Tag Archives: politics

Progressive-Democrat Bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Diane Feinstein (D, CA) during her inquisition of Judge Amy Barrett, who was appearing before the Senate Judicial Committee pursuant to her nomination to the 7th Circuit:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

Feinstein is projecting.  What Barrett has said in those speeches is that where the Constitution or statute would require a judge to go against his religious beliefs, that judge must recuse himself.  There’s no conflict here.

Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL):

Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?

Or possibly, Congressman Dick Durbin in a bygone era: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Senator Al Franken (D, MN) accused Barrett of belonging to a hate group.  The group in question was the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that supports [ahem] religious freedom and on which ground that paragon of Leftist virtue, the Southern Poverty Law Center, labeled it a hate group.  And Franken took the SPLC seriously.

With this hearing, not only have Progressive-Democrats exposed their religious bigotry, they’ve exposed their disdain for the Constitution.  Here’s Article VI on religion:

…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Which, of course, Progressive-Democrats in the Senate—every single one of them—know full well.

A Misconception

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal wrote an op-ed about Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ speech at George Mason University regarding her intent to withdraw the Obama administration’s infamous Dear Colleague Letter that threatened the due process rights of students accused of sexual assault.  In it, though, the WSJ included a misconception.

The Obama Education Department’s response was to circumvent Congress and neglect normal executive-branch rule-making procedures mandated in the Administrative Procedure Act, such as soliciting public comment. Instead, it simply jammed the policy through by sending out a “Dear Colleague” letter, including an explicit threat that noncomplying schools could lose federal funding.

It takes two to tango.

The op-ed implied that the university/college recipients of the Letter were somehow bound by it.  This is not true: the Letter was not, and could not be, binding in any way shape or form exactly because the procedure for promulgating it by-passed statutory requirements: the Letter was no more than that, and certainly not a regulation implementing a statute.

The folks sitting in the management chairs at those universities and colleges knew this full well at the time, and they know it today.  The Letter gained force only from the cowardice of those folks sitting in those chairs.  They had only to push back and to refuse to comply with the urgings of the Letter.

Even the threat to withhold funds could never have effect since it was, and is, an entirely unenforceable claim, coming as it does as part of a non-binding Letter that could only urge an action.  The threat, inconvenient as it might have been to resist, had and has only the effectivity of a bully’s threat given it by a coward’s surrender to that bully.

It takes two to tango.  But it only takes one to duck and cover.

No Surprise

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz was on the right track when he wrote that Republicans shouldn’t be surprised that President Donald Trump cut a deal with Congress’ Progressive-Democratic Party* leadership regarding our debt ceiling and financial aid for Harvey and Irma victims.

However, Kurtz’ laying the blame on House Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is misplaced, though.  Ryan did get one Obamacare compromise repeal passed in the House.  McConnell did get 49 out of his 52 Senators to vote for that bill.  It’s the rank and file—the party as a whole—who are failing their duty.

The question of whether the Trump deal is good or bad in its own right also is irrelevant.

Trump has been saying since the Republicans collectively chose the first time to perpetuate Obamacare rather than pass a compromise, however flawed but that would have been an important first step toward remove and replace that he would have to work with the other party.

Since that initial failure, since that initial betrayal of each Congressman’s home district constituents (and yes, that includes Senators, whose home district is statewide) and of their not-too-distant secondary constituents, all of us Americans, those Republicans have continued to choose to inflict Obamacare on us rather than pass successive efforts at compromise toward remove and replace.  They have quibbled with each other over budgets, spending, and on and on, rather than passing Conservative budgets, spending bills, and on and on.  In the Senate, the Republicans won’t even take action on a House-passed bill that would rescind a destructive CFPB regulation.

Republicans still have no plan for removing and replacing Obamacare.  They still have no plan for reforming our mendaciously byzantine tax code.  In fact, here, they’re behaving even more shamefully: instead of acting on their own initiative, they’re meekly pleading for Trump’s tax reform plan details.

Since the Republicans in Congress have chosen not to act for the good of their constituents—either set of them—instead preferring to engage in the personal ego boost of virtue signaling, or preferring to wait to be told what to do, Trump had to act on his threat.

No, his deal with the Progressive-Democrats is no surprise.  Who else is he going to work with, since the Republicans won’t work?

 

*My term, not Kurtz’, which I use because there’s no daylight between today’s “Democrats” and the Progressive beginnings of Herb Croly, TRoosevelt, Woodrow Wilson.  Even today’s party bigwigs brag about being Progressives.

Willful Ignorance

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Diane Feinstein (D, CA) wrote a letter to the editor of USA Today that’s breathtaking in the sweep of its ignorance.

Should the United States adopt a policy of no first use, making clear to the world that our country will never launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike? The answer is yes.

The answer is, of course, No.  She began that question with a false premise.  No first use is not limited to a preemptive nuclear strike.  It simply means no first use.  We engaged in first use when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (apart from the narrow tautology that we were the only nation with nuclear weapons), and contra Feinstein’s disparagement of the use and its casualties, that use ended the war, saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American, Allied, and Japanese soldiers and the lives of millions of Japanese civilians.

That question contains a second false premise: that preemption is necessarily bad.  Not at all.  When the enemy has demonstrated his irrevocable intent to attack, preemption is a moral imperative.  If the only means available to fruitful preemption is nuclear-armed missiles, they must be employed.

Committing to a policy of no first use would help keep us safe by minimizing the very real risk that a foreign power—like North Korea—might misinterpret a benign rocket launch or a non-nuclear military action….

This is just nonsense.  With modern sensing and communications capabilities—even that possessed by northern Korea, misinterpretation is not going to occur.  Action might well be deliberately misinterpreted, but that’s independent of anything we might do.

Beyond that, first use, especially of tactical nuclear weapons, may be the only way to prevent a conventional war defeat, which defeat would be every bit as devastating to our national security, even our independence.

There’s no such thing as a limited nuclear war….

Of course there is, and the Soviet Union actively trained for it.  Today, Russia and the People’s Republic of China are actively training for it.

RTWT—it’s not that long.  Which makes the breadth of ignorance such an accomplishment.

Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Planned Parenthood has it.  On the matter of DACA and President Donald Trump giving Congress six months to fix the thing—including codifying its current structure in law, but do the law, not Executive Order—Planned Parenthood, through its CEO Cecile Richards had this to say:

Here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live, work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation[.]

Every person but babies, apparently.  Far too often, they’re just inconveniences to be aborted and either thrown away or their body parts peddled to…researchers.  These inconvenient babies are not to be permitted to live, work, and raise a family freely.