Tag Archives: political parties

Law and Order Candidates

Posted on by
Reply

Call up into your memories, no matter the pain, of the rioting, looting, arson, murders all last summer in Progressive-Democrat-run jurisdictions: Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, New York City, Atlanta, and on and on.

Recall the move by those same Progressive-Democrats, and increasingly by their colleagues in other jurisdictions, to defund the police, to reduce the number of police on the payroll, to “reimagine” policing. And the ensuing rise in murders in those cities.

Especially pertinent to that last, is the newly elected St Louis Mayor, Tishaura Jones (D), coming into office with an ongoing rise in homicides to the highest rate in 50 years. Her answer to that rise?

[D]efund the city’s police budget by $4 million and to eliminate nearly 100 vacant officer positions.

Now we get the Progressive-Democrat Left making clear that they want even more of this. Here’s Ezra Klein, Left journalist, making that desire explicit:

Klein posted several examples of Democrats facing political hurdles over an increase in crime and then concluded the backlash could help Trump win back the Oval Office in 2024, should he run again.
“The politics of this could really tip, and not just in cities—if these numbers keep getting worse, then as with Nixon and Reagan in the ’70s and ’80s, it could bring ‘law and order’ conservatives (including Trump) back to power in 2024[.]”

Klein tried to disguise his—the Left’s—fear of law and order as a fear of the return of authoritarianism and outright racism. He’s misleading with that, given that it’s the Progressive-Democrats who ruled by a “phone and a pen,” and today by unilateral, don’t want to negotiate with Republicans, Party fiat.

Klein also ignored, in his pious disguise, the openly racist policies of the Left, from their selection criteria for school admission that use race (and gender), their critical race “theory,” their identity politics.

Klein also ignored, particularly regarding policing, the murders of black police officers by Party’s supporters antifa and BLM during those riots and lootings, and the black-on-black homicide rates, the latter which don’t have the cachet of race that the Left so desperately need for their narrative.

Klein also carefully ignored Party icons like Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) actively inciting riot and trying to intimidate the jury in the Chauvin murder trial before the jury was sequestered.

Racism and authoritarianism, indeed.

Thus, the left’s fear: we’ll be faced with law and order candidates in 2022 and 2024.

The horror.

“Out of Balance Scales”

Posted on by
Reply

Juan Williams has joined the Left’s baying at Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer over the latter’s rudeness in staying on the job, rather than politely retiring and getting out of their way. He began his own howl with a question that opened his recent op-ed at The Hill.

How political is today’s Supreme Court?

He continued, citing the well-known statistics journal The Washington Post:

The current 6-3 conservative majority on the court makes it “more conservative than the elected branches [House, Senate and presidency—all controlled by Democrats] to a degree not seen in 70 years.”
The out-of-balance scales of Supreme Court justice can be traced to the heavy hand of Senate Republicans.

Only a Progressive-Democrat like Juan Williams could say with a straight face that a Supreme Court that adheres to the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the text of our Constitution and statutes is “out of balance.”

And only a Progressive-Democrat could decry his political opponents for insisting on a Court whose Justices adhere to their oaths of office and defend our Constitution rather than blithely “reinterpreting” convenient clauses according to their personal views of the day—or making it up as they go along (expecting the law to catch up) as one of Williams’ favorites, Justice Thurgood Marshall, so famously (or infamously) bragged—or insisting that Justices extend that concept to adhering to the statutes as written and then enacted by our political branches of government rather than rewriting them to suit their personal views of societal wishes.

And then the baying:

The realistic fight is to keep the current imbalance on the court from getting worse.
That begins with nudging Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three remaining Democratic nominees on the court, to retire now.
Breyer is 82 years old. If he leaves the court now, he will be replaced by a Biden nominee….

How rude of Justice Breyer. How utterly political he is, to stay on a job for which he’s fully capable and well qualified still to do.

Whose Money Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the central question we should be asking ourselves—and we should be electing our government representatives on the basis of the answer.

For example: the Progressive-Democrats in the Maine State legislature are looking to add a 3% income tax “surcharge” on any Maine citizen who makes $200,000 or more per year. The rationalization for this is provided by Progressive-Democrat State Senator Ben Chipman:

If someone is making $1 million a year, they can afford to pay a higher tax rate than somebody who is making $20,000 a year[.]

