The Democrats want to be just like China. They want to choose what candidates can run for US President.
The takeover of Hong Kong began with the handover from Britain to China in 1997. China was supposed to wait 50 years before taking over the tiny country. China did not wait.
One of the first things they did was to take over the tiny country’s election of its CEO – its head of state like the President is in the United States. China began vetting the candidates for CEO and only China approved candidates could run in the election.
This has only getting worse:
When China announced a new national security law in 2020 to deal with what it saw as troublesome Hong Kong subversives, then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo said the U.S. going forward would treat Hong Kong as “one country, one system,” and punish those repressing freedom in the city.
Beijing has had its own ideas ever since, and has offered up only one candidate to be Hong Kong’s next chief executive, effective July 1.
Sole candidate John Lee was instrumental in the harsh responses to widespread protests in Hong Kong going back eight years. A former police officer, Lee was under secretary for security in Hong Kong from 2012 to 2017, when he was elevated to secretary for the next four years.
The election committee comprised of a cross-section of Chinese officials has already endorsed Lee for chief executive. He needs only a simple majority to win. Clearly, Beijing wants the Asian financial centre ever more under its sway.
The process for selecting candidates to vie for the Hong Kong leadership has always been opaque and designed to ensure Hong Kong residents only selected from applicants approved by Beijing. But Benedict Rogers, the British co-founder and CEO of the non-governmental organization Hong Kong Watch, said this year’s process represented a new low.
“Every [chief executive] election since 1997 has been a stitch-up. But at least in the past they’ve pretended to have a contest,” Rogers tweeted this week. “Yet this one is a farce.”
Last night the Democrats in Colorado decided that they wanted to choose the candidates for the Presidential election from the Republican Party.
The Supreme Court validated the unconstitutional ruling from the lower courts in the state that ruled that President Trump could not run for the office of the President of the United States.
One of Colorado’s Supreme Court Justice’s didn’t agree with the majority in the court. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Carlos Samour writes in his dissent:
“Procedural due process is one of the aspects of America’s democracy that sets this country apart. The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”)—by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate)—from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine.”
“I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”