Category Archives: morality

Northern Korea Sent Us a Bill

Posted on by
Reply

Northern Korea sent us a bill two years ago for $2 million for the hospital care of Otto Warmbier while he was a kidnapping prisoner in northern Korea. The bill was part of the process of getting Warmbier when his vegetative body finally was released.

Couple things about this.

One is that Warmbier received no medical treatment worthy of the name, much less “hospital” care.  It’s necessary only to review his condition when he was, finally, returned to his family in the US.

Another is that the medical care Warmbier so desperately needed would not have been needed had northern Korea’s functionaries not tortured Warmbier for as long and as enthusiastically as they did.  That medical care would not have been needed had northern Korea’s functionaries not tortured Warmbier at all, but instead treated him humanely while they held him in their kidnapping facility.

The costs, such as they are, are solely the responsibility of northern Korea.

The proper response to this “bill” should be to treat it like the sick joke that it is and not respond to it.  Not at all.  Not even to acknowledge it.

“A Battle for the Soul of this Nation”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Hamlet’s poor relation Joe Biden, said we’re in as he opened his campaign.

We are in the battle for the soul of this nation[.] If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter….

Indeed, we are in a battle for our nation’s soul. It’s a battle between one party that actively tries to improve the situations of our nation’s citizens—whether we agree with those policies or not—and a party that has no aim for our people’s benefit, but is focused solely on anti-Trumpism.

It’s a battle between a party on the one hand that wants to get Government out of our way, to unleash our individuality and individual entrepreneurial spirit, to restore to us our individual responsibilities and freedoms, and a Party on the other hand that wants to take things away from us: our money in the form of higher taxes; our weapons, under the guise of carefully undefined “common sense”…restrictions; our freedom of speech under the cynically offered guise of suppressing “hate” speech or “terrorism fomenting;” our freedom of religion under the just as cynically offered guise of “protecting” others from discrimination (but not the ones asserting their religious tenets); our morality by growing Government to arrogate that morality to it, thereby destroying it in both places; our individualism by mandating what all of us collectively must do because Party says it benefits some of us—even where it plainly does not—and on and on.

It’s a battle between a party that wants to shrink government and Party, which wants to grow a Government run by Party members who Know Better than the rest of us.

It’s a battle between a party that wants government to work for all of us and Party, which has open contempt for millions of us and insists that us ignoramuses must simply be quiet and obey.

What will be altered—an outcome devoutly to be wished—is what this nation has become under the last 80 years of pressures and outright rule of the Democratic Party and of late the Progressive-Democratic Party: a rapidly growing regulatory state with weakened national security, and a nation damaged domestically by Party’s explosively growing national debt, its racist and sexist affirmative action programs, its gilded welfare cage, and lately its revived segregationist policy of identity politics.

There have been excursions from that trend, to be sure, but they have been only occasional and brief: one party’s successful effort to defeat the Soviet Union via its rapid defense buildup and its current, nascent restart toward rebuilding our nation’s defense establishment, together with the beginnings of a rollback of Party’s imposed regulations governing what Party would permit or require each of us to do.

This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Because It’s Hateful

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s (D, MN) insulting (at best) and dismissive description of the 9/11 terrorist attack that murdered nearly 3,000 Americans as “some people did something.”  President Donald Trump—among a host of other Americans—called her out for that despicable comment with a video of his own that juxtaposed her…comment…with the death and destruction that that “something” done by “some people” wrought.

Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is actively distorting the facts surrounding the matter as she joins her fellow Progressive-Democrat in trying to make political hay out of Americans’, and the President’s, objections to Omar’s words.

The President’s words weigh a ton, and his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric creates real danger.  President Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video.

Pelosi also loudly called the Capital Police to get them to

conduct[] a security assessment to safeguard Congresswoman Omar, her family, and her staff.
They will continue to monitor and address the threats she faces[.]

Because it’s disrespectful, dangerous—threatening, even—to call out hate speech when it’s spoken by Progressive-Democrats.

No. The only dangerous words are those of Omar’s saying that the murders of those nearly 3,000 Americans is no big deal.  The only violence done or threatened is by those Progressive-Democrats who agree, through their defense of Omar’s words, that those murders are only secondary to being criticized for their condoning Omar’s claims.

Incidentally, the comment thread in Trump’s video tweet illustrates just how ’round the bend the Left is, quite apart from their full-throated defense of Omar’s despicable bigotry.

Reparations, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party members are desperately trying to show their virtue by touting reparations again.

HR 40 would establish a federal commission to study how slavery and Jim Crow impact African-Americans today. The bill’s language calls for suggestions to “remedy” slavery’s aftereffects.

My irony meter is pegged. Slavery and Jim Crow were then-Democratic Party institutions. The current crop of Progressive-Democrats doesn’t need taxpayer money to fund a commission whose purpose would be to dilute their past. They need only look in a mirror.

It [reparations] could amount to formal government recognition that slavery was an injustice committed by the US, for example.

I guess Progressive-Democrats think the Civil War was just some people [that] did something.

A Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

At last, the racism inherent in affirmative action is starting to be recognized.

Civil rights officials at the US Education Department are requiring the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center medical school to cease factoring race into admissions decisions, putting other institutions of higher education on notice that their continued use of affirmative action policies will draw federal scrutiny.

The rest of the Texas Tech University System has already eliminated the use of racist (and sexist) affirmative action policies in its admissions process.

There’ll continue to be resistance, though, in the “academic” community.  Here’s Peter McDonough, Vice President and General Counsel for the American Council on Education

We do worry that a college or university may interpret a report of a resolution…as saying, “If you take race or ethnicity into account, you can be investigated.”

I certainly hope so.  Neither racism nor the bigotry of ethnicity preference—nor sexism—has any place in American society, much less as a selection criterion for anything.

Next up: completing this evolution by formally and explicitly ridding affirmative action of its inherent sexism.

Then, to saucer and blow this travesty, we need the Supreme Court to stop dithering, recognize that ex-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s 20 years are long expired, and eliminate all vestiges of the use of race, or sex, or ethnicity, or any other non-merit-related discriminant from affirmative action programs.