Category Archives: morality

A Party of Bigots?

Posted on by
Reply

This article is “triggered” by a segment last Thursday on Fox News Overtime. A panel including otherwise respected Democratic (note: not Progressive-Democratic) pollster Doug Schoen, the show’s host Harris Faulkner and another lady (sorry, her name escapes me). The panel was discussing Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D, NY) despicable, and repeated, equation of the detention centers along our border wherein we house illegal aliens pending their disposition with the World War II concentration camps used explicitly for rounding up Jews, Romani, and others—seizing them from their own homes for the purpose—and exterminating them (with a view to carrying out genocide of the Jews in particular).  Mind another distinction: the folks housed in those detention centers are free, given some associated paperwork, to leave at any time, provided they leave to go home. The folks “housed” in the Holocaust concentration camps were not free to go anywhere except to die.

Schoen had the grace to be embarrassed by the behavior of what he still refers to as his party.

Here’s the thing, though.  The Progressive-Democratic Party has refused to condemn either Ocasio-Cortez for her bigoted remarks or those remarks.  Jerry Nadler (D, NY), House Judiciary Committee Chairman, openly supports Ocasio-Cortez’ remarks:

One of the lessons from the Holocaust is “Never Again”—not only to mass murder, but also to the dehumanization of people, violations of basic rights, and assaults on our common morality. We fail to learn that lesson when we don’t callout such inhumanity right in front of us.

Nadler’s refusal to condemn Ocasio-Cortez or her remarks speaks loudly and clearly, but there’s more to his tweet.  His naked distortion of what’s going on in those detention centers and Nadler’s equation of that with what went on in those Holocaust concentration camps is a clear demonstration of Nadler’s personal bigotry.

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) gave a CNN interview in which he insisted (as cited by Haaretz)

“I didn’t use that terminology,” noted Sanders, subsequently repeating twice in the interview that he had “not used that word.”

He went on to equate the detention centers with the Holocaust’s concentration camps.  Notice that: Sanders quibbled with Ocasio-Cortez’ terminology, but he wholly agrees with her claims, thereby exposing his own bigotry.

The rest of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidates—every single one of them—have stayed carefully silent on Ocasio-Cortez’ bigoted remarks.  Those two dozen candidates for the highest office in our nation therewith actively demonstrate their agreement with Ocasio-Cortez and thereby demonstrate their own overt bigotry.

This comes on the heels of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s refusal to censure Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN) over her bigoted, anti-Semitic remarks.  Party refused even to call her out or condemn her words. In the end, Party passed a carefully saccharine resolution that said, “We don’t like mean words.”

This is of a piece with the Progressive-Democratic Party’s effort, not just to divide us, but to partition us with their racist and sexist identity politics.

I have to wonder what it will take for Schoen to leave the Progressive-Democratic Party.

No—the Progressive-Democratic Party is not a party of bigots, it is an institution of bigotry, and we have to take care next year lest our nation fall under its sway.

Another Hollywood Culture War Campaign

Posted on by
Reply

[Robert, Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company] Iger told Reuters [last] week that it would be “very difficult” for Disney to continue filming its movie and television content in Georgia if a new state abortion law takes effect.

This is the same Bob Iger whose company enthusiastically operates a theme park and peddles movies in the People’s Republic of China, which government spies on its citizens with, among other things, facial recognition software and which government has locked up millions of PRC citizens—Muslim Uighurs, for the most part, but not exclusively—in “reeducation” camps reminiscent of the worst of Mao’s camps.

Since neither Iger nor Disney has any concern for the lives of aborted babies or for the principles of freedom generally, it will be far more than very difficult (no quotes necessary) for me to patronize any Disney movies, parks, or other product or service.

It will be impossible for me to do so.

The Racism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example, this one from Progressive-Democrat Ilhan Omar (D, MN).  No link to her remark, she tweeted it and then didn’t have the courage to leave it up; she deleted quickly deleted it.

A “merit based” immigration policy is fueled by racism towards the Latinx community….

Sure.  Because Hispanics are inherently inferior and wholly incapable of competing with other Americans or other immigrants without special treatment.  That’s worse than the soft bigotry of low expectation which President Bush the Younger so rightly decried.  That’s outright racism.

That silence you hear from the Progressive-Democratic Party is their open, straight-up agreement with Omar’s racist sewage.

Abortion “Rights”

Posted on by
1

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants to further erode Federalism in our nation’s structure and have the central government pass on certain kinds of State laws before those laws can be…permitted…to take effect.  Harris’ position and proposal is well summarized in the sub-headline of the article at the link:

The Democratic presidential hopeful wants the Justice Department to review state laws restricting abortion before they would take effect

Since a core principle of our nation, acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, centers on our Creator-endowed right to life, and it is the duty of any government, especially including ours, to protect the lives of those in its care—or even simply within its jurisdiction—I offer an alternative requirement, albeit one that parallels Harris’ attack on our federal structure.

The Justice Department should review state laws permitting abortion, particularly with a view to assessing their impact on life, before they would take effect

This would enable the central government to protect the baby’s life from being aborted in any but the most extreme circumstance.

It should be clear, after all, that abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women’s right to control their own bodies and everything to do with the baby’s—who in any abortion procedure has no one to speak for him—right simply to maintain his body.  Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with women’s “rights” generally and everything to do with the baby’s right to life.

Except in the minds of Progressive-Democrats.

The Supremes, Liberals, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications.  The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits.  I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.

Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.

[L]iberal Justices warn that conservatives by overturning Hall will “encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases.”

This actually is an unqualified Good. Error should be corrected whenever it’s discovered.

That Liberal wing bellyached further:

It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question[.]

This makes no sense, though. It took only five members of the prior Court to make the mistake in the first place, for all that other members might have agreed with it.

And the NLMSM weighed in, showing the Liberal wing’s worries about abortion.

“Clarence Thomas Just Showed How Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v Wade,” declared one columnist. [Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast]

This, though, is just another bit of Liberal disingenuosity. Roe is technologically-based. The circumstances under which States are permitted to regulate abortion to the extent of banning them are based on viability of the baby, which the Roe Court suggested began around the third trimester. Modern medical technology makes babies viable much earlier, and so abortions can be restricted much earlier—wholly within Roe.

Though I wouldn’t mind the question coming to court so that the technological aspect can be better emphasized.