Tag Archives: government

Who Needs Cops?

Posted on by
Reply

Plainly not Progressive-Democrat Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City, not when he considers taking care of the City’s burgeoning illegal alien population to be far more important than protecting the Americans and legally present foreign nationals who are already in the City. Thus,

A freeze on new NYPD recruits is among the “horrendous” budget cuts expected to come down Thursday—as the Big Apple grapples with the soaring cost of the migrant crisis, The Post has learned.

And

The budget slashings come after Adams estimated the surging [illegal alien—my term, not Adams’ euphemism] crisis will set the city back $12 billion over the next three fiscal years.

It’s true enough that Adams claims he also intends to slash [illegal alien] spending by 20%, but that’s money that never should have been spent for that in the first place, and would not have been but for Adams’ loud and proud continuation of his predecessor’s—another Progressive-Democrat—designation of New York City as a sanctuary for illegal aliens, and his continued refusal to rescind that designation.

Never mind, though. [C]rime jumped 30% during his first year in office; Adams plainly believes that there’s more room to grow.

Who are Domestic Terrorists?

Posted on by
Reply

NSC spokesman John Kirby was asked at a recent press conference, point blank, by Fox News‘ Peter Doocy,

The people in this country making violent antisemitic threats. Are they domestic terrorists?

Kirby’s answer was stark:

I don’t know that we’re classifying people as domestic terrorists for that. I mean, that’s really a question better left to law enforcement. I’m not aware that there’s been such a characterization of that[.]

Apparently, such people aren’t even extremists. When Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that question at another presser, she answered,

I have been very, very clear.  We are calling out any form of hate, any form of hate. It is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable here. And we are going to continue to call that out[.]

But apparently such folks aren’t even extremists, just deserving of opprobrium for their rude talk.

Mothers zealously, loudly, objecting to school board policies while at school board meetings, though, are domestic terrorists, according to AG Merrick Garland.

Go figure.

DoJ Wrist-Slaps Again

Posted on by
Reply

And again, with the light tap the Biden-Garland DoJ favors one of their own, a man who leaked the tax returns of Progressive-Democrats’ Enemy No. 1, Donald Trump, and those of a multiplicity of the Evil Rich.

According to the Justice Department, Charles Littlejohn, 38, disclosed the tax returns of “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest individuals” to news organizations and tax information associated with a “high-ranking government official” to a second news outlet.

Garland’s idea of non-tiered justice in his DoJ:

He [Littlejohn] pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information.

All one count out of the plethora of instances. The price he faces? A max of 5 years. For leaking thousands of returns. He’s let off with a single count and a light sentence. Even if the judge gives him the max, he’ll be out much sooner, for time served (if any) and for “good behavior.”

This is Garland’s definition of non-tiered.

Queen Michelle Lujan Grisham

Posted on by
Reply

New Mexico Reina Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has said the quiet part out loud: the solemn word of a Progressive-Democratic Party politician is worthless.

Reina Grisham has taken it upon herself to completely suspend our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, and with that, she is actively barring the open or concealed carry of firearms in her realm, even by New Mexico citizen-subjects who are duly licensed to do so.

What’s also—and possibly more broadly—dangerous is that Grisham’s suspension demonstrates her belief that her oath of office is not absolute. She can walk away from any part of it whenever that oath, or anything her oath binds her to and to do, becomes inconvenient to her and/or to her politics. Here she is as plain as can be (listen to the whole four minutes, or scroll ahead to about 2:25):

No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.

This is what the New Mexico constitution requires in the way of an oath of office. Article XX, Section 1:

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

She is required to support…the constitution and laws of this state. There is no caveat giving the governor of the State an out for whenever she doesn’t feel like keeping her oath. Further, that bit about faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office explicitly demands that the State’s constitution and laws be enforced fully; no part of either of them can be set aside whenever they become inconvenient to the governor.

With specific reference to our Federal Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, the New Mexico governor also is explicitly sworn to support the constitution of the United States, again without exception, caveat, or instance of inconvenience.

This is the degree of integrity of the members of the Progressive-Democratic Party. Grisham has made it explicit: Party member commitments, promises, even oaths of office are utterly worthless. They—each of them—will walk away from their promises the moment that promise becomes personally or politically inconvenient to them.

Oh, and one more thing. This is what Article IV, Section 36, of New Mexico’s constitution says about impeachable offenses:

All state officers and judges of the district court shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misdemeanors and malfeasance in office….

Grisham’s conscious, deliberate violation of her oath of office is, very clearly, malfeasance in office, and so she is plainly impeachable and convictable for her violation. However, with strong Progressive-Democratic Party majorities in both houses of the New Mexico legislature, that will never happen.

Nationalizing Private Enterprise

Posted on by
Reply

OK, State-ifying private enterprise, for now, if this proposal goes through. Some California Progressive-Democratic Party legislators are setting up legislation that would have California pay unemployment benefits to strikers. The move also would put businesses and workers, both, at some risk from Government control, but never mind that.

A group of California Democrats are expected to propose handing out unemployment benefits to striking workers.
Language expected to be released in the coming days or weeks to provide striking workers with benefits from California’s unemployment insurance program that is $18 billion in debt. The move comes amid historic strikes by both screenwriters and actors, forcing many movies and TV shows to halt production.

This move would lessen the incentive for workers and their unions to build up strike funds. Uncle Sugar—or for now Daddy Gavin—will pick up increasing portions of the strike tab.

But this move is more dangerous than that in the longer term. This is an active assault on the free enterprise system that’s at the center of our economy, whether that’s the intention of this move or not.

Workers pay each other during strikes. That’s what a significant fraction of their union dues are for: setting up a strike fund so while workers are on strike, and so not being paid by their employer, still have money coming in to cover their critical expenses. The bigger the strike fund, the longer the strike can last, and the more the business(es) being struck can be damaged. It’s hard to find a bigger strike fund than Government’s control of its citizens’ tax remittals, which under this proposal would supplant union dues.

This move, if realized, would lead to Government saying to any business, individually or collectively, “Nice business you got there. Be too bad if your employees didn’t come to work for a while.”

This move also would put the labor force at risk of government control. With strike funding coming from Government under the guise of unemployment benefits, Government would be in a position to reward workers for not working striking, when Government wants to use them to pressure a Government-disfavored business. On the other hand, Government would be in a position to punish withhold benefits from workers who don’t strike this time from those who do strike on their own initiative at a later time, or who strike without Government’s prior permission.