Tag Archives: politics

Some Progressive-Democrats…

Posted on by
Reply

…are beginning to rue the consequences of their Party’s no borders policies. But only a couple seem willing to say so out loud. The Chicago City Council’s Budget and Government Operations Committee voted 20-8 to move Progressive-Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson’s wish for $70 million for illegal alien support to the Council floor for debate and voting up. (Aside: is there political featherbedding here? 28 Council members on the Budget Committee out of 50 members on the whole Council.)

Progressive-Democrat 29th Ward Alderman Chris Taliaferro is one of only two of those eight willing to demur from this vocally.

We are not taking care of our own. We have all but forgotten the residents on the West Side and South Side.

The 9th Ward’s Progressive-Democrat Alderman Anthony Beale is the other one choosing to speak up.

Here we are begging for more money when we don’t have money for the people here. We don’t have money for after school programs. We don’t have money to help our kids get off the street. Yet, we would just blow money left and right. That’s a fundamental problem.

Wolf pups in sheep’s clothing, bleating in the wilderness.

Free Speech NPR-Style

Posted on by
1

And by extension, given the leftist (not the nearby center-left part of the political spectrum) bias of National Public Radio, here is the concept of the Left’s free speech. This is illustrated by NPR‘s retaliation against one of its own who spoke apart from the Narrative™.

Recall that Uri Berliner, a 25-year denizen of NPR and lately Senior Business Editor, wrote an op-ed for The Free Press that called out NPR for its far left and growing farther bias in its news reporting, extending even into the stories it chooses to publish or ignore.

NPR has suspended veteran editor Uri Berliner after he detailed his employer’s “absence of viewpoint diversity” last week in a stunning rebuke of the news organization.
NPR media reporter David Folkenflik reported the five-day suspension without pay began on Friday.

This is what the “news” and ideology opinion outlet and the Left generally think of free speech.

National Public Radio needs to have its Federal subsidies—that’s your and my tax money—cut off entirely. That won’t be much given that 69% of NPR‘s financing comes from “Corporate sponsorships” and “Core and other programming fees,” and 30+% comes from other private sources, but at least we won’t be paying for this abuse out of our own pockets.

Update: Following NPR‘s atrocious behavior regarding free speech, Berliner has resigned altogether from that outlet.

“Tightrope”

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is walking a tightrope as he tries to deal with Israel. President faces pressure from both his left and right on Middle East conflict goes the subheadline.

Maybe pressure from the Left is there, maybe not.

There are two possibilities. One is that Biden is letting himself feel pressure from an extremely vocal but small Leftist faction that supports Hamas’ terrorists in their war against Israel, disguising their protests as support for Palestinians. Their constant chants of “from the river to the sea” demonstrates that disguise. If Biden really is that easily manipulated by the loudness of a small minority of the Left, actually feeling their “pressure,” then he’s too weak to be trusted with reelection to that office.

Alternatively, those extremely loud Hamas supporters aren’t a small Leftist faction, but instead comprise a large and growing portion of the Left and especially of the Progressive-Democratic Party. If that’s the case, that’s a Party as well as a Presidential candidate that can’t be trusted with reelection.

Biden’s Inflation

Posted on by
Reply

This is what Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s proudly touted Bidenomics has inflicted on us: continued high inflation.

Tacitly, Biden knows his policies are a failure, but he won’t admit it.

For now, officials said, Biden and his senior aides aren’t planning any major policy or rhetorical shifts.

Yet,

Behind the scenes, administration officials said there was no magic bullet to slow rising prices immediately, an issue that has dogged the president for years.

Rising prices—inflation—has been Biden’s problem since he took office; that’s the time frame of that drily put “for years.” From the Biden-caused sharp increase that damaged so many millions of pocketbooks of us ordinary Americans through that partial fall in inflation, of which Biden is so, and so misleadingly, proud, to the last few months of steadier 3+% inflation, we’re still facing price levels increasing at much higher rates than before Biden began his reign.

Some of Biden’s cost-cutting plans will take months to come to fruition and will do little in the short term to slow the rate of price increases.

[T]ake months to come to fruition: yeah—they’ve taken three years and counting.

