Tag Archives: morality

No—All Must Suffer

Posted on by
Reply

Recall House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D, MA) saying the suffering of Americans during this Schumer Shutdown is leverage for Party. Recall further, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) saying the longer his shutdown continues, the better it is for Party.

Now we have two bills on offer that demonstrate the political bankruptcy of Party’s position, to say nothing of its moral bankruptcy. One is a bill on offer from Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) that would fund the SNAP program during the shutdown so the needy could retain access to nutrition for themselves and their kids. Ten Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. Exactly one Progressive-Democrat has.

The other bill is one offered by Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) that would pay essential Federal workers and those furloughed now rather than after the Schumer Shutdown ends. Many of those employees, furloughed or still working, will without their paychecks find themselves—and in too many cases are alredady finding themselves—in any of a variety of breadlines because they can’t afford groceries. The bill would be especially important for those still required to work since those folks are ineligible for unemployment benefits. Here, too, only one Progressive-Democratic Senator has signed up to support it.

Marie Antoinette was a piker. The Progressive-Democratic Party politicians won’t even let our needy and our Federal employees have any cake* to eat.

*Cake: not the modern-day sweet confection, but for the French of Antoinette’s time, cake was the bread crust burned onto the peasants’ tiny oven walls as the loaves expanded hard onto those walls.

Schumer Shutdown Food Funds Cutoff

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Agriculture has run out of funds, due to the Schumer Shutdown, and as a result, food stamps will not be issued in November.

This is what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has said is good for Democrats. Cutting the needy off from badly needed nutrition resource support is what House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D, MA) says is a legitimate thing to do because it produces leverage for Democrats.

This is the cynicism of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

All within the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.

Especially nothing from the Party for our nation, nothing from the Party for us average Americans.

Jews for Nazism?

Posted on by
Reply

One Jew, anyway. The Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Maine, Graham Platner, sports—has done for 18 or so years—a Nazi symbol tattooed onto his chest: a copy of the skull and crossbones as used by the SS Totenkopf (more formally, the SS-Totenkopfverbände and not to be confused with the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf), which operated the Nazis’ concentration and Jew extermination camps.

That’s all jake with Vermont’s “Independent” Senator Bernie Sanders (he enthusiastically caucuses with the Progressive-Democratic Party Senators).

…what he did was, he has expressed his darkness on the internet, probably not a brilliant thing to do, all right, and he said things that are stupid, things that were hurtful. He has apologized for it.

Sanders proceeded to profess his continued support for this fellow Party candidate.

Platner wore that despicable symbol of Jew hatred for the 18 years, but he apologized for it. That makes it all better. Never mind that he still wears it, albeit “disguised” with another tattoo overlaid on it.

Never mind, either, that tattoos can be removed with laser treatment.

A Jewish Senator supporting Nazism because Party. A Jewish Senator excusing Nazism in any guise.

Imagine that.

Education Parity

Posted on by
Reply

There are two paths for achieving some sort of “parity” in education. One path is through pushing for equality of opportunity. This path is exemplified by New York City’s gifted and talented programs that identify gifted children before they reach school age and try to funnel them into educational programs that are tailored to enhance their giftedness and encourage them to learn more and faster—to excel. This is a reflection of Theodore Roosevelt’s each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. Roosevelt was speaking economically, but the guarantee applies just as surely to education systems. That equality of opportunity makes each person—each student—equally capable of reaching his full potential, however large or small that might be from student to student.

The other path for education parity—it really is binary—is to push for—parity—in educational outcomes. This is the path Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani espouses. Mamdani promises to eliminate the city’s gifted and talented program under the fiction that children will benefit more from experiencing the breadth of ability in their peers than they will be harmed from being held back to the pace of their peers. Mamdani’s claim extends to insisting that the gifted children will, in the end, be unharmed from being restrained.

Oh, sure, Mamdani gussies up his move:

Mr Mamdani argues that New York City’s gifted programs have produced racially inequitable outcomes, and therefore all students should remain in the same classrooms, regardless of ability.

This is a Mamdani paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson: [removing gifted and talented programs] is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you [parents]. This is deeply insulting to those parents and to their children. This is Mamdani saying in so many words that black children and brown children are intrinsically inferior to white children and Asian children, they cannot hope to compete in school, and so they must get the protections of holding back the white and Asian children.

It’s inconceivable to Mamdani and his fellow Progressive-Democrats that blacks and browns could easily compete did they have the same access to opportunity as their white and Asian fellow children.

Personal Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

This is a core tenet of our federal republican democracy—the concept that us American citizens are the ones primarily—and most often solely—responsible for the outcomes of our decisions and our actions. This is a tenet that applies just as firmly in our fundamentally capitalist economy to our businesses. In particular, for this post, it applies to our banks, large, small, and in between.

Or, it should apply. Dangerously, our banks, particularly our small and mid-sized banks, would be relieved of that responsibility under legislation that Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, who should know better, and Maryland’s Progressive-Democrat Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who is merely acting on her party’s big and bigger government bent, are proposing. That legislation would raise the FDIC’s deposit guarantee from $250,000 per depositor’s account to $10 million.

The editors of The Wall Street Journal have the right of it on this one.

The truth is that a higher insurance limit will increase moral hazard and make the banking system less sound, which will hurt all Americans.

Because

It would also encourage more risk-taking since banks will have to worry less about runs.

Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren as recently as 2023:

We have to do this because these banks are under-regulated, and if we lift the cap, we are requiring—or relying even more heavily on the regulators to do their jobs.

Here is the monarchist Party’s purpose revealed and now pushed by Alsobrooks: an ever more intrusive and controlling central government.

The proposed legislation is an idea whose time never will be, and the proposed legislation needs to be scotched in committee, if not before.