Tag Archives: responsibilities

Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Yet more of them, this time centered on jobs for American citizens.

Here’s what Moody’s Analytics said about President Joe Biden’s $2.2 trillion American Jobs Plan Spend-a-Thon to which is attached some bucks for actual infrastructure work:

The firm estimated that the US economy will add roughly 16.3 million jobs between the fourth quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2030. If Biden’s proposal were to pass, Moody’s Analytics economists estimated that the US economy would add 19 million jobs over the same time period—indicating the proposal would be responsible for about 2.7 million jobs.

Here’s what Biden’s hand-picked Transportation Secretary “Pothole” Pete Buttigieg said.

The American Jobs Plan is about a generational investment. It’s going to create 19 million jobs. And we’re talking about economic growth that’s going to go on for years and years. It’s time for America to lead the way again. And those 19 million jobs we’re about to create go way beyond some quarterly or monthly report.

Twice he lied, in quick succession.

Biden’s White House National Economic Council Director Brian Deese was completely direct in his lie:

Moody’s suggests it would create 19 million jobs[.]

And then Biden personally lied about what Moody’s actually said:

Independent analysis shows that if we pass this plan, the economy will create 19 million jobs….

It makes me wonder whether anyone in this administration is capable of discriminating truth from fiction. Or whether they can, but they don’t care; they’ll just mouth whatever they think they can get away with that will benefit them politically.

We Got What They Asked For

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Letters noted that

In the 2020 election, the US Chamber of Commerce backed 23 incumbent House Democrats, 15 of whom won. Six of the 15 won narrowly, by 3.3% or less. Without those six seats, Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be speaker. The chamber helped hand her the gavel.
The consequences were predictable. House Democrats have passed the PRO Act, ““a labor-rights bill that would roll back many of the policies the chamber has supported for decades” (U.S. News, March 13). Without any Republican support, House Democrats passed HR1, the misnamed For the People Act, which the chamber “strongly opposes.”

The letter writer listed many of the upcoming Progressive-Democrat-run House plans, too.

He identified another organization he generously said was “duped.”

…Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden, whose leaders “feel used and betrayed” because the Covid relief package excluded the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer funding of abortions.

He concluded with

These two organizations duped themselves and sabotaged their own cause.

To which I say my heart bleeds.

It’s hard to believe that as erudite a collection of personnel as those running the US Chamber of Commerce and Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden didn’t know what they were getting when they supported those Progressive-Democrats. Of course, as responsible leaders of large organizations, they carefully vetted each of those candidates and their opponents. They knew what they were asking for.

They got it, good and hard.

And, sadly, so did the rest of us get those worthies’ choices good and hard.

Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

The head of the Progressive-Democratic Party, President Joe Biden, has no immediate plans to visit our southern border in person and see for himself the crisis exploding there.

…he intends to travel to the southern border “at some point,” telling reporters that he is in no rush to visit because “I know what’s going in those facilities.”

He already knows what’s going on; he doesn’t want to be confused with facts.

Or, Biden is channeling Gold Hat:

Facts? I ain’t got no facts. I don’t need no facts. I don’t have to see any stinkin’ facts!

Wow.

“Pope Struggles to Contain Conservative-Liberal Tensions in Catholic Church”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline on a Wall Street Journal article about the purported struggles of Pope Francis to manage the church of which he’s the nominal [sic] head.

For me, though, as a personally religious man who’s neither a Catholic nor enamored of institutional religion in general, I’m confused by this struggle.

How can there be any struggle? Why are the tensions accepted as something to be taken seriously?

The Church’s tenets are inviolate; morals are universal and inviolate.

All that might vary over time or across cultures is the way in which those tenets, morals generally, are upheld, defended, and enforced.

The Pope needs to consider putting his foot down and enforcing—in no uncertain terms—the Church’s fundamental tenets.

That might cause a schism? Possibly. Likely, even. But there’s a major so what here. Sure, the schism itself would be painful and badly inconvenient. However, the Church has grown stronger after every schism. Christianity has grown stronger since the Catholicism-Protestantism schism.

At worst, after any schism from Francis’ putting his foot down, the Church would be rid of those who can’t support Catholic tenets and would have a clearer path forward. And those who can’t support those fundamental Catholic holdings would be free to create and support their own church with their own clearer path.

Sort of like the Church of England, for all the shabby reason for its origin.

You’re Not Like Us

Posted on by
Reply

Bion Bartning, Co-founder of Eos Products and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism President, wrote in Sunday‘s Wall Street Journal of his children’s experience in what used to be (my characterization) a top-drawer private school, New York City’s Riverdale Country School.

The lower-school head had earlier written that “it is essential that parents/caregivers and educators acknowledge racial differences (as opposed to a ‘colorblind’ stance)” and offered reading recommendations such as Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility.” Families at Riverdale are encouraged to join school-sponsored “affinity” groups to bond with people from their ethnicity or skin color.

Then the Bartnings raised concerns to the school’s administration.

I have always felt a strong connection with Martin Luther King Jr’s dream of an America where people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I advocate genuine antiracism, rooted in dignity and humanity. But the ideology underlying the “racial literacy” guide distributed by the school wasn’t like that. Instead of emphasizing our common humanity, it lumps people into simplistic racial groupings. It teaches that each person’s identity and status is based largely on skin color, and leaves no place for people like me, who are of mixed race [he’s an immigrant who’s Mexican/Yaqui and Jewish] or don’t place race at the heart of their identity.

The school master’s response—when it got around to it? It was buried at the end of an email exchange about another matter entirely:

I wonder if this might be a good moment to think whether or not this is the best school for you and your family—being philosophically misaligned is never a very good experience for all concerned.

[B]eing philosophically misaligned is never a very good experience for all concerned. That just adds to it. Wrong think demands expulsion of the wrong thinkers.

This is a naked repudiation of our nation’s years of effort toward the equality of opportunity that flows from integration. This is a demand for a return to the racist segregation of the last century. The Left is resuming, in spades, to its racist history.