Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive-Democratic Party Lawlessness

Posted on by
Reply

A typical example of this is taking hold in Virginia, a Blue State (for all that it had a successful Republican governor for one term) going even Bluer. As soon as the State’s Progressive-Democrat governor, Abigail Spanberger, took office, her Party cronies, who have majorities in both houses of the State legislature, have begun pushing laws that functionally excuse violent criminals.

House Bill 863 includes proposals to effectively eliminate minimum sentencing for manslaughter, rape, possession and distribution of child pornography, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and other repeat violent felonies.

This is how Progressive-Democrats act out their disrespect for law and for law enforcement.

What’s on tap for the State’s next legislative session? Removing jail terms altogether and sending social workers to talk to rapists about inappropriate behavior toward women? Sending pediatricians to talk to child pornographers about how to better interact with children? Defund all of the State’s police departments—after all, if there are no police, there can be no assaults on police? Eliminating the crime of manslaughter, that being just the unfortunate outcome of a loud argument?

Progressive-Democrat Delegate Rae Cousins, the bill’s sponsor, has rationalized his bill:

This change would give the experienced judges in our communities more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case.

Okay. How about, instead, giving experienced judges more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case by removing the upper bounds of sentencing for these crimes while keeping the lower bounds?

What’s the Deal with Little Liam?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that little Liam Ramos was seized and held by ICE agents a few days ago. Or at least that’s the narrative an intrinsically dishonest “news” media has been peddling. Some facts, though, are coming to light despite the best efforts of the core of that guild, courtesy of some few news writers who have different ideas regarding reporting news.

The Department of Homeland Security said ICE was conducting an operation to arrest Liam’s father, who the department said was in the country illegally, when the father fled and left Liam alone in a vehicle.

This is a little boy’s father abandoning his son in his own attempt to escape to continue violating US laws.

And

Agency spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said an officer stayed with Liam while others apprehended his father.

Making sure the little boy wasn’t just left to wander.

Then,

Officers made several attempts to get his mother, who was inside the house, to take custody of him, saying she wouldn’t be detained if she did so, McLaughlin said.

Several attempts. Because the little boy’s mother was more worried about her own neck than she was about her son. Today, both the little boy and the man who may be his biological father but who has in no way acted in that role are being held in a Texas facility that’s set up to handle both adults and children. The boy is there because, ultimately, his biological mother refused to take him, despite those repeated ICE attempts.

Keep in mind that ICE is the agency that took care of a little boy who’d just been deserted by his parents and which a leading Minnesota candidate for the US Senate, along with incumbent Congressional Progressive-Democrats, want to completely defund and abolish.

This is how little Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters—all of whom have become mainstream left, no longer being an extremist fringe—care about facts. This is how little those folks care about a little boy, all of five years old, mind you, who was deserted by his parents.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

House and auto insurers’ profits and the rate increases they charge policy holders are coming under political scrutiny, but politicians’ proposed solutions are badly counterproductive.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) this month became the latest state lawmaker to advocate profits caps on insurers, to tackle escalating home- and “crushingly expensive” auto-insurance rates.
Her plan would require home insurers with “outsized profit margins” to lower or justify their rates, and review the profits threshold at which auto-insurers are required to refund customers.
Also this month, lawmakers in states including Oklahoma proposed profit caps targeting insurance.

No.

Government definitions of “outsized profit margins” have nothing to do with business imperatives or what happens in a free market. Those definitions serve only the personal political ambitions of the politicians doing the defining, and they’ll vary across politicians and their political parties.

Beyond that, all price caps do is limit the availability of the product being capped—whether oil and natural gas and gasoline, rental housing availability and quality…or insurance policies. The limit on supply, too, hurts those on the lower economic rungs of our economy first and hardest.

Requiring insurers to justify their rates and the profit levels at which policy holder refunds are paid is a good idea, but government is the wrong crowd that must be satisfied.

Better simply to require insurers to disclose their profit margins and the basis on which they arrive at their definitions of profit. Their policy rates already are publicly available; making both sides of that process public would let the public more effectively shop for policies that suit their individual needs.

Doing that within an increasingly deregulated (not unregulated) insurance market environment would move the industry closer to a truly competitive market within which insurers would reap fair profits and insurees would pay fair premium amounts for the policies they want. And the Critical Item: “fair” would be defined within that competitive market by those market participants, not by any government.

Open Borders and Racism Still are Progressive-Democratic Party Planks

Posted on by
Reply

If there were any question about whether the Progressive-Democratic Party was walking away from its open borders position, there shouldn’t be anymore.

It was probably no surprise that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar [D, MN]…announced the Congressional Progressive Caucus has “adopted an official position” to defund Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Mainstream Progressive-Democrats are too far Left to voice any opposition to this lawlessness. In fact, one of the more mainstream Progressive-Democrats, Seth Moulton (MA), has introduced a bill that would, at bottom, sharply reduce funding for ICE, thereby greatly reducing its and our nation’s ability to maintain our national borders short of moving DoD military personnel to the border—over which, of course, Party members would raise a loud hue and cry, too. As cited from the Associated Press,

[Moulton] introduced a bill on Wednesday that would—without adult supervision in Congress—gut the $75 billion funding increase ICE received in President Donald Trump’s [R] Big Beautiful Bill and dump the money into propping up…Obamacare….

Congressman Dave Min (D, CA) wants more. He’s

back[ing] impeaching Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and has called the work of enforcing immigration laws “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” He’s got the backing of Omar and her Squad pals at the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC.
Min [also]…has called a House committee investigation into Minnesota’s massive fraud scandal “partisan and racist.”

This is Party, not only wanting to abolish our borders and calling enforcing our laws somehow unconstitutional, but also projecting its own intrinsic racist bigotry into the argument. There is, after all, very little more insidiously racist than injecting that bigotry into a discussion where there is no racism.

Too Typical

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors had it down pat in their editorial of last Wednesday. The opening sentence of their lede laid it out:

As federal pandemic largesse ebbs, Democratic-run states are eyeing higher taxes rather than reform spending programs.

The rest of their piece expanded on that theme.

Nor does it get any clearer than this bit. In a nation overrun with Federal debt and with Progressive-Democrat-run States joining in on climbing the forest of trees in their world on which money grows, Progressive-Democratic Party politicians still cannot even conceive of cutting spending. Nor do they feel the need to; it’s not like they’re spending their own money. It’s all OPM.

Now it’s Rhode Island that’s fixing to get up into one of those trees. Rhode Island is another of those Progressive-Democrat-run States, this one with a Progressive-Democrat governor, a 38-seat Senate containing 33 Progressive-Democrats, and a 75-seat House filled with 65 Progressive-Democrats.

This is what we can expect nationwide if Party wins control of the House and Senate this fall, and it’ll get far worse if Pary wins the White House in the 2028 election cycle.