Tag Archives: morality

Lies of the Press

Posted on by
Reply

These are lies of the Left, too, as Leftist as the press industry has gone. In their editorial regarding former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s interview at the National Association of Black Journalists, the editors summarized some claims embedded in the NABJ‘s opening question, posed by Rachel Scott of ABC News:

“You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals…saying they were not born in the United States”; told “four Congresswomen of color…to go back to where they came from”; and “attacked black journalists”

I heard that part of the interview in its entirety; the quoted parts are incomplete, but contain enough to identify the dishonesties in Scott’s question.

Not born here: the only rival Trump said anything of the sort about was then-Presidential candidate and then-President Barack Obama (D), and it’s obvious he was using an already long-extant conspiracy theory to troll Obama and the credulous press, not making a serious argument.

[F]our Congresswomen of color…to go back to where they came from: what Rose dishonestly excluded from her claim was the context: the four Congresswomen were objecting to Trump’s characterization of the African nations of their heritage by insisting that those nations had much to teach us—and Trump—about how to do things. What Rose further excluded from her question was that Trump was not telling those Congresswomen to go back where they came from; he was telling them to go to their old nations, learn those lessons they claimed their nations had for us, and then come back and educate the rest of us.

Attacking black journalists? This is the intrinsic racism of Scott, the NABJ, and the American press at large. Trump attacks the press and nearly all journalists without regard to race or ethnicity. That includes black journalists, but it does not single them out to the exclusion of other groups of journalists.

It’s…unfortunate…that the WSJ‘s editors chose not to call out Scott for her lies about what Trump had said.

Harris Intends to Continue…

Posted on by
Reply

…her boss’, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s, disdain for Israel and that nation’s obligation (not merely right) to defend itself, an obligation that of necessity requires it to destroy an enemy whose openly stated goal includes the butchery of Israeli women and children en route to the extermination of Israel the nation.

Here’s Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris on the matter of Hamas creche-mate Hezbollah’s attack on Israel’s Druze children in the northern village of Majdal Shams as cited by The Wall Street Journal:

[A]lthough Israel has a right to defend itself, she would “not be silent” about “the death of far too many innocent civilians.”

This is Harris cynically naively taking the terrorist Hamas at its word regarding the entity’s casualty claims, claims that are carefully undifferentiated between civilian and combatant casualties and that are wholly unsubstantiated. This is Harris, also, completely disregarding Israel’s statements regarding the civilian to combatant casualty ratio in this Hamas-inflicted war while also disregarding the civilian casualty losses Israel has suffered at the hands of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Harris also is committing the moral equivalence sewage of equating Hamas and Hezbollah’s terrorism with Israel’s fight for its existence against these terrorists: she’s demanding an unconditional cease fire, immediately.

I will not be silent. So to everyone who has been calling for a cease-fire, and to everyone who has been calling for peace, I see you and I hear you. Let’s get the deal done so we can get a cease-fire to end the war. Let’s bring the hostages home, and let’s provide much-needed relief to the Palestinian people.

She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that such a cease fire would benefit only the terrorists while doing nothing to recover the terrorist-seized hostages, many of whom the terrorists have already butchered while held or allowed to die of injuries while held. She doesn’t care (it’s not possible to conclude she doesn’t know) that Hamas will not agree to release the hostages or the hostage bodies unless and until Israel withdraws completely from the Gaza Strip, leaving Hamas in place to reconstitute, rearm, and resume attacking and butchering Israeli citizens. This is a straightforward continuation of Biden’s anti-Israeli policy. All that Harris lacks, so far, is a public intent to interfere with arms resupply of Israel, as Biden has done.

This is the candidate the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to put in the White House. This is the anti-Israeli policy Party wants to infuse throughout Congress by expanding its Senate majority and seizing a majority in the House.

She Avoided, Again

Posted on by
1

Last month, 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray was gang-raped and murdered by illegal aliens in Houston, TX. Last Saturday, Progressive-Democrat Vice President and likely Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Kamala Harris traveled to Houston to campaign for her nomination and then for office. However, she lacked the courtesy—even the courage—to visit with Jocelyn’s parents; she was reluctant, apparently, to face the possibility of having to explain the role her open border position might have played in their daughter’s rape and murder.

