Election Interference

Posted on by
Reply

The No Labels group has folded its tents and quit the political race for this year, for a few reasons I’ve written about before. It appears, though, that there’s more to this fiasco than understood heretofore [ellipses in the original, emphasis added].

Democratic strategist Karen Finney argued No Labels had presented a “dangerous” threat to Biden’s re-election chances that Democrats, including her, actively worked to undermine.
They were very dangerous because they had over $70 million to get on the ballot,” Finney recalled.
“And what they were promising…They were promising that they could win states like Texas. And again, it was totally illogical, but it was a very real threat that myself and others worked very hard to not just undermine, but to make sure that the people they were talking to understood, that their rhetoric just did not work, and their math did not work[.”]

This is a member of the Progressive-Democratic Party openly bragging about having successively interfered with our upcoming election through sabotage of a third party’s effort to field a competing slate of candidates.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party that’s on the ballot in this fall’s national, State, and local elections.

Deals with Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is applying ever increasing pressure on Israel to reach an agreement with the terrorist Hamas regarding cease fires and hostages. This extends to his telecon with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu late last week, using the IDF’s screwup (an amazingly rare occurrence, illustrating the IDF’s amazing skill at minimizing civilian casualties, a skill that is amazingly ignored by the press and by Biden and his SecState) as his latest excuse for pressuring Israel.

President Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to work out the issue during a phone call Thursday. He also called for an immediate cease-fire and for Netanyahu to empower his negotiators to reach a deal, according to US officials.

Which raises a couple of questions in my peabrain. What is Biden’s evidence that Netanyahu hasn’t already—hasn’t all along—empowered his negotiators to reach a deal?

The larger question, though, is when has Biden called Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas MFWIC, or Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’ Gaza Strip MFWIC? Has he even tried? Neither of them will take his calls?

The answers to that larger question, coupled with Biden’s blatantly one-sided pressure on Israel to reach a deal that he knows Hamas doesn’t need or want, are very strong clues to whose side Biden is on and to the depth of Biden’s antisemitism.

Market Imperatives

Posted on by
Reply

Ford has said that it will delay the rollout of its wholly battery-powered three-row electric vehicles, its new model SUVs, from 2025 to 2027. That’s not because of development or production problems, either.

The additional time will allow for the consumer market for three-row EVs to further develop and enable Ford to take advantage of emerging battery technology, with the goal to provide customers increased durability and better value.

“Allowing the consumer market to develop further”—in other words, consumers don’t want these battery SUVs, and Ford isn’t intent on producing and not selling them, until customers actually want them. Which they don’t, never minding Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s æther-borne claim to the contrary.

Those silly consumers—they just don’t know what’s good for them.

Coerced Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

Kansas’ House Bill 2436, as amended by the Senate (the Supplemental Note was incorporated), was then passed by the House 82-37 and by the Senate 27-11. With unusual clarity for politicians, the definitions of Coercion and of Financial harm are defined in the bill with crystalline clarity.

The bill would make it a felony to coerce a pregnant woman into having an abortion through physical or financial threats….

Now it’s before Kansas’ Progressive-Democrat Governor Laura Kelly, who is dithering over whether to sign it.

How is there even a question about this? Leave aside the baby’s right to its life, whatever happened—in Kelly’s mind—to a woman’s control over her own body?

Yet Another Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

…by the Left in its favoring of and dependency on Government. This one concerns what passes for education in our public schools and is written openly by a Letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section.

The letter writer opines that since everything else is free in those schools, so should lunches be free.

We have long provided free books and transportation for schoolchildren, regardless of their parents’ income.

No, we never have. Those books and transportation means were, and are, paid for with our tax money.

We are responsible for students’ welfare from the time the free bus picks them up in the morning until the free bus takes them home at the end of the day.

Again, no we are not. “We” are responsible for students’ education from the time of their arrival at school to the end of the (too short IMNSHO) school day. Parents—the true “we”—are responsible for the students’ welfare all of the 24 hours in a day.

It makes sense that we should also be responsible for students’ nutrition while they are under our care at school.

This makes no sense at all, especially since they are not at all under “our” care at school. That “our” part is exacerbated by the sophistry that “our” care actually is educating our children.