Tag Archives: government

Talking a Good Game

Posted on by
Reply

Javier Milei, the newly elected Argentine President, is, indeed, talking a good game. It’ll be well worth watching to see if he can deliver—and he has many large obstacles in his way, including (this is far from an exhaustive list) opposition to his wish to get rid of the nation’s central bank (and the economic pitfalls associated with it, both near term as Argentina’s economy adjusts, and longer term with currency controls devolved to the provincial banks or to individual banks (some of which may already be too big to control without stern measures aimed at them in particular)), opposition parties bent on restoring/maintaining their own political power, general resistance—both political and popular—to any change of such magnitude, and his own political inexperience and naivete.

With that rambling lede, here’s an excerpt, via RealClear Politics, from an interview that that Milei had with Argentine TV host Alejandro Fantino just before Thanksgiving:

We aren’t above the ones we represent. In financial terms, “The derivative is never worth more than the underlying asset.” The derivative exists because the underlying asset exists. We exist as representatives of the people because the people exist. It is madness, it is delusional, to think that a representative of the people is above the people he represents themselves. It is a delusion in which the political caste exists.

The full hour-and-a-quarter interview, in Spanish, can be seen at the link at the bottom of the linked-to article. That YouTube link also is this.

Who Needs Cops?

Posted on by
Reply

Plainly not Progressive-Democrat Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City, not when he considers taking care of the City’s burgeoning illegal alien population to be far more important than protecting the Americans and legally present foreign nationals who are already in the City. Thus,

A freeze on new NYPD recruits is among the “horrendous” budget cuts expected to come down Thursday—as the Big Apple grapples with the soaring cost of the migrant crisis, The Post has learned.

And

The budget slashings come after Adams estimated the surging [illegal alien—my term, not Adams’ euphemism] crisis will set the city back $12 billion over the next three fiscal years.

It’s true enough that Adams claims he also intends to slash [illegal alien] spending by 20%, but that’s money that never should have been spent for that in the first place, and would not have been but for Adams’ loud and proud continuation of his predecessor’s—another Progressive-Democrat—designation of New York City as a sanctuary for illegal aliens, and his continued refusal to rescind that designation.

Never mind, though. [C]rime jumped 30% during his first year in office; Adams plainly believes that there’s more room to grow.

Who are Domestic Terrorists?

Posted on by
Reply

NSC spokesman John Kirby was asked at a recent press conference, point blank, by Fox News‘ Peter Doocy,

The people in this country making violent antisemitic threats. Are they domestic terrorists?

Kirby’s answer was stark:

I don’t know that we’re classifying people as domestic terrorists for that. I mean, that’s really a question better left to law enforcement. I’m not aware that there’s been such a characterization of that[.]

Apparently, such people aren’t even extremists. When Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that question at another presser, she answered,

I have been very, very clear.  We are calling out any form of hate, any form of hate. It is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable here. And we are going to continue to call that out[.]

But apparently such folks aren’t even extremists, just deserving of opprobrium for their rude talk.

Mothers zealously, loudly, objecting to school board policies while at school board meetings, though, are domestic terrorists, according to AG Merrick Garland.

Go figure.

DoJ Wrist-Slaps Again

Posted on by
Reply

And again, with the light tap the Biden-Garland DoJ favors one of their own, a man who leaked the tax returns of Progressive-Democrats’ Enemy No. 1, Donald Trump, and those of a multiplicity of the Evil Rich.

According to the Justice Department, Charles Littlejohn, 38, disclosed the tax returns of “thousands of the nation’s wealthiest individuals” to news organizations and tax information associated with a “high-ranking government official” to a second news outlet.

Garland’s idea of non-tiered justice in his DoJ:

He [Littlejohn] pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax return and return information.

All one count out of the plethora of instances. The price he faces? A max of 5 years. For leaking thousands of returns. He’s let off with a single count and a light sentence. Even if the judge gives him the max, he’ll be out much sooner, for time served (if any) and for “good behavior.”

This is Garland’s definition of non-tiered.

Queen Michelle Lujan Grisham

Posted on by
Reply

New Mexico Reina Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has said the quiet part out loud: the solemn word of a Progressive-Democratic Party politician is worthless.

Reina Grisham has taken it upon herself to completely suspend our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, and with that, she is actively barring the open or concealed carry of firearms in her realm, even by New Mexico citizen-subjects who are duly licensed to do so.

What’s also—and possibly more broadly—dangerous is that Grisham’s suspension demonstrates her belief that her oath of office is not absolute. She can walk away from any part of it whenever that oath, or anything her oath binds her to and to do, becomes inconvenient to her and/or to her politics. Here she is as plain as can be (listen to the whole four minutes, or scroll ahead to about 2:25):

No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.

This is what the New Mexico constitution requires in the way of an oath of office. Article XX, Section 1:

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

She is required to support…the constitution and laws of this state. There is no caveat giving the governor of the State an out for whenever she doesn’t feel like keeping her oath. Further, that bit about faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office explicitly demands that the State’s constitution and laws be enforced fully; no part of either of them can be set aside whenever they become inconvenient to the governor.

With specific reference to our Federal Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, the New Mexico governor also is explicitly sworn to support the constitution of the United States, again without exception, caveat, or instance of inconvenience.

This is the degree of integrity of the members of the Progressive-Democratic Party. Grisham has made it explicit: Party member commitments, promises, even oaths of office are utterly worthless. They—each of them—will walk away from their promises the moment that promise becomes personally or politically inconvenient to them.

Oh, and one more thing. This is what Article IV, Section 36, of New Mexico’s constitution says about impeachable offenses:

All state officers and judges of the district court shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misdemeanors and malfeasance in office….

Grisham’s conscious, deliberate violation of her oath of office is, very clearly, malfeasance in office, and so she is plainly impeachable and convictable for her violation. However, with strong Progressive-Democratic Party majorities in both houses of the New Mexico legislature, that will never happen.