Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive-Democrat Lawfare Harassment of Political Opponents

Posted on by
Reply

They’re spreading their warfare-via-law against political opponents far beyond former President and Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Now they’re attacking ex-Congresswomen who were treacherous enough to leave Party and to speak for herself and for average Americans even though she remains left of center.

Against the backdrop of the Biden-Wray FBI releasing into our nation a Pakistani, under “parole,” who was known to be plan[ning] an assassination of Donald Trump and other politicians, the Progressive-Democrat administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is having their Transportation Security Administration place former Democrat Congresswoman and Army Reserve Lt Col Tulsi Gabbard onto the TSA’s Quiet Skies watchlist. That program is for TSA officers in airports to look hard at travelers [who] present an elevated risk to aviation security. The program also has

armed undercover marshals in airports and on planes keep tabs on passenger behaviors and movements they deemed noteworthy—including abrupt change of direction in the airport, fidgeting, having a “cold penetrating stare”, changing clothes, shaving, using phones, even using the bathroom—and send detailed observations to the TSA.

TSA is executing with enthusiasm, as Gabbard has confirmed:

She described how when she boarded a flight, TSA agents conducted a thorough screening, patting down every inch, searching all corners of her luggage, and individually inspected her electronic devices.
“I’ve got a couple of blazers in there, and they’re squeezing every inch of the entire collar, every inch of the sleeves, every inch of the edging of the blazers. They’re squeezing or padding down underwear, bras, workout clothes, every inch of every piece of clothing.”

Because Gabbard is that suspicious, while the assassin wannabe targeting a senior Republican politician, is none of that.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party that wants to be the only party in power, controlling our House of Representatives, our Senate, and our White House, and from where they intend to castrate the final check on their government power, our Supreme Court.

Oh, Yes It Is

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal titled one of its Wednesday editorials about Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat governor and putative Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Vice President Tim Walz with this amazingly ignorant subheadline:

His military record isn’t a good reason to oppose his candidacy.

The editors’ rationalization:

Before his political career, Mr Walz rose to the highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major. He retired in May 2005, shortly before the unit was notified in July 2005 that it would be deployed to Iraq. Fox News reports that the Pentagon says Mr Walz put in his retirement request several months earlier, though it’s fair to ask if he was aware of the possible Iraq deployment.
His retirement timing wasn’t ideal, leaving his leadership position when his unit was headed into a war zone.

After all, the editors nattered,

But if he had been deemed essential to the operation, the Guard could have declined to approve it.

Yes, Walz was well aware of his unit’s pending deployment to an active combat zone; it was under a Warning Order to prepare for that deployment when Walz put in his “retirement” papers. Walz’ timing “wasn’t ideal” for his unit, but it was well-timed to get him out of serving a dangerous assignment.

Associated with Walz’ abandonment of his unit, he had signed up and begun taking courses for a promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He was provisionally promoted to that rank on his commitment to the course. Taking the course also carried with it a commitment to serve for two more years at that rank and in a position commensurate with that rank. Failure to honor the commitment, or to complete the course, carried with it a consequence that he would be demoted/returned to his lower rank of Master Sergeant—which Walz also knew; he had to sign paperwork acknowledging that.

Walz quit his unit while it was under orders to prepare for a combat zone deployment; he was reduced in rank, and he was allowed to retire. Yet his Web page still claims he was a Command Sergeant Major when he retired. That’s a straight-up lie. When he put in his papers, reneging on that two-year commitment, he was reduced in rank to his prior, permanent rank of Master Sergeant. His service as a Command Sergeant Major was only provisional, and contingent on his honoring his commitment. The editors disingenuously claim there’s no doubt he had reached the higher position while active. No: he achieved that rank only provisionally, lost it on his reneging on his commitment, and was discharged at the lower, permanent rank.

