Tag Archives: political parties

The Beginning

Posted on by
Reply

…of another whitewash?  The IRS says it wants to look into claims of “pay to play” requirements perpetrated by the Clinton Foundation.

It’s an interestingly timed investigation.  Absolution of the Clinton Foundation could easily come this fall, in time to influence the election in November.

Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in a July 22 letter to Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN] that the issue has been “forwarded” to the IRS “Exempt Organizations Examinations” program in Dallas.

Why now, I ask again.  The IRS has known about these allegations for a long time.  Even The New York Times has been talking about this matter for some time.

Because We Just Don’t Understand

Posted on by
Reply

But our Betters do.  No less a light than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) says so, so it must be so.

I think that, so many times, white—non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose[.]

Because it’s not in our interest—not in the interest of any American, but hey: this Democrat is playing the race card—to insist on our right to keep and bear even as Democrats confirm the need with their constant attempts to disarm us.

Because it isn’t possible to disagree with gays on marriage while respecting—actively moving to protect—the freedoms of all individual Americans, including whatever group Democrats want to carve out and divide from other Americans with their identity politics.

Because God doesn’t want us to protect babies as well as women, but only those groups of human beings whom Democrats single out as appropriate for God’s protection.

Elections have consequences, and here’s one from the last election in California.

Flip-Flop or Copycat?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Democratic Party Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on international trade.

As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton helped negotiate the yet-to-be-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership and gave some 45 public speeches for TPP [TransPacific Partnership].

Then

…to fend off the Sanders challenge, she renounced the final TPP text in October 2015….

This isn’t new.  When Bill Clinton was pushing NAFTA, so did Hillary Clinton, and she repeated that in her memoir.  Then in her first Presidential campaign, she vowed to “renegotiate” NAFTA.

In that campaign, she assured her hoped-for union voters that she’d not conclude the sort of trade deals then in the offing with Cambodia and the Republic of Korea.  Once safely ensconced in the State Department, though, she put all of that Cabinet’s influence to work pushing for passage of exactly those deals (and tried to delete from her official State Department business personal email server NAFTA-related emails).

Here’s her chosen nominee, Senator Time Kaine (D, VA) on international trade, with the proposed TPP as his vehicle.

I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much in it to like.  I think it’s an upgrade of labor standards, I think it’s an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it’s an upgrade of intellectual property protections.

That was just prior to the Democratic Party Convention.  Here he is, now that he’s running for Vice President.

Kaine said he agreed with Clinton—who had helped negotiate the trade deal as secretary of state but now opposes as the Democratic presidential nominee—that the TPP did not meet certain standards on wages and national security.

Either way, this doesn’t predict a very stable administration, rather it suggests that Clinton and Kaine would change course with the winds of convenient politics.

The DNC “Apologizes”

Posted on by
Reply

[T]he DNC finally apologized for “inexcusable remarks made over email,” saying it “does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates.”

Sure.  But—carefully—there’s not a syllable of apology for the Party’s actual bias toward a disfavored candidate, nor is there a minim of an apologetic word about the Party’s overt behavior toward a disfavored candidate in acting on that bias.  There’s only this expression of regret for some words.

Do We Really Need Four More Years?

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what nearly eight years of Progressivism, accomplished by President Barack Obama (D) and his Progressive-Democrat acolytes in the Democratic Party, have done.  As The Wall Street Journal put it:

  • largest stimulus spending bill in decades
  • Obamacare
  • nationalized the student-loan industry
  • turned the banks into public utilities answerable first to government

All of these have created the slowest recession recovery since WWII.  The nominally low unemployment rate that has been achieved is measured against the backdrop of the lowest labor participation rate in 40 years—in two generations.  Banks as government-managed public utilities, no longer responsive exclusive to the banks’ owners and creditors—which includes us individual savings and checking account holders?  That’s just another means for government to collect revenue.

Progressivism has been bypassing our republican democracy form of representative government for the last several years, too.  Obama has ruled by Executive diktat Executive Order, Executive Action, Department/Agency rulemaking to achieve

  • climate change
  • organizing

Then there’s foreign affairs.

  • deals with adversaries—the nuclear weapons deal with Iran, for instance, and acceptance of Russian partitions of Georgia and Ukraine
  • distanced us from our allies—denigrating Israel over their efforts to defend themselves against Palestinian terrorism, for instance
  • with Progressivism’s cynical budget maneuvering there’s less ability to support military spending—to the tune of defense spending falling to 3% of GDP and less—down from 4.6% those eight years ago

All of this is Progressivism’s pell-mell retreat from our responsibilities on the global stage, and that world is far more unstable and dangerous to us and to those friends and allies than it was eight years ago.

Then there’s Progressivism’s attitude toward us plebeian Americans.  They’ve plied the politics of identity to divide us by ideology, age, race, class, gender, and any other cleverly defined separation they could create, and then they’ve played these artificial distinctions (we used to be all Americans, after all, who happened to be of one gender or the other, have one skin color or another, one ethnic heritage or another) against each other in Progressives’ cynical effort to maximize their personal power.

Do we really need—can our nation really afford—four more years of the same?