Category Archives: morality

Pick One

Posted on by
Reply

Tony James, Blackstone Executive Vice Chairman, thinks his Progressive-Democratic Party needs to become a party of growth and inclusive prosperity.

The problem is that the Party is a Progressive one and becoming a socialist one.  This is not contradictory; the two ideologies are political allies if not siblings, too, and they’re not far apart economically.  The Party’s embrace of the former is demonstrated by Barack Obama’s, Hillary Clinton’s, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY), Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA), newly ascendant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D, NY), and a host of others’ loud and enthusiastic embrace of progressivism.  The Party’s embrace of the latter is demonstrated by the strength of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) and Ocasio-Cortez’ socialism within Party circles.

But progressivism is inherently exclusionary.  Progressivism insists that ordinary Americans are morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of [their] responsibilities as…democrat[s], and so we must be instructed and led by our Betters.  We must be excluded from the heady responsibilities of governance and of economic independence.  More, those proud Progressives have proclaimed us ordinary Americans to be irredeemably deplorable homophobic misogynist racists, and all of us Middle Americans in flyover country are just bitter Bible-clinging gun-toters.  These proud Progressives and their acolytes on the Left openly act on this exclusionary attitude with their constant harassment of those of us who are so impertinent (if not outright dishonest) as to disagree with them, with their overt calls to bar those of us not toeing the Party’s line from public places, and with the violence with which they threaten us and often inflict against us, whom they’ve termed fascists and Nazis.

Socialism is inherently anti-growth.  These adherents demand to set all performance goals, for everyone, from the hallowed halls of government instead of a free market doing so for us as individuals and owners/operators of our private enterprises.  Their demand for equal outcomes necessarily caps growth by sapping the abilities of the best among us because others can’t—or won’t—keep up and by denying the ability of any of us to to show the best that there is in [us] and to maximize our personal prosperity, which of necessity maximizes the prosperity of all of us.  These socialists demand to raise our taxes—to take our money—and to give—give!—Medicare to all, Federally guaranteed jobs to all, thereby reducing growth capacity by taking money away from us.

The Party can have a pro-growth platform, or it can be progressive socialist; the two are mutually contradictory.

For the Progressive-Democratic Party to become an inclusive, pro-growth party, though, it must remake itself 180 degrees away from where it currently, proudly stands: it must recreate itself a party of conservatism.

That’s an impossible task for progressive socialists.

The Supremes Get Another One Right

Posted on by
Reply

Sort of.  Mostly.

A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s latest ban on travel to the US by people from several Muslim-majority countries, in a ruling Tuesday that hands the White House a victory on one of its most central—and controversial—initiatives.

Small point, and it’s on The Wall Street Journal, not the Supreme Court: it’s not a ban on travel, it’s a moratorium.  The moratorium will be lifted on each of those countries when it becomes possible to accurately vet travelers from those countries.  A ban is broad and permanent.

A failure of the Court came from the liberal wing.  Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote, for instance,

A reasonable observer would conclude that the [ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus….

And

The majority…turn[s] a blind eye to the pain and suffering the [ban] inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.

This is rank, deliberate emotionalism at the expense of rational thought and objective analysis.  Sotomayor chose not to demonstrate where the animus exists in the Executive Order, choosing instead to bring in outside material not part of the case or of the EO in question.  Campaign rhetoric, which she chose to consider instead of the text in the present case, ceased to have relevance to anything once the election was completed.  Even more, bringing in outside material, evaluating a case on things other than the text of the EO, the law, the Constitution is a violation of the Justices’ oath of office: they’re sworn to uphold the law, the Constitution (and EOs executed in accordance with the Constitution), not to uphold other things convenient to them.

Sotomayor also chose to ignore the “pain and suffering” unvetted entry of terrorists and violent criminals “inflict upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

The larger failure is that this should have been a unanimous decision.  The liberal wing of the Court, though, remained mired in their ideology that the text of an Executive Order (or of a law or of the Constitution) is not the only thing before them in any case: extraneous material convenient to their predetermined opinion also must be brought in for support.

“Freedom”

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the freedom the Progressive-Democratic Party and its Leftist supporters will allow.

The Association of Library Service to Children‘s (ALSC) board voted unanimously on Saturday to rename the “Laura Ingalls Wilder Award” as the “Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”

Why?  Because her books depicted the stereotypes of a bygone age, and so she must be purged.  This is on a par with “liberal” schools purging books by “old, dead, white guys” from their literature curriculum, as though those thoughts, ideas, philosophies had no impact on the evolution of Western Civilization.

We have the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling Conservatives variously as terrorists or Nazis.  We have Facebook and Twitter censoring conservative news reports and accounts, all in the name of blocking “fake” news.

 

Then there’s the Progressive-Democrat Congressmen.

Recall the intern who yelled “Mr. President, f— you!” across the Capitol Rotunda.  She works—still—for Senator Maggie Hassan (D, NH).  The intern was suspended, but Hassan has kept her on Hassan’s payroll.

