Category Archives: morality

The Party Wants No Deal

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t want a deal, neither on the budget nor on DACA.  They want the Federal government shut down so they can blame the Republicans for it during this fall’s elections.  They also want to keep the DACA situation and immigration in general alive as a debating question for those same elections.

Democrats said Mr Trump’s dismissal of “shithole countries” in Africa in a closed meeting last week with lawmakers positioned him as the person who upset the negotiations.

Notice that.  The Progressive-Democrats are doing two things here: masquerading a claim of certain words being spoken as a fact that those words were spoken, and then using those words as an excuse to refuse to deal on DACA rather than actually dealing on DACA.

That the Progressive-Democrats do not want a DACA deal at all is illustrated by a third thing to notice, a matter that’s being carefully ignored by both those Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.  Such words spoken publicly would be damaging to our national reputation; on that we’re all agreed.  What’s ignored is that, having been said in that closed meeting (if they were said), no one outside the meeting would know about them and no damage would be done—but for a meeting participant (Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) comes to mind) running screaming to the press as soon as the meeting broke up to bruit about those words.  This is a deliberate move to blow up any DACA negotiations.

Nor is a DACA agreement needed in the current budget debate.  President Donald Trump’s rescission of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) DHS memorandum gave Congress, where such a matter belongs, until next March to enact a DACA program legislatively, or explicitly decline to do so, before Trump’s rescission takes effect.  The lack of urgency is further well-known to the Progressive-Democrats: a Federal judge has blocked Trump’s order.  Demanding a DACA deal in the current budget debate is simply a mechanism to block a budget deal.

Too, the Progressive-Democratic Party must come before children.  That Party is more important than children is demonstrated by two outcomes of the Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism.  The DACA children will get nothing from any government shutdown.  The Progressive-Democrats’ rejection of a budget deal also will reject the CHIP program, whose funding is renewed for six years, in the deal on offer.  Millions of children will be denied access to health insurance.

Remember that in the coming elections.

The Obama White House, the Obama DoJ, and Hezbollah

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Politico report on how then-President Barack Obama (D) and his Department of Justice killed an investigation into Hezbollah’s drug dealing because Obama was so desperate for a nuclear weapons deal—any nuclear weapons deal—for his legacy.

Now we’re seeing that Derek Maltz, ex-Special Agent-in-Charge of the DEA’s Special Operations Division, had briefed Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, on Hezbollah’s performance and on the depth of their drug empire’s penetration in the US.  Maltz said that Holder was “very alarmed” by the briefing, and Maltz also said that Holder “promised to set up meetings with national security officials and was almost always ‘supportive’ of his investigations”—and nothing happened.  There was no followup.

Maybe Maltz misinterpreted Holder’s alarm, degree of support, and the nature of his promises to follow up.

The investigation into Hezbollah was spiked some time after that briefing.  Maybe Holder’s alarm was over how much was being found out about Hezbollah’s drug dealing and the extent of its drug empire in the US.  Maybe Holder’s support for the investigations was so he could keep abreast of how much was being learned about Hezbollah’s drug operations.  Maybe there was followup on Maltz’ briefing: that killing of the investigation.

Legacy matters, after all.  And maybe the true nature of a particular legacy is coming to light.

Porch Dogs

Posted on by
Reply

Some of you may be aware of the protests in Iran, protests that are growing in size and becoming subject to increasingly violent attempts at suppression by the Iranian government.  “Some of you” because the NLMSM isn’t talking much about the protests.

It turns out that Iranian women are playing a prominent leading role in those protests.

  • a young Iranian woman standing atop a container and shedding her hijab…while simultaneously waving it as a flag
  • a woman confronting security forces and proclaiming “Death to Khamenei” while crowds around her join in
  • Another woman was seen on tape declaring “You raised your fists and ruined our lives. Now we raise our fists. Be men, join us. I as a woman will stand in front and protect you. Come represent your country.”

