Not Contentment or Fulfillment…

Posted on by
Reply

…but security in their property ownership, along with their life and liberty, from which contentment and fulfillment may well result. A letter-writer in Monday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal has made that confusion. He wrote, in response to William Galston’s What “Created Equal” Means in America,

One of the inalienable rights with which all Americans are endowed equally by their creator is “the pursuit of happiness.” The operative word is “pursuit.” No person has a right to happiness, but all have the right to seek contentment and fulfillment by striving to live decent and dignified lives.

That’s not the happiness the inalienable right to pursue which that’s acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, though. John Adams had made that clear beforehand in his Preamble to the Massachusetts constitution:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The natural, essential, and unalienable rights of life and liberty and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property creates the capacity for contentment and fulfillment. The latter does not exist without the formers’ prior existence.

There’s a Reason for That

Posted on by
1

As The Wall Street Journal‘s astute editors noticed, less than a dozen—10, by their count of the fingers of two hands and no toes of either foot—members of the Progressive-Democratic Party caucus in the House of Representatives are willing to oppose the Democratic Socialists of America agenda. My count via the thumbs of just one of my hands (or maybe the social finger of that hand), only one Progressive-Democratic Party Senator is willing to oppose the DSA agenda.

It’s an agenda of government control of our larger businesses (but it won’t stop there), government control of private property, government given (and so able to be taken away) national medicine, ever rising taxes because…”necessity,” and political rather than economic globalization through entirely open borders and an end to deportation of illegal aliens (there being no such thing in the DSA ideology).

Less than a dozen across our Congress. Eleven, out of an aggregate of 255 Progressive-Democrat Congressmen. Those 244 Progressive-Democrat Congressmen demonstrate pretty conclusively that the Progressive-Democratic Party is an overtly socialist party, the direction in which it began moving with the election of Barack Obama as President just 18 years ago, with the pace sharply accelerating after the election of the “squad” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley just eight years ago.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is rapidly and enthusiastically coming out of the closet, assimilating the DSA (or being swallowed by DSA), and openly asserting that DSA political and economic positions are its own. Those policies are what Party will attempt to inflict on our nation if it gains majorities in the House and Senate after this fall’s elections.

An Ability to Hold Two Opposing Thoughts Simultaneously

Posted on by
Reply

The ability to do that while continuing to function effectively is one aspect of intelligence. Two Supreme Court decisions, just released, illustrate that.

It took 91 years, but the Supreme Court on Monday abandoned the fiction of independent agencies (Trump v Slaughter). Yet in a somewhat paradoxical decision (Trump v Cook), the Court enshrined the Federal Reserve’s independence despite its exercise of vast executive powers.

It’s not all that paradoxical, just seemingly contradictory, for the Court to have reached those two decisions. In the one, the Court acknowledged what should have been an obvious truth: agencies within the Executive Branch are creatures of and exclusively respondent to the head of the Executive Branch, the President. From that, it should be—and should have been all along—obvious that employees of those branches, including politically appointed employees, serve at the pleasure of the Executive Branch head, and so they are fireable by that head. Congress’ desire to make the agencies and agency employees independent of their boss is plainly unconstitutional.

With one exception. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States also is an Executive Branch agency, yet the Court, for good or ill, carved out an exception to the who works for whom rule and said “not yet” regarding President Donald Trump (R) firing a Fed governor without first providing notice and opportunity to respond. This ruling is, for good or ill, a temporary move intended to preserve the central bank’s political independence and leave it to deal with monetary matters without political distraction. (It’s temporary because, contrary to what overwrought pressmen, disagreeing politicians, and Court dissents say, the Supreme Court did not rule that Trump could not fire the governor. It only said not yet; the underlying case must make its way through the courts before a final ruling can be made.)

And the Court continues to function effectively.

How Expensive is Obamacare?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s hugely expensive, but Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have been covering that up since Obamacare’s inception, when they pulled off in a purely party-line enactment, aided at the time by Party’s filibuster-proof Senate majority and then-Progressive-Democrat President Barack Obama’s naked purchase of a Congressman’s vote in House.

The Department of Health and Human Services released figures Friday that offered the first definitive view of enrollment after the withdrawal of enhanced government support for ACA plans, which ended at the start of this year. The shift boosted many ACA policyholders’ premium bills, in some cases by 100% or more.

Note: the premiums themselves didn’t increase by a penny. All that happened was that policy holders found themselves having to pay those premiums themselves, instead of getting taxpayer handouts in the form of those subsidies.

That’s how expensive Obamacare is and always has been. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” A classic Obama lie. He even lied about how wonderful his Obamacare was, and Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have been lying about that ever since.

You can’t even keep your Obamacare plan without other Americans paying for it with you.

Getting What You Asked For

Posted on by
Reply

[T]he Democratic Socialists of America have admitted implementing a long-term strategy to exploit the Democratic Party’s ballot access, alarming establishment figures….

Establishment Progressive-Democrats, who are no longer mainstream Party members, but have been pushed to Party’s fringe right, are upset at these DSA usurpers. Jaime Harrison, Democratic National Committee Chairman from 2021 to 2025:

I say this with no ill will or animosity: if you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination.
Don’t use our resources. Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Don’t ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign. Focus on building the party you actually support.

Umm, they are focused on that. And they’re using the broad access you and yours have been pushing for so many years already: opposition to SAVE America Act, which demands only citizens be allowed to vote and demands presentation of proof of citizenship when registering; moving to let non-citizens vote in local elections; and especially pushing jungle primaries, where party affiliation doesn’t matter, and if no single candidate gets an outright majority, the top two regardless of party go to a runoff.

Or did that broad access only apply when you could use it to upend Republican primaries and to stack national elections in your favor?

New York City DSA Co-Chair Gustavo Gordillo:

We’re on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries, and when they’re in the legislature, they’re part of the Democratic Party caucus, but we don’t agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus.

And

We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals […] We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.

Compare that with then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama saying just before his first election to President that Party was just days away from fundamentally changing America and to then-Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden in his first SOTU speech saying that he wanted to fundamentally change our economy.

Or did that fundamental change only apply if the now fringe right wing of Party could change our nation, and not apply to fundamental change of Party?