Tag Archives: political parties

Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Socialist Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Angus King (I, ME) are proposing a new law that would

ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.

This is a bad idea. Not just singly bad; it’s bad on three grounds.

One is the ground of free speech. We don’t get to ban speech based on who’s doing the speaking any more than we get to censor speech based on what’s being said. That includes pharmaceutical companies that want to advertise their wares, so long as they don’t misrepresent them. Truth in Advertising laws, though, are agnostic regarding both advertisers and products.

Our nation went over who is allowed to advertise when lawyers wanted to engage in direct advertising, including via television ads, lots of years ago. Our courts, and we as a nation, came down on the side of free speech when we all decided lawyers advertising was entirely jake. The worst that got us is ads like The Texas Hammer‘s.

It’s a bad idea because it’s insulting to us average Americans. We are not as droolingly imbecilic as these two Wonders of the Left insist that we are. We are fully capable of deciding for ourselves whether we want to take pharmaceutical company’s word at face value or our doctor’s advice. Certainly the advertisements can lead us to peppering our doctors with questions, but we should be doing that, anyway, regarding his diagnoses and proposed treatments. That some of us are foolish enough to remain willfully ignorant about our own health and blithely (and blindly) accept our doctor’s word unquestioningly is between us and our doctors. It’s no excuse for government censoring other parties.

That brings me to the third reason this is a bad idea. It’s not government’s role to protect us from ourselves, or even from each other except on criminal matters. Government’s role is to protect us from external criminal elements and threats to our nation as a whole. It’s not even the Federal government’s sole role to protect us from domestic criminal elements—that is primarily the role of each of our several State governments, with help from the Feds only when invited in by the States.

This is a move that only Socialists and their monarchist Progressive-Democratic Party ally could love.

Fear-Mongering Lies

Posted on by
Reply

The editors at The Wall Street Journal opined about the CBO joining the Left’s scaremongering regarding those disastrous cuts to Medicaid that the Evil Republicans are bent on inflicting. The dishonesty is much broader than that of the CBO, though. The lede image illustrates the magnitude and the breadth and depth of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s participation in the lie.

Here are some facts buried by the CBO in its report, but still there in its Black Letter Report. CBO isn’t the only crowd focusing on the top number, that some 10.9 million folks would lose Medicaid coverage under the House Republican reconciliation bill.

  • 2 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid would lose coverage owing to the bill’s work requirements
  • 700,000 would lose coverage through the bill’s more frequent Medicaid eligibility verification requirements
  • 4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage
  • 1 million non-permanent immigrants and asylum seekers would lose Obamacare subsidies

That’s 8.3 million of those 10.9 million who would lose coverage. Those millions consist of folks who should be working rather than shirking and freeloading, others who are not entitled to coverage due to their status as illegal aliens, their status as non-citizens and so not entitled to subsidies, or their lack of eligibility because they’ve moved out of state, or their incomes have increased sufficiently.

Those remaining 2.6 million might or might not still be eligible for coverage, and if so, they’ll easily be covered by their States through the savings in Medicaid outlays no longer being sent to those 8.3 million.

Hospitals won’t close, unless a State chooses to cut them off from Medicaid outlays out of a politician snit, and the only folks who would die would be those dumped onto the street by a State’s decision to close those hospitals.

Of course House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY) and his supporters know these things full well. As highly talented and thoroughly educated politicians, they are, of course, entirely literate and responsible politicians that they also are, they’ve read the entire CBO report.

Instead, they illustrate why our nation cannot have nice things were they to return to political power.

Progressive-Democratic Party Self-Importance

Posted on by
Reply

In a Just the News article centered on Kamala Harris’ decision to absent herself the California State Progressive-Democratic Party convention to nominate Party candidates for Governor, Stephen Cloobeck, a candidate and convention attendee, said this—and he was serious:

If she decides to get in this race, shame on her for not showing up for the most important people in the party, which is the people who are here today[.]

I always thought that the most important people in a democracy—whether popular, republican, representative—were the people themselves, the citizens of the polity at hand. Here, that would be the good citizens of the United States who also are citizens of California and who self-identify as Party members.

Oh, wait—here’s the State Party rule on who’s eligible to attend and have a say in candidate selection:

3. Delegates to the Convention shall be the members of the Democratic State Central Committee, or their qualified proxies as specified in the Bylaws, whose appointment/election has been transmitted to the State Party no later than Tuesday, March 18, 2025, 60 days prior to the biennial state convention in May 30 – June 1, 2025.

The people, the citizens of California, Party members not exalted enough to be in the Central Committee, have no say in candidate selection(s); these unwashed are not important. It really is the convention delegates who are the most important people in the party.

Silly me.

Or, more likely, this is Party’s utter contempt for average Americans made explicit, with Party Important Ones applying it to average Californians.

The Biden Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

What’s to be done about those who participated in the coverup? How do we hold them accountable—and by accountable, I mean how do we see them suitably and publicly punished?

The press’ complicity in the coverup is well known by all of us not already in thrall to their writings and television natterings. Most of us have learned to take their words skeptically, and we’ve moved on to other news and commentary sources, newer and perhaps no more trustworthy, but that’s yet to be demonstrated.

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s politicians, though—they’re another matter. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, the only Party member willing to expose the emperor was the back bencher Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, who openly campaigned for President late in Party’s primary Potemkin contest on the premise that Biden wasn’t up to another four years either physically or mentally. Party castigated him as a traitor to his party, an opportunist, and a Republican cat’s paw. Then, in a remarkable—and instructive—demonstration of Party’s dedication to democratic elections and to democracy of any form, Party canceled altogether their sham primary and pronounced by fiat Kamala Harris its candidate.

Party politicians other than Phillips contributed to the coverup of Biden’s growing mental incompetence either directly through their pronouncements of his fitness or indirectly through their studied silence on Biden’s capacities.

In sum, Party politicians openly lied to us citizens, and as the WSJ also put it, they denied the American people a better presidential choice, or at least in the eyes of some 77 million of us, a better alternative candidate for the office. They denied even their own voters the opportunity to choose a better alternative.

Party and Party politicians lied to all of us about so foundational a matter as who will lead our nation in its time of peril, who will exercise American influence around the world on matters central to our economic and political national security.

If Party politicians are willing to lie to us—have lied to us—about such a basic matter, what else will they lie to us about if reelected to their existing offices, or worse, if reelected to majorities in the House and Senate and in the White House?

Another Misleading Claim

Posted on by
Reply

This one by a Progressive-Democrat: California’s Alex Padilla. In his Tuesday letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, he wrote regarding Republicans’ musings about overruling the Senate’s Parliamentarian on the matter of California’s legal right to set its own emissions standards (itself a misleading claim, since what’s in question is whether California, or any State, can set emissions standards more stringent than the Federal government’s),

Republicans are now considering overruling Ms MacDonough, essentially going nuclear and throwing out the rule book in order to get their way.
…
If they can ignore the parliamentarian on this….

This is so broadly misleading as to approach being deliberately false. Far from ignoring the Parliamentarian, Republicans would be taking her eminently seriously and following Senate rules regarding her ruling, whether voting to overturn it or the Senate’s presiding officer overruling it.

Of course, Padilla knows this; he’s merely demonstrating, with his distortion, why it’s next to impossible to deal with members of his party.