Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
1

This time, centered on the question of abortion.

Progressive-Democrat Minnesota governor and Party Vice President candidate Tim Walz:

…in the recent vice-presidential debate said that Republicans support “a registry of pregnancies.” This followed Mr Walz’s claim last month that “[Donald] Trump is trying to create this new government entity that will monitor all pregnancies to enforce their abortion bans.”

No one is pushing for such a registry—the closest to that is by the Leftist Guttmacher Institute, which collects data on the incidence of abortion and related issues, and that’s no registry, either.

Walz’ claim comes on the heels of other of his lies, like how he was in Tiananmen Square the day of that mass government killing of protestors when he actually was in Nebraska, and how he bailed on his unit to go do politics rather than deploy to a combat zone and subsequently lying about his retirement rank.

Rudy Salas, Party candidate for the House of Representatives:

Washington Republicans want to criminalize abortion, even when a woman has been raped or is facing a medical emergency[.]

Never mind that his opponent Congressman David Valadao is on record as both opposing a national ban on abortion (it’s another Progressive-Democrat widespread lie that Republicans will enact such a ban next year) and insisting on exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s life risk.

Progressive-Democrat Mondaire Jones, in his desperation to get back into Congress (he lost his 2022 primary campaign when he was the incumbent),

says Congressman Mike Lawler “would ban abortions in New York.” Mr Jones says…that the Republican platform “would ban abortions even here in New York.”

He can’t point to the claim in the Republican platform that does that because it isn’t there. Further, Lawler says he wants abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health, and that he’ll respect the will of the state’s voters whom the Supreme Court have given exclusive jurisdiction over the abortion issue. In other words, he says he works for his constituents, not the other way around.

The list goes on, far past the short list of examples (abridged further by me) in the Wall Street Journal editorial.

Do we really want anyone this dishonest, or this incapable of dealing with simple facts, representing any of us, or having any role at all in our government?

A Cost of Government

Posted on by
Reply

The Congressional Budget Office is saying that the Progressive-Democrat Biden-Harris administration’s Medicare prescription drug scheme could cost taxpayers more than $20 billion over three years.

The budget analysis arm of Congress said the increased costs are due to the government subsidizing many seniors’ premiums by sending money to insurance firms, and it would cost at least $5 billion extra in 2025 alone and add to the deficit.

If the administration really wants to spend our tax remittals on subsidies for seniors’ prescription drugs, it would be orders of magnitude more efficient to send those subsidy dollars directly to the seniors and let each individual senior use the money for his own particular medicine needs.

That’s anathema, though, to Progressive-Democratic Party politicians. That would put the decision-making, the responsibility, in the hands of us average Americans as individuals, in the hands of individual geezers in the particular case. Party doesn’t think we’re capable of making our own decisions, though. Party insists that only its members who are in government are capable of such decision-making; the rest of us really need to just sit down and do as we’re told. And experience the joy of that.

Broken Promises

Posted on by
Reply

The lede lays it out.

Government makes many promises, the Biden Administration more than most. Results are another story.

Here’s an all too typical example:

The 2021 infrastructure law included $42.5 billion for states to expand broadband to “unserved,” mostly rural, communities. Three years later, ground hasn’t been broken on a single project. The Administration recently said construction won’t start until next year at the earliest, meaning many projects won’t be up and running until the end of the decade.

With this follow-up:

Blame the Administration’s political regulations. States must submit plans to the Commerce Department about how they’ll use the funds and their bidding process for providers. Commerce has piled on mandates that are nowhere in the law and has rejected state plans that don’t advance progressive goals.

Whatever. That excuse misses the point. These program failures aren’t unique to the Biden-Harris administration. These incumbents are only the latest example. No, the failures have gone on for so long, across nearly all 235-ish years of Federal administrations, that it should be well-understood, by us average Americans and by the politicians who make them, that promises in the name of Government are just lies: they know when they make those promises that they won’t be carried out.

The answer lies not in making Government men live up to their government program promises; it lies in getting Government out of our economy almost altogether, and letting us citizens and our private enterprises do their trick in a free market unhamstrung by government promises, much less excessive regulatory laws and regulations.

Harris’ Position on Israel

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris was asked in a Sunday 60 Minutes interview whether the US has any “sway” over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the war against Hamas continues. The show’s host asked about Netanyahu not listening to Harris’ and Biden’s administration demands.

Harris’ answer, in part:

Now the work we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages and create a cease-fire. And we’re not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and in the region, including Arab leaders.

Except for a couple of things: the Biden-Harris administration (or the Harris-Biden administration, as Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden occasionally puts it) has put no pressure at all on the Arab terrorist entities Hamas and Hezbollah, and they’ve wholly ignored non-Arab Iran, except in one way noted below. The Biden-Harris administration has put tremendous pressure on Israel—Netanyahu—to agree a cease-fire.

Another thing is that a cease-fire would benefit only the terrorists by giving them time to reconstitute, refit, rearm, and attack again, while giving Israel no respite at all, and yielding only minimal—at best—kidnap release.

Aside from that, keep in mind that Kamala Harris is a very intelligent, very committed woman and would make a wonderful President, according to her Progressive-Democratic Party compatriots. That makes her seeming word salad response not empty-calorie rhetoric at all but a deliberate obfuscation of her disdain for Israel and her sub rosa support for terrorist Hamas and Hezbollah, and it puts her in league with Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s overt protection of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Words

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris is “subtly” changing what she says about her economic plans, should she be elected. Her advisers’ claim is

While President Biden’s agenda focused on jobs, Harris is focused on costs. Where Biden sees voters foremost as workers, she sees them more as consumers.
As a result, her policies are aimed at trying to help middle-class Americans afford the things they need and want, and helping them build wealth that can be passed along to their children, her advisers say.

She may be changing the style of her rhetoric, but her plans remain to raise taxes on our income, in the name of making the billionaires “pay their fair share” without specifying what that share is, and which tax increases will reach down into our middle class through their effect on small businesses and large businesses’ employment plans.

She may be changing the style of her rhetoric, but her plans remain to increase government spending on Party special interests, including subsidies for her “green new deal” businesses while hamstringing our oil- and gas-based energy production ability.

She may be changing the style of her rhetoric, but her plans remain to institute price controls on a broad range of products from pharmaceuticals to food in our grocery stores, all in the name of her mythical price gouging.

She’s also said in so many words that her values haven’t changed. Her values are made plain through those plans. What she’s saying now, those “subtle changes,” are as her Senate colleague Bernie Sanders (I, VT) says, just empty words uttered to curry votes.

Nothing more.