Category Archives: morality

Shootings and Schools

Posted on by
2

One answer to school shootings is to maintain our schools and school grounds as gun free zones and thereby keep our children exposed to the risk of butchery.

Another answer is to have government limit who is allowed to have guns in our nation and determine the purpose for which we’ll be allowed to have them and thereby, in addition to keeping our children exposed to the risk of butchery, exposing our families and ourselves to that risk.

Another answer is to train and arm school personnel.

Butler County [Ohio] Sheriff Richard Jones wrote on Twitter on Sunday that he will offer a concealed and a carry class, along with training on school shootings.

Jones added

We can’t be like ostriches and have our heads in the sand. We’ve got to protect the kids, period.

Jones is right.  We can’t wish our individual responsibilities or our parental responsibilities off onto government.  Our children are not wards of the state, and neither are we.

Consider: how many of those 17 murdered children in Parkland would be alive today had there been someone or someones on scene and able to shoot the shooter?  How many of those many injured would be unharmed today had there been someone or someones on scene and able to shoot the shooter?

The gun control persons of the Left don’t care about that.  They just want the ego-stroke of being able to tell other people what to do and not do.  The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t care, either; they’re just virtue signaling.  Dead children don’t mean any more to them than vote harvesting machines.

Good for Them

Posted on by
Reply

Former Olympic gymnasts, including Aly Raisman and McKayla Maroney, won’t participate in the US Olympic Committee’s investigation into the sexual-abuse scandal surrounding former national team doctor Larry Nassar, saying they don’t trust the body to conduct a thorough and independent inquiry.

They’re right not to trust these…persons…who sat on years of complaints of sexual abuse instead of acting on them.  Nor can they, in the end, trust any other organization with the judgment to have these on its payroll or consulting list.

“For 31 months, I heard nothing,” Ms Raisman said in a statement to The Journal. “I find it hard to believe after all this time that the USOC is genuinely concerned about anything other than the scrutiny it’s now facing.  …  This investigation needs to be bigger than Nassar. There have been countless allegations of abuse for years and years. Anything other than a full investigation just isn’t good enough.

She’s right.  This USOC is only looking to whitewash its role in this routine of abuse.  Nothing useful will occur unless and until the USOC, and USAG, are completely erased and new agencies built de nihilo.

Student Loan Debt

Posted on by
Reply

This is appalling, and it says a lot (albeit it’s not the only thing able to be said) about the morals of those we’re “graduating” from college and university these days.

A study released Friday by the Brookings Institution finds that most borrowers who left school owing at least $50,000 in student loans in 2010 had failed to pay down any of their debt four years later.

Scofflaws. They need their wages garnished. If they’re unemployed, they need to be put into work programs–there are always highway rights of way that need cleanup, and ditches that need digging. They also can be put into AmeriCorps VISTA.

But no bailouts.

A Party’s Failure on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

The Party in question isn’t the Republican Party.  Those folks always have had a very stringent position on immigration, and they’ve not hidden their view from the public’s eye.  No, the failing party is the Progressive-Democratic Party.  Those folks have long claimed—a claim we now know to be a cynical pretense, a pretense consistent with the underlying philosophy of the party of Jim Crow and of racist and sexist affirmative action—to be champions of immigrants and of DACA children.  But last week, they voted against every bill, Republican-offered and “bipartisan,” that was brought up.  The Progressive-Democrats wouldn’t even vote for cloture so the bills could be openly debated on the Senate floor.

Many Republicans voted against the bills, too, it’s true enough.  But as I said, they’ve had a sterner view of immigration all along.  It’s the Progressive-Democrats who voted against their avowals, who welched on their public commitments to DACA children and to immigrants and immigrant wannabes.

The Progressive-Democratic Party has shown with last week’s display that they don’t give a damn about DACA children or about immigration reform generally.  They only want the issue for campaigning for their political gain.

DACA children aren’t human children.  Prospective immigrants—including the illegal aliens already present—aren’t adult humans.  They’re just shovels for digging up votes.

This is how the Progressive-Democratic Party so shamefully has said they view these people.  This is what all of us need to remember in the fall.

Immigration, Progressive-Democrats, and Votes

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has an immigration bill on offer before the Congress, the Republicans have one, and a bipartisan group of two Senators have one.  Trump’s bill includes legalization and an eventual possibility of citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers (1.2 million, or so, beyond ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) illegal DACA program Dreamers), funding for a border wall, and changes to our visa programs.  The Republicans’ offer centers on DACA protections and a border wall.  The “bipartisan” bill has only DACA protections, not even border security.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress oppose both of the first two, and all three bills don’t look promising for passage, with that third a non-starter for its lack of protections for our nation.

This is what we see from the Progressive-Democrats.  They’ll vote against a bill that provides protections for the Dreamers protected under DACA.  They’ll vote against a bill that provides protections and legal status for three times the number of Dreamers than were protected under Obama’s DACA.

This is the conclusion that follows.  The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Congressional members don’t see DACA Dreamers—and especially the added Dreamers under Trump’s offer—as human beings.  Not at all.  These people are just a mechanical commodity, a tool to be used politically as a campaign issue on which to raise money and get votes.

The Progressive-Democrats claim that Trump’s offer would reduce overall immigration through the visa changes, and it likely would.  That, though, is just a broader, immigrants-as-commodity for Party political gain, argument.  Immigrants generally aren’t human beings in the eyes of Progressive-Democrats; the mass of immigrants is just a tool.

Of course, the Progressive-Democrats could prove me wrong.  They could stop playing politics with human lives and support Trump’s bill.  Or they could stop playing politics with human lives and support the Republicans’ DACA plus border security bill.

If they don’t, remember their attitude toward men and women and children this fall.