Category Archives: morality

Trump is Right, and He’s Wrong

Posted on by
2

President Donald Trump (R) delivered his State of the Union Speech Tuesday evening. In it, among a variety of topics (as is the nature of SOTU speeches), he touted the large improvement in our economy, from inflation down sharply, the stock market up strongly, manufacturing coming home, energy costs coming down, and so on. On all of this, Trump was absolutely correct: our economy is much better, much stronger, much more stable than it was under his predecessor Joe Biden (D). He also touted a number of projects and statutory proposals that would cement existing improvements and lead to further improvements.

Those, though, are national, population-as-a-whole, items. Our national population is made up of individuals, small clusters of individuals, and regional collections of individuals.

What Trump didn’t do was acknowledge the further work necessary to make those individual, cluster, and collections of Americans’ lives better in particular. He should have, he still needs to do, and what Republicans in Congress and running for Congress in Progressive-Democrat incumbent districts and States need to do, is talk to those folks specifically and directly about their economic situations and how Republican policies and proposals will help them in particular, how they’re already helping them (without talking down to them).

Failing that, both houses of Congress are in peril of falling to the Progressive-Democrats and the economic and security destruction they will inflict with their big, intrusive government; increasing taxation; and exploding spending policies.

One other thing: Trump got the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Congressmen to demonstrate, with their own behavior, how useless, if not dangerous, they are to our Republic. Trump challenged all of the Congressmen in the room (and it was most of them, as the threats of fully a third of Party’s House Representatives to boycott Trump’s SOTU speech proved empty words; they showed up instead) who agreed with the simple statement that the primary goal of the government is to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens to stand. To a man and woman, all of the Republicans stood. Nearly all of the Progressive-Democrats (there were a couple of exceptions) remained seated. They showed, thereby, that they don’t agree that protecting us American citizens is paramount.

Come to that, this was a Party that refused even to stand for the proposition that child transition hormonal or surgical treatments is wrong. This was a Party that refused even to stand for a little girl who survived a traffic collision caused by an illegal alien with an illegally granted Commercial Driver License driving a truck. This was a Party that refused even to stand for the mother of a young Ukrainian immigrant brutally murdered in a subway car.

This should be remembered in this primary season and in the fall elections.

Leftist School Districts Child Abuse

Posted on by
Reply

When the Supreme Court ruled in Mahoud et al v Taylor et al, that schools may not prevent parents, via any means at all, from opting their children out of school events, including lessons, involving LGBTQ-related themes, here are Leftist-run schools and their Progressive-Democrat politicians deliberately ignoring that ruling and denying parents precisely that option.

  • Suburban Boston’s Lexington Public Schools refused to show parents curricula in advance while demanding they identify specific lessons for opting out, and claimed books that simply promote “tolerance” are exempt, according to a “Catch-22” lawsuit.
  • California Attorney General Rob Bonta [D] convinced a federal appeals court [the activist judge-dominated 9th Circuit] that forcing school districts to actively mislead parents about their children’s gender identity was not covered by Mahmoud at all because it doesn’t involve “curricular decisions.”
  • Colorado’s Cherry Creek School District…us[ed] an old standby—lunch with a teacher—to discuss LGBTQ themes without parental approval.

It’s true that the Supreme Court ruling is a temporary injunction pending final adjudication of the underlying case as that case makes its way through the courts; however, it remains in effect, and from that it is the law of the land.

This is the lawlessness of the Left overlying their insistent child abuse with “sex” lessons far beyond their years and deliberately outside the children’s parents’ rights and obligations.

Bad Logic

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona passed a law five years ago that essentially banned forceable DEI training. An ASU professor brought suit to clarify that the law also

gives public employees an “implied private right of action” to stop such coercion, which in his case was ASU training on how to “critique whiteness.”

A State district court agreed with the professor and ruled accordingly. An Arizona appellate court

“astonishingly” construed lawmakers’ silence on enforcement as confirmation that individuals cannot sue….

The euphemism quotes are from the professor’s lawyers in their reaction to the ruling and as they prepare to appeal to the State’s supreme court.

The lawyers—and any high school student who didn’t sleep through his logic class—are right to be astonished. The appellate court’s “argument” (my euphemism quotes this time) that saying nothing means cannot sue is textbook logic failure. The lawmakers’ silence means nothing other than that they said nothing. The appellate court’s claim otherwise is the court’s putting words into the lawmakers’ mouths the judges have no way of knowing belong there—unless the judges are claiming heretofore unheard of powers of mind reading.

Time to Pause

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors think it’s time for ICE to pause in Minneapolis.

This is a badly mistaken position, and it’s based on a badly wrong underlying premise. Here are the key components in the editors’ error, in their own words.

