Tag Archives: government

Big Progressive-Democrat Government

Posted on by
Reply

A Rasmussen poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose the socialism in the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

That’s encouraging, but I have some concerns about the policies anyway, given that they’re being jammed through without regard for the views of the government’s employers.

The socialism aspect of the Biden-Harris and Progressive-Democratic Party policies is less a matter of the raw spending and usurious taxes in them much more a matter of the strings attached to the spending and of who gets (punitively) taxed.

The strings attached would give the Federal government more control over the States and over what businesses are allowed to produce and the prices they charge. The proposed tax structure would give the Federal government more indirect control by “encouraging” businesses to comport themselves IAW Government wishes.

That control is the essence of socialism, whether the control is through outright ownership or through controlling production permissions.

The spendthriftiness should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The tax distortions should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The increased Government control should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

Unfortunately, dangerously, each of the three individually (as well as together) are tightly aligned with Progressive-Democratic Party goals of spending to buy votes, taxing the Evil Rich to virtue-signal for votes, and to outright accrete power to Party.

A Progressive-Democrat Threatens

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has issued a threat to try to destroy one of our most fundamental rights as Americans: our right to keep and bear Arms. He’s doing it, too, while drawing a disingenuous parallel between Arms possession and abortion—and in the process, threatening an even more fundamental right, one imbued in all humans not just in Americans.

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives.
We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA[.]

In the process, Newsom ignored a critical distinction here. Gun rights are in our Constitution.

The right to abortion exists only in a Supreme Court ruling and has only the force of statutory law—which is explicitly subordinate to our Constitution.

Regarding Newsom’s disingenuous claim about using legal authority to protect people’s lives, he’s also ignoring that our gun rights exist in critical (but not exclusive) part to defend lives and to defend against overreaching government. That the tools occasionally are misused to illegally kill only emphasizes the need to better catch and punish the killers, not to punish the vast majority of us for the crimes of those few. And to not keep letting the accused killers back out on the street with little to no bail.

Abortion laws, on the other hand, kill babies and tend toward blocking legal voices from speaking for them in court. That’s not very protective of our very youngest people’s lives.

Loopholes

Posted on by
Reply

The usually solid editors over at The Wall Street Journal had a piece last Friday regarding, in their terms, a bizarre loophole for Oklahoma criminals.

It seems that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a majority opinion in McGirt v Oklahoma that held that since the Federal government—Congress—has never actually dissolved the nation’s treaty with the Creek Nation, Oklahoma’s

authority to prosecute crimes involving Native American perpetrators and victims has vanished in nearly half of Oklahoma.

Because that’s the expanse of the Creek Nation’s reservation under that treaty.

Their editorial then listed a number of cases that fell out of McGirt that allowed a number of negligent persons and outright criminals get away with their crimes because the events involved Native Americans over whom the State has no jurisdiction to prosecute or no standing to protect.

The editors’ overwrought headline, How to Get Away With Manslaughter, then was bookended with a cynically emotional finale:

The Supreme Court should look these cases in the face. Is this justice, Justice Gorsuch?

The Editors’ ire is justified, but it’s aimed in the wrong direction.

All any Federal judge, Justices included, can do under our Constitution (vis., Art I, Sect 1) and their oaths of office, is to apply the law, including our supreme Law of the Land, as they are written. They cannot, in particular, adjust either, nor can they manufacture from the bench laws that plug loopholes in laws.

The loophole the Editors decry here, as any loophole in any law, can only be plugged statutorily, and only Congress can make law that does so.

The items listed, and many others to come, indeed aggregate into a vast and serious failure to perform. However, the failure is Congress’, and it’s on Congress to correct it. Judges cannot, and especially, Justices cannot.

A Florida State Guard

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has requested some $3.5 million to fund reestablishment of the Florida State Guard,

a civilian volunteer force that will assist the National Guard in state-specific emergencies[.]

The Governor’s press release went on:

The establishment of the Florida State Guard will further support those emergency response efforts in the event of a hurricane, natural disasters and other state emergencies. The $3.5 million to establish the Florida State Guard will enable civilians to be trained in the best emergency response techniques.

Florida’s State Guard would number all of 200 civilians, and as with all State Guards, will be under the control of the Governor and cannot be Federalized—cannot be called up by the President. DeSantis expanded on his press release:

We want to make sure that we have the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible. That will require us to have access and be able to use support in ways that are not encumbered by the federal government or don’t require federal government

The Leftist news outlets have gone hysterical about this move. CNN‘s now leading pundit following the temporary hiatus of Chris Cuomo had the typical response:

So… y’all know this is fascisty bananas, right…?

Because, of course.

It’s “fascisty bananas” to have a civilian force beholden only to the State government for being mustered in prompt response to State and local disasters like hurricanes, floods, and the like.

It’s “fascisty bananas” for 23 States in our nation to have such State Guards for such purposes.

Indeed, when Katrina struck Louisiana, the Texas State Guard, in an especially “faschisty bananas” move, immediately set up shelters for and distributed food to Louisiana refugees from the hurricane’s destruction.

When the bad storm comes and hours count, the Federal responses will be only days away. But it’s “fascisty bananas” to use first First Responders inside those days.

Government Subsidies for Local Newspapers

Posted on by
Reply

Dean Ridings, CEO of an organization self-absorbedly called America’s Newspapers, thinks it’s a terrific idea that the Federal government (presumably, government at any level) should…subsidize…local newspapers.

The Local Journalism Sustainability Act will provide the local news industry time to continue its transition to a more digital future and to work out a better arrangement, either through legislation or other means, to be paid when Google and Facebook use its content. It is not a permanent handout.

It is not a permanent handout. That’s just risible; Ridings knows better. It would be both a handout and permanent.

And this: time to work out a better arrangement, either through legislation….

Just what we need—a Government Press for the locals: Local Izvestia, Local Russia Today, Local China Daily, Local People’s Daily in the US. Even if the legislative aspect didn’t come to fruition, the strings will be attached to the subsidies from the start.

No.

If the locals want a local press, they’ll have one through a free market. No government funding—which is to say no taxpayers’ money from outside the community, from entirely different States, from clear across the nation—is necessary or even useful.