Tag Archives: political parties

Naïve or Ignorant?

Posted on by
Reply

Former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R) and Donald Boudreaux, an econ prof at George Mason University, centered their op-ed in Monday’s WSJ on the premise that if the Republican party gets suitably drubbed this fall, the remnants will revolt against President Donald Trump’s (R) tariffs and revert to Reagan-esque free trade economics. On regaining majorities in the House and Senate, there will be a Republican backlash against Mr Trump’s tariff policies and those policies suitably altered or rescinded.

I’m hard pressed to determine whether these two, who should know better, are really that naïve or they’re that ignorant.

An ascendant Progressive-Democratic Party, whose leadership has sworn to fundamentally change our nation and our economy will set about doing exactly that. Beginning with their elimination of the Senate’s filibuster, they will transform our nation’s republican democracy structure, a structure that protects minority party rights and authorities, into a popular democracy, a one-party structure that ignores minority party imperatives. Popular democracies in this way are indistinguishable from authoritarian- or tyranny-run nations. They will continue their “transformation” with packing the Supreme Court, installing a majority of activist Justices instead of Justices sworn to defend our Constitution and to apply it and any statutes before them as they are written rather than as the newly installed activists, or their Party masters, want them to be written. Party has long opposed election laws that limit the franchise to citizens; once they’re in control this time around, they’ll not only control voting laws, they’ll also control vote counting process.

Party has already begun its promised transformation, beginning with that filibuster elimination commitment. It’s continuing with its open clasping of the Democratic Socialists of America to its bosom. The DSA is committed to centralized government control of our private economy, ex-President Joe Biden’s (D) fundamental economic transformation. DSA, and so Party, are committed to subordinating our Court system to Congress, although this would be redundant with the packed Court. More long-term, they’re committed to eliminating the Senate altogether, although this may prove unnecessary: with the elimination of the filibuster, the Senate would be indistinguishable from the House—each State would simply have two legislators elected at large along with those elected district by district. This is ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) dream of changing our nation.

With Party control of government, there may well be no further Republican majorities in either house of Congress.

Progressive-Democratic Party Power Grab

Posted on by
Reply

Now they’re coming for our children. Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democratic governor Maura Healey has announced a new State government program that will send a government nurse into every newborn’s home.

Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you’re going to have a home visit within days, weeks and that will be an opportunity for a healthcare provider to make an assessment to see if you need some additional support and resources[.]

A government nurse, and the government’s assessment of “need.” This is Party’s claim that our children belong to Government; they are not our families’ youngest members. Healey’s rationalization is nothing but political points harvesting in the aftermath of Lindsey Clancy’s trial for murdering her children.

Postpartum depression, anxiety, and other maternal mental health conditions are real medical conditions, and no mother should feel ashamed to ask for help or feel like she has to navigate this journey alone.

She’s pretending to solve a problem of miniscule proportion. The scale of the problem as it regards infant safety is this. According to the Deseret News, there were 2,282 babies killed through their mothers’ “maltreatment;” of these 912 were from deliberately inflicted injury (things like fentanyl poisoning were deemed accidental maltreatment in the DN‘s wisdom) between 2022 and 2026. In the same period, per Google’s AI, there were 15,394,000 babies born. Those 900 babies outright murdered represent 0.009% of the births. Those killed through neglect/maltreatment amount to just 0.0015% of the births. That’s certainly a tragedy for the babies involved, but it is in no way a justification for a Government intrusion of Healey’s scale.

Healey claims the program is “voluntary.” Sure. Think of all the tools Government has with which to harass a family that declines this government “favor.” Think of the liability Government will seek to apply should an accident befall the child whose family declined this government intrusion. Think of all the negative publicity and innuendo Government can let slip regarding any family who declines this government intrusion. Along those latter lines, recall the social opprobrium that was inflicted (and still is inflicted) on those ordinary Americans who declined to be vaccinated against the Wuhan Virus.

