Tag Archives: morality

Leadership

Posted on by
2

That’s the subject of a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed of a similar name.  The piece recounted the recent history of anti-cop violence and murders of cops in the performance of their duties—including protecting an hours-long anti-cop protest by the Black Lives Matter movement in Dallas, for which the police were rewarded with the murder of five of their own and the wounding of several more.

The WSJ also decried, correctly, the lack of support our police get from our political leadership from the President on down—until after those cops have been wounded or murdered, and then official condolences flow like snake oil from a salesman.

President Barack Obama (D) was cited as saying that it’s possible to decry the abuses of our justice system while expressing support for the police, and he’s right.  But Obama has demonstrated his stout belief in the sewage of moral relativism, in the wake of the Dallas police murders, by spouting carefully unbalanced statistics—unbalanced because Obama chose not to mention things like black on black murder statistics—and by carefully ignoring the racism of the Black Lives Movement and the self-serving racism of the Al Sharptons of the nation who aren’t even sincere in their racism but spout it only for their personal aggrandizement.

The piece also quoted Minnesota’s Democrat Governor Mark Dayton saying this about the shooting of Philando Castile in suburban Minneapolis:

Would this have happened if the driver were white, if the passengers were white? I don’t think it would have.

That this is a deliberately racist statement made solely for Dayton’s personal political gain is demonstrated by his careful elision of the fact the cop involved was…brown.

These things illustrate a part of what lies beneath Obama’s and his party’s divisiveness over the last few years: they’ve cynically played the race card in order to increase their political power.

Democrats represent the ideology of victimhood with Democrats as the Protectors.  And this only traps Democrat protectees in dependency on their protectors.  Liberals know this full well.

Democrats’ Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

The Democratic Party’s draft platform calls for

the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change[.]

This is on top of all the Democratic Party State Attorneys General persecuting companies under pseudo-RICO charges for daring speak.  Because we can’t have the average American individual [who] is morally and intellectually inadequate presuming to dispute with the Democrats’ received wisdom.  Nossir.

And

Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission, in a decision to be made public on Thursday, voted last month to punish Fox News over criteria changes for the network’s first Republican presidential primary debate….

Fox News‘ crime, so heinous in the eyes of Democrats? They altered the format of that first debate to expand free speech by increasing the number of Presidential candidate debaters.  We can’t have, after all, those morally and intellectually inadequate Americans having access to too wide a range of view.  Mm, mm.  Fortunately, the honest members of the FEC succeeded in blocking this travesty.

This is what a Hillary Clinton administration will inflict on us.

“DOJ to institute mandatory bias training”

Posted on by
Reply

Or so the Fox News headline says AG Loretta Lynch claims.  Her Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, on the matter:

Implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate[.]

There isn’t anything implicit about ethics or about lying.  Will Lynch obey a Federal court order to have her lawyers undergo ethics training, or will she continue to refuse that and allow her lawyers to continue to lie in court—the cause of the ethics training order?

Democrats Quibble

Posted on by
Reply

In the Democrats’ preemptive release of their own version of the House Benghazi panel investigation into the fiasco in our Benghazi consulate that culminated in the terrorist murders of our Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff (a preemption that itself demonstrates the Democrats’ fear of the truth), they claim that ex-Secretary of State and current Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional protection.

Never personally denied.  The quibble, apart from the separate and early release, gives the lie.  Clinton was the Secretary of State.  Her security chief didn’t do anything—approving or denying—regarding consular security without the boss’ prior permission, either specifically to a given act or generally through the rules and procedures Clinton approved.

Further to the dishonesty:

The panel’s five Democrats said after a two-year investigation that the military could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks to save the lives of four Americans killed in Libya.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  What these Democrats carefully elide is that Clinton’s State Department decision to not react to the ongoing terrorist attack was made in real-time as the attack began: Clinton had no way of knowing for how long the attack would continue or for how long our Ambassador and his protection detail and the personnel at the annex to which survivors of the initial stage of the attack retreated would hold out.  A decision to have military and other units move rather than to sit and watch might have reduced American fatalities.  Or maybe not.

The key point here is that Clinton’s denial, in advance of the attack, of added security, and her subsequent denial of real-time support while knowing she could not know whether that support would arrive in time, contributed to the success of the terrorist attack.

The panel’s five Democrats know this full well and choose quibbling and obfuscation rather than truth.

The Greater Risk

Posted on by
Reply

…isn’t losing the White House, although that’s serious enough, likely as it is to cost the nation the Senate and so the Supreme Court; it’s losing the ground up contest that Republicans have been so successful with in the last few elections.

A new generation of Bernie Sanders (Senator, I, VT and Democratic Party Presidential candidate]-inspired political candidates is committing to run for state and local office, the campaign claims, a development some analysts say could shape liberal politics for decades to come….

And

…[Bernie Sanders’] campaign said 6,700 supporters expressed interest in running; the number was nearly 11,000 counting those interested in volunteering.

Of course, it’s their right to stand for office and to push their philosophy.

Indeed, I encourage them to do so; this is a debate our nation very badly needs to have; we need to settle this question for the next generation or so.  It does, though, put a premium on our being on top of our own game throughout this necessary debate, lest the Republic be lost.