Tag Archives: politics

Saul Alinsky Lives

Posted on by
Reply

And the Progressive-Democrat administration can’t handle it. Regarding some governors transporting illegal aliens to Progressive-Democrat-run cities and homes (the way President Joe Biden (D) has been doing all over our nation, I add), Power Line noted this:

Governors Abbott and DeSantis have put several of Alinsky’s rules in play Among them:

  • Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
  • Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
  • A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
  • Keep the pressure on.
  • The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  • Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

A Politico “person familiar” with White House thinking had this:

Oh no. This is a dangerous situation. How can we fix it?

Biden had this, through his Press Secretary:

It’s really just disrespectful to humanity. It doesn’t afford them any dignity what they’re doing, when you’re abandoning families and children in a place where they were told they were going to get housing and a place where they were told they were going to get jobs. … It’s just cruel.

Disrespectful and cruel to transport illegal aliens from the Biden-created shambles and squalor of our southern border and transport them to welcoming sanctuary cities like New York City and Chicago—never minding the despicable racism and xenophobia of those cities’ mayors who say these brown-skinned foreigners aren’t welcome in those cities after all.

Disrespectful and cruel to take the illegal aliens from the squalor the Biden administration has made of our southern border and transport them to the lap of luxury that is Martha’s Vineyard.

Sure.

And we’ve seen the hysteria that includes threats of criminal charges since this sort of thing is legal only when Progressive-Democrats do it.

“Dereliction of Duty”

Posted on by
Reply

After a second busload of illegal aliens were delivered to Vice President Kamala Harris’ (D) residence so that she could see to their care as her duty as Border Tsar would seem to require of her, Harris objected [ellipsis in the original].

I think it is the height of irresponsibility…frankly, a dereliction of duty, when you are an elected leader, to play those kinds of games with human life.

Indeed it is. The derelictions of duty are two. One is elected official Harris’ (D) refusal to visit our southern border to see with her own eyes (or to publicly avert them) the disaster in progress there, despite her being the Border Tsar since shortly after her ascension to office.

The other is elected official President Joe Biden’s (D) refusal to do anything about that illegal alien disaster in parallel with his own utter refusal to visit our southern border to see with his own eyes—or to avert them—that disaster.

A Tacit Admission?

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Merrick Garland (D) has filed his appeal (to the 11th Circuit) of the Federal district judge’s order blocking the DoJ from using certain documents seized in the DoJ’s Mar-a-Lago raid in its criminal investigation. That order parallels the judge’s appointment of a Special Master to oversee and sort through all of the seized documents. Garland’s appeal reads, in pertinent part,

Although the government believes the district court fundamentally erred in appointing a special master and granting injunctive relief, the government seeks to stay only the portions of the order causing the most serious and immediate harm to the government and the public by (1) restricting the government’s review and use of records bearing classification markings and (2) requiring the government to disclose those records for a special-master review process[.]

[R]estricting the government’s review and use of records bearing classification markings.

Garland no longer is willy-nilly calling the documents classified. Might this be his tacit admission that the documents aren’t actually classified?

Why does Garland not want them “disclosed” to the Special Master? The judge’s order here was for more than mere disclosure, too; she ordered the documents delivered to the Special Master for the explicit purpose of the Master’s assessment of whether they are classified. Why is Garland so terrified of an independent review, instead of his “trust me” position?

A tacit switch: the judge ordered the documents turned over to the Master, but Garland’s appeal refers only to disclosing the docs to the Master. Is Garland planning on continuing to refuse to turn them over if the Circuit court rejects his appeal of disclosure?

Backdoor Guaranteed Income

Posted on by
Reply

The DC city council is getting ready to give holders of the city’s municipal bus and rail system fare cards a recurring $100 balance. Card holders will have that much fare money given to them, repetitively, by the taxpayers among the District’s residents (given to themselves to the extent there’s overlap between the two groups).

A slice of guaranteed income for council-approved persons. If Mayor Muriel Bowser’s (D) government were serious about lowering city transportation costs for its residents, those personages could, instead, simply lower the fares, so that all the residents could share in the program.

But, no….

Progressive-Democratic Party Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, wending its way through the Senate that’s intended to let local news outlets band together to get enough scale to negotiate with Big Tech social media on a less uneven footing for payment from those outlets for their use of content that is taken by those social media and republished.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) proposed an amendment that would plainly and explicitly prohibit[] payment negotiations from including discussion of content moderation—i.e., that would bar Big Tech from engaging in its penchant for censorship during payment negotiations. Cruz’ amendment wouldn’t even ban content moderation altogether, just during those content payment talks.

The Progressive-Democratic Party Senators voted it down. They blocked even this limited ban on Big Tech censorship.

Senator John Kennedy (R, LA), even as he is a sponsor of the basic bill, is on the right track.

Mr Kennedy said in a statement that he doesn’t understand why Democrats have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

­The Progressive-Democrats want to continue censoring the information us average Americans will be permitted to have. That’s why they have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) has a counter, she claims.

Ms Klobuchar countered that the bill already contained several protections to make sure it is content-neutral and doesn’t allow discrimination.

This is disingenuous. Were she serious about content neutrality—were she serious about no censorship—Klobuchar wouldn’t be opposed to a clear, simple ban on that along with, or replacing, her claimed protections.