Tag Archives: morality

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.

Misunderstanding?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors laid out their “misunderstanding” in the opening sentence of their lede of their Sunday editorial.

Does a biological boy who transitions to become a girl have a constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports?

No, this is no mere misunderstanding; even a journalist knows better than this. It’s a deliberate distortion, which these editors are dishonestly presenting as established fact.

The fact that these…persons…are trying to steer us away from is that gender is immutable, and it is established at the moment a sperm unites with an egg and the genetic combination of XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes are established.

No amount of surgery and/or hormonal treatments can transition a boy into a girl; those actions can only alter his appearance. His genetic makeup remains untouched: he’s still a boy, regardless of what he looks like.

Watching in Unanimity

Posted on by
Reply

European leaders are unanimous in their position regarding Iran and that nation’s government abuse of the people over which the mullahs reign.

From Rome to Brussels and from Paris to London, leaders have criticized what the European Union’s foreign policy chief called a “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” response from Iranian security forces toward protesters.

But….

…European leaders are clearly gauging how much regional uncertainty they can tolerate.

Translation: European managers [sic] are unanimous in their decision to watch the hell out of the mullah’s abuses of the Iranian people. Unfortunately, those same European managers are just as unanimous their being too timid to do anything concrete in opposition to those abuses. As we might say in Texas, those worthies are all hat and no cattle. Unfortunately, though, those worthies don’t even have the hat. Stetsons are made in Texas, not in the haberdasheries of Paris or Milan.

Once Again, a State Court Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The Wyoming Supreme Court has struck down the State’s ban on abortion pills. Whether or not abortion pills are reasonable or safe or ought to be banned or not, the Court’s “reasoning” is deficient.

The court found that the state “failed to prove the 2023 laws were ‘reasonable and necessary restrictions’ on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.”

In so ruling, the court in the main relied on the Wyoming Constitution‘s Article 1, Section 38, which says,

a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

At that point, they stopped their thinking, though. They chose not to consider the baby’s intrinsic right to its own health—its own life. That the State’s constitution is silent on the baby’s right to life should not be allowed to free up judges, even State Supreme Court Justices, to rule as they wish. Where the law is silent on a matter, no court should be ruling on the matter since by entering that silence it is unavoidably making law in its own name, and that is the sole province of the political arms, the arms elected by the people, to do.

Justice Jo Gray implied as much when, in her dissent, she used to same Article and Section to argue the definition of “reasonable and necessary restrictions” is too vague and so the matter should have been returned to the legislature for clarification. Sadly, Gray also chose to elide any consideration of the baby’s welfare, also.

The court’s ruling can be read here.