Category Archives: morality

Truth or Consequences

Posted on by
2

Or The Politics of Destruction, as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial has it.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress have sought out and brought up a second “witness” claiming a sexual assault by Judge and Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  This is a woman who couldn’t remember the alleged incident until six days of “recovery” with her lawyer.  This is a woman whose own requests of her friends and alleged witnesses turned up exactly no one who could corroborate her claim—to a man, and to a woman, they all said they weren’t there and had heard nothing about it.  This is a woman who confessed in her “story” that she was too drunk to know what was going on and couldn’t be sure the offending man (if he exists) was Kavanaugh.

Bork, then Thomas. Then teabaggers and astroturfers.  Then Herman Cain.  Now this.

This is the “freedom” we’ll have under [sic] a Progressive-Democrat Congress.

And an ugly unintended consequence: after Feinstein’s, Hirono’s, and Gillibrand’s shameless, artificially hysterical displays, how can any woman who claims sexual assault be believed—even if it happened?

A Hearing

Posted on by
1

Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault ‘way back in their high school days, now doesn’t want to testify about her accusation—to back up her claim—in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  She wants an FBI investigation of the alleged crime—never mind that she knows, because her lawyers know, and they’ve surely briefed her, that such a thing is not a Federal crime, and so the FBI has no standing to investigate.

Her lawyers also are claiming that Ford is afraid to come to DC because of the alleged backlash she’s faced since Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) outed her.

[Her lawyers] also said their client had received death threats and had her email hacked, and criticized the timing of the hearing.

The police reports she filed regarding those death threats and that hack job are public records.  Let’s see those records.  If she didn’t file any complaints with the police, she plainly doesn’t take the alleged threats and hack seriously, and so there’s no reason for the Committee members, or any of us, to do so.

The hearing was scheduled too soon? This is nonsense, also.  She’s been rehashing these…memories…for at least 6 years whether by design or by their trauma. She’s ready to testify now—and she doesn’t even have to publicly; she’s been offered a closed-door hearing, and she’s been offered the opportunity to be deposed away from the madding crowds of DC, in a location of her choice.

Monday is the hearing, and she’s been invited to testify.  If Ford is a no-show, and if I were the Committee’s chairman (Senator Chuck Grassley (R, IA) is a much better man than I), I’d have an empty chair at her place at the table, and questions for Ford would be directed to the empty chair.

Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has offered legislation, in coordination with Congressman Ro Khanna (D, CA), that is his latest bit of socialism.  His legislation would hit large businesses with a tax equal to 100% of the welfare payments any of their employees might receive while working.

Sanders and Khanna say—and they’re actually serious—that this would pay for the welfare programs involved.

Andy Puzder has a different view of such legislation.

[T]he first step on the path to financial self-sufficiency is finding a job. A tax on employing welfare recipients would discourage employers from hiring them. It would increase the cost of employing such people without an offsetting increase in productivity or employee satisfaction, since the extra payment would go to the government rather than the employee. Companies could avoid the tax simply by hiring people not on welfare, reducing job opportunities for the people most in need of jobs and opportunity.

This is the anti-business—worse, the anti-poor, the anti-single mom, and the anti-just-starting-out youth—position of the Progressive-Democrat Party and their Socialist confreres.

But, hey—votes.  Our youth, our single mothers, our poor, they aren’t human beings needing a start a or hand up in the eyes of the Party.  They’re just votes to be kept trapped in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.

Likenesses

Posted on by
Reply

Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.

Really?  Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek?  Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?

That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.

Whose Side?

Posted on by
Reply

On whose side is the current Pope?  What is his purpose, his goal?

First, the Pope condones covering up—even delaying a “conference” for chit-chat about the abuse for as long as possible—massive child abuse by Catholicism’s priests and bishops.

Now we have the Pope saying the Catholic Church—the Vatican—doesn’t even need to be the authority that selects the Church’s bishops.

…Catholic concession in a far-reaching deal between Rome and the Vatican announced Friday. The Vatican has agreed to recognize as legitimate seven Chinese priests who had been excommunicated by Rome for accepting their bishop hats without Vatican approval. Two bishops who had remained faithful to Rome will retire to make room for bishops more to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s liking.

What’s going on in the Catholic Church?