Category Archives: morality

Genocide Olympics

Posted on by
Reply

Chen Weihua, China Daily European Union Bureau Chief and well-known and highly placed apologist for the Communist Party of China, is showing his manufactured anger over the Holocaust Museum’s comparison of the People’s Republic of China government’s ongoing genocide of the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province (and anywhere else they can be rooted out and rounded up).

What the Museum said:

At the #Olympics you’ll see a well-known tradition—the torch relay—which the Nazis used at the 1936 Olympics for propaganda purposes. Today, we witness how the Olympics can still be used to distract from atrocities, such as the persecution of the #Uyghurs.

What Chen said:

Shame on the Holocaust Museum. Are you saying Nazi Holocaust of Jews was nothing but vocational training? More than 30,000 Jews sought refuge in Shanghai during the war and this is now your appreciation to the Chinese people?

That’s not the comparison, as Chen knows full well. The Nazis murdered millions of Jews, and the PRC’s CPC is murdering millions of Uighurs. If there’s any vocational training going on, it’s solely by the CPC’s minions being trained in mass murder.

As Chen also knows full well, the anger over the PRC’s governing CPC behavior is directed at those persons of the PRC government and CPC, not at the Chinese people.

If Chen and his ilk don’t like being criticized over their genocide against Uyghurs, then they need to stop committing the genocide.

Character and—and in—Sports

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often write about professional sports, but here goes.

Former Major League Baseball Commissioner .Fay Vincent has decried the role character plays in the selection of players to MLB’s Hall of Fame.

By trying to inject nobility into its election standards the Hall of Fame aimed to maintain the old-fashioned view that honors should accrue to the honorable.

Because honor is so 18th century. Never mind what Benjamin Franklin and John Adams thought was necessary to preserve our republic, then or now.

A letter writer in last Friday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal agrees with the commissioner.

I agree with Mr Vincent. Character should not be the overriding factor, which it recently seems to be. Voting should be based on merit.

Merit must also, and always, include character. If not, then why are the members of the Black Sox baseball team not in baseball’s Hall of Fame? After all, they had the skills and talent required for Hall of Fame membership; they had to be bought off in order for another team to win a World Series.

Lies of our President

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) has made his announcement that he’ll only appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court, meaning that no one else—no white man or woman, or Hispanic man or woman, or Asian man or woman will even be considered. Biden has set a purely racist and sexist pair of requirements as his primary criteria for a Supreme Court Justice.

Now Biden is objecting to the hue and cry over his racism and sexism.

The White House is…saying that Republicans who are criticizing President Biden for his promise to appoint a Black female to the bench did not object when former President Trump made a similar promise to nominate a female to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020.

And through his White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates,

When Donald Trump promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court just over a year ago none of these members objected[.]

Biden, again through Bates, also claimed that then-Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan also promised to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

But Biden’s claims are patently false, as Jonathan Turley points out.

Trump, when he said that he would be putting a woman on the Supreme Court, had already spent months and months with a public short list that they’d been vetting. … And when he [Trump] said he was going to put a woman on the court, it was days before he was going to announce her name.

And

Reagan said that he would give one of his first positions, one of the vacancies, to a woman, but the White House stressed that was not a guarantee, and when O’Connor was selected, he had a short list with a majority of men on it.

And

What these presidents didn’t do is they didn’t say that they would not consider anyone else beyond people with this race, this gender[.]

Biden knows this as fully and as clearly as does Turley.

Lies are the blanket over the head of cowards.

Ted Cruz is Correct

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) has decried the criteria by which President Joe Biden (D) says he’ll select his Supreme Court nominee. Biden has said that his primary criteria for his nominee are that she be black and that she be a woman. Any criterion resembling actual qualification for the office is far down his list, if one is on his list at all. Cruz began with this:

The far Left doesn’t care about the individual, they will pigeonhole you, & they will discriminate based on race.

He continued:

He’s [Biden is] saying to 94% of Americans, “I don’t give a damn about you. You are ineligible.” And he’s also saying, it’s actually an insult to black women[.] If you came and said, “I’m going to put the best jurist on the court” and he looked at a number of people and ended up nominating a black woman he could credibly say, “OK, I’m nominating the person who is most qualified.” He’s not even pretending to say that. He’s saying, “If you’re a white guy, tough luck. If you’re a white woman, tough luck. You don’t qualify.”

The Biden insult to which Cruz referred is Biden saying to women, to blacks, and especially in the present context, to black women and to black women jurists that he thinks they’re not independently capable. They need special handling from Government in order to advance. They need their Liberal White Savior to ride to their rescue.

Tokenism has no place anywhere in America. That includes having no place in our courts and particularly having no place on our Supreme Court.

It’s Appropriate

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Whip and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D, IL) says it’s entirely appropriate to select a Supreme Court Justice first on the basis of her race and gender. He then says,

If they have achieved the level of success in the practice of law and jurisprudence, they’ve done it against great odds.

We’ll never know whether that’s true of President Joe Biden’s (D) nominee, though, since he’s made plain he’ll nominate on the basis of race and sex, and not on the basis of any level of success in the practice of law and jurisprudence.

But this degree of racism, much less of sexism, shouldn’t be a surprise from a party with a history of racist bigotry stretching back into the pre-Civil War years and today whose racist and sexist bigotry is demonstrated through Party’s insistence on proselytizing its identity politics.

As a side note, Durbin also justifies his President’s racist and sexist choice criteria on the claim that other Presidents did it, too. There’s the concept of morality with which we’re so familiar in the Progressive-Democratic Party and its predecessor, the Democratic Party: the morality of a behavior isn’t at all intrinsic in the behavior; on the contrary, morality is rooted in whether somebody else behaved that way, too; morality is a matter of situation, of what’s personally convenient to the behaver.