Category Archives: politics

A Partial Truism

Posted on by
Reply

Willian Galston, in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, has it mostly right in his discussion of the meaning of created equal as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence.

There has always been a gap between America’s promise and its performance. This was true in the revolutionary era, and it remains so today. This doesn’t make the equality proclaimed in the Declaration false or hypocritical. It means that there is a difference between moral truth and empirical reality. Politics at its best works to narrow the gap between them….

That’s completely true, as far as it goes. But it’s necessary for us to take the next, long, critical step. Politics at its best works is far more than just politicians doing politics in the nooks and crannies and in the hallways and on the floor of our government buildings. The critical factor here is us. Us American citizens, We the People, we who are the sovereign of our nation are—or should be—the driving force, the primary political actors, of our government and of our nation.

As a great American philosopher once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The Gestating Parent Governor

Posted on by
Reply

New York’s Progressive-Democratic governor, Nancy Hochul, styles herself as her State’s “mom governor.” Maybe not anymore.

Under the bill that passed in Albany last week, the word mother would be replaced by “gestating parent” and father would become “non-gestating parent.”
The bill says that proceedings to establish “parentage” (the new word for paternity) can be started by “the gestating parent or alleged non-gestating parent.” The argument made for this rewrite is that current law doesn’t reflect the diversity of family life in the 21st century, which includes same-sex couples and surrogacy arrangements.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party—the party of misogyny, now extending to ignoring what it is that makes a woman a woman—her biology. Now it’s up to Hochul: if she signs the legislation, she’ll be insulting millions of New York’s citizens while pandering to Party’s central and left wings. If she vetoes it, she’ll likely be harassed by Party for the rest of her term. If she neither signs nor vetoes, but merely allows it to become law without her signature, she’ll be showing herself a coward, afraid to take a stand.

“Dude-Bro”

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve got some dude-bro politicians on the hustings, that being the new In Thing for politicians and politician wannabes. Most of them have no particular substance, though, trading on their dude-i-ness for the most part. The news writer defined dude-bro as this (though I question the first criterion as truly bro-ish or dude-ish, let alone in combination):

  • accusation of sexual misconduct or marital infidelity
  • voluntary or involuntary association with any of the following:
    • Tucker Carlson, Hasan Piker, or Joe Rogan
    • use of a racial slur in a public appearance or online post
    • publicly brawling or picking a fight

Here some of those dude-bro politicians, though they’re mostly just wannabes:

  • Graham Platner, of PTSD-sourced (he claims) misogyny, abuse, and bigotry infamy
  • Spencer Pratt, a Palisades Fire phoenix who burned down anew in his class war and Never Bass campaign
  • Brandon Herrera, who makes his own guns and refers to a particular German gun as “the original ghetto blaster”

Their platforms? Read the above again. Those are their platforms. They have nothing (had nothing in Pratts case, he’s already lost his election) substantial, only those sort-of tough guy images.

Here’s another dude-bro; he has substance, though, if highly dangerous. He even satisfies the Tucker Carlson criterion, and he’s put into action his bigotry regarding all things Ukrainian. And his fight-picking….

At least he’s wearing pants instead of a towel.

Naïve Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors did it this time. In their editorial regarding FISA, they had this:

The law lets the intelligence community gather information from foreigners overseas and store it in a database. That database can then be searched for communications on matters of national security. If Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon start texting a New Jersey phone number, the New Jersey number is worth a follow-up.
All information in the database is legally gathered, and in 2024 Congress added safeguards against abuse. All queries for American information need prior bureaucratic approval and receive regular audits.

Safeguards. Queries for Americans’ information need bureaucratic approval? How is this any sort of safeguard? Any administration’s bureaucrats can easily approve searches for bureaucrat/administration disapproved Americans. Those bureaucrats are primarily senior FBI officials. To see how well this will work, it’s only necessary to recall AG Eric Holder’s promise to be then-President Barack Obama’s (D) wingman, rather than keeping DoJ independent. Recall further, those FBI senior officials. The FBI works for the AG. The Holders of the world will be back, and folks already are disdaining acting AG Todd Blanche of being no more than President Donald Trump’s (R) man.

Then there’s the FISA court, a by-design secret Star Chamber court where only administration-approved persons get to know the proceedings. That’s bad enough, but even when the Star Chamber was confronted with falsified search warrant requests, it chose not to take any serious corrective, much less punitive, action.

The Star Chamber needs to be abolished. Article III courts are fully capable of issuing sealed warrants that become public only on their being served. That also would apply enforceable safeguards on warrant issuance—they would be issued only by those Article III courts; there would be no recourse to a secret court.

They Knew…

Posted on by
Reply

…or they did not. Regarding the massive welfare fraud going on in Minnesota, a (Republican-led) House Oversight and Accountability Committee report says that Minnesota’s Progressive-Democratic Party governor, Tim Walz, and the State’s Progressive-Democratic Party Attorney General, Keith Ellison, knew all about it from early on and made the conscious decision to do nothing about it, instead choosing to punish those officials rude enough to object to the fraud.

There are two possibilities here. One is for Walz and Ellison to deny all knowledge, either directly or via weasel-word deflections. In this case, the two would be lying through their teeth.

The other possibility is that they wouldn’t be lying in denials, and they really didn’t know about all that fraud occurring under that not so watchful eyes. In this case, they would be confessing their incompetence and unfitness for senior (or any other) government position.

With either possibility and with the Progressive-Democratic Party’s continued support for them or for either of them, Party will be demonstrating its general unfitness for any leading role in our government.