Friday, January 31, 2020

Democrat Senator Hirono explains the impeachment saga



That's all you need to know to understand how Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer thought that this impeachment made sense.

They don't care about the law or about truth only about power.

Senator Hirono basically admitted that she wasn't an unbiased witness and that she'll vote for impeachment no matter what the evidence shows.

Yet of course the #FakeNews media who have been hounding Republican Senators demanding if they will be impartial jurors won't ever bring up this comment by Hirono.

What will be interesting is if anyone in the #FakeNews media points out when Warren, Sanders, and Klobuchar vote for impeachment that by the Democrat standard, if a politician benefits in any way from an action even if it's for the good of the country that's an impeachable offense, they should be impeached.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Mike Bloomberg gets biology wrong and contradicts himself

Mike Bloomberg, one of the billionaires that woke leftists like, tweeted the following:

Mo Mo is pointing out that Bloomberg is against allowing women to drink lots of soda or vape.

The first point to note though is that it's simply not true that a woman is making a decision about her own body when she kills her daughter because she wants a son, or whenever she has an abortion.

Her unborn child's DNA is different than hers.  In fact a key reason women have an umbilical cord when they're carrying a child is to shield the unborn child from the mother's immune system.

At the most fundamental biological level a mother's immune system identifies her unborn child as "not self" and would attack it like an infection if it could.

Hence to say that a woman killing her unborn child is making a decision about her, the mother's body, is denying science and reality.

But Mo Mo's point is also brilliant.  Bloomberg is all for controlling a woman's body it's just that he's also for making sure that women can be used as sex objects.  He's essentially an advocate of patriarchy.

Well abortion fans act as though most women love killing their babies when pushing abortion they also keep telling us what a hard decision it is.  If abortion isn't killing a baby then why is it a hard decision.  No woman ever has been traumatized about whether or not to remove a wart.

Men are much more likely to want their child aborted than women are.  In addition the patriarchal society puts women in a situation where abortion is often viewed as the only way out.

The patriarchy pushes casual sex because that's what men want.  The vast majority of women, even those who have sex outside of marriage, want a committed love based relationship.  By normalizing casual sex the patriarchy puts women in a situation where they get pregnant, and a woman using the pill has a roughly 40% chance of at least one "unplanned" pregnancy in her lifetime, and society says that they are on their own.

Sure the law says that the fathers are supposed to provide child support but the patriarchy makes that hard to do. Look at the hoops the mother of Hunter Biden's baby had to go through to get him to pay child support.

Abortion is a tool that men employ to ensure that they can use a woman rather than love her as a person and not have to face any consequences.

Adam Schiff isn't the only one who says we can't trust the vote

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/branco-cartoon-the-three-amigos/
The fact that Adam Schiff said that he doesn't trust the American people to decide who they want for President puts him in an elite club of tyrants who believe that the people shouldn't be able to pick who leads them.

Why was Hunter Biden mentioned in the Ukraine phone call?: Blame the Washington Post

It's a dirty secret in Washington; politicians all read the Washington Post.

Three days before his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky it's likely that Trump read, or was told about, a story in the Washington Post about, at the minimum, the apparent conflict of interest of Joe Biden demanding as a quid pro quo for $1B in US aid that the Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was looking into Burisma, the company that paid Joe's son $3.1 million dollars.

The WaPo article said:

From the moment Hunter Biden took the job in 2014, Republicans have said it presented a conflict of interest for the Bidens. Joe Biden, then the vice president, was the point person on Ukraine policy in President Barack Obama’s administration. Biden offered U.S. aid to Ukraine to increase gas production, which could benefit the Ukrainian energy industry.

...

Just a few weeks after his father’s visit to Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings. His friend and business partner, Devon Archer, also joined the board, saying the company had the potential to be another ExxonMobil. Archer did not respond to requests for comment.

So is it surprising that within 72 hours of that article coming out Trump would say: 

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that.”

Clearly not. Democrats are acting as though Trump had no reason to have thought about the Biden's corruption during the call but the reality is that if the Washington Post assigning a team of reporters to write a major story on the subject doesn't mean that there's "a lot of talk" about it or that it doesn't mean that " a lot of people want to find out about that" then nothing ever will.

The simple reality is that right up until Adam Schiff started claiming that Trump looking into corruption was an impeachable offense even left wing outlets like the WaPo and the Atlantic viewed Joe Biden's actions as highly problematic as did Obama's State Department.

Adam Schiff steps in it when answering questions

Schiff made two huge blunders in his answers to the first round of questions in the Senate.

The first was to say that the Senate doesn't need to hear from the "whistleblower". Clearly if the Senate can't hear from the man who started the whole impeachment process then the Senate doesn't need to hear from any witnesses.

If Schiff is going to throw out Trump's 6th Amendment rights to confront his accuser then clearly it's unjust to only call witnesses that will attack Trump if he can't call the witnesses that will destroy the Democrat's case.

But that's precisely what the Democrats have been doing.  Schiff's secret hearings were auditions. The witnesses who said things that hurt Trump were then allowed to testify in public and the witnesses whose testimony helped Trump were not allowed to testify in public.

Until the Senate hearing the impeachment of President Trump has been a kangaroo court where the defendant was denied the right to defend himself.