There’s House’s Hispanic Caucus heckling President Donald Trump in the Capital Building, disrupting his activities.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) has called for anyone working in the Executive Branch to be harassed wherever they go—restaurants, gas stations, department stores, she named it.  And not just protest: harass and drive, physically, from the public square.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress actively oppose any sort of immigration reform—especially including securing our borders—in large part because they oppose anything Republican, but in equally large part because they don’t want the US to have secure borders; they don’t believe we Americans should be able to determine for ourselves who we let in and under what circumstances.  Never mind that this includes violent criminals, drug purveyors, terrorists.  It’s true that these are a small minority of those who want to enter the US, but the damage these persons do to our communities can be catastrophic.  Those Congressmen don’t seem to care, though, so deeply imbedded are they in their open borders ideology.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) even has said in so many words

The only way we’re going to work with him [Trump] is if he moves completely in our direction and abandons his Republican colleagues[.]

 

Violence is well within the Progressive-Democrats’ and their Leftist supporters’ tool kit.

We have the Left driving a White House Press Secretary and her family from a restaurant, with the restaurant owner’s enthusiastic assistance.  We have Left thugs physically confronting the Florida Attorney General and her family at a movie theater.  We have Left thugs driving the DHS Secretary and her family from a restaurant.  These thugs also “gathered” at her home to continue the assault.

Keep in mind Waters’ call.

We have BLM assaulting speakers and preventing them from speaking.  We have Antifa thugs attacking conservative rallies.  We have Left thugs bringing flamethrowers to a far right rally.

And a Leftist murderer wannabe shot up a Republican baseball practice, wounding several and nearly killing House Republican Whip Steve Scalise.

 

We have the Left publishing the (stolen) personal contact information—including home addresses—of the men and women of ICE and their families with “encouragement” to go to those homes and harass the agents and their families.

Hollywood especially enjoys attacking the women of the Trump administration.

Chelsea Handler called Sarah [Sanders, WH Press Secretary] a “harlot” and “trollop” on her show.

And

Jimmy Kimmel mocked her [Melania Trump’s] accent

And Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a “feckless c___.”

And Peter Fonda called via his Twitter account to “rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”

 

The NLMSM is in on the act, too.

Jennifer Rubin wrote that it is “both natural and appropriate for decent human beings to shame and shun the practitioners” of Trump’s immigration policy.

And there’s Ali Watkins, late of The New York Times, who had affairs with two of her…sources…in order to get “leaks” of anti-Trump information.  It’s true enough that Watkins is no longer with the NYT, but only because she got caught.  The NYT turned blind eye to her escapades for as long as they could.

 

This is what we can look forward to if the Progressive-Democrats gain control of the House or Senate, much less if they gain control of both.  Not only will we be free to speak only what the Progressive-Democrats permit us to speak, to read only what the Progressive-Democrats will permit us to read, to worship only within the parameters permitted by the Progressive-Democrats, they will violently suppress any effort to do otherwise.

Make no mistake, either: this will come to pass if we sit on our hands come voting time this fall.

Bad Bonds?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Michigan State University agreed to pay $500 million to victims and associates of Larry Nassar’s sex abuse victims while he was pretending to treat our women gymnasts’ injuries.

Now the school intends to float bonds to raise the money to pay the bill.

Were I an investment advisor—which I’m not, nor do I play one on the radio—I’d advise against buying these bonds; I’m not satisfied Michigan State will be able to pay them off in the end, even with OPM.

Aside from their investment quality, or lack, I also think it’s immoral to bail out the school until there has been a serious cleaning house of school management, from middle management layers all the way up through the top layer.  This house-cleaning must include the athletic department as well as HR, student affairs, extracurricular affairs, and the President’s office.  Especially in the latter and in the athletic department, no one should be left but the secretaries.

And none of this gets to the fact that the bond offering is just a cynical back-door effort to get taxpayers to pay for the school’s failure.  That’s also morally unacceptable.

And this:

[The school] is in talks with its insurers and has said it expects to recover at least some funds through them.

Is the school seriously suggesting that it bought insurance against the risk that its medical personnel would engage in sexual abuse?  I can think of no other way in which insurers would be liable for a payout here.

The Pope

Posted on by
Reply

…gets another one wrong.  If he was accurately quoted by ANSA (Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata, an Italian news agency) and by the SIR agency of the Italian bishops’ conference—or by CRUX, which claims the quotes—that is.  They quoted him as

denouncing the pre-natal tests that can result in parents choosing to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus is malformed or suffering other problems.

The Pope is aiming his fire at the wrong target.  Families intending to have the baby rather than abort it could benefit from pre-natal tests that find that the “fetus is malformed or suffering other problems.”  Such foreknowledge would give the family months in which to prepare financially, emotionally, physically, to join/generate support groups, all to increase the family’s ability to receive and nurture the baby.

Once again, the Pope is thinking with something other than his God-given rationality.