Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive-Democrats Protecting Their Own

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a move afoot that might result in the Progressive-Democrats ruling the Senate won’t deign hold a trial for the just-impeached DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They’ll just table the matter and walk away.

…rumblings that US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) plans to table and not even hold an impeachment hearing to try Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas….

Senator Eric Schmitt (R, MO) emphasized the need for the trial in his letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY):

He called on McConnell to oppose any efforts by [Progressive-]Democrats “to shirk their constitutional duty, ensure that the Senate conducts a proper trial, and that every senator, Republican and Democrat, adjudicates this matter when the Senate returns.”

If Party really believes the charges over which Mayorkas was impeached are baseless, they’d be better to hold the trial and quickly acquit. What is it they’re covering up?

In the event, a properly unified Republican Senate minority could easily force the trial by simply blocking all Senate legislation until the trial is held and completed. All they need do is block cloture votes. If they can find the courage to do so, a commodity in reduced supply in today’s Republican Party.

How Good is Good Enough?

Posted on by
Reply

The EPA has finalized, despite a plethora of public comment decrying the move, a pollution regulation that, among other things, tries to vastly reduce the amount of soot particles in the air we breathe. Vastly reduce: from the current standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—from almost nothing to even more almost nothing.

Never mind that the ordinary march of technology and ordinary free market forces have already reduced the amount of soot in our air by 42%, or that there’s vanishingly small [sic] room between the existing almost nothing and nothing.

Never mind, either, most of these fine particles are produced by construction sites, unpaved roads, and agriculture fields.

As much as 30% of all counties in the US…would have to block permitting of manufacturing facilities and new infrastructure projects.

So much for Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s highly touted infrastructure project spending. There is an upside, though. John Kerry and his climatista syndicate would be moved closer to their goal of putting farming out of business.

What is this EPA’s limiting principle? It doesn’t have one.

Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.

Posted on by
Reply

Oops, he said it again. Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to deploy his newly developed nuclear-armed antisatellite weapon. Biden’s words were sent secretively through his NSA Jake Sullivan and his CIA Director William Burns among others.

Tellingly, Biden only spoke to Putin—even then only through surrogates—after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R, OH) exposed the Russian weapon a week ago.

What’s the or else, you might ask. What will Biden do if Putin goes ahead with his deployment? It seems the paper pussy cat in our White House has no consequences in mind, only his words of Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.

Even were Putin to say he agreed to not deploy his nuclear weapon in space, how would us ordinary Americans know whether he did or not? This is the same Biden administration, after all, that tried to hide a PRC spy balloon from us until a Montana citizen spotted it and exposed it. Putin’s space-based weapon system will be much harder for us citizens to spot.

Republican Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy committed to individual floor votes on each of the dozen separate appropriations bills. His position, and he was right IMNSHO, was that lumping them all together into a single omnibus spending bill only led to increased Federal government spending by preventing Congressmen from debating and voting on those bills individually—omnibus made the lot of them an all or nothing proposition.

Now Republican House management (they’re not leaders) are skittering away from that commitment. Instead, under the artificial deadline of a government shutdown due to lack of funding (itself a coarse distortion, since the government would only partially shut down, and separately, there is plenty of revenue flowing in under current tax law to fund most of the present government), those Republicans look like they’re preparing to cave and give the Progressive-Democrats everything they want. Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R, MN)

confirmed to Fox News Digital that passing minibuses is “on the table” and blamed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) for not working with the House on its individual spending bills.
“Due to the Schumer Senate’s inability to pass individual appropriations bills and the tight timeline we’re working with, all options are on the table including minibus appropriations bills. Thanks to Speaker Johnson’s leadership, the days of massive omnibus bills are behind us.”

No. This is excuse-making for the Republicans’ timidity. This is abject surrender to the Progressive-Democrats. There is no tight timeline—the partial shutdown won’t be a disaster, as prior shutdowns—the Schumer Shutdown and the Obama Shutdown before that—have amply demonstrated. To the extent there is any sort of deadline, it’s on the Progressive-Democratic Party for refusing to negotiate spending cuts in any serious fashion and on Schumer for forcing through the Senate an irresponsibly spendthrift bill. And on weak Republican Senators for negotiating so poor a foreign aid and border (in)security bill in the first instance.

And this, from a Republican Congressman who was too timid, or too lacking in moral courage, or both, to allow himself to be identified:

These negotiations are less focused on getting 216 Republicans to vote for them and more on getting the majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats to vote for them, and that concern about voting on all 12 is not going to be as prominent.

This is just a sellout of those commitments.

These managers need to find the courage of the convictions their mouths utter and hold 12 individual floor votes, or they need to get out of the way. These managers currently are on track to make Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY) Speaker, by a wide margin, and what a disaster that would be for our republic.

In Which Biden Extends His Betrayal of Israel

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is putting before the UN Security Council an alternative proposal that demands Israel agree a cease fire as soon as practicable and not engage its Rafah ground offensive until, functionally, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden personally approves. Biden’s “alternative” pushes for

a temporary cease-fire in Gaza and states Israel’s planned, major ground offensive into the southern Gaza city of Rafah “should not proceed under current circumstances.”

No alternative proposal needs to be submitted to the UN Security Council. The US vetoed the proposal put up by Algeria, and that’s all it needs to do, other than then sitting down, shutting up, and staying out of Israel’s way.

The only circumstances under which Biden presently would approve Israel’s move into Rafah to root out and destroy the Hamas terrorist organization holed up there is if Israel were to guarantee no civilians would be harmed in the making of that move. This is an impossible guarantee, and Biden knows that full well.

Agreeing any sort of cease fire at this point would be Israel letting Hamas continue to exist to carry out the thousand October 7s that a Hamas mucky-muck has already publicly promised. The only time when a cease fire would become practicable is when there are no more Hamas terrorists left at which to fire. Biden knows this full well, also.

Joe Biden’s anti-Israel perfidy is abhorrent, and all of us Americans need to remember this in November.