Tag Archives: culture

The Progressive-Democratic Party and Democracy

Posted on by
4

Party discipline is the only thing and everything for the Progressive-Democratic Party, and they’re taking steps to discipline those who misbehave.  And by misbehave, I mean supporting a policy on merit rather than on Party diktat.

After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party’s progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were “putting themselves on a list.”

The amended bill expanded background checks for firearm purchasers.  The offending amendment, aside from having been a Republican offer?  It would have required the checkers to advise ICE of the attempted purchase if the buyer were an illegal immigrant.

That’s just the enforcer threatening.  Party leadership in the sole personage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) in that same closed-door meeting, reportedly said

We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.

Vote the Party’s line; there is no alternative.

Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen are not beholden to their constituents back home in their separate districts.  On the contrary, they’re beholden to Party.

This is how we can expect to be ruled (not governed) by a Progressive-Democratic government.  Constituents won’t matter.  Democracy won’t matter.  Only Party will matter.

[Sh]e’s got ’em on the list—[s]he’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed—they’ll none of ’em be missed.*

 

*Bonus points to those who can provide the citation.

Never Worked…Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

In Great Britain, unemployment is the lowest it’s been in over four decades, and employment is commensurately high.  But that’s a misleading datum.

[A]n astonishing 3.6 million adults have never been paid for work, official figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

That’s 10% of the (chronologically) adult population in Great Britain.  Of the “young adult” demographic—those in the 16-24 age range—a truly astonishing 71% have never worked for pay.  Not a single hour.

The British economy isn’t in the doldrums over Brexit or no-deal Brexit.  Not at all.

Running Left in the Primaries

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a short list of the far-left policies that memb5ers of the Progressive-Democratic Party are touting:

  • reparations
  • Medicare for all
  • legalize marijuana
  • Green New Deal
  • abolish ICE
  • wealth taxes
  • 70% income taxes
  • tear down existing border walls
  • peri-birth abortion

Here is a short list of the Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates for the 2020 election cycle who have actively, enthusiastically endorsed one or more of these policies:

  • Corey Booker
  • Kamala Harris
  • Amy Klobuchar
  • Julián Castro
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Tulsi Gabbard
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

These candidates will have to prove, in competition with each other, to primary voters that they really mean their endorsement(s) in order to get those votes for Party nomination.  That’ll play well—it’s even a necessary play—in the Progressive-Democratic States on the two coasts and Illinois.

But in order to win in the rest of the country, including swing States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, the Party nominee is going to have to ignore those policies—voters in the rest of the country, including those swing States, not only are more interested in the economy and in their own safety and security, they actively oppose those far-left policies.

Here’s the question that flows from all of that: how can a candidate who supports those policies in the primary season and who then turns his back on them in the immediately following Presidential election season be trusted?  What’s the value of the word of a candidate who says one thing when its convenient on one day and who says the opposite the next day when that opposite is convenient?

Work…Works

Posted on by
2

Sam Adolphsen, Foundation for Government Accountability’s Vice President of Executive Affairs, writing for Fox Business, commented on that in a piece about Medicaid’s work requirement in Arkansas—about which Progressive-Democrats in Congress are in an uproar.

Those Progressive-Democrats have complained that work requirements

“threaten[]” Americans…work [is] a “restrictive condition.”

These politicians of the Left ignore two things. One is the trivial one: no one is forcing anyone to work; the only “restriction” is that, in order to get any of Arkansas’ OPM, recipients must go to work in Arkansas or make a good faith effort to do so.

The other thing is the critical item in the affair.

Since the requirement was implemented, thousands of adults have left the welfare program.
…
…when people go back to work after work requirements are implemented, their incomes double or triple in just a year or two.

And this fallout from that second thing:

Getting these able-bodied adults back to work also frees up resources for the truly needy—the very people that the Medicaid program was designed to help.

It also increases Arkansas’ tax collections that go to the State’s Medicaid program.

Here’s where Adolphsen missed the mark, though.  He wrote

Why are Democrats so against work?
…
It’s an indication of how out of touch these progressive leaders are with everyday Americans.

No, Progressive-Democrats are the smartest kids on the block—just ask them.  They know what they’re doing with their objections to imposing a measure of personal responsibility on welfare recipients, personal responsibility that brings with it personal prosperity.

Those folks getting work and raising their standard of living aren’t actual human beings; they’re just votes spilling out of the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare box.

It Isn’t Pro-Choice, Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s pro-infanticide.  That’s the position of the Progressive-Democratic Party after Party Senators voted—unanimously—to kill a bill that would have outlawed immediately post-birth infanticide.

Senator Ben Sasse’s (R, NE) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would have required doctors to work to save a baby’s life if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born alive despite the attempt.  All Progressive-Democrat Senators, every single one of them, voted to kill the bill and thereby to let abortion doctors finish killing the baby.

As Sasse put the situation after those Progressive-Democrat Senators had had their way,

I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re OK with infanticide[.]

Indeed.

On the other hand,

Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary.

How cynical. Statistica reports that

There were a total of 17,284 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the US in 2017.

Out of a population of some 325 million, that works out to about 0.005%.  That’s pretty rare, too.  Maybe we don’t need those other anti-murder laws, either.

Never mind that the bill would have been an easy way to reduce the post-failed abortion infanticide rate even further.  It still would have been too much like moral work.

Remember this in the fall of 2020.