Nice kid youse got there. Be too bad if somethin’ was to happen to it.

This what we can look forward to if we let Party get control of our House of Representatives and our Senate this fall and of the White House in 2028.

Dishonesty of the Left and of the Ex-Right

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan’s closet socialist and Progressive-Democratic Party nominee for the US Senate, Abdul el-Sayed, has said that he would

mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith.
Tomorrow, I’ll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country.

When Michigan’s Republican Party candidate for the US Senate, Mike Rogers, demurred, calling el-Sayed’s downplaying the tragedy of those Americans lost to terrorism—a cynically dishonest downplaying IMO—disgusting, the ex-conservative and now Leftist apologist and conspiracy pusher, Tucker Carlson, piped up.

Understanding that the Bush administration was wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of people and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq, even though, again, Iraq did not do 9/11, is disgusting?
We are really not sure who Mike Rogers is, but if anyone in Michigan’s Senate race is “unfit to serve in public office,” it is him[.]

Leave aside Carlson’s foolishness in saying he doesn’t know about Rogers, but he knows about Rogers’ unfitness. There’s plenty of cynical disinformation and misdirection in the rest of Carlson’s apologist statement favoring el-Sayed.

The Bush administration did not kill hundreds of thousands of people and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq. That claim, originating from Iranian-backed Iraqis, has long since been debunked. Nor were trillions of dollars spent in the operation, much less wasted. The outcome was the removal of the murderous Hussein regime from power, with the Iraqis given, finally, a chance to govern themselves. That they’re apparently not optimizing on that chance is irrelevant to this discussion’s subject.

The premise that we went into Iraq in response to 9/11 is deliberate misdirection. We invaded Iraq that second time to prevent Saddam Hussein from having WMD—in particular chemical weapons, which he had a history of using on the Kurds in Iraq, on the Arabs in southeastern Iraq, on any other group of Iraqis who disagreed with him. (That Hussein no longer had chemical weapons was learned only after the fact.)

Revisionist History and Political CYA

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Congress from Michigan’s 7th Congressional District William Lawrence has been busily deleting politically inconvenient social media posts he’s made in the past. The smaller problem is that his deletions are nothing other than a coward’s attempt to revise his history. It’s the smaller problem because such revisionism is widely spread and all too common, even though that in no way legitimizes the misbehavior.

The larger problem here concerns those deletions and his rationalization of them. The deletions include posts pushing for such things as

police and prison abolition, called for nationalizing fossil-fuel companies to end their production, attacked moderate Democrats, and argued for a “fundamental overhaul” of the Constitution.
…
“f**k” the nuclear-family home and calling it an “isolating, individualistic, violent way of organizing society,” envisioning “a world of free and open migration,” and calling to “Abolish the Senate.”

That’s about as un-American as it gets. His rationalization, though….

Lawrence said that he currently does not support defunding the police or open borders despite what his earlier posts suggested.
“Like many millennials, I’ve done a lot of thinking out loud on the internet[.]”

That’s an illustration of Lawrence’s dishonesty. He spoke from his heart in those since-deleted posts. His deletions and his rationalizations are nothing more than him covering his political behind. What concrete actions has he taken, after all, to illustrate, if not demonstrate, his alleged evolution of his thinking?

At The Core of Progressive-Democratic Party Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

It was stated in so many words by socialist (though he risibly denies it) and Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Michigan, Abdul el-Sayed:

…if we took seriously the idea that all of our kids were all of our kids. If we started with that idea that every child is our child….

Too many people on the right are writing this off as just so much Kamala Harris-esque word salad, and that’s dangerously failing to hear what he’s saying, what Party and its Democratic Socialist of America members have in mind for our republic.

El-Sayed is clear here. Children don’t belong to the parents; they aren’t the responsibility of the parents. Children are the responsibility of the community, of the state. Children are the state’s property.