Daily Archives: 11 September 2020

Lies of the Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden claimed in a recent “press conference” in Pennsylvania’s oil and gas country that

I am not banning fracking… no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me[.]

Let’s review the bidding here.

During a primary debate in March against Senator Bernie Sanders [I, VT] when his audience was not Western Pennsylvania, Biden agreed with Sanders’s fracking ban legislation. “No more—no new fracking”

Those carefully selected weasel words—”new fracking.” Of course, that’s a ban on fracking: the currently fracked fields will play out—pretty quickly, in fact, since the fracking only affects small regions of the oil/gas bearing fields. When they’re played out, no new fracking means just that: a ban on fracking. All the new part means is that existing fracking facilities wouldn’t be torn down under a Biden reign.

That’s not all, though.  Biden guaranteed a New Hampshire woman—pre-Wuhan Virus situation, when he wasn’t afraid to mingle with ordinary folks—that

he would “end fossil fuels” if he became president.

Clearly, subsumed in that ending is a ban on fracking.

The Vice President candidate whom Party picked for Biden isn’t any better. Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) said when she was still running for Party’s Presidential nomination,

There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.

Biden—his entire ticket—is adamantly and on record as enthusiastically supporting a ban on fracking. Then, in a section of oil/gas country, speaking to that oil/gas labor audience, Biden claims to not wanting to ban fracking.

And we’re supposed to believe him. Those oil/gas laborers are supposed to believe him.

In addition to blatantly lying, Biden is insulting the intelligence of those folks.

Funding the Police

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) wants to do that, so he’s introducing the David Dorn Back the Blue Act that would authorize DoJ to

raise the salaries of state and local police forces all across the country—except in cities that have chosen to defund law enforcement in the wake of nationwide protests and riots.

And

If the bill becomes law, police departments will have new federal funding at their disposal allowing them to increase the salaries of officers “up to 110 percent of the local median earnings, and would exclude cities that defund their police[.]”

Hawley is on the right track, but there needs to be an important adjustment to his bill. Rather than simply providing Federal funding to those cities, those funds should be matching funds, requiring the cities to put up their own salary-increasing funds before getting any Federal monies (I claim the matching ratio should require the receiving city to put up at least 50% of the increase). Otherwise, the city would simply shift the cost of the increase onto taxpayers from other States, taxpayers who have their own police departments to support.