And on and on.  These women are risking their freedom, such as it is in Iran, risking arrest, beatings, perhaps their lives just to be in these protests, much less to lead many of them.

But, where are the Western “feminists” who were willing—anxious, even—to protest loudly against the inauguration of a President of whom they disapprove, protest against the perceived evils of Civil War heroes of the Confederacy, against sexism and sexual harassment and assault in the halls of Hollywood and Congress?

Never mind that these protests all were conducted wholly within the safety of a nation that proudly protects the freedom to speak one’s mind, to protest against government or any other ill, real or imagined.

Where, now, are Linda Sarsour?  Elizabeth Warren?  Nancy Pelosi?  Kathy Griffin?  Kamala Harris?  Kirsten Gillibrand?  Amy Klobuchar?  Debbie Stabenow?  Debbie Dingell?  Madonna?  Amy Poehler?

Others, like Catherine Ray, Federica Mogherini’s spokesman, has uttered only bland platitudes about rights to peaceful protest and free speech.  The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy herself has chosen, so far, not to speak at all in her own voice.

What are these women, safe and sound in the bosom of the United States and Europe, saying and doing in support of those Iranian women?  Not much.

Susan Rice, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador, says the timidity is proper:

Stephen Miller, the author of the piece at the link, wants to know why these modern “feminists” don’t speak up or act concretely in support of those Iranian women.  I have a different bit of advice: stay up on the porch, ladies.  It’s safe there.  Real women are taking action.

Even porch dogs yap, though.

The Cynicism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

And it’s especially stark in the season.  The Wall Street Journal has taken note of the “charities” of the Left and their negative attitude toward the just enacted tax reform.

“The tax code is now poised to de-incentivize the heart of civic action in America,” Dan Cardinali, president of Independent Sector, a left-leaning lobby for philanthropic outfits, told the Washington Post. “It’s deeply disturbing.”

Cardinali is projecting. Most of us donate time and/or money because it’s the right thing to do and because it’s part of our Judeo-Christian obligation to help the least among us, not because we expect some sort of reward for doing so.

Or as one commenter on that op-ed put it,

They think middle class donors who are saving $25 by giving them $100 will stop because it no longer makes economic sense? If that were the case they could save $75 before the tax change.

Cardinali and his fellows of the Left know this full well.

There’s More To It

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the (actually quite minor) snafu wherein the House and Senate passed trivially different versions of the tax reform bill, the Senate’s Parliamentarian ruled that 529 Savings Plans—modified by the tax bill to be usable for K-12 as well as secondary education expenses—cannot be used, on a straight majority vote, for K-12 homeschooling, even though formally schooled K-12 children and their parents can use the Plans.  Two icons of Progressive Democracy, Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Ron Wyden (D, OR), had objected and raised the matter to the Parliamentarian.

The Senate passed its version of the tax reform bill minus the protection for homeschooled children, since there weren’t going to be eight (or even one) Progressive-Democratic Party Senators who would vote for tax reform or lower taxes in any form and sent it back to the House where the bill was passed again and then sent to the White House for the President’s signature.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX, and whose 529 amendment was cut back by this maneuver) expressed his dismay.

What the Democrats did is they carved out one group, they carved out just homeschoolers, and they cut homeschoolers out. It really was shameful.
…
The Democrats view is they want control. They want control over everything, whether it is control over regulating an industry, control over the internet or, in this instance, control in how you educate your students.  The reason the Democrats don’t like homeschoolers is if you’re spending the time, investing the time at home teaching your kids, they can’t mandate what you’re teaching them.

Cruz is right, but that’s not all of it.  The Progressive-Democratic Party also is in the tank for the teachers unions, and homeschoolers are beyond the reach of those unions.  The Sanders-Wyden move also was in service to their unions.

In either case, or both of them, the Progressive-Democrats used children as political weapons.  That’s despicable.