He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Woodson, Woodson Center Founder and President, wrote in the lede of his Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed this:

Black America must declare a one-year moratorium on whining about racism. Not because racism has disappeared, and not to soothe the sensitivities of white America—but because grievance has become a shield protecting predators within our own communities. Accusations of racism are routinely weaponized to silence accountability, excuse corruption, and reward moral cowardice.

That’s absolutely correct. One of the Critical Items in American culture, currently under direct assault by open borders and the detritus remaining from that, is that our republic can survive only with acceptance and action on personal responsibility. Government is a last resort in that, not the default solution.

Then Woodson expanded on that in a way that too few folks who should know better have the courage (or integrity, I add) to do.

Civil-rights leaders and politicians remain conspicuously silent, waiting instead for the next police shooting or racial controversy they can exploit for media attention and moral posturing. Call out this silence, and you will be accused of racism—bullied into retreat by those who profit from outrage while ignoring the suffering in their own backyard. This silence isn’t compassion. It is cowardice.

He’s especially right about that last. It’s also an especially cowardly form of cowardice. Bullies have only the power over their victims that their victims consciously, deliberately, choose to grant those bullies. These grown, adult, allegedly rational civil-rights “leaders” and politicians assuredly know that. Yet they still bow down and if not actively kiss the boots of their bullies, passively cower under their desks, hoping to go unnoticed.

These folks are unworthy of their civil-rights or political desks, and they should be disregarded by the rest of us.

Open Borders and Racism Still are Progressive-Democratic Party Planks

Posted on by
Reply

If there were any question about whether the Progressive-Democratic Party was walking away from its open borders position, there shouldn’t be anymore.

It was probably no surprise that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar [D, MN]…announced the Congressional Progressive Caucus has “adopted an official position” to defund Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Mainstream Progressive-Democrats are too far Left to voice any opposition to this lawlessness. In fact, one of the more mainstream Progressive-Democrats, Seth Moulton (MA), has introduced a bill that would, at bottom, sharply reduce funding for ICE, thereby greatly reducing its and our nation’s ability to maintain our national borders short of moving DoD military personnel to the border—over which, of course, Party members would raise a loud hue and cry, too. As cited from the Associated Press,

[Moulton] introduced a bill on Wednesday that would—without adult supervision in Congress—gut the $75 billion funding increase ICE received in President Donald Trump’s [R] Big Beautiful Bill and dump the money into propping up…Obamacare….

Congressman Dave Min (D, CA) wants more. He’s

back[ing] impeaching Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and has called the work of enforcing immigration laws “illegal” and “unconstitutional.” He’s got the backing of Omar and her Squad pals at the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC.
Min [also]…has called a House committee investigation into Minnesota’s massive fraud scandal “partisan and racist.”

This is Party, not only wanting to abolish our borders and calling enforcing our laws somehow unconstitutional, but also projecting its own intrinsic racist bigotry into the argument. There is, after all, very little more insidiously racist than injecting that bigotry into a discussion where there is no racism.

What is a Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said under oath at her confirmation hearing that she could not define what a woman is. Now we have a gynecologist, Dr Nisha Verma, Physicians for Reproductive Health Fellow, who also was under oath and who specializes in treating women, saying that she cannot define what a man is. During a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing centered on Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs, Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) asked her—repeatedly—whether men could get pregnant.

Hawley: Do you think that men can get pregnant?
Verma: I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going, or what the goal was. I mean I do take care of patients with different identities, I take care of many women, I take care of people with different identities, and so that’s where I paused. I think…I wasn’t sure where you were going with that.
Hawley: Well, the goal is just the truth, so can men get pregnant?
Verma: Again, the reason I paused there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question….
Hawley: The goal is just to establish a biological reality. You just said a moment ago that “science and evidence should control, not politics.” So, let’’ just test that proposition. Can men get pregnant?
Verma: I take care of people with many identities, but I take care of many women that can get pregnant. I do take care of people that don’t identify as women….”
Hawley: Can men get pregnant?
Verma: I totally agree, science and evidence should guide medicine….
Hawley: Do science and evidence tell us that men can get pregnant? Biological men—can they get pregnant?
Verma: [Paraphrased by OANN] shifted her strategy, arguing that yes/no questions are “a political tool.”
Hawley: Yes/no questions are about the truth, doctor. Let’s not make a mockery of this proceeding[.]
Verma: [Paraphrased by OANN] accused the congressman of “trying to reduce the complexity” of her patients” experience, then of “conflating male [and] female with men and women.”

On the first part of Verma’s last answer, she’s conflating her patients’ experiences with who her patients are. There’s no doubt her patients’ experiences can get highly complex, whether they’re women or men trying to set themselves up as women, however sincerely the latter. There’s nothing complex, though, about who her patients are; that’s a simple, binary matter: her patients are either women, or they’re men. That’s the simple, straightforward biology of the matter.

Verma’s determined refusal to answer Hawley’s simple question is her confession that she cannot define what a man is. Of course, as I noted above, women are her specialty, and a la Brown Jackson, she’s not a specialist in maleness.

Too Typical

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors had it down pat in their editorial of last Wednesday. The opening sentence of their lede laid it out:

As federal pandemic largesse ebbs, Democratic-run states are eyeing higher taxes rather than reform spending programs.

The rest of their piece expanded on that theme.

Nor does it get any clearer than this bit. In a nation overrun with Federal debt and with Progressive-Democrat-run States joining in on climbing the forest of trees in their world on which money grows, Progressive-Democratic Party politicians still cannot even conceive of cutting spending. Nor do they feel the need to; it’s not like they’re spending their own money. It’s all OPM.

Now it’s Rhode Island that’s fixing to get up into one of those trees. Rhode Island is another of those Progressive-Democrat-run States, this one with a Progressive-Democrat governor, a 38-seat Senate containing 33 Progressive-Democrats, and a 75-seat House filled with 65 Progressive-Democrats.

This is what we can expect nationwide if Party wins control of the House and Senate this fall, and it’ll get far worse if Pary wins the White House in the 2028 election cycle.

Trump and a Chinese Idiom

Posted on by
Reply

Walter Russell Mead’s Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed opened with this subheadline:

For him [President Donald Trump (R)], extreme volatility and risk are not a problem but an opportunity.

Here’s an old and hoary Chinese idiom:

危機

These characters, 危 + 機 in their combination translate to Crisis, and the term is composed of characters meaning Danger + Opportunity

Mead’s piece expands on his theme of President Donald Trump’s (R) use of volatility and risk, but that’s just another way of saying, in Western diction, that Chinese idiom. The only difference between the two is whether the deviation is imposed from the outside or it’s created by deliberately deviating.

That idiom, and the Western rephrasing of volatility and risk, are essentially correct. Gains are not made without taking the underlying risks of deviating from the status quo. Great gains are possible only with making great deviations. Both Crisis and Volatility and Risk are those opportunities from great deviations.

Those who fear crisis or volatility and risk to the point of paralysis seek to have the rest of us similarly paralyzed lest they be left behind.