It Isn’t Pro-Choice, Anymore

Now it’s pro-infanticide.  That’s the position of the Progressive-Democratic Party after Party Senators voted—unanimously—to kill a bill that would have outlawed immediately post-birth infanticide.

Senator Ben Sasse’s (R, NE) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would have required doctors to work to save a baby’s life if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born alive despite the attempt.  All Progressive-Democrat Senators, every single one of them, voted to kill the bill and thereby to let abortion doctors finish killing the baby.

As Sasse put the situation after those Progressive-Democrat Senators had had their way,

I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re OK with infanticide[.]

Indeed.

On the other hand,

Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary.

How cynical. Statistica reports that

There were a total of 17,284 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the US in 2017.

Out of a population of some 325 million, that works out to about 0.005%.  That’s pretty rare, too.  Maybe we don’t need those other anti-murder laws, either.

Never mind that the bill would have been an easy way to reduce the post-failed abortion infanticide rate even further.  It still would have been too much like moral work.

Remember this in the fall of 2020.

Metaphors R’nt Us

President Donald Trump, speaking about the dangers of fentanyl and the risks of open borders letting stuff like this (among other things and thugs) pour in, said,

A little tiny spoonful can wipe out a state. It’s hard to believe. It can wipe out an entire state, a spoonful of this stuff[.]

The Associated Press will have none of this.  They “corrected” him:

A teaspoon of illegally made fentanyl could conceivably kill 3,000 people, by one measure. The state with the smallest population, Wyoming, has about 578,000 people. It would take close to 200 teaspoons to kill a population of that size.

Ooh. 200 teaspoons is a skosh over 4 cups (excuse my imprecision).  A drop in the ocean of fentanyl flooding our cities.

It couldn’t possibly be that Trump was speaking metaphorically.  Nope, can’t be that.

It couldn’t possibly be that Trump was exaggerating to emphasize a point.  Nope, not that either.

Buncha petty quibblers, AP is.

No National Defense for You

Many Microsoft employees don’t want the United States to be able to defend itself—to defend its citizens and resident aliens.

More than 150 Microsoft employees signed a letter demanding the tech giant cancel a $480 million contract to build a HoloLens for the Pentagon, saying they “refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression.”

And

We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US military, helping one country’s government “increase lethality” using tools we built. We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used[.]

Never mind their ideology that our nation should not be allowed to have the tools necessary for our defense, their arrogance—employees demanding veto authority over their boss’ decision—is itself unacceptable.

These Precious Ones should be terminated for cause over their refusal to work the contract.  Their insubordinate arrogance is just confirmation of the need for Microsoft to see the backs of them.

One more thing: if this is the best Silicon Valley—or the Redmond-Seattle environs—can do for employees, Microsoft should give serious thought to relocating.

Kamala Harris Wants to Confront Dark History

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate wannabe and Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants us to take our dark history seriously.

We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.  We need systemic, structural changes to address that.

Absolutely.  The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Democrat, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who ruled that Dred Scott, a free (because escaped) black man in the north, must be returned to the southern ownership of his owner—and who further ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States because blacks were not fully men.

It must confront its demand for the States Right of holding slaves, slavery over which the nation had to fight a bloody civil war to end because of Party intransigence.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its creation, the Ku Klux Klan, which it used to terrorize newly freed blacks—and any who supported them—in the aftermath of the Party’s lost overt slavery policy.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Jim Crow Laws, designed explicitly to keep blacks from voting.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of segregation, resumed in full under President Woodrow Wilson (D), who actively resegregated the Federal government after it had been steadily integrated following the Civil War, a policy for which Wilson insisted blacks should be grateful for the “protection,” and which continued apace in schools under the fiction of “separate but equal,” which included all public spaces, and which extended even to sections of buses, drinking fountains, and rest rooms.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of destroying black families by enacting “welfare” laws that paid single mothers but not intact families, making it fiscally useful, if not wholly immoral, for fathers to absent themselves.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of deliberate, overt racial (and gender) discrimination in its “affirmative action” policies that give special treatment based, ultimately, on skin color and/or gender.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of undermining the ability of black families (such as they’re allowed to exist) to build wealth by keeping them trapped in Party’s welfare cage with the designed-in welfare cliff that prevents welfare recipients—most of whom are minority recipients, with most of those black—from getting a new job or a pay raise that would put them above an income threshold because that would cut welfare payments by more than the pay raise.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark present of identity politics that seeks to give special treatment to particular groups of Americans—which is nothing more than segregation modernized.

The Progressive-Democratic Party does, most definitely, need systemic, structural changes to address that.

A Serious Case

Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann is suing The Washington Post for its despicable and wholly, deliberately dishonest assault on the boy in its reporting on a confrontation initiated by an American Indian provocateur who also has a history of misrepresenting his role in the Vietnam War, a confrontation that was triggered by a group of blacks claiming to be Jewish and who were yelling racial slurs at Sandmann and his fellow students as the students waited for their bus ride back home.

The suit accuses WaPo of

using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles…to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president.

Any member of the NLMSM that delayed reporting of anything more than the fact of an encounter by a whole day in order to view the full video of the encounter would have known the facts and the truth.  WaPo made the carefully thought out editorial decision not to tarry that moment in order to gather actual facts on the matter.  Of course, the news outlet’s owners and editors could not know in real time that a dispositive video would be published, but those worthies did know, absolutely, that more facts would emerge, more facts could be brought to light by competent investigation.  The outlet chose not to bother.  It chose, instead, to attack children—leave aside its bias against a Republican President—for the sake of sensationalism, for clickbait, for readership.

My advice to Sandmann and the lawyers? Do not settle.  Get the court ruling.  Do not settle any appeals.  The suit is for harm and for $250 million.  Those $250 million needn’t only be for immediate damages, either; they can include significant punitive damages.

Burn the WaPo to the ground.  Its despicable assault on a child wants a serious answer, not a slap on the wrist. WaPo‘s abuse of a child wants an answer that not only gets the outlet’s attention (which to achieve that attention must consider the outlet’s deep pockets, via its owner), but one that also serves as a serious warning to the outlet’s peers in the NLMSM on the relative priorities between telling the cold facts and objective truth on the one hand and sensationalizing smears for the sake of clickbait on the other.