Tag Archives: political parties

In Which Biden Has the Right of It

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden is taking heat for his position on legalizing marijuana at the Federal level.  No less a light than Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) objects to Biden’s hesitation:

Marijuana should be legalized, and drug consumption should be decriminalized. These are matters of public health.

And Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT):

Too many lives were ruined due to the disastrous criminalization of marijuana[.]

Biden, though, doesn’t see the need for the rush:

I want a lot more [data] before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it.

On this one, Biden is right, even if his version of the science is centered on whether marijuana is a gateway drug. There’s better science that argues for reluctance to legalize, and if we do so, to legalize only under very narrow circumstances.

There is considerable evidence that THC, the chemical putatively of interest, in uncontrolled use damages brains. There is, also, considerable evidence that various chemicals, including THC, and chemical combinations in marijuana can have beneficial medicinal effect.

Research needs to be done to identify with clarity those chemicals and chemical combinations. If the research bears out, then growing marijuana for the production of medically beneficial chemicals and chemical combinations can be licensed—just as is done with heroin into morphine and related chemicals.

Then, as with morphine, controlled doses of those chemicals/chemical combinations, with their known side effects and trade-offs, can be prescribed pursuant to useful treatment regimes.

A Thought on a Tweet

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump, during Friday’s “impeachment” hearing with erstwhile US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, tweeted in his inimitable style a critique of her job performance over the years.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Nov 15
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.

Some are suggesting that Yovanovitch wouldn’t have known about the tweet had not House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) read it out to her during her testimony, and so there couldn’t possibly be any intimidation.  Others argue the so what aspect of that; Trump’s tweet would serve to intimidate future witnesses and to intimidate Yovanovitch were she to return for additional testimony.

Especially damning, Yovanovitch testified—under oath—in answer to Schiff’s question about the tweet, that she found it intimidating.

But damning to whom?

Yovanovitch, at the time of her ambassadorship in Ukraine (and elsewhere), was a high-level US Government representative, and she still is by extension from her “plum job” at Georgetown. Her confessing to being intimidated by petty (in several senses) criticism of her job performance tells other governments, including those of our enemies, that our government can easily be pushed around.

That emboldens our enemies to act overtly against our interests, even against us.  It tells our friends and allies that we’ll fold in a crunch, including theirs.

That’s a threat to our national security.

California’s Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
1

They have a homeless problem, and they seem oblivious to it.

Oakland has seen a 47% jump in homelessness—one of the largest surges of any California city, according to a one-night street count released in July. The count, which used federal guidelines, showed Oakland had 4,071 homeless people in 2019, up from 2,761 in 2017. The increase puts the city’s per capita homeless rate higher than neighboring San Francisco and Berkeley and comes at a time when several West Coast cities are struggling with a homeless crisis that’s being driven by rising rents, drug addiction, mental illness and pushback from progressives.

San Francisco, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Los Angeles—the list goes on—have a severe homeless crisis.

One could almost get the impression that Congress’ Progressive-Democratic Party politicians from California just don’t care about the plight of their constituents.

It’s not just California’s Progressive-Democrat-run cities, either.  San Antonio has one so bad that the State has had to move in and try to clean the streets and under-bridge areas for them.  Seattle is just as bad.  Chicago and New York City have the same thing, although they’re less publicized, and their respective State governments—Progressive-Democrat-run—don’t provide, or even offer, any help.  Baltimore is infamous for its terrible neighborhoods.

This is what those Progressive-Democrats in Congress should be working on instead of their smear sham impeachment election year campaign.  These folks are their constituents, not the lobbyists, pressmen, and reflectors in their DC echo chamber.

One could almost get the impression that Congress’ Progressive-Democratic Party politicians everywhere just don’t care about the plight of their constituents.

If You’ve Got Nothing to Hide

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Eric “Nuke ’em” Swalwell (D, CA) has come up with yet another bit of his distortion of our Constitution.

If the president of the United States is innocent, he will send the firsthand witnesses, John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, to Congress.  If he’s guilty, they’ll stop us from hearing it, hard stop.

Because Guilty. He’s accused.

This is precisely the sort of invasive, prurient, government arrogance against which our Founders, the authors of our Constitution, and us citizens led the fight against, wrote into our Constitution, and ratified—including the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Swalwell must get a warrant.  He doesn’t get to peek through our windows—even through an opposing politician’s or associates of an opposing politician’s windows—just because his prying mind wants to peek.  Nothing to hide? Our privacy is all we have to hide, and it’s sufficient that we choose to protect it.  If we’re innocent? We start out that way; it’s on Swalwell and his Government cronies to prove we’re not.

And this gem:

I wanted the American people to see that these [William Taylor and Gordon Kent]…share what they saw as far as wrongdoing….

Except by their own admission under oath during the Wednesday’s hearing they saw absolutely nothing as far as wrongdoing. All they could do was describe things they’d heard others say, through an often highly convoluted grapevine.

Even Congressman Nuke ’em knows this, or he wasn’t watching the hearing. This is a measure of the level of integrity that our Progressive-Democrat politicians hold.

What Do We Have So Far

Posted on by
Reply

Wednesday’s “impeachment” hearing is in the can, and here’s what we know from it.

All Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent could offer throughout the entire 6-ish hours of testimony was hearsay and supposition.

Taylor repeatedly said he’d heard this, or someone reported to him that, or it came to him through a chain of tellings and retellings. “I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy (who heard it from a guy).” He also insisted that Progressive-Democrat claims of wrongs done by President Donald Trump vis-à-vis Ukraine were his understanding, too, even his clear understanding.  Yet when directly asked how he arrived at his understandings, all he could say was, “Well, I heard it from a guy….” Even his in-hearing “revelation”—that Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland thought Trump, in the runup to and during the telecon, only cared about a Biden investigation—was nothing more than that Taylor had heard it from guy: Sondland reporting to Taylor Sondland’s own “understanding.”

Sondland’s understanding? Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH) spelled out an example of Sondland’s…understandings:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr [Tim] Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr Morrison that I had conveyed this message to Mr [Andriy] Yermak on September 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky[.]

When asked if either had talked to Zelenskiy or Trump or Trump associates themselves, both Kent and Taylor had nothing to say except that they had talked to none of the principles or associates of the principles.  All they had was their grapevines.

There were, though, some actual facts revealed in Wednesday’s hearing:

  • Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said—repeatedly and on the world stage during multiple press conferences that he held—there was no pressure, no influence attempted
  • Despite Progressive-Democrat Intelligence Committee members’ claims that Trump had intimidated Zelenskiy into beginning or publicly announcing the need for investigations under threat of aid cut-off, Zelenskiy began no investigations, made no such public averrals. The aid was released shortly after the telecon
  • Ukraine’s government didn’t know aid had been held up until long after the telecon
  • Ukrainian aid had been held up over skepticism about endemic Ukrainian corruption; it was released when the White House staff became satisfied that Zelenskiy and his staff were “the real deal”
  • Progressive-Democrats, having failed in their quid pro quo quest, now are turning to the even more difficult to prove extortion/bribery (they can’t decide which) charge
  • Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) continues to refuse to allow the principle witness to this affair, the reputed whistleblower—whose own claim is based solely on hearsay—to be called to testify
  • By extension, Schiff also won’t allow the whistleblower’s reputed sources to be called to testify

This is the level to which the Progressive-Democratic Party has sunk.

Today’s hearing will be…interesting?