Fifteen months later in Minneapolis, there isn’t much heart in Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Saturday shooting of Alex Pretti, as he lay on the ground surrounded by ICE agents, is the worst incident to date in what is becoming a moral and political debacle for the Trump Presidency.
Videos of an event aren’t always definitive, but this is how it looks to us. Pretti attempted, foolishly, to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed by agents. Multiple agents then tackled Pretti, and he had a phone in one hand as he lay on the ground. An agent discovered a concealed gun on Pretti, and disarmed him. An agent then shot Pretti, and multiple shots followed.

Stripped from the context of the shooting of Alex Pretti, as he lay on the ground is the simple fact that he was actively resisting arrest subsequent to his actively interfering with the arrest of the woman. The agents’ efforts to disarm him as he resisted arrest and now fought to retain his firearm—that addendum to his resistance is what led to his being shot.

And: Videos of an event aren’t always definitive, especially when they’re carefully edited for favored excerpts, or wholly withheld, as the WSJ has done in its “news” article misleadingly titled Videos Contradict US Account of Minneapolis Shooting by Federal Agents, from which the videos were deliberately not published, nor were any links to any videos provided. All that piece contained were carefully selected stills carefully stripped of all context surrounding them—other than the news writers’ personal opinion-based representations of the stills’ meaning.

Nor was Pretti attempt[ing], foolishly, to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed by agents. The agents were attempting to arrest the woman, who had been obstructing the agents—not protesting their actions—resisting arrest, and in the course of the struggle resulting from her resisting, she was pushed to the ground. Pretti’s “assistance” consisted of interposing himself between the woman and the agents and actively resisting—physically opposing—her arrest. In the course of his obstruction, he was pushed to the ground and his subsequent continued physical resistance is what led to his being shot.

Contra the editors’ position, it’s time for Minnesota’s Progressive-Democratic governor, Tim Walz, to pause—actually to cease altogether—his constant egging on those present in Minneapolis to actively resist ICE operations, which only result in rioting where ICE is active (its agents acting entirely within their DOC and immigration law). It’s time for Minneapolis’ Progressive-Democratic mayor, Jacob Frey, to pause—to halt altogether—his especially inflammatory rhetoric regarding ICE operations and ICE agents.

WSJ editors holding Walz and Frey, and Minneapolis’ rioters, blameless is part of a general press policy of false reporting, even as they add this:

Either many ICE agents aren’t properly trained, or they are so on edge as they face opposition in the streets that they are on a hair trigger. Either way, this calls for rethinking how ICE conducts itself, especially in Minneapolis as tensions build.

No, it calls for rethinking the way Walz and Frey incite violence and the way Minneapolis’ rioters respond to that incitement. The agents aren’t facing “opposition;” they’re facing too often violent opposition.

The editors then closed their piece with this argument:

Governor Tim Walz could have urged his citizens to avoid confrontations with ICE. Instead he made a video urging them to go into the streets with phones and film ICE agents, whether or not they are performing lawful searches under federal immigration law. His rhetoric is incendiary and describes ICE as a lawless terrorist operation. Another tragedy was inevitable, and there will be more if this continues.
Whether he likes it or not, most of the burden now lies with Mr Trump as the President who controls ICE.

No, whether the editors like it or not, most of the burden lies with Walz and Frey as the inflaming pushers of resistance.

It’s long past time for the press to stop distorting the facts of these matters, to stop misleading us citizens with their false reporting, to stop doing their bit to inflame the public, even if Walz and Frey will not stop their inflammatory words.

Progressive-Democratic Party Lawlessness

Posted on by
Reply

A typical example of this is taking hold in Virginia, a Blue State (for all that it had a successful Republican governor for one term) going even Bluer. As soon as the State’s Progressive-Democrat governor, Abigail Spanberger, took office, her Party cronies, who have majorities in both houses of the State legislature, have begun pushing laws that functionally excuse violent criminals.

House Bill 863 includes proposals to effectively eliminate minimum sentencing for manslaughter, rape, possession and distribution of child pornography, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and other repeat violent felonies.

This is how Progressive-Democrats act out their disrespect for law and for law enforcement.

What’s on tap for the State’s next legislative session? Removing jail terms altogether and sending social workers to talk to rapists about inappropriate behavior toward women? Sending pediatricians to talk to child pornographers about how to better interact with children? Defund all of the State’s police departments—after all, if there are no police, there can be no assaults on police? Eliminating the crime of manslaughter, that being just the unfortunate outcome of a loud argument?

Progressive-Democrat Delegate Rae Cousins, the bill’s sponsor, has rationalized his bill:

This change would give the experienced judges in our communities more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case.

Okay. How about, instead, giving experienced judges more discretion to make decisions based on the unique facts of each case by removing the upper bounds of sentencing for these crimes while keeping the lower bounds?