Tag Archives: morality

Another Lie by Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

This one exposed by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board; it centers on immigration.

First move:

When President Biden first proposed in April to end Title 42, several Democrats joined their GOP peers in backing a bill to keep it in place.

Second move:

Republican Senator James Lankford [OK] proposed an amendment [to the just Senate-passed Build Reduced Back bill] to extend Title 42….

All of the Senate Progressive-Democrats voted Lankford’s bill down in a strictly party-line vote.

Third move:

Senator Tester [Jon, D, MT] proposed another. His version also pledged to restore the border-expulsion policy, but unlike Senator Lankford’s it lacked a funding provision. This time Mr Tester backed the amendment, joined by Senators Sinema, Kelly, and Hassan, along with Catherine Cortez Masto and Raphael Warnock.

Fourth move:

[Senate] Majority Whip Dick Durbin [D, IL] challenged the amendment on procedural grounds, saying its lack of funding violated Senate budget reconciliation rules. The amendment fell short of the 60 votes it needed to pass and was left out of the bill’s final version.

And with that dance, Progressive-Democrats can proclaim their support for immigration controls while simultaneously and deliberately doing nothing at all about immigration.

All very carefully choreographed by Party.

Duplicity

Posted on by
Reply

The American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center are at it, this time.

‘Way back in 2019 the Tennessee legislature created Education Savings Account pilot programs for Davidson and Shelby Counties. The ESAs grant money to students accepted into the programs; the funds facilitate students’ departure from poorly performing schools in favor of better schools.

The two county governments promptly sued to block the ESAs from taking effect, and the Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately ruled, last May, that the ESAs were jake, and in June that court denied the counties’ petition to reconsider.

Now the ACLU and SPLC are suing on the legally frivolous (IMNSHO) premise that that delay, manufactured by the county governments, is sufficient reason to further delay implementation of the ESA pilot program.

That’s how desperate the Left is to keep poor and minority kids—especially in Shelby County, although Davidson has a significant poor and minority population—trapped in bad schools instead of letting them transfer and actually get an education.

Nor am I sympathetic to the county school districts’ imagined plight. Those school districts really did have all that time since 2019 to prepare their budgets: they had no reason to ignore the possibility that the ESAs would be upheld and to prepare accordingly. It’s also not at all beyond the districts’ capabilities to have prepared two budgets, with one being centered on no ESA impact and one centered on an ESA impact.

Hostage Taking

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the President Joe Biden (D) administration, some months ago, said it would

withhold food assistance funding from schools unless they comply with the administration’s guidance on a range of LGBT issues.

After these months of trying to get the administration to retract that threat—after all, in Dole v South Dakota, the Supreme Court said the Federal government could use funding to influence, but not to coerce, State compliance—22 Republican AGs have filed suit to try to force the administration to retract its threat. Notice, too, that no Progressive-Democratic Party AGs are party to the suit.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has the right of it:

[T]hey’ve [the Biden administration] reached a new level of shamelessness with this ploy of holding up food assistance for low-income kids unless schools do the Left’s bidding.

It truly is disgusting that this Progressive-Democrat Biden administration would use children as hostages in its attempt to coerce K-12 schools into accepting Party’s extremist position.

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

Or outright dishonesty.

Ukraine is asking the US for long-range, armed drones to give the Ukrainian forces improved chances against the barbarian invader.

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration won’t send them.

More than two months ago, Ukrainian officials requested four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones, US officials said. The Biden administration was reluctant to approve the request, the officials said, citing a number of concerns, ranging from the potential loss of advanced technology from the battlefield to the need to train Ukrainians to operate the drones.

The need to train Ukrainians? They’d be trained up by now if the request had been honored those two months ago.

The American technology would be given over to the barbarian via battlefield losses? The enemy always gets its adversary’s technology from battlefield losses. The only way to prevent that is to not go onto the battlefield at all. And then surrender the technology, anyway, when the adversary is peacefully conquered due to its decision not to fight.

…highly-sensitive technology could wind up in Russian hands if Ukrainian forces are overwhelmed.

This is a cynical, if not deliberately dishonest, sham rationale, creating, as it does, the vicious circle: the Ukrainians might lose a battle and give up the tech, so we won’t supply the tech, thereby vastly increasing the likelihood that the Ukrainians not only lose a battle, but lose the entire war.

All because the Biden administration is so…risk averse…that they refuse the risks involved in actively helping a sovereign nation, and a potential ally if not friend, defeat a barbarian’s invasion and drive the barbarian back out.

It’s disgusting, and Ukraine might not survive until January 2025, and even if it does, vastly more Ukrainian women and children will be butchered between now and then, all for the convenience of Biden’s risk aversion.