Category Archives: politics

Judgment and Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D, NY) had some interesting things to say 21 years ago regarding an impeachment proceeding [emphasis added].

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other.
…
We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.

One difference between then and now, though, is that today Nadler and his fellow Progressive-Democrats don’t think that us ordinary Americans have any considered judgment—after all, we disagree with him and his.  We must be ill-informed, or stupid. We have, since 1998, sunk to bitter religion- and gun-clinging and to the sorry state of irredeemability and deplorability.

And, because so many millions of us support the wrong politician’s policies, we’re racist to our core.

As such, we’re simply to be ignored by our Betters.

An Appeal

Posted on by
Reply

Bayer is appealing a District court judgment against it and its Roundup product which has glyphosate as an important ingredient. The judgment is for $25 million, and Bayer thinks it’s a wrong judgment.

The German company’s main argument is that US federal agencies have determined its product is safe and not a carcinogen.

Bayer noted that the

verdict defies both expert regulatory judgment and sound science.

And

Because the EPA has consistently approved the sale of glyphosate without a cancer warning and has stated that including such a warning on the label would render the product misbranded, any state-imposed cancer warning is expressly preempted

Wow. Truth as defense.  What a concept.

Bold Measures

Posted on by
Reply

UN’s Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, wants the world to rise to the task of protecting refugees across the globe.

At this time of turbulence, the international community must do far more to shoulder this responsibility together. It is a moment to build a more equitable response to refugee crises through a sharing of responsibility.

Absolutely, the international community must, and the time is now.

However.

Taking in refugees ad lib is a fine feel-good measure, but it’s nothing more than virtue-signaling.  All this does is “help” those fortunate enough to escape, while the receiving nations cynically turn their backs on, and abandon, those who cannot escape and remain trapped in what those receiving nations agree—by their acceptance of refugees—are terrible conditions in the originating countries.

No.

If the international community truly wants to help refugees, the constituent nations will attack the problem at the source. They’ll enter refugee-creating nations and help them (or force them) to correct the ills that create such squalid, criminal, and otherwise dangerous conditions that citizens feel constrained to risk their lives trekking across vast deserts with inadequate supplies and security and floating across wide seas in inadequate boats with inadequate supplies to another, any other, nation. They’ll move to eliminate, or vastly mitigate, the need for people to become refugees.

Enter another nation to force changes—what about those nations’ sovereignty? That’s a valid consideration, but we must weigh that against the deprecation of sovereignty caused by accepting—encouraging—the brain drain and the economic drain, such as it is, that is created by encouraging the flight of what’s left of the best of those nations from those nations.

We also must balance those refugee-creating nations’ sovereignty against the sovereignty and human rights of the people themselves left in that squalor and those criminal and otherwise dangerous conditions.

Impeachments

Posted on by
Reply

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) having successfully led her caucus into a strictly partisan (tribal, in Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s (D, HI) words), impeachment, she now has said she’ll withhold her Articles of Impeachment until she gets her way on how the Senate will conduct its trial (and because she understands her caucus has no case to present for trial).

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), working in concert with his BFF in the House, is demanding that the Senate call additional witnesses, confessing thereby that the House Progressive-Democrat caucus has not produced sufficient evidence to make its case.

Both are wrong, though.  This is not an Article III or State criminal trial proceeding; it’s a Federal Legislative Branch Impeachment proceeding.  The House investigates and develops the relevant facts.  The Senate conducts a trial based on those facts.

We are not Medieval England where the judges conduct their own investigation.

Even Pelosi and Schumer should understand that.

Another Welfare Cliff Example

Posted on by
Reply

A small business owner having direct experience with employees, hiring, and welfare schema, wrote in his Letter in a recent Wall Street Journal:

We are seeing a segment of the workforce, usually single mothers, who want to work but can’t work too many hours because they would lose their federal, state and local subsidies.

This is by the design of the Progressive-Democrats: their goal is to keep these unfortunates trapped in their welfare cage, dependent on Progressive-Democrat politicians’ handouts because…votes.

The letter-writer went on:

Government assistance programs should be designed to allow people to make progress, earning more and building up savings so they can eventually be financially independent. Instead, many of these capable people are locked into a cycle of dependence.

Of course assistance programs should be structured that way rather than locking capable people…into a cycle of dependence. However, letting those people out of the cage would be a reduction of Progressive-Democrat political power.