Some stubbornly high prices, such as the cost of groceries, are mostly out of the Biden administration’s control.

Here, the news personalities who wrote the article at the link are badly mistaken. ­All of those high prices are fully under the administration’s control. Begin with Biden’s war of destruction on our energy industry. Energy underlies every aspect of our economy: fuel for our personal vehicles, energy to heat our homes in winter and cool them in summer, fuel for generating the electricity that’s needed in every aspect of our personal and business lives, shipping costs for all of our goods and services—including shipment of our groceries—and on and on. By seeking to destroy our coal-, oil-, and natural gas-based energy production, and continuing to passively block development and construction of nuclear power plants, Biden is raising the prices of energy, and that alone raises the price of every single item in our economy. Including those groceries.

Most economists don’t believe Biden can do much at this point to bring down inflation, absent major tax increases or spending cuts that could curtail consumer spending. Even those policies, which aren’t being seriously considered in Washington, would take time to work their way through the economy.

Most economists are right as far as they go. And they’re wrong. Tax increases or government spending cuts would take time to have effect. However, tax increases would reduce economic activity in general by taking even more money out of our private economy than our usurious current tax code does. That reduced economic activity will only lead to continued, if not increased, government spending in the form of welfare handouts, and those lead to greater deficits and debt, and to increased dependence on government.

Government spending cuts won’t, though, lead to less consumer spending. On the contrary, with less government competition for the same goods and services our private economy needs, inflation—and real price levels—would come down, making it easier for us consumers to consume, not harder.

But most economists don’t go far enough. There is much the Biden administration—Biden himself as President—can do that would have more immediate favorable effects on price levels. He can remove his Executive Orders that are interfering with the free flow of goods and services and that inhibit coal, oil, and natural gas production. He can instruct his Departments and Agencies to withdraw their rules that interfere with that free flow and that inhibit energy production.

But he won’t.

Deterrence and Punishment

Posted on by
Reply

Iran fired over 300 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic rockets at Israel in the overnight (my time) of last Saturday. That’s what the question of deterrence and of punishment must respond to.

Israel’s leaders were considering whether to respond to the wave of more than 300 drones and cruise and ballistic missiles fired by Iran. [Pedantic nitpick: missiles are guided; ballistic “missiles,” being unguided, are rockets.]

Israel’s defenses, along with American, British, and—significantly—Jordanian air forces, shot down many of those Iranian weapons before they reached Israeli airspace. Also significantly, Israeli fighters were operating in Jordanian airspace as part of those shootdowns. In toto, 99% of those 300 plus were destroyed in the air, which according to my third grade arithmetic, means that 3, or so, got through to do minor damage, in one case to an Israeli air base, and to inflict mostly minor injuries on Israelis: possibly one death, possibly one with critical injuries. Other estimates, less pedantic than mine, put the number of Iranian weapons that got through at “a handful.”

The question, then, is what should the Israeli response be? Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden is pressing for a diplomatic answer exclusively, and he’s convened a G-7 meeting to develop one. So far, though, all that’s come out of that meeting is firm finger-wagging and empty words of reaffirmed commitment to Israel’s security.

A sub-question is what else should that diplomatic response be? One outcome could be a complete economic isolation of Iran by the Seven, even though Russia and the People’s Republic of China would ignore that. It’s an open question, too, whether all of the Seven (or any one of them) have the moral, much less the political, courage to implement—and enforce—such an isolation.

I’m not holding my breath on that. I have no principled objection to serious diplomacy here; however, diplomacy, no matter how serious, cannot be the only response, given Israel is a target of an ongoing existential war nominally begun by the Iranian satrap, Hamas, and now directly prosecuted by Iran, whose rhetoric always has called for the extermination of Israel. “Nominally,” because Hamas would not have struck in the way and to the extent it did without Iran’s prior permission, encouragement, and weapons supply.

At least some high-up Israelis favor a more concrete response.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said last week his country would attack Iran should Tehran launch an assault on Israeli territory. “That assertion remains valid,” Katz told the Israel’s Army Radio on Sunday.