If they can afford it, they’re somehow obligated to pay it. That imagined obligation can only flow from the Progressive-Democrats’ view that the money we earn isn’t our money, it’s Government’s money, and Government—the men and women in Government—will let us keep what they deem sufficient to our needs.

After all, as a prominent Progressive-Democrat almost said, a short while ago,

If you’ve got [an income], you didn’t [earn] that. Somebody else made that happen.

As that man also said,

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.

What the Progressive-Democrat chose to misconstrue, though—what Progressive-Democrats as a group choose to misconstrue—is that “give back” means “Government take back.”

Because Government, according to Progressive-Democrats, isn’t really taking back; Government is keeping and giving back a portion of what it doesn’t believe is ours to begin with.

Someone who is wealthier than me is somehow obligated to pay more than me for the same good, service, benefit I’m getting? I pay $X for a car or a meal out but my neighbor, who has a higher income than me, should have to pay $X++ for that same car or meal out? Just because he can afford to pay $X++?

How does that work, exactly? Where is the morality in that? Where is the equality in that? Where is the Progressive-Democrats’ precious equity in that?

From Luke 12:48 (King James Version):

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Absolutely. Hence the desire of those who want to give something back.

But that’s the thing. The obligation is levied by God on us as individuals, not by Government on us as a collection of citizens, and it’s an obligation for each of us to give according to our chosen methods and beneficiaries (and by extension, to choose wisely), not an authorization for Government to take according to Government men’s choices (and by extension, to be subject to their arbitrariness).

Support for Hamas

Posted on by
Reply

Iran has been exposed, once again, as supporting terrorism, this time straight from the horse’s mouth.

[Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau,] Ismail Haniyeh…thanked “the Islamic Republic of Iran; who did not hold back with money, weapons, and technical support.”

Nor does the support for Hamas come solely from Iran.

In his speech Friday at the start of his joint press conference with Republic of Korea President Moon Jae-in, President Joe Biden (D) spoke at length—bragged—about how he’d been in frequent contact with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and about how several levels of his administration had been in constant contact with various levels of Netanyahu’s government to pressure the Israelis to “find a way” to end the hostilities with Hamas (and, oh by the way, Egypt helped out), and how he, Biden, had pushed Netanyahu to stop the rioting in Jerusalem. Biden had not a word, not a syllable, of his effort to push the Hamas leadership to stop their terrorist attacks on Israel or to push the Hamas leadership to stop Palestinian rioting in Jerusalem.

That’s coupled with Biden’s anxious push to get Iran to let the US (re)join the Iran nuclear weapons acquisition deal, ultimately to lift sanctions, and to pay billions more American dollars to the terrorism- and terrorist-supporting state, much of which money will go to Hamas.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took note of that latter, also.

America is about to supply Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief to continue this. For America’s security, and for that of Israel, this is dangerous.

That’s this administration’s one-sided pressure on Israel, backed up by his Progressive-Democratic Party as Party Congressmen insistently accuse Israel of terrorism and apartheid, with nary a word about Hamas’ terrorism and with no contradiction from Party leadership. Biden has pretty words, to be sure, about undying support for Israel, but that prettiness is belied by his actual behavior.

Whether it’s Biden’s intent or not, the outcome of his behavior is decreased antithesis toward Hamas and Hamas’ terrorism (which much clearly is Party’s intent), and increased the danger to Israel and to us.

A Joke?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) was asked a question while he was playing around with an electric Ford F-150 truck, taking it for joy test drives around the parking lot of a Ford plant in Michigan.

Here’s the exchange.

Reporter: Mr President, can I ask you a quick question on Israel before you drive away since it’s so important?
Biden: No, you can’t. Not unless you get in front of the car as I step on it. I’m only teasing[.]

Only teasing?

This is part and parcel with his then-boss President Barack Obama’s (D) overt attack on journalists, arresting one, spying on another’s personal communications, spying on that one’s mother’s personal communications, attempting to blackball an entire news organization—all because they asked inconvenient questions.

This was no joke—Joe Biden was threatening a journalist because the man asked an inconvenient question.