Walz has also been lying about his having served “in war.” That may have been a deceptive boast, though a minor one, scribbled the editors. The closest Walz came to serving “in war” was during our fighting in Afghanistan—he had a six-month tour 2,500 miles behind the lines in the comfortable offices of the base in Italy to which he’d been assigned. Again, no: a lie of that magnitude is no mere minor deceptive boast—it’s a despicable lie that cheapens and insults the service of so many who have actually served in war and especially those who’ve been wounded, maimed, mentally scarred during that service.

Then there’s that editorial foolishness that the Guard could have retained him had he been essential. Men whose lives are on the line deserve a leader who’s committed to them and to the mission to which their unit—and supposedly Walz—are assigned. The Guard correctly assessed Walz’ lack of commitment to his duties, correctly recognized that Walz considered his personal political career more important than the lives of the men and women whom he would be been leading in a combat zone. The Guard was correct to release this…NCO…who would have been worse than merely a Beetle Bailey with senior sergeant chevrons. Beetle Bailey at least was an honest shirker, come to that.

The United States deserves a Vice President who is committed to us citizens and who has the courage and morality to keep that commitment when things get tough, whether for our nation or for the Vice President personally. That’s not who Walz is.

“Debate Kamala Harris, Mr Trump”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of William McGurn’s Monday editorial, and his piece goes on at some length on that theme. It’s unfortunate to see such a piece from the usually astute McGurn.

In fact, former President and Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has already offered to debate the Progressive-Democrat Harris. He’s proposed a specific date, 4 September; proposed Fox News‘ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum moderate it; and that the debate operate under substantially the same rules as the originally scheduled and now no longer existent debate with Joe Biden—just with a couple of additions: the debate with Harris that Trump has proposed would occur in a town hall venue, with a live audience present.

Harris is skittering away from that as fast as she can.

McGurn should call on Harris to accept the offered debate.

They’re At It Again

Posted on by
Reply

Never mind Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s mantra of “building [America] from the middle out and the bottom up. Here, in a nutshell, is Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ proposed economic policy:

Building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency[.]

Biden’s execution of his mantra favored wealthy special interests, vis., green lobbyists, buyers of expensive battery cars and solar panels, and on and on.

Harris has dropped all pretense of carrying a single copper penny about the poor, which has been all too typical of the Democratic Party and its evolution, today’s Progressive-Democratic Party. They yap about the poor, and then they do nothing.

Speaking of Proud Records…

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris is a woman of verbally flexible policies.

At a 2020 primary campaign town hall, Harris had this position:

There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. And starting with what we can do on Day One around public lands, right?

In today’s Presidential campaign season, she’s claiming to not be opposed to fracking. After all, [o]ne important swing state, Pennsylvania, is the second largest producer of natural gas.

Following the George Floyd murder and subsequent race riots (many of which victim neighborhoods still have not recovered from them), Harris was a zealous supporter of defunding police departments.

Defund the police, the issue behind it is that we need to reimagine how we are creating safety.
…
For too long, the status quo thinking has been, you get more safety by putting more cops on the street. Well, that’s wrong, because by the way, if you wanna look at upper middle class suburban neighborhoods, they don’t have that patrol car.

Now she’s pushing funding police departments.

On illegal aliens flooding across our borders: when a debate moderator asked, in a 2019 Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential primary campaign debate, whether they [the candidates] would be in favor of decriminalizing border crossings, Harris signaled her agreement with such a decriminalization. Then, post-election, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden gave Harris the job of being border czar (the press’ term, which in their own convenient flop, they’re trying to deny they ever used), and Harris has acted on her decriminalization position by…doing nothing regarding tightening border security.

Now, during this campaign season, Harris is claiming to be supportive of tightening border controls.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is in on the scheme of claiming altered positions at political convenience:

White House officials told Politico that these shifts are part of a strategy to undermine the argument that she is a leftist politician, a reputation they believe stems from the positions she took in the 2020 Democratic primary, but which they say do not truly represent Harris’ positions.

Of course, they are her positions, though. Harris was saying what she actually believed when she pushed those earlier positions. Today, she’s merely covering her political behind and pretending to espouse these “changes” purely for her political gain in an election year. Keep in mind those earlier positions; they’re what she will work to implement if she’s elected.