Tag Archives: political parties

Judgment and Impeachment

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D, NY) had some interesting things to say 21 years ago regarding an impeachment proceeding [emphasis added].

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity.
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other.
…
We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.

One difference between then and now, though, is that today Nadler and his fellow Progressive-Democrats don’t think that us ordinary Americans have any considered judgment—after all, we disagree with him and his.  We must be ill-informed, or stupid. We have, since 1998, sunk to bitter religion- and gun-clinging and to the sorry state of irredeemability and deplorability.

And, because so many millions of us support the wrong politician’s policies, we’re racist to our core.

As such, we’re simply to be ignored by our Betters.

Impeachments

Posted on by
Reply

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) having successfully led her caucus into a strictly partisan (tribal, in Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s (D, HI) words), impeachment, she now has said she’ll withhold her Articles of Impeachment until she gets her way on how the Senate will conduct its trial (and because she understands her caucus has no case to present for trial).

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), working in concert with his BFF in the House, is demanding that the Senate call additional witnesses, confessing thereby that the House Progressive-Democrat caucus has not produced sufficient evidence to make its case.

Both are wrong, though.  This is not an Article III or State criminal trial proceeding; it’s a Federal Legislative Branch Impeachment proceeding.  The House investigates and develops the relevant facts.  The Senate conducts a trial based on those facts.

We are not Medieval England where the judges conduct their own investigation.

Even Pelosi and Schumer should understand that.

Another Welfare Cliff Example

Posted on by
Reply

A small business owner having direct experience with employees, hiring, and welfare schema, wrote in his Letter in a recent Wall Street Journal:

We are seeing a segment of the workforce, usually single mothers, who want to work but can’t work too many hours because they would lose their federal, state and local subsidies.

This is by the design of the Progressive-Democrats: their goal is to keep these unfortunates trapped in their welfare cage, dependent on Progressive-Democrat politicians’ handouts because…votes.

The letter-writer went on:

Government assistance programs should be designed to allow people to make progress, earning more and building up savings so they can eventually be financially independent. Instead, many of these capable people are locked into a cycle of dependence.

Of course assistance programs should be structured that way rather than locking capable people…into a cycle of dependence. However, letting those people out of the cage would be a reduction of Progressive-Democrat political power.

Congressional Supremacy

Posted on by
2

Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D, MI) was asked by Bill Hemmer on his Fox News show Friday morning after the Nadler Committee voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the House how she would vote on those Articles.

Slotkin led off by making a big deal about her CIA training (in objective analysis), then assuring us all that she would not vote based on polls, she would not be pushed one way or another, she would not vote based on newspaper articles.  No, she would vote on her gut and on what she thought was right.

Not one word, not one syllable, not a single minim of voting the way her constituents—her employers—instruct her to vote.  She hasn’t even asked her employers for their instruction.  She’s been elected, now it’s too Hell with her bosses.

Parliamentary Supremacy is alive and well in the Progressive-Democratic Party in the House.

And that stinks.

Culture and Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline of a Federalist article about the Boris Johnson/Tories election just concluded in Great Britain caught my eye. Read the whole article; it’s valuable in its entirety.

It is far easier for the right to compromise on economics than for the left to compromise on culture, religion, and nationalism. And that is the formula conservatives need to remember.

We’ve seen this in our nation, too: the Left’s and its Progressive-Democratic Party’s constant drumbeat of attacks against the right of particular, disapproved-of Americans to practice their religion and attacks on our nation, demanding, instead that we subordinate ourselves to internationalism, wherein we lose control of our own lives.  Understand: these sorts of things are unique to our nation. No other nation in the world has a written-down Constitution that says in so many words—opens with the words—that We the People are sovereign in our nation. Not Government, not any arm of Government, we citizens. Government works for us.

We’ve seen also the refusal of Progressive-Democrats to compromise, even to try, with Republicans. The Republican Party is just a Trumpian personality cult, they say.  Supporters of Trump are racists, now including Conservatives.  Blacks who support Trump are, to use more polite terms, Uncle Toms or oreos.  Women who support Trump are, at best, voting against their interest, and at worst, as was said about a Republican woman candidate for Vice President, she should be gang-raped by blacks and then shat in her mouth.  Americans, generally, are just bitter Bible- and gun-clingers, ignorant, racist, and misogynistic.  The Left and Party are in open warfare against our American culture.

In contrast, an ability to compromise on matters of economics, what those of the Right, the Republican Party and Conservatives in general are willing and able to do is a far more successful method, and it’s far more protective of American culture: economics is near, if not at, the center of culture.

It’s how businessmen of a particular religion live their business lives while still doing business with customers of differing religious tenets, or no such tenets at all.  It’s how businessmen protect their rights to speak openly and freely by not selling a product with a particular message to customers demanding that message, and this freedom is especially protected by American free markets: there will be another business just down the block willing to sell the same article with the customer-desired message.

Free market economics is how we interact with each other within the framework of culture.  And the freedom of our market is how we find compromise among each other.  And that preserves our American culture.

The fundamental difference in Western politics now is cultural, and is between Westphalian sovereignty and unifying nationalism on one hand, and complete individualist internationalism and rule by technocratic institutions on the other.

Indeed, in American politics in particular, as well as the British politics of which Sumantra Maitra was writing at the link. And one is preservative of our culture, our way of life, our central ethos, while the other is overtly, carefully considered destruction of all of that.