Tag Archives: politics

Bait and Switch

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the trillions of American taxpayer dollars already committed to dealing with the Wuhan Virus situation, including $139 billion sent to State and local governments explicitly for that situation.  It turns out

blue states and Democratic mayors are also using the money for their pet causes.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) is spending millions on free college for more than 600,000 essential workers.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell (D) agreed to spend $629,000 to hire 15 community relations specialists.
Democratic St Paul Mayor Melvin Carter recently announced a guaranteed income program for low-income families using $300,000 in CARES Act money….

This is another demonstration that State and local governments don’t need any more Federal American taxpayer money. Progressive-Democrat-run jurisdictions can’t be trusted with the money.

Remember this in November.

The Lady Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) says it’s total BS that the Progressive-Democrat proposed $1 trillion in Federal Wuhan Virus stimulus monies aimed at State and local governments would benefit public sector unions. Whether public sector unions should or should not benefit is a separate matter.

It’s generous, though, to suggest that such an intelligent woman actually misunderstands.

Adding a trillion dollars—or any other amount of money—to a budget means—work with me, now—that budget has those added dollars to spend. Earmark the trillion for specific purposes, or bar it from being used for public unions. Do that by sending the money as cash and tracking serial numbers. That still lets the recipient government move a different [trillion] of dollars from a different part of its budget to benefit its public unions. That’s the fungibility of money. It can be moved around.

Then the Senator said this in all seriousness:

We need to fund government so that we can continue to grow the economy….

Here are the Constitutionally authorized reasons for funding the government:

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Nothing in there about “growing the economy,” not even under that general Welfare part. What is the general Welfare of the United States is explicitly defined by the clauses of the rest of Article I, Section 8.

Indeed, as has been demonstrated over the course of our history and across a broad range of nations, the way to grow the economy is to have a free market, capitalist economy with minimal government involvement.

In fine, the State and local governments don’t need the stimulus money; they need to step back, (in many cases) end the lockdowns, and let the private economy function.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

It’s active, biased, and deliberate in social media. And Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet intend on stepping it up during the remainder of this election season.

Twitter, for instance, says on its website that it will “require people to remove Tweets” that include “statements which are intended to influence others to violate recommended COVID-19 related guidance from global or local health authorities to decrease someone’s likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.” Among the problematic statements the company lists under that category is “social distancing is not effective.”

But Twitter won’t say how its censors will reconcile the myriad local health authorities who disagree among each other on the proper steps to take.

Facebook on its website outlines a similar policy using similar language, with the company stating that it will “remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities,” including “claims that are designed to discourage treatment or taking appropriate precautions.”

Facebook also declines to say how its censor will reconcile the recommendations and instructions of those local health authorities.

Alphabet makes its bias unembarrassedly obvious:

YouTube has adopted a virtually identical policy, stating that it “does not allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities’ medical information about COVID-19.”

Never mind that WHO, as an apologist for the People’s Republic of China has no credibility whatsoever.

That’s just the social media’s bias regarding the Wuhan Virus. Their behavior is even more dangerous in the political arena.

Last month, Facebook was reportedly developing a “contingency plan,” intended to address scenarios in which Trump or his campaign attempted to dispute or delegitimize the results of the 2020 election.

But nothing planned to respond to the Progressive-Democrats’ openly stated intention to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg went on:

the company will “attach an informational label to content that seeks to delegitimize the outcome of the election or discuss the legitimacy of voting methods, for example, by claiming that lawful methods of voting will lead to fraud.”
“This label will provide basic authoritative information about the integrity of the election and voting methods[.]”

All while he refuses to identify his “authorities,” much less to demonstrate their authoritativeness.

Be careful out there.

And vote, despite these Leftists’ efforts to delegitimize your vote.

Illegitimacy

Posted on by
Reply

One of a President’s duties is to fill vacant seats in his cabinet and in the Federal judiciary—especially the latter. Yet today’s Progressive-Democrats in Congress are actively attempting to block President Donald Trump from fulfilling that duty as it applies to the Supreme Court with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. Filling that seat is especially important given that those same Progressive-Democrats have committed to challenging the election outcome if it doesn’t give them the proper outcome, and an empty seat on the Court leaves it unable to resolve tie votes on the upcoming election lawsuits.

Not only are they seeking to block the filling of that vacancy, they’re threatening retaliation if they don’t get their way. Beyond that, the Progressive-Democrats’ supporters are threatening outright violence and widespread destruction.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D, NY):

If Senator McConnell [R, KY] and @SenateGOP were to force through a nominee during the lame duck session—before a new Senate and President can take office—then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court[.]

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s (D) Presidential campaign press secretary Brian Fallon:

Any Supreme Court with a Trump justice confirmed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat at this point in the calendar would be fundamentally illegitimate, and Democrats must be prepared to act accordingly[.].

Here’s ardent Progressive-Democrat supporter Reza Aslan:

If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down[.]

And in response to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R, KY) vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee:

Over our dead bodies, literally[.]

And fellow ardent Progressive-Democrat supporter Aaron Gouveia:

F–k no. Burn it all down.

And Wisconsin Ethics Commission member (!) Progressive-Democrat Scot Ross directly to Senator Ed Markey (D, MA):

F—–g A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down[.]

This has been the drumbeat of the Progressive-Democrats since November 2016. Nothing is “legitimate” unless it’s done by Progressive-Democrats. They’ve been attacking our government, and through that, our nation ever since:

  • in Congress; with their sham investigations and “impeachment”
  • in the courts with their obstructionist lawfare
  • in the streets with their grassroots supporters’ rioting, looting, and street-painted graffiti
  • with one group of supporters in particular threatening that “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it”
  • House Progressive-Democrats threatening to fundamentally alter the Supreme Court if Evil Republicans fill an empty seat with someone and at a time that Progressive-Democrats personally disapprove
  • supporters’ threats “burn Congress down”
  • to mailing ricin-laced letters to the President.

This puts an enormous premium on voting all up and down the ballot in November.

Some Prosperity Data

Posted on by
Reply

Courtesy of the Census Bureau, via Just the News and The Wall Street Journal. These data concern the last year.

  • median household income rose to more than $68,700 just over the last year, a 6.8% year-on-year rise
  • black median household income rose to $66,500—up 7.9%
  • Hispanic median household income rose to $56,100—up 7.1%
  • women median income rose to $47,300—up 3%
  • poverty rate fell to 10.5%
  • child poverty rate fell to 14.1%

These are all highs (or lows) over the last several decades, and the sizes of the changes are historically large, also.

Over the last three-ish years, median household income has increased by 9%. That’s associated with a decrease in income inequality, including a small decrease in the share of income held by the top 20% over the same period paired with a bottom quintile increase of 2.4%.

Notice how all of this coincides with the pre-Wuhan Virus situation unemployment rates—at historic lows for our general population and for blacks and Hispanics in particular—along with rising labor force participation rate, which remains low, but it’s climbing from the historic lows achieved during the prior administration’s eight years.

One major factor little commented on in the NLMSM is the effect on prosperity and income inequality of folks in the bottom quintile actually having a job and an income—especially minority folks.

Which administration is it, again, that’s been in charge?