A Hypocrisy in Texas

The Texas State government has passed a law making it illegal for government entities in the state of Texas to enter into a transaction with an abortion provider or an abortion provider’s affiliates.

Austin, the State’s capital, thinks it knows better and is working to get 150 stacks folded into its 2020 city budget to fund abortion services.  Here’s Austin city council member Greg Casar, making plain the hypocrisy:

In Austin, we believe and announce that everyone has a right to healthcare. We believe and announce that abortion is healthcare, and we refuse to back down on protecting our continuance basic rights.

Everyone but babies have a right to healthcare, that is.  The city is working hard to turn its collective back on a baby’s basic right to life.

Keep Austin Weird is the city’s unofficial motto.  With folks like Casar, and his supporters Mayor Pro Tempore Delia Garza and fellow council members Leslie Pool and Paige Ellis in the city’s government, the motto is closer to Keep Austin Bloody.

Because Politics, not Policy

Even the more moderate Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Joe Biden (more moderate? He says he’s the most Progressive of them all, but never mind that, just now), says Party should appoint him because—he can beat Trump.  His wife says so.

Speaking at a bookstore in Manchester, NH, Dr Jill Biden urged voters on Monday to consider the “electability” of her husband, former Vice President Joe Biden, ahead of the 2020 Democratic primaries….

She went on:

I know that not all of you are committed to my husband, and I respect that, but I want you to think about your candidate, his or her electability, and who’s going to win this race[.]

I respect that.  That’s awfully decent of you, Ma’am.

But leave that bit of self-absorption aside.  It’s certainly true that winning an election is highly useful for implementing policy (so is willingness to compromise with other participants in government).

But the most effective way to win the election is by having and communicating better policies than the other party or parties.

Maybe this is why the Progressive-Democrats and pseudo-Progressive Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Tom Steyer are pushing “beat Trump” or “impeach Trump” instead of actual, concrete policies.

Maybe this is why all the leading and middle-tier Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates are touting, secondarily to their “I can beat Trump” mantra, carefully amorphic offerings like free stuff for everybody (except privileged white males and Evil Rich).

None of them have serious policy offerings, so all they can do is run on “electability.”

Pawns

Charles Hurt was unimpressed—as have been many of us—with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s (D, MI) political posturing at the expense of her grandmother.

Who uses their aging grandmother as a pawn to make a political point in what is really kind of a stupid political kerfuffle to begin with?
There’s something really wrong with someone that does that….

This is what Progressive-Democrats do, though. They see real, live people merely as tools to be used for Party or their own benefit.  These aren’t human beings in Progressive-Democrat eyes..

Progressive-Democrats only offer Blacks empty promises of benefits to come, with no interest or action in delivering exits from those welfare cages.  Blacks are nothing more than crops of votes to be harvested.

Progressive-Democrats only offer Hispanics empty rhetoric regarding immigration and routes to citizenship.  Here, too, they take no action other than to obstruct others’ efforts regarding immigration and asylum laws and legal immigration.  Hispanics are nothing more than crops of votes to be harvested.

Here, now, is Grandma, also reduced to a mechanical tool, this one to be used to carve a tablet holding a personal political agenda aimed at personal gain.  That her sity appears to be a willing participant in a shameful charade in no way lessens the depth of Tlaib’s depravity.

Value

Wretchard (@wretchardthecat) asked an interesting question on Twitter Wednesday, and the implications from the question are being carefully ignored by the Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates who want to forgive all—or most—student debt.

Forgiving student debt sends the signal that educational investment is worthless because it cannot return the rate of the money borrowed to finance it. That may actually be true but then what is the value of the credential?

Read the whole thread, it’s pithy and concise, as are the comments ensuing.

A related question has implications that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates who want to make college/university education “free:” if nothing is paid for the education—if it has no cost (to the user)—what is the value of that education or of the credential that proclaims it? Value not in the eye of the holder, but in the eye of any employer?

Threats

Progressive-Democrats are nakedly trying to intimidate the Supreme Court to get their own way—and they’ve made their threat overt, in an Amici Curiae brief filed with the Supreme Court concerning New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v City of New York, which is a case involving New York City’s ban on transporting “licensed, locked and unloaded handgun[s] to a home or shooting range outside city limits.”

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI), Richard Blumenthal (D, CT), Mazie Hirono (D, HI), Richard Durbin (D, IL), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) made their threat thusly:

The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

The threat to the Court’s safety, its independence, couldn’t be more clear.  Never mind that the influence of politics is made manifest by this threat.

We can’t afford this in our government. At any level.

The despicable brief can be read here.