Tag Archives: culture

Destruction

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has committed herself to eliminating the Senate’s filibuster.

I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom[.]

Never mind that the filibuster is the only tool the minority party—whichever it is—has with which to be heard in the Senate and to get at least part of its priorities included in legislation that winds up enacted into law.

Aside from her pushing a national mandate for abortions, instead of letting the citizens of each of our 50 States decide that question for themselves (with many of which States deciding in favor of abortion), the elimination won’t stop there. The Progressive-Democratic Party Senators will eliminate the filibuster altogether.

That elimination will lead to a number of nationally destructive outcomes. One will be the prompt passage of new laws accelerating Federal spending and increasing taxes on us average Americans and our businesses.

Another will be the loosening of our election laws, allowing anyone to vote, including illegal aliens. Recall all those Party politicians who oppose requiring voting eligibility to be limited to those who prove their American citizenship. Recall, too, those Progressive-Democratic Party-run local jurisdictions that already allow non-citizens to vote in those local elections.

Damaging as that would be, those moves at least could be reversed at the next election—assuming the other party can overcome the loosened election laws. Far worse will be the destruction of the Supreme Court as Party moves to expand it and to get confirmed activist, progressive Justices. That destruction will last for generations; it won’t be correctable by short-term election cycles.

This is Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

And it’s disappointingly so, although not that surprising in the increasingly Leftist bias of The Wall Street Journal‘s news page writers.

Israel launched its war against Hamas in Gaza after the Hamas-led October 7 attacks in southern Israel, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and around 250 taken hostage.

No. Hamas launched the war with that attack and butchery; Israel has been responding and defending itself against that terrorist instigated and continuing war, a war that Hamas leadership has repeatedly said is intended to destroy Israel utterly.

The WSJ management team needs to clarify this with the writers in the news outlet’s news room. The error is blatant enough to be closely approaching being anti-Israel and, more broadly, antisemitic.

Reparations

Posted on by
Reply

In the movement to demand reparations for past…mistreatment…of blacks, one group of Americans stands out for its absence from the collection of groups from which reparations for demands are made.

One group of Americans forced our Civil War over its demands to preserve a State’s “right” to keep slaves.

One group of Americans, in the era after our Civil War, enacted gun control laws that kept newly freed blacks and their white supporters disarmed and helpless against the depradations and atrocities inflicted on them by the Ku Klux Klan, an invention of that same group of Americans.

One group of Americans passed Jim Crow laws to deprecate, if not block outright, black Americans’ ability to vote in our elections.

One group of Americans enacted minimum wage laws explicitly to keep blacks from migrating north to compete for jobs on the basis of the wages they were willing to accept.

One group of Americans demanded an end to, and today simply seeks to ignore, our Constitution and its protections for all Americans, including blacks.

One group of Americans practices identity politics with the explicit intent of keeping black Americans separated from the rest of us Americans.

That group of Americans is the Progressive-Democratic Party and its pre-Obama administration ancestor, the Democratic Party.

I wonder why that group of Americans are exempted from demands to pay reparations.

What Happens…

Posted on by
Reply

…when government is the definer of a citizen’s, or of citizens’, rights? One outcome is illustrated by this particular enumeration of rights granted by Government:

The Fundamental Rights and Obligations of Citizens

Citizenship
Voting requirements
Freedom of speech, press, assembly
Religious freedom
Freedom of person
Freedom from insult
Inviolability of the home
Privacy of correspondence
Right to petition the state
Right and duty to work
Right to rest
Protection of retirement
Protection of old, ill, disabled
Right to and duty of education
Right to pursue art, science
Equal rights for women
Protection of marriage and family
Protection of Chinese while overseas

That list of Government-created and -granted rights is then followed and superseded by this:

When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state, society or collectives, or infringe upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

What Government giveth, Government taketh away. In the same breath in this case. As is apparent from that last clause, this is what the constitution of the People’s Republic of China does.

This is the risk we run as we allow to our government increasing authority to define our needs, our purposes—our rights.

Disingenuous TikTok Arguments

Posted on by
Reply

The law requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok entirely or have TikTok banned from the US is in front of the DC Circuit Court, and there are at least two arguments that TikTok is making that are…misleading.

The first is this one:

Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act.

No speech is being silenced. Only a particular outlet—TikTok—used by the People’s Republic of China intelligence community is being acted against. That outlet would remain available were ByteDance to wholly divest TikTok, which ByteDance and the PRC, on their own initiative, refuse to do. There also are a plethora of speech pathways for precisely the same speech desires besides TikTok. ByteDance’s/PRC’s decision to let TikTok be closed will have no impact on speech.

The second is this one:

Our constitutional tradition leaves no room for the government to stop Petitioners from expressing their ideas through the editor and publisher they have chosen. The government could no more prohibit a freelance journalist from publishing in a magazine of her choice; forbid an actor from working with a particular director; or tell a musician what studio he can record in.

Of course, no one is making any prohibition of this. The decision to leave TikTok available to the freelancer (or any other journalist), the actor, or the musician is entirely in the hands of ByteDance and the PRC government. It’s their decision to refuse to let TikTok be divested that would deny access to TikTok.