HC68, I would say rather than foreign policy and other political matters may be moral matters.

— Kate

Their foundations are always moral. So are the foundations of society as a whole. That’s why the word ‘de-moral-ize’ has the linguistic root that it does. Likewise the word ‘morale’.

With the exception of purely regulatory things like which side of the street to drive on or the like, pretty much all law is legislated morality, directly or indirectly. Foreign policy is about national self-interest, yes, but you can’t divorce that from moral considerations. Even the very choice to obey the law, or support your country’s interests, has a significant moral dimension.

This is so foundational, and so pervasive, that it become paradoxically invisible, like fish and water.

I have no idea what it was meant to be, but it was odd.

https://instapundit.com/789729/

I guess in the Victim Olympics, some contestants are “more equal than others”…amen.

Let me just say that when the Democrats want you out, they don’t pull their punches. Do they have this volume of opposition research prepared on everyone, just in case?

— neo

I would say both yes and no. No, I don’t think they have a formal collection of files and dirt as a Party on everyone, per se. But apparently Swalwell’s behavior had been more or less ‘common knowledge’ for a while. Maybe not every detail, but enough.

It’s probably true that lots of candidates have oppo research on people they might want to run against, too, or to defend against such. So do the GOP people, for that matter. Swalwell is probably an extreme case.

Is one of the other Democrats running for governor in California next under that commodious bus?

— neo

Maybe, but they may not all have as many skeletons in their closets, either.

I do not have a strong preference between Hilton and Bianco, but we have to make a choice. Both of them being in the top two is not going to happen. Bianco does have some rough edges. What do you make of the kneeling to BLM incident?

— Bob Wilson

I’m at the point where I would just as soon have a Democrat governor as a RINO in Cali. We’ve been down that road before, with Arnold in Cali, with Rauner in Illinois, etc. The only thing it got us was advancing the Dem agenda and weakening the GOP brand in those States.

In Illinois, for ex, Rauner, a liberal Republican businessman, said that yes, he was pro-choice and pro-immigration, but vowed he would not attempt to do anything to advance either as governor in exchange for GOP voting support.

What did he end up doing? Sanctuary State and helping abortion. His only accomplishments as Governor were to advance Dem priorities.

Sometimes a squishy GOPer is better than a Dem, such as Susan Collins. But often it’s a case of ‘better an open enemy than a pretend friend’.

J.D. Vance, who is Catholic, agrees with me. He’s quoted at Fox News as saying that the Pope should speak to morality and Catholic Church matters, and let President Trump handle American public policy.

— Kate

The trouble with that is that there is no distinction. Foreign policies and other political matters are moral matters. Whether the current Pope is motivated by earthly issues, moral ones, or both, he’s under no obligation not to speak on such matters, and in fact the office carries an obligation to speak by its nature.

I don’t agree with the Pope on this, but I recognize the contradiction in what Vance is saying.

Don’t know where to put this comment, but this morning I read that Trump didn’t think that meme which is being looked at as “Jesus” was that at all. He thought it showed him as a doctor healing the nation. I must say I didn’t immediately think “Jesus” when I saw it, although “over the top” I saw instantly.

Tear down your walls, Pope or be cast as the hypocrite you are.

* See https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/usa_250_the_rights_of_englishmen_and_the_american_revolution.html