Category Archives: culture

The Relevance of Constitutionality

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial Wednesday that decried Progressive-Democrats’ (my term; the editors wrote only of “Democrats”) DC statehood “gambit.” In their piece, the editors made the case that the move, as designed by Congressional Progressive-Democrats, was unconstitutional.

One part of their writing jumped out at me.

But the impetus behind both measures [Supreme Court packing and DC “statehood”] is the same—to tilt the constitutional playing field and consolidate liberal power.

Indeed. It’s important to keep in mind that today’s liberals, far from being classically liberal, are 18th century monarchist, Big Government Knows All/Controls All proponents. For such as these, our Constitution is whatever they say it is—if it has any value at all. Their own hero, Woodrow Wilson, insisted that our Constitution is obsolete and ought be done away with altogether.

Today’s monarchist liberals are bent on the same aim, this time by simply ignoring it.

Say Their Names

Posted on by
Reply

The Left has long insisted “Say their names” in reference to police killings of blacks. That mantra has intensified in the days since Derek Chauvin was convicted on three counts of various forms of homicide in the killing of George Floyd.

In 2020, there were a total of 214 blacks killed by police (using The US Sun‘s data and some third grade arithmetic).

In 2020, there were roughly 8,600 blacks killed by civilians, primarily by other blacks.

My challenge to the Left and to luminaries like Congresswomen Maxine Waters (D, CA) and Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Senators Dick Durbin (D, NY) and Raphael Warnock (D, GA), Vice President Kamala Harris (D), President Joe Biden (D), and…activists…like Al Sharpton, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, Shaun King, Michelle Alexander, Jamal Bryant:

Say the names of those 8,600.

Or is it that, as the New York Post puts it, those lives don’t matter to the Left or to Eminences like the ones above?

Progressive-Democrats’ Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

“Infrastructure” entry. Here’s a brief list of what the Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party claim is infrastructure and what they want to spend $1.25-$1.5 trillions of your tax dollars on.

  • climate action
  • climate justice
  • affordable housing
  • green housing
  • police accountability
  • Supreme Court expansion
  • paid leave
  • child care
  • caregiving

Infrastructure is turtles, all the way down.

Que Bill the Cat.

Here’s the standard, Merriam-Webster online dictionary, definition:

1: the system of public works of a country, state, or region
2: the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)

And the standard, American Heritage online dictionary, definition:

1. An underlying base or foundation especially for an organization or system.
2. The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

I decline to surrender the dictionary to the extremists of the Left or to their Party.

Accuracy and Truth

Posted on by
Reply

In one of their Tuesday editorials, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about the shooting of Daunte Wright in the Minnesota town of Brooklyn Center. They seemed to be on the right track in their insistence for due process both for Wright and for the police officer who, according to body camera video and audio, fatally shot him.

Sadly, the editors blew up their thesis with this, regarding post-shooting events:

On Monday night protesters looted businesses….

Accuracy, and truth, die at the hands of political correctness.

Protesters don’t loot. Criminals loot.

Protesters don’t riot. Rioters riot.

It’s…dismaying…to see the Newspeak dictionary spread so far.

Soft on Crime

Posted on by
Reply

Especially in Los Angeles County, where County District Attorney George Gascón rules.

Gascón has proposed legislation that would bar felonies committed while a juvenile from being counted as “strikes” under California’s Three Strikes law when the person commits a felony as an adult. Superficially, it seems like a good idea. After all, Gascón argues, the child’s brain isn’t fully developed.

A sister of a gang-related murder victim exposed the flaw in that argument, though. Aja Courtney:

Anybody who has children understands that children know at very early ages what’s right from wrong[.]

Indeed. Virtually from the time the child can walk—and whose new-found mobility lets the child especially explore the matter—he learns the difference between right and wrong. The child starts developing, early on, an understanding of the distinction between the more complex concepts of fair and unfair; these are fully developed in children before they reach puberty.

Then Gascón blew up his own argument while being too absorbed with his own virtue to recognize it:

A juvenile system is based on rehabilitation, not on punishment…criminalization of young people leads to higher levels of recidivism, which means that it creates more insecurity in our community.

And when the juvenile commits a felony as an adult, that rehabilitation effort plainly has failed. Furthermore, young people aren’t criminalized by having the strikes continue to count. They criminalize themselves by continuing to commit crimes.

In the end, too, releasing a man back to the community—or to another community—before he’s been rehabilitated is what creates more insecurity in our community.