Tag Archives: political parties

So Will All Americans

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board is concerned about the House of Representatives’ abuse of its subpoena power. Rightly so, but they’re too narrow in their concern.

Republicans are sure to see the subpoenas [of five Republican Representatives, by the January 6 Committee] as a case of turning the investigative power of the House against the opposition party.

So are will Americans see this abuse.

Republicans will argue that any such effort [to hold Representatives refusing to answer the subpoenas in contempt and seek their prosecution] is a violation of the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.

So will Americans see this abuse.

Inflation Ain’t Joe Biden’s Fault

Posted on by
Reply

Illustrated in two graphs. The first is the overall Producer-Price Index performance over the last 11 years.

The second breaks out services from goods, the latter absent food and energy.

Now certainly, in addition to the immediacy of expectations, there are lags of some weeks to months in our economy, and it can take time for policies to have impact.

Oh, wait—notice those periods before the current inflation began spiking: the PPI was declining through the year-and-a-half before President Joe Biden (D) won the election. The PPI began its sharp rise right after that on expectations of Biden’s policy implementations, and it continued unabated as those expectations were realized and began their material impact on our economy.

Look, too, at the steadiness of the PPI rise. Neither supply chain disruptions nor Putin’s war have had any impact on the inflation rise. Look again at the 18 moths preceding Biden’s election. The pandemic, too, is wholly irrelevant to this hard rise.

This round of inflation really is Joe Biden’s fault, no matter how deeply he ducks under his desk, or how many times he scurries off to Delaware to avoid facing us average Americans.

Because Housing Price Inflation Isn’t High Enough

Posted on by
Reply

California State Senate Leader Toni Atkins (D) wants to exacerbate it with $10 billion more thrown at the State’s housing market to create even more buying demand for this supply-limited product.

Democratic State Senate Leader Toni Atkins on Wednesday unveiled details of a proposal she’s pushing to create a revolving fund that would provide interest-free loans for up to 30% of the purchase price of a home for low- and middle-income households.

Even spreading the money over 10 years would throw $1 billion per year at a housing market that’s already suffering enormous inflation—nearly 12% just since last August—due to the limited supply of houses for sale vs the burgeoning number of buyers, both institutional (viz., Blackrock) and individual.

That won’t add to the inflation of housing cost will it?

Not Entirely

Posted on by
Reply

In the face of days of threatened violence—the active attempts to terrorize the families of Supreme Court Justices at their homes, which, just incidentally is a violation of Federal law regarding efforts to intimidate judges and force a particular judicial outcome—and actual violence—the firebombing of a pro-life facility in Wisconsin—White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, had this to say:

@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.

Via a tweet, yet, not even a formal statement.

It’s also an unbelievable claim under any guise. If President Joe Biden (D) really meant that, if he truly had the courage of his conviction, he’d come out and say so himself, formally, in front of the press and us American citizens, instead of hiding behind the skirts of his Press Secretary and using her mouth to pretend to mean these things.

Dodging a Bullet

Posted on by
Reply

Think about the continued protests by abortion activists outside conservative Supreme Court Justices’ homes, protests nakedly intended to force those Justices to change their alleged votes on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, votes which might aggregate into significant alteration, if not reversal, of the Court’s prior ruling in Roe v Wade.

Keep in mind that those…protests…are intended to achieve their goal by terrorizing the Justices and, especially, their families.

Keep in mind, also, that both of those—protests to intimidate court officials into producing a particular outcome to a case, and terrorizing the targets of those so-called protests—are plainly illegal:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The press is rife with videos of the protests and of the protestors. The protestors are easily identifiable in those videos. There are police present whose bodycams also would provide ample identification capability regarding those protestors.

The Department of Justice, though, is studiously silent and determinedly inactive on the matter. No arrests have been made. No indictment proceedings have been initiated. No one has been brought before a judge for arraignment.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is simply refusing to do his job and enforce the law.

We dodged a bullet when we managed to avoid having Garland on our Supreme Court. Imagine the destruction to law, to order, this man could have inflicted on our nation had he gotten that lifetime appointment. He’s being destructive enough in just one year and will wreak plenty of additional havoc on rule of law over his four-year term.