Tag Archives: political parties

It’s Never the Criminal

Posted on by
Reply

It’s always the victim, or the victim’s property, or—in some infamous instances—the producers of the victim’s property that are to blame for the crimes. It’s a modern day version of “if she hadn’t dressed that way, she wouldn’t have been raped. She invited it.”

The latest example is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson’s decision to sue a couple of automobile manufacturers for Chicago’s spiking auto thefts. His rationalization is that those manufacturers didn’t install “standard” anti-theft technology on cars manufactured in the model years 2011 to 2022.

He’s carefully ignoring the fact that auto thefts in Chicago spiked during the latter years of his predecessor, Lori Lightfoot’s (D) term and continues in his own—with their decidedly soft on crime and no bail policies. All those model years prior, still lacking anti-theft tech acceptable to the mayor, weren’t getting stolen.

Nah, it’s the car manufacturers. It’s the gun manufacturers. It’s the woman’s attire. It’s any excuse Progressive-Democrats can dream up in order to avoid facing the fact that crimes are committed by criminals, and criminals need to be punished for their crimes. But, bleat these Leftists, that would work a hardship on the poor, misunderstood, downtrodden criminals.

“Let Ukraine Direct Its Own Counteroffensive”

Posted on by
Reply

US Army General Jack Keane (ret), once Army Vice Chief of Staff and current Institute for the Study of War Chairman, thinks US military personnel criticizing the way Ukraine is conducting its offensive should (my paraphrase) sit down and shut up.

Keane’s characterization of those sideline inhabitants’ behavior, chirping from the sidelines, is being generous. Whatever their own combat experience, if any, it has no relevance to the realized combat environment the Ukrainians are facing with the Russian up-armored barbarians.

No one in the American military today has designed large-scale mechanized operations against a serious and capable enemy that is employing a comprehensive defense. The last time was the Metz campaign in France in 1944, led by General George S Patton.

But in all their woke awesomeness, the Pentagon’s armchair junior high quarterbacks Know So Much Better. If these wonders truly want to help Ukraine, they’ll push President Joe Biden (D) to stop slow-walking and outright denying the weapons Ukraine needs to effectively and efficiently prosecute its offensive, and they’ll get their own bureaucrats out of the way of actual delivery.

Achieving Energy Security

Posted on by
Reply

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm thinks it would be good for our energy security were we to eliminate the 60% of our oil-centered energy that we import and switching over to 100% clean electricity by 2035.

It’s true that wiping out that 60% of our oil imports would help our energy security, but only if it’s done right. We shouldn’t be importing any energy, much less from enemy nations or from nations vulnerable to enemy nations. The right way to eliminate those imports is to release our own oil—and natural gas and coal, come to that—producers to produce from our own, domestic, hydrocarbon-based sources. It’s highly important, too, to get the regulators out of the way of our producers’ ability to produce nuclear power. Sadly, though, Granholm—Energy Secretary Granholm, mind you—seems unable even to say the words “nuclear power,” or at least she never does say them.

The problem with Granholm’s wish to supplant those imports with 100% clean electricity—as even Granholm knows full well—is that the raw materials needed for “renewable,” or “green,” or “clean” energy production come from Peoples Republic of China mines, or PRC-controlled mines in Africa and Siberia (the latter are not yet developed, but they will be). Beyond that, far too many components for “renewable” energy production come from PRC-domiciled factories. Granholm’s move in no way reduces our dependence on enemy nations for our energy.

It is, however, a distinct elimination of our ability to have energy security.

My Mistake, You Pay for It

Posted on by
Reply

That’s New York’s Progressive-Democratic Party governor Kathy Hochul’s solution to the illegal alien influx her State faces.

I’m fully aware that New Yorkers are concerned that over the past year, more than 100,000 asylum seekers have arrived in our state, requiring a historic humanitarian response. Moments ago, I issued a letter to the Biden administration formally requesting that it take executive action to address New York’s migrant crisis.

The prior mayor of New York City, the core of the State’s illegal alien “crisis,” the Progressive-Democrat Bill de Blasio, declared the city to be a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Current Progressive-Democratic mayor, Eric Adams, has openly, loudly, continued the city’s status, inviting the influx of illegal aliens to continue and expand. It’s true enough that Adams is lately whining that he and his city can’t take it anymore, but he’s holding fast to the sanctuary city status.

The larger problem is that New York City and New York State brought this situation on themselves with their carefully, deliberately, done open invitation to all those illegal aliens, whom the Leftist politicians ruling the city and State euphemistically—dishonestly, I say—call “migrants.”

And now, with awesome gall, they demand that the rest of us ordinary Americans pay the costs of their foolish mistake. No. The rulers of New York City and of New York State created the mess they’re in; no one should pay the costs of that mess but the residents of the city and the citizens of the State who elected those rulers. There must be no consideration of any other funding source unless and until those rulers openly repudiate that sanctuary status and just as openly act on the repudiation.

Nationalizing Private Enterprise

Posted on by
Reply

OK, State-ifying private enterprise, for now, if this proposal goes through. Some California Progressive-Democratic Party legislators are setting up legislation that would have California pay unemployment benefits to strikers. The move also would put businesses and workers, both, at some risk from Government control, but never mind that.

A group of California Democrats are expected to propose handing out unemployment benefits to striking workers.
Language expected to be released in the coming days or weeks to provide striking workers with benefits from California’s unemployment insurance program that is $18 billion in debt. The move comes amid historic strikes by both screenwriters and actors, forcing many movies and TV shows to halt production.

This move would lessen the incentive for workers and their unions to build up strike funds. Uncle Sugar—or for now Daddy Gavin—will pick up increasing portions of the strike tab.

But this move is more dangerous than that in the longer term. This is an active assault on the free enterprise system that’s at the center of our economy, whether that’s the intention of this move or not.

Workers pay each other during strikes. That’s what a significant fraction of their union dues are for: setting up a strike fund so while workers are on strike, and so not being paid by their employer, still have money coming in to cover their critical expenses. The bigger the strike fund, the longer the strike can last, and the more the business(es) being struck can be damaged. It’s hard to find a bigger strike fund than Government’s control of its citizens’ tax remittals, which under this proposal would supplant union dues.

This move, if realized, would lead to Government saying to any business, individually or collectively, “Nice business you got there. Be too bad if your employees didn’t come to work for a while.”

This move also would put the labor force at risk of government control. With strike funding coming from Government under the guise of unemployment benefits, Government would be in a position to reward workers for not working striking, when Government wants to use them to pressure a Government-disfavored business. On the other hand, Government would be in a position to punish withhold benefits from workers who don’t strike this time from those who do strike on their own initiative at a later time, or who strike without Government’s prior permission.