Category Archives: politics

He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to seal off leaks, especially those that center on potentially treasonous leaks to the press.

A leaked report claimed that the U.S. strike only set back Iran’s program by a few months. U.S. officials have said the nuclear sites were destroyed and it would take years for Iran to rebuild them.
…
Trump suggested compelling the journalists who publicly reported on the leaked intelligence to reveal their source for national security reasons.

Certainly such leakers should be identified, haled into criminal court, and if convicted, locked up for a very long time. This kind of leaker isn’t just violating his oath of office, or the terms of his employment, he’s committing the felonious act of sending classified material—national security-related material—to the press, which our enemies avidly read. Furthermore, the only way this sort of leaker can have passed the classified material along to the press is by having stolen the material first, and the theft itself should be separately punished with a jail term.

There’s more to this than just that, though.

In all other walks of life, receiving stolen goods is itself a crime, magnified by efforts to profit from the receipt. Unlike the legal and medical professions, there is no intrinsic right to confidentiality between news writers—journalists—and their sources. The Frankenstein-esque creation of a “need to protect sources” is right next door to violating the 14th Amendment’s requirement for equal treatment under law.

Journalism would suffer mighty and irreversible damage were journalists required to reveal the source(s) who transmitted to them stolen materials or communicated to them information the sources were revealing in violation of the obligations of their position? This is cynically offered nonsense. In times past, journalists were required by their editors to have at least two on-the-record sources corroborating the anonymously sourced information those journalists published. That requirement has since been abandoned by the journalist guild.

What concrete, publicly accessible, and publicly measurable standard of journalistic integrity do today’s news writers and their editors use?  They refuse to say, which is them saying loudly and clearly that they have no standard.

It’s long past time to bring journalism, which refuses to regulate itself, back within the bounds of a law that the rest of us must obey.

Mamdani Is Not a Communist

Posted on by
Reply

He says so, and that settles it, doesn’t it? Yet the Progressive-Democratic Party’s candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has said, much more forcefully, otherwise, and not so long ago, given his youth (he’s only 33).

  • …we need a socialist New York to give these workers their power back….
  • [I]f we want to change the nature of politics in New York State wholesale, it will require bringing in a lot more DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] members
  • [T]here are other issues which we firmly believe…[including] the end goal of seizing the means of production
  • if we want everyone to be full participants in the economy, we need worker ownership of the means of production

And so on.

Mamdani’s denial of his communist status is typical Leftist and Progressive-Democratic Party reliance on their Newspeak dictionary and their parallel rejection of our American English dictionaries.

Ignorance is strength.

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Indeed. Our ignorance. Know Betters’ strength. Our minds torn asunder. Know Betters’ choosing.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has made Party’s attitude toward us average Americans and toward our nation at large utterly explicit.

I don’t think that we should have billionaires, frankly[.]

There it is. None of us should be allowed to reach our full potential, as even that icon of the modern Progressive movement, Theodore Roosevelt, touted:

Our country, this great Republic, means nothing unless it means…in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.

The best that there is in him only counts if that “him” is a government-approved person.

Then there’s the naked racism of Party, shorn of its emperor clothing:

Mamdani doubled down on his plan to jack up property taxes on “richer and whiter neighborhoods” on Sunday….

Because Whitey is doing better than this Progressive-Democrat in socialist guise personally approves. Do nothing to help folks—of any skin color—on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder do better, do nothing to increase their economic mobility. Just punish the successful—not only because he’s rich (see above)—but especially because this Progressive-Democrat “socialist’ doesn’t like his skin color.

This is what awaits New York City next year unless city voters choose better. This is what awaits our nation, if we as a people don’t choose wisely in ’26 and again in ’28. and in the later cycles.

Worth a Shot

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to sign an Executive Order lifting in large part sanctions currently extant on Syria. The sanctions were levied when Bashar al-Assad still reigned; he has since been tossed by an ex-Daesh terrorist middle manager and his cohort that had been operating in Syria after that middle manager had estranged himself from Daesh.

It may be that that ex-middle manager and now Syrian strong-man Ahmed al-Sharaa has, in fact, renounced his terrorist ways of his past and truly wants a more stable political and economic environment for the Syrian peoples [sic]. That remains to be seen.

This move may blow up in our face, just as welcoming the People’s Republic of China into the WTO and granting it US Most Favored Nation status ultimately blew up in our face. Or it might be a sound move, easing friction throughout the Middle East, supporting opportunities for prosperity for the several peoples resident in Syria, and reducing Israel’s security risks.

It’s worth a shot, although its value would be increased were it far more easily reversed should the move fail than has been reversing our coddling of the enemy nation, the PRC. Nominally, the Executive Order may well be more easily reversed than those moves regarding the PRC.

An Easier Solution

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat Governor of Delaware, Matt Meyer, and his State Health Care Commissioner, Neil Hockstein, objected, in their Wednesday letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, to the Senate’s intention to cut Medicaid funding for illegal aliens. Their objection centered on the relative cost of the State funding, through Medicaid, medical care for illegal aliens compared with illegal alien care in hospital emergency rooms, with the hospital footing the entire bill.

Consider that outpatient dialysis costs about $90,000 a year, while emergency inpatient dialysis can exceed $300,000 annually. That extra cost falls on hospitals, state budgets and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

The answer to that is not to foist the medical costs of illegal aliens, who have no business being here in the first place, off onto the good citizens of the State, or by Federal transfers onto the good citizens of our nation at large. The better solution is to go ahead and treat the illegal alien the one time in the hospital’s Emergency Room, and then shortly after stabilization, discharge, and departure from the hospital, round up the functionally self-identified illegal alien and deport him so he no longer is a drain on our medical services or costs.

Hard hearted? It might seem so, but it pales in comparison to the hard heartedness of an American citizen being denied an Emergency Room hospital bed because those beds are occupied by illegal aliens. It pales in comparison to the hard heartedness of spending the tax dollars us average Americans send to the Federal government on services for illegal aliens when those dollars are better spent on making health care—especially including expensive treatments like dialysis and especially especially including preventive health care programs for Americans on the bottom rungs of our economy—more broadly available and cost effective for us citizens.