Tag Archives: morality

Progressive-Democrats and Religious Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats want to vastly curtail, if not eliminate altogether, religious freedoms. You recall those—the core part of our 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

The Secular Democrats of America PAC, an arm of the Progressive-Democrat movement, counts the Trump administration’s actions to advance religious freedom a national security threat. Moving radically beyond merely eliminating our national motto because it dares mention God, this crowd denounces our national heritage and our belief in ourselves as a Christian nation (which is a distortion of theirs; we actually hold ourselves to be a Judeo-Christian nation).

In a 28-page list of “recommendations” this crowd sent to Progressive-Democrat President-Elect Joe Biden, they included the following:

  • withhold federal funds from any faith-based organization perceived as discriminatory on the basis of religion
  • repeal non-medical exemptions based on religious grounds
  • mandate inclusion of non-religious advisors at all faith-based gatherings at the White House
  • Biden (apparently personally) should discourage politicians from using the words “God” and “country” while speaking

So, this part of the Progressive-Democratic Party wants Government to tell religious organizations they are not allowed to practice their religion and receive the same government funding other organizations get. Government must heavily deprecate religious practices.

This crowd also insists on dictating what speech an elected official might use and who he must have in his meetings: “elected official” because there’s no reason to believe this demand, once acceded to, won’t spread far from the White House.

Biden has chosen not to comment on these recommendations. His considered silence smacks of agreement with it. If Republicans don’t hold the Senate, it’ll be a long four years of destruction.

Blatant

Posted on by
Reply

Racism and sexism, that is, and they’re rampant in the Progressive-Democratic Party. Here’s Congresswoman Karen Bass (D, CA) during a FOX 11 interview last Friday on who California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) should pick to replace Senator Kamala Harris (D) in the Senate:

I will tell you that I do believe that there should be an African American woman in the Congress[.]

On the other hand, when asked whether should select an Hispanic to replace Kamala Harris, Bass said,

I agree with that 100%. I think that is absolutely correct, and I think that that should happen[.]

Once again, for the Progressive-Democratic Party qualification for a position matters very little, if at all. The primary criterion, according to Party, is the “candidate’s” race, and the close second criterion is the individual’s sex.

Qualification is far down the list.

“Bias”

Posted on by
Reply

In quotes because it’s far more than that. Recall that Project Veritas has been releasing recordings of CNN’s routine 9am editorial conference calls. In one of those recordings, Cynthia Hudson, CNN‘s Senior Vice President and Managing Director of CNN en Español and Hispanic Strategy, had this:

The Cubans are gonna vote for Trump.

Project Veritas is properly identifying this news outlet’s plainly evident bias. There is, though, far more than that in these calls.

“The Cubans….” Not even “The Cuban-Americans.” CNN is denying these folks their American citizenship.

“The Cubans….” Not “A significant group of Americans.” CNN is openly plying its despicable segregationist identity politics, its blatant racism.

This. is. CNN.

Legalizing Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The citizens of Oregon have voted to legalize “small amounts” of a variety of drugs—including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and the like.

Others demur from that decision.

I have a larger concern.

For those advocating the legalization of “small amounts” of drugs–whether cocaine, heroine, marijuana, or anything else—a question: what’s your limiting principle? What natural limit–not your well-intentioned promise, or the behavior of those who succeed you—prevents you from increasing the upper limit of “small?”

Absent that limit, the only reasonable limit for legalizing such drugs is Zero. And, given the damage done not just to the user but to others around the user (vis., the damage done the user’s family through the debilitating effects of the addiction even from a “small amount” or the damage done the store employee(s) and customers as the user commits robberies under the influence in his effort to obtain the wherewithal to pay for his next “small amount”), perhaps the optimal reasonable limit should remain Zero.

I Have to Wonder

Posted on by
Reply

The administrators of Presentation College Carlow, an Irish college a bit south of Dublin, told the female students there

not to wear tight clothing that could “distract” staff members….
[or] revealing clothing, including tracksuit bottoms and gym leggings.

I wonder: why does this school have so many supposedly adult men on its staff who are so easily and pruriently distracted? Or, since the school’s students are as young as 12 years old, why are so many seeming pedophiles on staff?

It’s a concern shared by the students’ parents.

A petition called the policy sexist and noted that male students’ attire was not discussed.
…
“This is appalling, majority of students are 12-18 years old and should not feel [sic] sexualised by their teachers who they are meant to feel safe around,” [the petition] continues.

And

[A parent] told local media outlets that adult male teachers should not be distracted by young girls in the first place.

Indeed.