Mayor de Blasio Wants Nationwide Influence, May First Have to Fight Ethics Charges

Why should anyone outside of the Big Apple even remotely care about a scandal involving horses (yes, horses) in New York City?

There is, indeed, a very good reason. The city’s now beleaguered hard-left mayor, Bill de Blasio, who has sought to take a leadership position in the nationwide progressive movement, is thoroughly emblematic of the venality and hypocrisy of the extremist movement throughout the United States.

Mayor de Blasio has a personal history that is rather stunning, but apparently acceptable to his Progressive supporters. At a time when the Soviet Union was, thanks to the Sandinista regime, using Nicaragua as an anti-American forward base for its military, de Blasio was an ardent supporter of the Sandinistas. He violated federal law by spending his honeymoon in Cuba. How bad was the Sandinista regime so beloved by de Blasio? Judicial Watch notes that “By 1983 there were about 20,000 political prisoners held in the Marxist regime’s jails, the highest number of political prisoners of any nation in the hemisphere with the exception of Fidel Castro’s communist Cuba.” A New York Times review quotes de Blasio as being an “advocate of democratic socialism.”

The central goal of the Progressive Movement is the centralization of power in a national government which they lead. Like extremist movements everywhere, they believe the ends justify the means. To amass power, they play the system, use Trojan horse issues, and ignore ethical rules.

During his 2013 campaign for Mayor, de Blasio weirdly decided to make an issue of the use of the famous horse-drawn carriages in and around Central Park, seeking to end the tradition so popular with tourist and locals alike. He alleged that he was concerned with the welfare of the horses, but the argument was unconvincing, at best. It was later discovered that a substantial donor wanted the land the horse stable was located on, but the owner wouldn’t sell. The Mayor then suggested using taxpayer dollars to build a new stable in Central Park. The animal rights group involved has now been subpoenaed.

The Mayor, according to reports, engaged in other similar schemes, masked by supposedly progressive causes, as a way gaining donations. Rather than go to further social causes, the funds were instead routed to like-minded progressive candidates.
Exercising regularly:- It is one of the buy viagra without consultation http://www.icks.org/html/04_publication.php?cate=FALL%2FWINTER+2004 best techniques for accomplishing otherworldly existence and illuminating the brain. But in the vast majority of http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/2019-2.pdf levitra 60 mg cases, it might be related to some medical causes such as hormonal problems, injury or side effects of some drugs. It is buy viagra sale also available in 100mg strength and enables men to attain and maintain powerful erections. This is done by pulling the ankle joint and maintain viagra cheap canada the amount of surface area to weight ratio.
Interestingly enough, it is Progressives who constantly advocate for tough campaign finance rules, but only when it applies to their opponents. For decades, left-leaning organizations, many financed by public dollars, have funneled funds and assistance to candidates. However, should anyone on the opposing side do the same, excuses are found to restrict them. That is the reason Progressives have opposed the Citizens United decision so bitterly.

According to the New York Post the state Board of Elections has accused de Blasio of “willful and flagrant” violations of campaign finance laws,” the very same type of laws Progressives advocate to keep money out of politics (except, of course, dollars from left wing groups, supportive unions, etc.)

Progressives are quick to criticize contributions from the Koch brothers, but turn a blind eye towards the enormous cash funneled from billionaires such as George Soros, (who has a highly questionable reputation) and Tom Speyer. De Blasio’s recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton (He served as Clinton’s campaign manager for U.S. Senate) was composed, notes the NY Daily News of a “a who’s who of top lobbyists” who “served on the host committee of Bill de Blasio’s $1 million fund-raiser with Hillary Clinton.”

In addition to taking jobs away from carriage drivers and funding leftist candidates, de Blasio’s other passion apparently is criticizing cops. His verbal attacks on his own city’s police force, which most believe to be the most professional and unbiased in the nation, has been so severe that at one point officers mounted a work slow down of nonemergency activities in response. A National Review study notes that “public safety remains at risk from an activist mayor who sees his base as the anti-police Left.”

True to Progressive tactics, de Blasio has sought taxpayer funding for his partisan national political crusades using a variety of unconvincing excuses. Wherever you live in the USA, Mayor de Blasio, friend of the Castros and Sandinistas, wants to influence your local government.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.