Category Archives: morality

“Backlash”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal opened one of its Friday editorials with this immoral bit of misapprehension:

President Biden has been stalwart in backing Israel’s right to destroy Hamas after the October 7 massacre. But a political backlash is growing, in the Democratic Party and abroad, to rein in Israel before it can achieve its military objectives.

No, it’s not a political backlash that’s growing in the Progressive-Democratic Party and “abroad.” It’s overt political support for Hamas and the terrorist mayhem this terrorist gang is, and has been for decades, committing.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s hand-picked Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is shamefully uncertain about the terrorism of Hamas. As paraphrased by WSJ:

Mr Blinken presented “humanitarian pauses” as critical to protecting Gazans, getting them aid, and freeing Israeli and US hostages.

On the contrary, Gazans are best protected by Hamas stopping their use of Gazans as shields in the fighting and their use of Gazans’ residences, schools, and hospitals as weapons storage caches and as rocket launching facilities.

When the Hamas terrorists (excuse the redundancy, but the emphasis is too badly needed) stop stealing the aid that is coming in, then Gazans will start getting it.

Israel already has offered to discuss a ceasefire—for which Blinken’s humanitarian pauses are just a disingenuous euphemism—after the Hamas terrorists release all of those hostages. Hamas has refused the offer.

On the flip side, all any ceasefire—regardless of duration or geographic scope or label—will do is give Hamas time to regroup and refit along with space to relocate and re-hide the hostages. It’s disgusting that anyone in the Biden administration supports such succor for the terrorists, much less that our President and SecState so overtly do.

Massie is Disappointing

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses by a vote of 396-23.

A single Republican—Congressman Thomas Massie (R, KY)—was one of the 23 voting against the resolution. He posted his rationalization on X:

Free speech means protecting speech you don’t like, not just speech you do like.
Also, who defines antisemitism?

This is a mindless quibble. The resolution did not ban any speech, or much less antisemitic speech, however antisemitism might be defined or by whom; it only decried it. Which is itself an exercise in free speech.

Worse, quibbles of this nature—and Massie knows better; as a talented and successful politician, words are his stock in trade—are dangerous, diluting as they do the serious nature of free speech, including the free speech right to speak against others’ speech, and including applying consequences to others that don’t prevent them from continuing to speak. Even if those others don’t like it.

Ceasefire

Posted on by
Reply

The Editors at The Wall Street Journal told a sob story of countries are pushing for pause in Israeli attacks to allow more relief for civilians. Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s SecState Antony Blinken appears to be sympathetic to such a ceasefire:

[W]e have an obligation to do everything we can, if Hamas is not going to do it, to look out for people in Gaza. So, we are working on a mechanism that can get fuel to where it’s needed, particularly hospitals, bakeries, desalination plants.

That mechanism centers on some sort of ceasefire.

Then the Editors turned on the sobbing waterworks, crying over babies in Gaza hospital neonatal ICUs, patients requiring respiratory equipment or dialysis machines, Gaza hospitals low on fuel for their electrical power needs, and on and on, in their own support for a ceasefire. These really are tragedies in progress, but the Editors shed their crocodile tears all the while shamefully doing only a once over lightly attribution of Gazan deaths, and the increasing risks to those babies, hospital patients, and the hospitals themselves to Hamas’ use of those civilians and hospitals—and hostages—as shields for the Hamas terrorists.

No. The only beneficiary of a ceasefire—or a “temporary, localized pause” in SecState Antony Blinken’s cynical euphemism and between which NSC spokesman John Kirby so disingenuously pretends to draw a distinction—is the terrorist Hamas. Not at all beneficiary would be Gazan civilians, babies, hospital patients, hospitals, hostages, or future hostages such a payoff to the terrorists would engender.

The only ceasefire there needs to be, there should be, is the one at the end when Hamas is utterly destroyed, and there’s nothing left at which to fire.

Full stop.

True Colors

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that provides $14.3 billion in aid for Israel as it defends itself against the war of annihilation that the terrorist Hamas is waging.

Progressive-Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to kill the House-passed bill.

The Senate will not take up the House GOP’s deeply flawed proposal. Instead, we will work together on our own bipartisan emergency aid package that includes aid to Israel, Ukraine, competition with the Chinese government, and humanitarian aid for Gaza.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party, blocking aid to Israel.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party, not seeing Israel under butchering annihilative attack by terrorists, as a valuable ally morally deserving, and politically and militarily needing, our support. Instead—despicably so—Party sees the Jewish nation merely as objects, as pawns, to be used in pursuing Progressive-Democrat goals: give us what we demand, or we will not support Israel.

This is an antisemitic (intended or not) and disgusting display by a political party gone extremist and selfish.

Who are Domestic Terrorists?

Posted on by
Reply

NSC spokesman John Kirby was asked at a recent press conference, point blank, by Fox News‘ Peter Doocy,

The people in this country making violent antisemitic threats. Are they domestic terrorists?

Kirby’s answer was stark:

I don’t know that we’re classifying people as domestic terrorists for that. I mean, that’s really a question better left to law enforcement. I’m not aware that there’s been such a characterization of that[.]

Apparently, such people aren’t even extremists. When Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that question at another presser, she answered,

I have been very, very clear.  We are calling out any form of hate, any form of hate. It is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable here. And we are going to continue to call that out[.]

But apparently such folks aren’t even extremists, just deserving of opprobrium for their rude talk.

Mothers zealously, loudly, objecting to school board policies while at school board meetings, though, are domestic terrorists, according to AG Merrick Garland.

Go figure.