Tag Archives: politics

A Hint

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats appear to be losing votes in heretofore Progressive-Democrat-safe States.

21st Century Democrats looked at voting patterns throughout the rural Midwest (the heart of flyover country) over the last three Presidential elections. Aside from the expected shift to the right that the PAC saw in agricultural communities, the PAC found a much sharper shift, not just toward the right, but away from the Progressive-Democrats (my term) in rural manufacturing communities.

In the 565 factory town counties (small or midsize manufacturing), 19 had Democratic growth and 537 had GOP growth.

This outcome turns out to be closely tied to job availability and manufacturing facility existence.

In the small to midsize factory town counties…where support for the Republican presidential nominee grew between 2012 and 2020, more than 70% suffered declines in manufacturing jobs.

There’s a hint there regarding the current Biden-Harris administration’s job-destroying regulatory, spending, and taxing policies and its spend- and tax-a-thon reconciliation bill they’re about to pass.

There’s also a hint there for Republicans and about what they need to talk as they campaign in 2022 and 2024 and the outyears.

“Candid and Professional”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Antony Blinken’s State Department negotiators said about the Taliban representatives at Doha, as the Biden-Harris met with them to beg for negotiate the safe passage for US citizens, other foreign nationals, and our Afghan partners, along with human rights, including the meaningful participation of women and girls in all aspects of Afghan society.

The discussions were candid and professional with the US delegation reiterating that the Taliban will be judged on its actions, not only its words.

Along with the willful ignorance—it no longer can be written off to naivete—of State and of Biden-Harris that the Taliban terrorists care about how they’re judged.

The Taliban…negotiators…may have conducted themselves in a structurally professional manner, but leaving aside that deliberate ignorance, it’s not something our government should be publicly praising in our enemies.

That just shows how desperate the Biden-Harris administration is to curry their favor.

Anti-Business Anti-Freedom Left Strikes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Their latest assault comes from left-of-the-west-coast Los Angeles.

The city of Los Angeles will begin requiring most people to provide proof of full COVID-19 vaccination before entering a wide variety of indoor businesses including salons, restaurants, gyms, museums, and theaters.

Alternatively, those with medical conditions that do not allow them to be vaccinated, or those with sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent them from being vaccinated, will be allowed to enter on presentment of a negative Wuhan Virus test done within the prior 72 hours (whose definition of “sincerely held?”). Never mind that the cost of such a test starts at $20 and that the median cost is $127. And you thought the costs at the theater concession counter were high. How’s that blowout or updo at the salon sound now? The testing requirement looks like it’s going to swamp that dinner out you thought you were going to enjoy with the family.

Notice, too, that many—most?—of the businesses in these categories are small businesses, mom-and-pop businesses, low margin businesses.

This isn’t only an assault on American businesses and American business owners, though: it’s also an assault on Americans qua Americans.

It’s a demand that we citizens give up our medical privacy and proclaim to the world what our medical status is, using only the Wuhan Virus situation—which is on the wane—as an initial step to expose all of our medical privacy.

It’s more than that, even. This vaccine mandate, and others like it, are a demand that we citizens give up an essential liberty—a liberty over which we’ve already fought one civil war—our control over our own bodies. It’s an essential liberty that the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party are trying to take away from all of us this time, not just a minority which they held and hold in contempt.

“Threats of Violence”

Posted on by
Reply

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, under [last week’s Senate hearing’s] questioning from [Senator Josh, (R, MO)] Hawley, said the memo is only about violence and threats of violence, and it’s the role of the FBI address those threats.

And

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a separate hearing that the Justice Department does not see parents as a threat and that the attorney general’s memo is only focused on threats and intimidation.

The FBI’s claimed responsibility in this context is to

help protect you, your children, your communities, and your businesses from the most dangerous threats facing our nation—from international and domestic terrorists….

To help. Help whom? State and local police forces, acting within a State’s police powers, their authority to enforce law, are fully capable of handling “threats and intimidation;” they might need help only against domestic terrorism.

To help. Emphasis on “help.” The FBI’s claimed responsibility also is to help State and local law enforcement agencies deal with violence, not to do for the State and locals, or dictate to them, or to usurp their responsibilities.

But, if we can take Clarke’s and Monaco’s claims at face value, the only ones talking about domestic terrorism or domestic terrorists are the worthies of the National School Boards Association. Specifically, neither DoJ nor the FBI are talking about domestic terrorism, either in the Garland Memo or in those Senate hearing testimonies. Thus, there is no reason, by Garland’s own memo or those testimonies, for the FBI’s presence in these matters: with no domestic terrorism involved, there’s nothing for which the FBI need assist State and local law enforcement.

AG Merrick Garland’s memo is reprehensible, and dangerous to liberty, not because it focuses on threats of violence (which is bad enough FBI interference)—stipulate, arguendo, that that insistence is accurate—but because it exists.

Garland’s memo is reprehensible and dangerous to liberty because it is a naked attempt to usurp those States’ police powers and law enforcement capacities and arrogate them to the Federal government’s national police.

Bank Experts Need Risk Management Advice from Government Bureaucrats

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Reserve System Governor Lael Brainard actually said that with a straight face [Wall Street Journal‘s paraphrase]:

…financial regulators should direct the nation’s biggest banks to take new steps to manage climate-related risks as part of a broader effort to monitor potential hazards posed to the financial system.

She said this (quoted by WSJ) at last week’s conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston:

Ultimately, I anticipate it will be helpful to provide supervisory guidance for large banking institutions in their efforts to appropriately measure, monitor, and manage material climate-related risks.

Yeah. Because finance businessmen, bankers, whose businesses live or die on their abilities, are incapable of understanding the financial risks to their businesses without the…guidance…of government bureaucrat/regulators.