The Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential Candidate

The headline of a Wall Street Journal editorial tells the tale:

Biden Wins, but Sanders Persuades

The editors continued:

Joe Biden spent decades opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion, until last summer when he revised his values to fit the times.

Medicare for All registers 55% support to 33% oppose in Florida; 61% to 32% in Illinois; and 58% to 34% in Arizona. … Only 37% want a restoration of what Mr. Biden sometimes calls “our administration.”

The editors concluded with this:

It’s Joe Biden’s moment, but his agenda…show[s] how fast the party is moving in Bernie Sanders’s direction.

Stated differently, it’ll be Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) running for President on the Progressive-Democratic Party ticket; he’ll just be using Joe Biden’s mouth to say the words.

“Novel Ways to Apply Homicide Liability”

That’s what an ex-federal prosecutor in DC and current “legal” analyst for a broadcast network’s cable outlet says he was always on the lookout for in those unfortunate days of his prosecutor-ness.

Rule by law, instead of rule of law—this ex-federal prosecutor is an example of that.

Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime—this ex-federal prosecutor is the modern example of Lavrentiy Beria.

We have ‘way too many Federal criminal laws, laws, too, that usurp the individual States’ legitimate police powers—this ex-federal prosecutor demonstrates the failure of that and illustrates the need to “quinquagintate” those Federal criminal laws and then target pare from there..

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Especially if it can be used for personal political gain.  That’s Congressman Hakeem Jeffries’ (D, NY) empirically demonstrated position.  It seems the Senate—Republican led, mind you—has had the effrontery to begin work on an economic stimulus package subsequent to the one the Progressive-Democrat-led House spent so much time botching and patching before it finally sent that package to the Senate for passage. And they didn’t say Mother May I to the House, first.

That miserable Republican-led Senate has had the initiative and the focus and the desire to support ordinary citizens and our small businesses during this Wuhan virus situation, and that embarrasses (to be generous) some House Progressive-Democrats.  Jeffries:

Just so we’re clear. The Constitution gives the House sole power to initiate spending on behalf of the American people. Not the Senate. And certainly not this President. House Dems will prioritize displaced workers, families & small businesses #Stimulus.

And certainly not this President.  It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Never mind that the President explicitly proposes spending initiatives—it’s in his annual budget proposal.

Never mind that our Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 opens with this clause:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….

Revenue. Not spending, on which origin our Constitution is utterly silent.

The Right Reverend Jeffries knows this full well.

A Misstatement of the Case

Gerald Seib opened his Monday Wall Street Journal piece with this bit:

…Americans have learned they can’t really count on Washington to deal with this crisis for them. Local leaders, businesses, churches, sports leagues—all have taken up the task, and done so more effectively than the political leadership in Washington.

That’s as it should be. Responsibility is individual, personal; we cannot wish any of that off onto others, much less government. All government can do—and it should do this much—is help us satisfy our own obligations.

That help, also, needs to come from the bottom up, with the Federal government’s help coming last. That top tier of our American government hierarchy has national responsibilities, and even with the present COVID-19 situation, conditions on the ground vary widely from locale to locale, State to State. Responses need to be similarly local or unique to each State.

The Federal government can spur development of medical treatments—the public-private partnerships with medical enterprises, for instance—and short-term (I’ll repeat that: short-term, with sunset clauses built in to guarantee shortness) economic measures to mitigate the stresses on our businesses, small and large. It can deploy military mobile hospitals and shelters to particular hot spots, and it can take other such temporary nation-wide steps to mitigate the situation.

Necessary mitigation, even control, of the situation, though, must begin with us as individuals. That mitigation begins with stopping our panic-buying and hoarding of necessary supplies. They continue with looking out for our most vulnerable neighbors: the elderly, the less or non-mobile, the poor among us.  They go further: avoiding large gatherings for the duration (which is not the same as not going out at all, not giving our custom to the mom and pop businesses in our neighborhoods and city regions), seeing to the welfare of neighbors with early grade school-aged children whose schools have been closed for the duration, checking on the older kids.

We need, also, to consider a mantra from a war we fought four generations ago: Is this trip really necessary? (And yes, it is, within the context of continuing to do at least occasional business with those mom and pops.)

In the end, we must revive and live by the words a man spoke some 60 years ago (which I’ll rephrase here): Ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourself and your neighbor.

An Illustration

A businessman in the People’s Republic of China, Ren Zhiqiang—who also is a member of the Communist Party of China—has been for some time an outspoken critic of PRC President Xi Jinping’s handling of the nation’s COVID-19 epidemic, a mishandling that allowed an early infection to blow out of control within the PRC and to become a global pandemic.

Outspoken critic: among other things, Ren wrote a widely disseminated essay that took issue with a 23 Feb speech by Xi. He wrote of a

“crisis of governance” within China’s Communist Party and blamed restrictions on freedom of speech and the press for slowing down the response to combat the novel coronavirus, thereby worsening the outbreak.

And

…after analyzing the President’s [Xi’s] speech he “saw not an emperor standing there exhibiting his ‘new clothes,’ but a clown stripped naked who insisted on continuing being emperor[.]”

Then Ren posted on Weibo

When does the people’s government turn into the party’s government? … Don’t waste taxpayers’ money on things that do not provide them with services.

Then his post was deleted, his Weibo account blocked. Ren also has been put on “probation” from the CPC.

And now he’s gone missing, making his point beautifully.