then saying it doesn’t apply to some (government disfavored) speech. Wright has directly attacked, with this position, the freedom Americans are explicitly allowed under that Amendment’s speech clause.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….

There’s nothing in that clause that segregates speech into categories of speakers or of types of speech. No law abridging, means exactly that, neither more nor less.

At bottom, free speech is like the longstanding saw about pregnancy: either we have free speech, or we do not. There is no such thing as “a little free speech” or speech that is “somewhat free.” Most Americans understand that. It’s instructive that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and activist judges do not. We can fix the one promptly through our elections. Fixing the other will take longer, but we can fix it, too, through our elections as we choose Congressmen and Presidents who will nominate and then confirm judges who adhere to the text of our Constitution and our statutes rather than to their personal views of “social needs.”

The Editors Miss Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time, the editors of The Wall Street Journal waxed excited over President Donald Trump’s (R) responses to the People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping’s export blocks controls on rare earths and related materials aimed at the United States.

First things first.

None of this [trade war] is good for the US and global economies.

The editors appear to be writing from a fantasy garret office. In what war do they imagine that one side suffers no harm at all? In the real world, wars damage all participants.

Then there’s this from the editors’ swampish imaginations.

Mr Trump started the fun by announcing on social media midday Friday that “some very strange things are happening in China!” He said Beijing has turned “very hostile” and is sending letters to the world announcing tighter controls on the export of “every element of production having to do with” rare-earth minerals.

There’s that fantastical editorial garret world again. This latest round was begun by the PRC’s Xi when he imposed those controls on rare-earths, processed rare earths, and any product from wherever exported that contains rare earth materials comprising 0.1% or more of the product’s value. Trump is merely responding to that attack rather than meekly lying down and forcing us to accept it.

But back up a bit, too, to a time of which the long-term memories of the editors seem broadly deficient. The PRC has been inflicting its trade war on us for years and years. It has been stealing our technologies through espionage and hacking.

It has been forcing technology transfers from private enterprises as a condition of their doing business in the PRC, a condition only slightly eased over the ensuing years.

It has been forcing private enterprises to accept as partners PRC-domiciled companies as a condition of those foreign enterprises doing business in the PRC, a condition only slightly eased over the ensuing years.

It has demanded PRC government-approved back doors into foreign companies’ operating software as a condition of those foreign enterprises doing business in the PRC, a condition only slightly eased over the ensuing years.

It has demanded PRC apparatchiks in foreign companies’ management teams operating PRC-domiciled arms, a requirement only slightly eased over the ensuing years.

The PRC has begun dumping its industrial output on the international market at below production cost pricing nominally to shore up the economic malaise of its own overproduction, but in truth to bankrupt other nations’ domestic industrial producers—including in the US—and so gain market share to the point of other nations’ dependency, especially ours, on PRC output.

Trade wars aren’t easy, as the editors noted in their headline. But trade wars are made the harder when folks who should know better don’t even understand the war actually progress.

“Democracy Wanes in South Asia”

Posted on by
Reply

Sadanand Dhume uses as his canonical examples Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, wherein riots forced the removal of despotic governments and their replacement by popularly chosen leaders. In Nepal in particular, new elections have been set for next March.

Dhume did point out popular failures in Pakistan and Myanmar; however, his apparent concept that popular uprisings are, of necessity, antidemocratic is badly flawed.

This is what our own Declaration of Independence has to say about such popular violence.

[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

A government deciding unilaterally and with little to no warning to censor—abolish!—major communications systems, a government that has had a single Prime Minister for 15 years during carefully controlled elections with opposition candidates routinely jailed, a government dominated for 17 years by a single pair of brothers whose government did little to protect its population from routine violence—each of these governments with their long train of abuses and usurpations… would seem to be prime candidates for the people to decide that their governments’ evils are sufferable and so to move to exercise their right…their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards.

What must Dhume think of the Color Revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, or the People Power revolution in the Philippines, each of which involved the successful popular overthrow of Despotic governments and their replacement with more democratic institutions?

We’ll see what happens in the subsequent elections, particularly in Nepal. Dhume may be correct vis-à-vis his examples, but it’s much too soon to tell.

Apologize?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’ overt threat of murder against a political opponent and his family. Now Virginia Progressive-Democratic Party Senator Tim Kaine is making clear his enthusiastically continuing support for Jones.

Jay has apologized[.]
I’ve known Jay Jones for 25 years. I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized—I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff.

Jones has apologized, and that makes everything all better. That’s Party’s view of taking full responsibility. Just say some words and call it a day.

No.

Words of apology, no matter how sincerely they’re offered, are nothing but that—words—absent any accompanying corrected behavior, behavior that lasts for a substantial period of time.

Jones has demonstrated no corrected behavior. He’s staying in the race for State’s AG, and he’s doing nothing to atone for his call for murder, nor is he showing any altered behavior regarding his fellow State citizens, political opponents or otherwise.

Chicago Police Management Confesses

Posted on by
Reply

When ICE agents last week, in the course of their duties were rammed in their vehicles and then trapped and surrounded by 10 violent protesters’ vehicles—violent not least because ICE agents, in the course of this incident, were forced to shoot an armed woman who was threatening them—called the Chicago PD for assistance, the Chicago PD Chief of Patrol ordered his officers to decline to respond with assistance.

Now that city police management team is responding, sort of. The management team’s statement, released over the weekend:

To clarify misinformation currently circulating, CPD officers did in fact respond to the shooting scene involving federal authorities on Saturday to maintain public safety and traffic control[.]

This is management’s confession of their refusal to let the officers render assistance in that lethally dangerous situation. Management ordered its officers to maintain public safety and control the traffic. Not to affirmatively assist the ICE agents—which would have maximized public safety and flowed traffic much better.