Tag Archives: political parties

Lies of a Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) now is claiming that when she became pregnant at a teaching job early in her career, she was let go from that teaching job.

I loved it, and I would probably still be doing it today but back in the day, before unions, the principal, by the time we got to the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant. And the principal did what principals did in those days: they wished you luck, showed you the door, and hired someone else for the job. And there went my dream.

We’ve seen that her lie has been contradicted by her own earlier words: “As I became pregnant, I realized this just wasn’t working for me.”

…my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years….

Now we learn that her lie also is contradicted by the public record of that school district.

The Riverdale Board of Education approved a second-year teaching contract [as a substitute teacher] for a young Elizabeth Warren, documents show, contradicting the Democratic presidential candidate’s repeated claims that she was asked not to return to teaching after a single year because she was “visibly pregnant.”

The minutes of that Riverdale school district meeting can be seen here.

And this bit. A couple months after that contract offer, the Board had this:

“The resignation of Mrs. Elizabeth Warren, speech correctionist effective June 30, 1971 was accepted with regret,” the June 16, 1971, minutes say.

Those minutes can be reviewed here (scroll to near the bottom).

This is the level of integrity we can expect from this Progressive-Democrat, were she to get elected President. Indeed, given Warren’s constant flow of lies, from her claim of being part Native American, through this sequence, her lie about being the first nursing mother to take a bar exam in the state of New Jersey, I have to wonder whether she can discriminate reality from fantasy at all.

 

h/t Dana Loesch via Eliana Johnson

An Elizabeth Warren Demand

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) has begun issuing her orders to our private business executives.  And she’s not even the Progressive-Democratic Party nominee for the office, much less the President [bold face emphasis added].

I write in regard to the Business Roundtable’s (BRT) new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation issued on August 19, 2019. … I write for information about the tangible actions you intend to take to implement the principles, including whether, to make good on your commitment, you will implement the steps laid out in the Accountable Capitalism Act I plan to reintroduce in the coming weeks.

And

If you, and the other 181 corporate executives who signed the BRT’s new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, plan to live up to the promises you made, I expect that you will endorse and wholeheartedly support the reforms laid out in the Accountable Capitalism Act to meet the principles you endorse.

And so on.

A key part (among several key parts) of Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act is her requirement that all businesses above a minimum size must get Federal—not State—charters to continue to operate.

Do what I tell you to do with the corporations you run in my Government’s name, if you know what’s good for you.

This is the core aspect of socialism: Government ownership of an economy’s means of production—the businesses operating in that economy—or Government direction of what nominally privately owned businesses will be permitted to do.

Warren’s letter to those executives can be read here.

An Intelligence Strike

Posted on by
Reply

A second putative whistleblower is claimed to be coming forward with commentary on President Donald Trump’s telecon with Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelenskiy.  This one claims to have firsthand knowledge of the call.  This one also is claimed by others to be from the intelligence community.

I’ll ask the obvious question, knowing the NLMSM will refuse to answer: who’s leaking these things?  The whistleblower’s claims haven’t even been evaluated by the Intelligence Community Inspector General as such things are supposed to be before anything is done with that kind of complaint.

The other obvious thing is this warning by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) about a President daring to dispute with the intelligence community.

Let me tell you: you take on the intelligence community—they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you[.]

This is against the backdrop of the drumbeat of smears and false accusations by ex-CIA Director John Brennan and the more sub rosa false claims made by the more genteel ex-DIA Director James Clapper, also known for his “not deliberately” done misstatements during a House hearing.

This “complaint” is the second intelligence community strike of which Schumer warned, coming after the first “whistleblower” strike was shown to have been coordinated with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) (who lied about that coordination) and shown further to be foolish at best, consisting as it does of nothing but second- and third-hand rumors.

Having sent out that stalking horse and learned something of the nature of the counters, this on may well be of better manufacture.

Unfortunately, though, it’s no longer possible to take intel’s “whistleblowers” seriously, even were a complaint to turn out to coincide with truth, because of this history of dishonesty.  And especially since these are being rolled out serially, keeping the matter in the newspapers and talk shows, rather than coming out together as a package, so the matter could be addressed with some finality.

Look for a third strike, if this one plops, also.

Raise the Price

Posted on by
Reply

…of a product, and with that, lower demand for it.  This is the sort of thing taught in high school introductory economics courses.  One way to raise the price is to raise taxes related to it, and to reduce tax deductions related to it.

The Manhattan real estate market [a generally hgh-end market] stumbled in the third quarter of 2019, new reports show, as prices plunged and fewer buyers were willing to purchase higher-priced properties in the wake of two recent tax increases.
The median sales price for properties fell 17% from the same quarter last year…. The average sales price dropped 12%….
Condo sales fell 8%….

Maybe this had something to do with it:

In July, New York City increased its mansion tax—a progressive tax that applies to home sales of more than $1 million—to a maximum of 3.9%, up from a flat-rate of 1%. The tax rates vary from 1.25% for $2 million sales, to 3.9% for sales of $25 million and higher. The city also increased a one-time charge on properties worth more than $2 million—known as the transfer tax.

And maybe the $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) imposed by the 2017 tax reform bill is having an impact.

Yes, Trump Did Commit an Impeachable Offense

Posted on by
Reply

Notwithstanding lawyer and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett’s hysterical musings to the contrary.

As Jarrett correctly quoted, but mischaracterized, then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford’s (R, MI) remark on impeachment,

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.

Jarrett is right that this isn’t what the Constitution’s authors intended, but it’s what they wrote, and it’s what our Constitution has said ever since.  High Crimes and Misdemeanors were completely undefined by them and by any ratification since.

The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the House is bound and determined to get rid of a President whom they consider to have stolen their personal property—the 2016 Presidential election—and so to prevent him from continuing to squat on their property after the 2020 Presidential election.  In the course of their effort, they are, indeed, denigrating the meaning of every word in that phrase, including the “and.”

They’re after charging President Donald Trump with the heinous behavior of asking the President of a foreign nation to look into the possibility of corruption in his own nation and the possibility of a role that corruption may have played in our 2016 election.  The impeachers insist that President Donald Trump demanded a quid pro quo, withholding military aid funding, against that President complying with the request.  Never mind that the Ukrainian President, Volodomyr Zelenskiy, has said on multiple occasions that he was not pressured at all, or that Ukraine’s Foreign Minister has said Ukraine didn’t even know any funds for military aid had been held up until a month after that telecon.

They’re after, also, charging Trump with the heinous crime of asking the same foreign nation to look into the possibility that a Progressive-Democrat, in his capacity as Vice President, might have extorted that same nation into stopping a corruption investigation into a business on whose board of directors that Vice President’s son sat and firing the Prosecutor General leading it.  That look-into involved a request for help from that nation because the activity occurred in that nation.  Never mind, here, that the impeachers insist that the subject of this requested look must be above investigation because he is a Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for President, not because he might be innocent.

An impeachment is nothing more than a grand jury indictment, and as is well known across a broad range of venues, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he sees fit.  The foolishness of this impeachment effort; the dishonesty underlying it; the plain, naked politics of the Progressive-Democrats’ effort to preempt the upcoming Presidential election with it—all are palpable and lay bare the nature of it.

Yes, Trump did commit impeachable offenses, as Progressive-Democrats in the House define the terms, and when they do get their impeachment done, they will be exposed for the irrational politicians they are, and for persons bent on their own political gain at the expense of their constituents’ interests and instructions.

Unfortunately, Jarrett’s name-calling and snark-ridden op-ed lends neither the Conservative cause in general nor the Trump matter in particular any credibility at all.