Category Archives: politics

“Parliamentary Heresy”

Posted on by
Reply

In his Tuesday FoxNews article on two Progressive-Democrats voting in favor of a Republican procedure to advance a bill against the express wishes of Party leadership, Chad Pergram had this comment:

The duo [Congressmen Jared Golden (D, M) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA)] committed something close to a parliamentary heresy, handing the GOP the necessary votes on a procedural matter to unlock the floor for the majority.
Republicans lacked the votes to do it on their own—had Golden and Gluesenkamp not intervened.

Couple things on this. One is that our Congress is not a Parliament where party discipline is a requirement and MPs voting against their leadership is both rare and serious enough to lead directly to the fall of the government. No member of the American Congress is bound to vote the way any party leadership demands. Indeed, Congressmen voting against their party’s leadership has occurred ever since there were political parties in the US—what Washington referred to as factions. Such contrary votes only recently include two Progressive-Democrat Senators voting against a Party budget bill and moving against an effort to get rid of the filibuster.

That these two Progressive-Democrats also didn’t advise Party leadership in advance of their intention was certainly rude, but that’s hardly heresy, Parliamentary or otherwise. I suggest on this, that they gave no heads up because their Party boss, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY), because he is so deeply in the pocket of Party’s Left and its DSA members that he couldn’t be expected to listen to their reasons.

The other thing is that second paragraph in the cite. Republicans lacked the vote because some Republican Congressmen were voting against Republican party leadership by voting against that same procedural matter. This, though, seems no parliamentary heresy in Pergram’s eyes, he made no mention of the dastardly nature of those contrary votes.

Go figure.

Revisionist History and Political CYA

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Congress from Michigan’s 7th Congressional District William Lawrence has been busily deleting politically inconvenient social media posts he’s made in the past. The smaller problem is that his deletions are nothing other than a coward’s attempt to revise his history. It’s the smaller problem because such revisionism is widely spread and all too common, even though that in no way legitimizes the misbehavior.

The larger problem here concerns those deletions and his rationalization of them. The deletions include posts pushing for such things as

police and prison abolition, called for nationalizing fossil-fuel companies to end their production, attacked moderate Democrats, and argued for a “fundamental overhaul” of the Constitution.
…
“f**k” the nuclear-family home and calling it an “isolating, individualistic, violent way of organizing society,” envisioning “a world of free and open migration,” and calling to “Abolish the Senate.”

That’s about as un-American as it gets. His rationalization, though….

Lawrence said that he currently does not support defunding the police or open borders despite what his earlier posts suggested.
“Like many millennials, I’ve done a lot of thinking out loud on the internet[.]”

That’s an illustration of Lawrence’s dishonesty. He spoke from his heart in those since-deleted posts. His deletions and his rationalizations are nothing more than him covering his political behind. What concrete actions has he taken, after all, to illustrate, if not demonstrate, his alleged evolution of his thinking?

At The Core of Progressive-Democratic Party Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

It was stated in so many words by socialist (though he risibly denies it) and Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Michigan, Abdul el-Sayed:

…if we took seriously the idea that all of our kids were all of our kids. If we started with that idea that every child is our child….

Too many people on the right are writing this off as just so much Kamala Harris-esque word salad, and that’s dangerously failing to hear what he’s saying, what Party and its Democratic Socialist of America members have in mind for our republic.

El-Sayed is clear here. Children don’t belong to the parents; they aren’t the responsibility of the parents. Children are the responsibility of the community, of the state. Children are the state’s property.

Closet Socialist

Posted on by
Reply

And sub rosa racist, in addition to his religious bigotry. That’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Texas, James Talarico. As recently as 2020, Talarico made his racism and socialist bent crystalline. He

described capitalism as an “oppressive system” that’s associated with white supremacy and climate change.

Capitalism is oppressive, and the primary alternative to that is the Progressive-Democratic Party—and Talarico—and Party’s recent enthusiastic embrace of the socialism of the Democratic Socialists of America. That overt embrace post-dates Talarico’s remarks, but he’s done nothing since to indicate he disagrees with his Party on that.

And: tying capitalism, which gets its strength and its legitimacy from the simple fact that it’s the only economic system that, on the one hand encourages voluntary participation in exchanges, and on the other hand, makes those participants—all of them—better off after the exchange than they were before the exchange, to the blatantly unequal—falsely so, immorally so—relationship among a supposedly oppressor race and supposedly intrinsically inferior races is nothing other than the manufacture of a race beef where none exists. And that is disgustingly racist.

Progressive-Democrats as Taxmen

Posted on by
Reply

There is a way for the Evil Rich to provide for their heirs in a remarkably tax favored, if not tax-free, way—private-placement life insurance, a customizable insurance contract that allows unlimited investments to grow tax-free. The contents would go to the beneficiary(s) on the account creator’s death as a death benefit, and so be free of income taxes at that point, also. These accounts were designed that way explicitly to encourage folks to provide for their dependents. The tradeoff is that the account must be under the control of an independent account trustee of some sort; the account creator cannot have even influence over how his money is invested within that contract. The mechanics of how this works isn’t relevant to this post. The outcome, though, is.

In one relatively extreme case, one Rich Person’s account, set up in this way,

could [could, mind you; the account’s manager may make bad or unlucky investment decisions] one day be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and he won’t have paid a dime in ordinary-income or capital-gains taxes on their growth. He can take withdrawals or loans against the policy’s cash value but generally doesn’t expect to tap the proceeds. When he dies those will go to beneficiaries income-tax-free in the form of a death benefit.

Enter Progressive-Democrats with their hatred of the wealthy and their jealousy of the wealthy’s success and their demand to confiscate other people’s money, especially that of the so hated rich.

Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR) has introduced legislation that would separate these insurance policies from traditional life insurance, making those earnings and losses taxable to the policyholder as they are earned each year.
“We cannot have a bunch of ultrarich tax dodgers abusing its special tax treatment to set up tax-free hedge funds and shelter mountains of cash[.]”

It’s abuse to follow tax law? And: why can’t we have successful people take advantage of the government’s tax law to take care of their families? Never mind that. The Evil Rich Man cannot be allowed to pass his good luck on to his dependents. He owes Government and must pay the Progressive-Democrat government’s vig.