Frankly, I agree. Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate appears to agree, also (and with more weight than my august self carries) [emphasis added]:

The idea of trying to de-escalate the war in the Middle East is no doubt in the US interest, and no doubt also in Israel’s. However, the deterrence of Iran and the punishment of Iran for Israel is more important.

Some will see this desire for punishment as a desire for vengeance. Often “punishment” is just petty get-even. In many cases, though, and this one is canonical, deterrence doesn’t exist without a serious response inflicting serious consequences on the attacker: punishment.

Iran claims it’s done with its attacks for now:

Iran on Sunday said it plans no more action against Israel, but its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has said it would retaliate against the US or any country in the region that helps Israel hit back against Tehran.

That may be; Iran only took one shot at the US (and missed) in response to our execution (my term) of the then-head of the IRGC’s QUDS Force during the Trump administration. That was a trivial response, though; Iran’s attack on Israel was much more significant, involving as it did so many drones, missiles, and rockets, including what appears to be a significant fraction of the 3,000 homegrown missiles Iran still has. The weight of that supposed one-off response means it was not at all merely a tit-for-tat answer to Israel’s execution (again, my term) of two of Iran’s senior terrorist commanders in a building near, and separate from, an Iranian consulate building. A physical response is necessary.

One question that arises from this is how strong a physical response would be appropriate, with “appropriate” centered on proportionality. One school argues for a response commensurate with the actual damage done by the Iranian attack—which is to say, Israel would be done, also.

Another school argues for a response commensurate with the damage that would have been done had the Iranian assault succeeded in rain[ing] death and destruction on the people of Israel, as Avi Mayer, Former Editor-in-Chief of the Jerusalem Post put it (via Claire Berlinski’s The Cosmopolitan Globalist, a periodical well worth reading in its own right). This is, by far, the more optimal response, although it need not—should not IMNSHO—include raining death and destruction on the people of Iran. That would be petty tit-for-tat (and I don’t think that’s what Yadlin or Katz are aiming for). Instead, Israel should (again IMO) identify two or three of the bases from which the cruise missiles and rockets (ignore the drones for now) were launched and strike them with a view to severely damaging, if not destroying, them.

That would satisfy the necessity of an Israeli response, and it would be lesser in scope than that of Iran’s prior “responding” attack on Israel—a step down in violence. Iran likely would respond again, and likely in keeping with past practice, do so with its own decreasing response. Then it would be time to call a halt, if only tacitly, by Israel not responding further.

But wait:

Iran’s missile capabilities remain potent: US officials estimate it has over 3,000 homegrown missiles.

How potent, really? Israel and some friends (some sort of real, and some sort of tacit) knocked down those 99% of the 300. Iran’s missile (and rocket and drone) capabilities aren’t all that. I predict, too, that an Israeli attack on those two or three Iranian facilities would succeed with very few losses by the Israelis. That punishment response would demonstrate the utterly one-sided imbalance in both defensive and offensive capabilities between the two nations. That empirically demonstrated imbalance would enhance deterrence.

Such a decreasing cycle would fit a legitimate desire for de-escalation, too, as opposed to Biden’s knee-jerk quit now for the sake of quitting, or any “we quit, please don’t shoot at us anymore for a while” path.

Frankly, I favor de-escalation via the more durable (though still not permanent) path of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and its ability to mount another attack past its own geographic borders until it has completely rebuilt its defense establishment. Israel cannot afford such a move, though, in materiel, personnel, and money, especially given the weak-kneed position of Biden who has, until Saturday (and may again, after the current public hoo-raw dies down), openly supported the pro-terrorist Hamas supporters in his own administration and Party.

Too, Saudi Arabian, Jordanian, and Iraqi permission for overflight in support of such a move, and permission from the UAE and Qatar to refuel going and coming, would be problematic (although the latter two seem to have provided that support this time, it was to help Israel to defend, not to attack). Behind the scenes, they support Israel in its conflict with terrorists and with Iran, but granting those permissions would force the Arab nations to take a public stance in support of Israel. The Abraham Accords don’t include all of these nations. In the end, too, Accord member or not, they may not be willing to be so overtly public in opposition to Iran, especially given the Biden administration’s general timidity in front of Iran.