Daily Archives: 10 January 2019

Democrat Obstructionism

Posted on by
Reply

Extending their perpetuation of the existing partial government shutdown, now the Progressive-Democrats won’t even allow the Senate to function.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked the chamber from considering bipartisan foreign-policy legislation in a bid to pressure Republicans to reopen the government….

This is of a piece with their “rebuttal” of President Donald Trump’s Oval Office speech calling for negotiations on a border wall and border security generally, wherein the Progressive-Democrats reiterated their refusal to negotiate at all, and they denied the facts presented regarding our border situation while cynically declining to present their own facts.

And their Wimpy-esque promise to gladly negotiate the wall later for a government opening today?  Trump tweeted of Wednesday’s abbreviated meeting with Progressive-Democrat and Republican leaders,

I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO.

So much for the believability of Progressive-Democrat commitments.

Remember this in the coming election season.

Political Power

Posted on by
Reply

Here come the Progressive-Democrats, and they’ve made their priorities clear in the House with the first things they want to get done.  Here’s some of what’s in their HR1:

  • “campaign-finance reform”—requires some advocacy groups to publicly disclose the names of donors who give more than $10,000, even if the groups aren’t running ads that endorse candidates but merely inform voters about the issues. Except when rich folks like Tom Steyer or Mike Bloomberg are spending on Progressive-Democrats.  Those names aren’t required to be exposed.
  • provisions from the Honest Ads Act—just regulates online political ads the same as broadcast television. Regulation: name those donors, again. Never mind that even nefarious ads intended to “influence” the 2016 elections accounted for all of 0.01%—that’s 1 in 10,000—of all the online ads in that cycle.
  • expanded definition of “electioneering communications” to include communications targeted to any particular constituency. An online ad running only in Texas that mentions a New York politician would be “regulable.”
  • The Federal government would gain control over the means by which States run elections. Because a remote, isolated central government, especially one run by Progressive-Democrats, Knows Better than a local State government how that State should run its elections.

For Progressive-Democrats, it’s all about personal political power.  Remember this in the coming election season.