Category Archives: morality

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Democrats are fuming over abortion language inserted into a bipartisan human trafficking bill that they failed to notice before voting to move the bill to the floor.

Failed to notice for the two months they’ve had it. Another case of irresponsible Democrats not bothering to read legislation on which they vote—even in committee.

Democrats are now threatening to block the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 2 by a unanimous vote and is now being debated before the full Senate.

Because spending your tax dollars on abortion is more important to Democrats than is protecting women and children from sex slavery. And one of its fallouts: pregnancies.

Unthinking Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama’s dissembling is legendary. Recall his claim, oft repeated, that if you like your health insurance policy or your doctor, you can keep them. Recall his oft repeated claims that Presidents don’t have the authority to act unilaterally on immigration in exactly the way he acted last November.

Here’s a couple more things he said.

The pattern overall is that the climate is getting warmer. That’s undeniable[.]

Except that the data are unclear on this, in the way that Obama means. It’s indisputable that the climate has not gotten warmer over the last 18 years. It’s indisputable that orbital mechanics and the sun’s cycles play a major role in Earth’s climate change. It’s indisputable that, over Earth’s existence, the sun is heating up. It’s indisputable that, over geologic time frames, Earth is warming. It’s entirely disputable that human activity is having a major effect on climate.

Obama also said,

Our homicide rates are so much larger than other industrialized countries, by like a mile.

Most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.

No. Today’s homicide rate is half that of the Clinton administration’ time frame, yet handgun ownership has vastly increased since then. In general, gun ownership, and lack of gun control laws are correlated with fewer murders. For instance, in 2011, California, with the most stringent gun control laws in the US (according to the Brady Campaign), had a gun murder rate of 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. Texas, with pretty loose gun control laws, had a gun murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000. Utah, with the loosest gun control laws in the US, had a gun murder rate of 0.97.

Of course, Obama knows these things. He’s too smart, too well educated, too widely read, and too current on the events in the world not to know these things. But lying to get his way is so habitual in him that he just says these things of convenience without the slightest thought.

What could be worse than that? His Democratic Party has said not a word to correct his errors. These men and women also are too smart, too well educated, too widely read, and too current on the events in the world not to know these things. Their silence on the matter demonstrates that they agree with his behavior as much as with his claims.

See, too, the Democratic Party’s silence on Hillary Clinton’s misbehaviors in violating Federal law with her Secretary of State private email accounts and her accepting—quite sizeable—donations from foreign governments while she was sitting in the Secretary of State’s chair, even if the money was washed through her Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation‎.

Remember this in 2016.

The Fearfulness of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Some of you may recall the Democratic Congressman from Arizona, Raul Grijalva, and his assault on the integrity of scientists and others who have the impudence to question his and his Left’s Orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming. One of his assault victims was Dr Willie Soon, of the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Soon has released a statement regarding this assault and its implications. In part, he says,

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.
…
I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

…I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.

Put up or shut up, guys. Of what are you so terrified, that you refuse to debate matters of science? Other than your understanding that you have no case, I mean.

 

h/t Power Line

A Conservative’s View of American Domestic Policy: Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

It’s out.

This is the first of a pair of publications on American policy; the other is concerned with National Policy, which consists of foreign and defense policy.

Domestic Policy both is necessary in its own right and must come before National Policy since a sound policy domestically is absolutely required both for the health of the nation within our borders and to facilitate—indeed, to enable—any form of outward-facing policy at the national level.

Domestic Policy is a combination of social and economic policies. Social Policy consists of these things: the concept of the American nation; American citizenship; the role of faith in our society; the role of immigration and its importance to our society; the importance of consensus; and the role of education.

Economic Policy consists of these things: the nature of a free market and its condition as the most moral system and the one most conducive to generating prosperity for all (even though there always will be some more or less prosperous than others), the role of the Federal government in protecting and enhancing our economy, and the role of Federal regulation in facilitating our economy.

Of course, these two major divisions of Domestic Policy are not truly separate from each other any more than biology, chemistry, and physics are separate from each other within science. Just as we divide scientific disciplines from each other to facilitate inquiry and discussion, I’m separating domestic policy into these divisions to facilitate a similar inquiry and discussion—while remaining fully aware and making occasional use of their very large areas of overlap.

The book is available in eBook form from amazon.com () and

National Security and Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

More than a dozen Islamic State fighters from Iraq and Syria—some with direct ties to the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—are now in Libya, according to US and European sources.

And the US has no authority to take them out.

And

The nation’s most senior intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Libya is not only a safe haven for ISIS but at least six other terror groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, which paraded police vehicles through Benghazi last month.

State’s Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf repeated State’s (and so President Barack Obama’s) position on the matter, insisting that this is not the fault of our foreign policy.

Are we happy with the situation in Libya from a governance and security perspective? No. Absolutely not. At the end of the day, though, this is not just a line, it’s true. This is ultimately up to the Libyan people, leaders in Libya to take the security of their country into their own hands and try to move it in a better direction with our help, the UN and others’ help as well.

This is a misreading of the situation. These Daesh members (and with direct ties to…Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, they’re Daesh leaders themselves) also are threats to our own national security, as are those other terrorist groups present—and not only to us, but to our friends and allies, also. From that, two consequences result directly.

The first is that, most assuredly, the situation in Libya is Libya’s to answer first, and we should do all we can to help Libya in that regard if they ask.

The second consequence, and from our national safety perspective the more important one, is that if Libya is unable or unwilling to handle the situation to our satisfaction—that is to the satisfaction of our own national security interest—then we have an obligation to ourselves, to American security, to enter and to handle the situation ourselves.

A foreign policy that is in the way of that, whether actively so or passively, very definitely is at fault, and it’s at odds with our national security.