Category Archives: morality

Watching in Unanimity

Posted on by
Reply

European leaders are unanimous in their position regarding Iran and that nation’s government abuse of the people over which the mullahs reign.

From Rome to Brussels and from Paris to London, leaders have criticized what the European Union’s foreign policy chief called a “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” response from Iranian security forces toward protesters.

But….

…European leaders are clearly gauging how much regional uncertainty they can tolerate.

Translation: European managers [sic] are unanimous in their decision to watch the hell out of the mullah’s abuses of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, those same European managers are just as unanimous their being too timid to do anything concrete in opposition to those abuses. As we might say in Texas, those worthies are all hat and no cattle. Unfortunately, though, those worthies don’t even have the hat. Stetsons are made in Texas, not in the haberdasheries of Paris or Milan.

Once Again, a State Court Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The Wyoming Supreme Court has struck down the State’s ban on abortion pills. Whether or not abortion pills are reasonable or safe or ought to be banned or not, the Court’s “reasoning” is deficient.

The court found that the state “failed to prove the 2023 laws were ‘reasonable and necessary restrictions’ on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.”

In so ruling, the court in the main relied on the Wyoming Constitution‘s Article 1, Section 38, which says,

a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

At that point, they stopped their thinking, though. They chose not to consider the baby’s intrinsic right to its own health—its own life. That the State’s constitution is silent on the baby’s right to life should not be allowed to free up judges, even State Supreme Court Justices, to rule as they wish. Where the law is silent on a matter, no court should be ruling on the matter since by entering that silence it is unavoidably making law in its own name, and that is the sole province of the political arms, the arms elected by the people, to do.

Justice Jo Gray implied as much when, in her dissent, she used to same Article and Section to argue the definition of “reasonable and necessary restrictions” is too vague and so the matter should have been returned to the legislature for clarification. Sadly, Gray also chose to elide any consideration of the baby’s welfare, also.

The court’s ruling can be read here.

This Says It All

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Tim Walz has said he’ll not seek reelection as Minnesota’s governor. His rationale for that decision is both instructive of his priorities and illustrative of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s priorities.

As I reflected on this moment with my family and my team over the holidays, I came to the conclusion that I can’t give a political campaign my all.
Every minute I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences.

“His own political interests.” Not the interests or weal of the good citizens of Minnesota. He puts his own political interests on a par with “defending the people of Minnesota,” when that should have been his first and only focus. No, it’s all about his political gain, and beyond that, the political gain of Party. Not the interests or weal of us average Americans in general, either.

And never mind the years of time he spent not defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity, as demonstrated by the breadth, depth, and duration of the multi-billion dollar (and growing) social services fraud that’s engulfed his State during his first two terms while he worried first and primarily about his own political interests.

Unfortunately, much more house cleaning is necessary in the Party-run Governor’s Mansion and State Senate than just the removal of Walz. This affaire is much too large for him to have been acting, or even merely derelict, alone.

It Isn’t Just That

Posted on by
Reply

Roger Severino, writing for the Heritage Foundation in a letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s New Year Day Letters section, demurred from the WSJ house editorial regarding the putative blowup at/of Heritage. He claimed a mistake[ of] a change in tactics for a change in principles.

The disagreement between the two centers on a Tucker Carlson podcast interview of Nick Fuentes and the Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ defense of Carlson and of the interview in the ensuing hooraw over the interview and Fuentes.

Kevin Roberts, the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, defended Carlson after the episode, saying Carlson “remains and, as I have said before, always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.”

It’s entirely appropriate—consistent, even, with Conservative thought on free speech—to defend the interview in its existence and to defend Carlson for doing the interview. However, for an allegedly conservative organization to defend the existence of an interview between a conspiracy theory mongerer and a racist bigot without comment is badly wrong.

Such an interview should be accompanied, with or in its immediate aftermath, commentary on the immorality of the bigotry and on the foolishness of conspiracy mongering. That the Heritage Foundation chose to defend the interview and interviewer without comment belies Severino’s pious claims of continued Conservatism.

The Racism of the Mayor

Posted on by
Reply

And the straightforwardness of one recruit. Progressive-Democrat Mayor Karen Bass is upset that so many Americans of Latino background are enlisting in the Customs and Border Patrol along our southern border. Bass responded to a report that [a]pplications up 70% from last year as over half of southern border agents are now Hispanic.

Well, in a way, I think it’s sad. I think that those Border Patrol agents are going to have a difficult time when they’re out in the field and they see what actually happens in real life separate from their training.

Not so much. Maybe Bass ought to travel along the border without her entourage screening her and see for herself.

On the other hand, here’s a young recent recruit to the CBP:

Juan Peralta, a 20-year-old who said friends back home were surprised that he’d joined up and would say things like, “How do you feel about arresting your own kind?”
“And how do you answer that when you hear that?” [CNN‘s David] Culver asked.
Peralta responded, “They didn‘t come in the right way. So, they aren‘t my kind.”