Tag Archives: politics

Mamdani Is Not a Communist

Posted on by
Reply

He says so, and that settles it, doesn’t it? Yet the Progressive-Democratic Party’s candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has said, much more forcefully, otherwise, and not so long ago, given his youth (he’s only 33).

  • …we need a socialist New York to give these workers their power back….
  • [I]f we want to change the nature of politics in New York State wholesale, it will require bringing in a lot more DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] members
  • [T]here are other issues which we firmly believe…[including] the end goal of seizing the means of production
  • if we want everyone to be full participants in the economy, we need worker ownership of the means of production

And so on.

Mamdani’s denial of his communist status is typical Leftist and Progressive-Democratic Party reliance on their Newspeak dictionary and their parallel rejection of our American English dictionaries.

Ignorance is strength.

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Indeed. Our ignorance. Know Betters’ strength. Our minds torn asunder. Know Betters’ choosing.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has made Party’s attitude toward us average Americans and toward our nation at large utterly explicit.

I don’t think that we should have billionaires, frankly[.]

There it is. None of us should be allowed to reach our full potential, as even that icon of the modern Progressive movement, Theodore Roosevelt, touted:

Our country, this great Republic, means nothing unless it means…in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.

The best that there is in him only counts if that “him” is a government-approved person.

Then there’s the naked racism of Party, shorn of its emperor clothing:

Mamdani doubled down on his plan to jack up property taxes on “richer and whiter neighborhoods” on Sunday….

Because Whitey is doing better than this Progressive-Democrat in socialist guise personally approves. Do nothing to help folks—of any skin color—on the bottom rungs of our economic ladder do better, do nothing to increase their economic mobility. Just punish the successful—not only because he’s rich (see above)—but especially because this Progressive-Democrat “socialist’ doesn’t like his skin color.

This is what awaits New York City next year unless city voters choose better. This is what awaits our nation, if we as a people don’t choose wisely in ’26 and again in ’28. and in the later cycles.

Worth a Shot

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to sign an Executive Order lifting in large part sanctions currently extant on Syria. The sanctions were levied when Bashar al-Assad still reigned; he has since been tossed by an ex-Daesh terrorist middle manager and his cohort that had been operating in Syria after that middle manager had estranged himself from Daesh.

It may be that that ex-middle manager and now Syrian strong-man Ahmed al-Sharaa has, in fact, renounced his terrorist ways of his past and truly wants a more stable political and economic environment for the Syrian peoples [sic]. That remains to be seen.

This move may blow up in our face, just as welcoming the People’s Republic of China into the WTO and granting it US Most Favored Nation status ultimately blew up in our face. Or it might be a sound move, easing friction throughout the Middle East, supporting opportunities for prosperity for the several peoples resident in Syria, and reducing Israel’s security risks.

It’s worth a shot, although its value would be increased were it far more easily reversed should the move fail than has been reversing our coddling of the enemy nation, the PRC. Nominally, the Executive Order may well be more easily reversed than those moves regarding the PRC.

An Easier Solution

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrat Governor of Delaware, Matt Meyer, and his State Health Care Commissioner, Neil Hockstein, objected, in their Wednesday letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, to the Senate’s intention to cut Medicaid funding for illegal aliens. Their objection centered on the relative cost of the State funding, through Medicaid, medical care for illegal aliens compared with illegal alien care in hospital emergency rooms, with the hospital footing the entire bill.

Consider that outpatient dialysis costs about $90,000 a year, while emergency inpatient dialysis can exceed $300,000 annually. That extra cost falls on hospitals, state budgets and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

The answer to that is not to foist the medical costs of illegal aliens, who have no business being here in the first place, off onto the good citizens of the State, or by Federal transfers onto the good citizens of our nation at large. The better solution is to go ahead and treat the illegal alien the one time in the hospital’s Emergency Room, and then shortly after stabilization, discharge, and departure from the hospital, round up the functionally self-identified illegal alien and deport him so he no longer is a drain on our medical services or costs.

Hard hearted? It might seem so, but it pales in comparison to the hard heartedness of an American citizen being denied an Emergency Room hospital bed because those beds are occupied by illegal aliens. It pales in comparison to the hard heartedness of spending the tax dollars us average Americans send to the Federal government on services for illegal aliens when those dollars are better spent on making health care—especially including expensive treatments like dialysis and especially especially including preventive health care programs for Americans on the bottom rungs of our economy—more broadly available and cost effective for us citizens.

Yeah, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department are moving to reduce the supplementary leverage ratio that big banks, and only those big banks, must maintain. The ratio is the amount of money those specifically-selected-by-government banks must maintain over and above their regular capital requirements against times of “market turmoil.” The reduction would make available much more money for those banks to lend into our economy.

Fed governor Michael Barr, once the Fed’s top bank regulator is opposed to the move. He’s cited by The Wall Street Journal as saying that the proposal would “significantly increase” the risk of a big bank failure.

To which I say, so what?

The failure of a “big” bank would be disruptive in the short term and potentially damaging to the particular bank’s creditors—depositors and others lending money to the bank—but in the intermediate- and long-term, such a failure would be net beneficial to our economy.

A big bank failure—without government bailout—would go a long way toward mitigating, even eliminating, the market distortions of an enterprise in our private economy—which is the economy outside of the government—being held as too big to fail and so guaranteed our taxpayers’ dollars being used to keep it alive, despite that lousy management having, over an extended period, brought the enterprise to that strait.

Reducing the supplementary leverage ratio also is a way of injecting more money into our economy without it being government tax money being injected. Our economy’s money supply would be increased, or not, based on sound business decision-making rather than on flawed political decision-making.

Fewer market distortions, less tolerance of bad performance in our market place, and reduced special treatments of particular businesses, would only make our market economy freer and more efficient and more prosperous for us all.