Errors, Lies, and State-sanctioned Murder

Posted on by
Reply

As recently as late June 2022, then-State Progressive-Democrat Representative James Talarico (TX) sent this letter to then-President Joe Biden (D).

The errors: one is Talarico’s claim of a constitutional right to abortion. There is not, nor has there ever been, such a right. There was, via Roe v Wade, a Supreme Court ruling that women should be able to obtain abortions up to the third trimester. There is no clause in our Constitution that says so, and while Supreme Court rulings carry the weight of law until modified or rescinded by the Court, or until corrected by legislation, they are not amendments to our Constitution. (This Supreme Court ruling, further, has been rescinded by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.)

Another error is his claim that pro-life Americans (whom Talarico disparages as anti-choice) are taking advantage of undemocratic loopholes to press for mechanisms for preventing abortions. There’s nothing undemocratic about following the laws of our land, which include Talarico’s so-called loopholes, which are nothing more than areas within laws that allow some things to be done that otherwise would be illegal.

Another is characterizing efforts to preserve the lives of babies as somehow radical.

The lies: one is the claim that pro-life Americans are a minority. A large majority of Americans oppose abortion in most forms. A larger majority of Americans oppose murdering babies in the womb.

Another lie is one of omission. This is the claim that the pro-life movement is threatening our most basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What Talarico has cynically omitted from this claim is that abortion does not just threaten those most basic rights, it prevents unborn babies even from having their own most basic rights to their own lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.

The state-sanctioned murder is that of babies in Talarico’s Federally sanctioned and provided abortion facilities.

This is how far the Progressive-Democratic Party has fallen. This is how far the Texas Progressive-Democratic Party has sunk.

If necessary, right click on the image and select Open in New Tab to get a clearer image.

H/t: @ralflongwalker

They Know the Answer to This

Posted on by
Reply

There is a growing recognition around the world of the economic dangers posed by the People’s Republic of China’s export dominance, achieved as it has been through its domestic overproduction and overseas sales at below-cost prices of that overproduction, with the losses to the PRC’s businesses made good by PRC government subsidies.

A Group of 20 statement implicitly criticizing Beijing for its overreliance on exports for growth marks a new stage in international pressure. The statement, issued Tuesday at the G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central-bank chiefs in Asheville, NC, was a striking example of agreement in an otherwise-fractious affair that featured disputes over Russia and President Trump’s policy toward Canada.
Countries across Europe and Asia worry domestic industries in areas such as autos, electronics, and heavy machinery won’t survive China’s push to export its way out of domestic economic troubles.

The US Treasury issued a statement summarizing the matter, although Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shied away from mentioning the PRC by name.

It said “countries with excessive and persistent external surpluses” should end policies that “result in an overreliance on exports for growth” and cause harmful spillovers around the globe.
Those countries should “eliminate nonmarket policies” and “remove distortions that constrain domestic consumption….”

Of course all of the G-20 players know full well that the PRC won’t do anything of the sort. Those exports are too important an economic weapon for the PRC to lay them down.

Last year, China responded to American tariffs by restricting the export of rare earths to every country, pummeling global manufacturers. Beijing also cut off certain mineral exports to Japan after a spat over Taiwan.

These world “leaders” know this weaponization. They just need to stop importing from the PRC, whether by serious tariffs, or complete refusal to buy PRC products. The doing would correct the economic damage, and from that, greatly reduce the political risk to their national sovereignty (a risk those “leaders” still don’t seem to see). The doing in the longer run also would more than pay for the disruption of shifting their supply chains. They just lack the courage to do it, satisfying themselves, instead, with yapping about it from the safety of their porches, and so they’re failing their people.

Closet Socialist

Posted on by
Reply

And sub rosa racist, in addition to his religious bigotry. That’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Texas, James Talarico. As recently as 2020, Talarico made his racism and socialist bent crystalline. He

described capitalism as an “oppressive system” that’s associated with white supremacy and climate change.

Capitalism is oppressive, and the primary alternative to that is the Progressive-Democratic Party—and Talarico—and Party’s recent enthusiastic embrace of the socialism of the Democratic Socialists of America. That overt embrace post-dates Talarico’s remarks, but he’s done nothing since to indicate he disagrees with his Party on that.

And: tying capitalism, which gets its strength and its legitimacy from the simple fact that it’s the only economic system that, on the one hand encourages voluntary participation in exchanges, and on the other hand, makes those participants—all of them—better off after the exchange than they were before the exchange, to the blatantly unequal—falsely so, immorally so—relationship among a supposedly oppressor race and supposedly intrinsically inferior races is nothing other than the manufacture of a race beef where none exists. And that is disgustingly racist.

Fatuous

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has ruled that the White House’s East Wing conversion into a ballroom and an uprated secure facility can proceed. The majority (a 5-4 decision) said, in part, that the single individual the plaintiffs had trotted out, a woman whose aesthetic sense was being offended because she heavily favored the original architecture of the White House over the new architecture created by the East Wing conversion, was insufficient to stop the conversion.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in dissent, disagreed with that. He wrote, regarding this aspect of the matter, that

one of the group’s [National Trust for Historic Preservation, the main plaintiff] members is “deeply committed” to the preservation of historic American buildings.
“The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” he wrote.
Preservationists can be “aesthetically injured” in a way that gives them standing to sue, just as environmentalists can have standing to sue over the destruction of wildlife, Roberts wrote….

Aesthetics—personal taste—can be a source of material injury? Really?

I have questions, then.

Personal taste can be used to stop projects? What about the personal tastes of those who favor the project? What about the personal tastes of those whose aesthetic sense leads them to not care about the progress? On what basis does Roberts determine the minority should reign over the majority?

Roberts’ position is so fatuous it’s hard to believe he gave any thought at all to the matter.

An Illegal Strike

Posted on by
Reply

Teachers strikes are explicitly illegal in Washington, but so far that State’s law men and women, at both the State and city level, have lacked the integrity to enforce their law. Thus, Seattle’s children are in danger of being deprived, yet again, of their access to education: the teachers of Seattle’s teachers union voted 91% in favor of striking and are set to walk off their jobs before the current school year starts.

There are two responsible answers to this move, if the union follows through, and both of them should be carried out. One is to fire for cause every teacher who goes on this illegal strike. The other is to decertify the teachers union for carrying out the illegal strike.

There are no other legitimate alternatives. The fact that the State’s and city’s managers have kowtowed to teachers unions in past illegal strikes presents no excuse for letting the union and those of its members get away with its illegal action this time. All acquiescing would do would be to demonstrate, once again, the intrinsic dishonesty of those in the State’s and city’s government.

Update: It appears the school district and the teachers union have reached an agreement. Apparently, the union is getting 9% in guaranteed salary increases, plus added school staff, but no added teachers on anything else to improve the children’s academic performance.