Tag Archives: ethics

“What’s the Goal Here?”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question New York Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D, 55th District) is asking on the matter of impeaching and bringing to State Senate trial soon-to-be ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo (D). He’s already resigned, she says. If the goal here was to move this particular governor out of office…, she says.

Other State Democrats are pressing for impeachment and conviction even after Cuomo’s resignation has taken effect.

Latrice misunderstands the situation, and those pushing for impeachment and conviction anyway, are clearer on the matter.

Cuomo resigned of the sex abuse allegations that have come to the fore, and that’s all he’s resigning over.

What about his other misbehaviors and abuses of his authority?

What about all the deaths that resulted from his demand that Wuhan Virus-infected elderly patients be put back into nursing homes to infect—and kill—thousands of other elderly?

What about his abuses of his authority regarding the Mario Cuomo Bridge?

What about his misuse of State government facilities and resources to write and peddle a book?

What about his abuse of his authority to give preferential virus testing treatment for family members and favored cronies during a time of limited testing resources?

What about his disbanding of the Moreland Commission when it began investigating his cronies?

What about his relationship with a crony convicted of bid-rigging for State government contracts?

What about the relationship between Crystal Run Healthcare’s donation of $400k in campaign donations to Cuomo’s 2016 campaign and Crystal Run’s subsequent award of a $25 million in State grants?

These, and especially the victims and victims’ survivors of Cuomo’s nursing home moves, badly want adjudication and justice. They, each of them individually and all of them together, badly need impeachment and a State Senate trial.

And: on conviction, the State’s legislature then would have the authority to bar Cuomo from State office for the rest of his life.

Reconciliation, Taxes, Debt, and Two Senators

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) claim they’re worried about their Progressive-Democratic Party’s reconciliation bill, even as they voted in the wee hours of last Wednesday morning, to pass their Party’s budget outline—that reconciliation bill.

Manchin:

I have serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family if Congress decides to spend another $3.5 trillion[.]

However.

Early this morning, I [Manchin] voted “YES” on a procedural vote to move forward on the budget reconciliation process because I believe it is important to discuss the fiscal policy future of this country.

Manchin expounded on his duplicity:

Adding trillions of dollars more to nearly $29 trillion of national debt, without any consideration of the negative effects on our children and grandchildren, is one of those decisions that has become far too easy in Washington[.]

Yet the reconciliation resolution that he voted up contains those trillions of dollars of added national debt, and supporting that seems to be one of those far too easy decisions that he also has decided to make.

Sinema, paraphrased by MarketWatch:

said two weeks ago that she does not support the $3.5 trillion package….

And, quoting Sinema:

While I will support beginning this process, I do not support a bill that costs $3.5 trillion….

Though, of course, she wants consideration of it. Especially since that process is purely Party, with no Republican input whatsoever.

Of course, were they serious, they’d have voted against the resolution until all of that was eliminated, reduced, or tailored to their satisfaction. The easiest time to block such nonsense is at the outset. The longer that stuff is allowed to remain in the reconciliation package, the more likely it’ll remain all the way through. And the more time there’ll be for their fellows to find things with which to buy off Manchin and Sinema.

Their fellows likely will find the price exacted for renting their…votes…to be quite low.

The proof of the pudding will be in how Manchin and Sinema vote when those matters come up for serious debate, and how they vote when the aggregated cost of the bill becomes operational.

I’m not sanguine.

More Progressive-Democrat Disingenuousity

Posted on by
Reply

Now, with rising oil prices as demand increases as we start to come out from under the Wuhan Virus situation (which we’re doing despite the press’ and the Biden administration’s panic-mongering over the Delta variant), the Biden administration is pushing OPEC to boost their oil production to hold down prices.

The disingenuousness of this administration is breathtaking.

This is the same Progressive-Democrat administration that cut off our own, domestic, oil and gas independence by fighting our domestic production—to the ultimate benefit of Russia and the People’s Republic of China.

This is the same set of Progressive-Democrats that blocked an amendment to their reconciliation spend- and tax-a-thon that would have allowed new energy development—oil and gas drilling—to occur on Federal lands.

This is the same collection of Progressive-Democrats that unblocked Nord Stream 2 and pressured Ukraine to agree to it so Russia could benefit by selling its own natural gas production into Germany and western Europe.

This is the same collection of Progressive-Democrats who actively depress our own oil and gas production in the name of reducing atmospheric CO2 levels—while pushing for, allowing, increased production by others of atmospheric CO2-producing oil and natural gas.

This is the Progressive-Democrats elevating the welfare of foreign nations, including enemy nations, above our own.

Here is the Progressive-Democrats’ campaign slogan: Make Again Last, America. MAL America.

The Dumbing Down of America

Posted on by
Reply

Ain’t gonna study, study reading no more, ain’t gonna think, think of writing no more
Ain’t gonna fight, fight the math no more, we’re giving them up, we’re gonna let them go

With apologies to Willie Dixon, that’s Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s (D) position on the education of Oregon’s—America’s—children.

Governor Kate Brown, the Oregon Democrat, signed a bill last month with little fanfare that drops the requirement that high school students prove proficiency in reading, writing or math, before graduation, a report said.

This dumbing down, this selling short, our children is abusive to our children and from that, as well as from the elimination of any pretense of education, is dangerous to our nation.

Progressive-Democrat Controls over Individuals’ Lives

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some of those controls that are buried deep within the bowels of the so-called infrastructure bill just rammed through the senate.

mandate for vehicle manufactures to install “drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as a standard feature inside of new vehicles

Because all of us are simply too grindingly stupid to make our own decisions about drinking and driving. This is amply proven by the one or two among us who are so stupid, so we all must pay the price.

create a vehicle miles traveled system for taxing drivers based on their annual vehicle mileage is hidden away in the bill’s section 13002, entitled “National motor vehicle per-mile user fee pilot”

This also will create an opening for tracking where we go and who/what we visit in addition to tracking how we travel to get there.

grants select cabinet secretaries the authority to fully fund select infrastructure projects with taxpayer dollars by waiving cost-sharing rules

Just gimme the damned dollars and quit asking pesky questions. We Know Better. Never mind that the need for any of these dollars has yet to be established beyond yelling “Infrastructure,” as though that settles the science.

If these controls really were any good, and if average Americans really did take them seriously, Progressive-Democrats would offer them in separate stand-alone bills for public debate and scrutiny.

More important to the Progressive-Democrats, though, is that these policies vastly increase their surveillance state. Even waiving cost-sharing expands surveillance, since the Secretaries designated The Precious Ones will need to identify whose costs are going to be “saved” and who will be called upon to pick up the cost slack.