This, though, is of a piece with Harris’ visit to Border Patrol facilities in El Paso, TX, shortly after her boss, Progressive-Democrat Joe Biden assigned her the responsibility of overseeing the security of our southern border, or as the press had it before they began trying to purge their history, assigned her the role of Border Czar. On that visit, Harris was in the area, but she declined actually to go to the border itself.

All of this, insulting as it is to young Jocelyn’s memory and to her parents, is part and parcel with Harris’ strongly held position of open borders and her holding that illegal aliens shouldn’t be illegal.

Race and Gender in our Presidential Election Campaign Season

Posted on by
Reply

Sadly, this is being thrust into the faces of us average Americans, riding on Progressive-Democrat Vice President and nominal Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. As Joshua Jamerson, John McCormick, and Tarini Parti put it in their WSJ article,

Harris’s rapid ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket, expected to become official early next month, has thrust race and gender into the center of the contentious 2024 presidential election, in a country where scars of racial segregation and sex-based discrimination still linger.

It’s true enough that those scars still linger; it’s true enough that there remain instances of actual race and sex bigotry. However, the only ones thrust[ing] race and gender into the center of the current election season are Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their frontmen of the press. It was, after all, then-Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden who announced that his choice for his Vice President candidate would be, first and foremost, a woman who was black—qualification was a distant tertiary consideration. Then it was Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden who announced that his first pick for the Supreme Court would be a black woman; her qualification for the bench again was a distant tertiary consideration.

Now pressmen are (see above) making a big deal about Harris’ race and gender as somehow qualifying, in addition to making her merely popular; qualification for office, even her experience as VP, are distant tertiary and quaternary considerations. This is manufacturing racist and sexist bigotry where it does not exist—here, in candidates for office. It’s hard to get any more invidiously bigoted than that. Yet here is where Party is, along with their press communications arm.

This is despite the article’s authors contradicting themselves later in their piece:

A Wall Street Journal poll conducted July 23 to 25, after President Biden bowed out of the race and endorsed Harris, found 81% of respondents said Harris (who is also of South Asian descent) being a Black woman made no difference in whether they would support her for president.

Us average Americans—which is to say, us honest Americans—don’t give a rat’s patootie about Harris’, or any other candidate for office’s, race or gender. We only care that, beyond being old enough and a born-American citizen, the candidate actually is capable of handling the demands of being President. Even those constitutionally mandated minimal eligibility criteria (note: these are not qualification criteria) are background considerations; our primary concern is whether the candidate is qualified for the Presidency, what that candidate’s claimed policies and goals are, and what that candidate’s empirically demonstrated history of achieving those goals is.

For pressmen and Party politicians to give primary emphasis to race and gender in the present season is at once their confession that their candidate has no record worthy of campaigning on, and nakedly insulting to us Americans.

Mark Zuckerberg Against our 1st and 2nd Amendments

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg, who owns controlling shares of Meta, has instructed his Facebook and Instagram packages to censor posts of athletes participating in sporting events that involve firearms.

McKenna Geer competes for Team USA at the Paralympic Games in air rifle competitions. She posted an image of the air rifle she uses on her Instagram feed. Conner Prince competes in shotgun events for Team USA. He posts about his competitions and the equipment he uses in them. The US Military Academy has its West Point Rifle Team that competes in various events. The team similarly posts about their competitions and equipment.

Zuckerberg has censored them all, even completely “unpublishing” the West Point Rifle Team’s Facebook page. He did this because each of them violated, he claims, in some nebulous way his “Community Standards.”

Never mind that these athletes and organizations, in addition to competing, share with fellow competitors a variety of tips about how to do better and emphasize to their larger public—until Zuckerberg cut each of them off from their larger public—the necessity for firearm safety and the techniques for achieving firearm safety.

This isn’t Zuckerberg expressing his opinions regarding speech and firearms. This is the Progressive social media pusher moving to dictate to us average Americans what he will permit us to say and do under our unalienable, and constitutionally acknowledged, rights. His unamerican behavior is a prime example of why social media’s Section 230 protection needs major modification so entities that are in the public square—which Zuckerberg said early on was his goal—and engage in such censorship can be haled into court.