It's said that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  One of the key reasons it's easy to get a grand jury indictment is that the jurors are only told what the prosecutor wants them to hear; they aren't shown any exculpatory evidence and no lawyer for the defense is present so that the jurors don't see problems with the evidence the prosecutor is presenting.

The Sondland testimony is great example of that.  Adam Schiff and the other dishonest Democrats keep saying that Sondland said there was a quid pro quo but they never mention that Sondland also admitted that not only was he simply presuming there was a quid pro quo--ie no one who was in charge ever told him there was one--but that when he, Sondland, asked Trump about it Sondland said that Trump said there was no quid pro quo and that he, Trump, didn't want one.

How can Democrats hide the identity of the "whistleblower" but demand that other people testify?

The second was saying that Trump was guilty of "bribery" and "extortion".  The problem is that the Articles of Impeachment don't ever mention either of those crimes.

As Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin pointed out that's like you being on trial for shoplifting and the prosecutor suddenly telling the jury that you were guilty of bribery and extortion.

As Philbin pointed out a prosecutor introducing new charges out of the blue would result in an automatic mistrial in the American legal system.

Prosecutors can't simply declare, without any evidence, that the defendant did this or that that; that is prosecutors can't deliberately lie to the jury.


Why is Adam Schiff hiding the "whistleblower"?

Everyone in DC knows who the "whistleblower" is.

But Democrats are desperate to keep his identity secret.

They claim there are threats on his life but that's no reason to hide him. After all if he were testifying against a mob boss his identity would have to be made public because in America we don't base legal decisions on anonymous sources.

Further given the lack of violence on the right compared to the extensive support of violence by mainstream Democrats--throwing Republicans out of public places and turning a blind eye to Antifa's violence-- saying that those who support the President must be identified but the man who started the whole impeachment lie can remain anonymous is absurd.

There are multiple reasons that the Democrats are desperate to keep the "whistleblower's" identity secret:

  • Adam Schiff lied about meeting the "whistleblower" prior to the complaint being filed. It's now known that people working for him, and likely he himself, helped the "whistleblower" write and submit his complaint.  Schiff is desperate to keep we the people from finding out that the whole "whistleblower" story was a lie he orchestrated
  • Schiff is desperate to keep we the people from finding out that the "whistleblower" is a personal friend of Joe Biden's who worked with Joe on Ukraine policy while Hunter was making a fortune off off of what Joe was doing
  • Schiff is desperate to keep we the people from knowing that the "whistleblower" is a hard core Democrat partisan who was fired from the White House for leaking to the press in order to hurt Trump
  • Schiff is desperate to keep the people from knowing that the "whistleblower" was overheard immediately after Trump took office talking to someone about how they could get Trump thrown out of office
  • Schiff is desperate to keep we the people from finding out that the person the "whistleblower" was talking to was hired by Schiff for his staff

Imagine if you were accused of a crime but the prosecutor said that because you might attack your accuser your accuser wouldn't have to testify against you and you wouldn't be given a chance to ask him questions that would show that he was lying.  How unjust would that be?

Yet that's precisely what Adam Schiff is demanding to be able to do to the President that the American people voted for.

Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Nancy Pelosi reject democracy demand tyranny

When asked if a Presidential action which helped the country but which also helped the President get reelected, ie was in the best self interest of the President, was an impeachable offense the Democrats in the House's impeachment team said yes.

But that means that those Democrats are rejecting the idea of a representative republic, which is what America is, and embracing tyranny.

In America politicians are supposed to represent the people who voted for them.  Which means that if they do what the voters want they will tend to get reelected.  That in turn means that every decision every politician, including the President, makes involves seeing if making that decision will help or hurt their reelection chances.

That's how it's supposed to be; politicians are supposed to be afraid of going against the will of the people.

But the Democrats are saying that it's literally a crime for Trump to do something that helped the American people, investigating government corruption, because it also helped Trump because it increased the likelihood that he'd get reelected.  Which means that any politician who ever does what the people want, which is what they're supposed to do in a representative republic, is committing a crime.

Democrats are saying that a politician who listens to the people is a criminal.

But if politicians don't listen to the people then we have a tyranny where politicians do what they want not what the people want.

We end up with a government that rules over the people rather than representing them.

Which is precisely what Democrats want based on how they behave.

They rejected the results of the 2016 election because they didn't win.

The entire social agenda of the Democrats--abortion, coddling criminals, gay "marriage", legalizing pornography, etc-- has been imposed on we the people by unelected judges.  None of those socially revolutionary changes has been passed by Congress.  And Democrats are fine with that.

They view themselves as better than us just as their predecessors justified fighting the Civil War because Blacks were, according to Democrats, too stupid to run their own lives.

Democrats are saying that everything a President does is impeachable

During the Senators questioning of the House impeachment liars a question was asked; if a President does something that helps him politically but is good for the nation is that impeachable?

The House managers said that even if the act was done 99% for the good of the country and 1% out of selfishness then it would be grounds for impeachment.

The reason this is important is that despite all the lies that Schiff, Nadler and the rest of the dishonest House members have been spewing forth the Article of impeachment admits that Trump did nothing illegal.  Instead they're saying that Trump should be impeached because his motives weren't completely altruistic.

Despite all their yammering about quid pro quo the actual articles of impeachment don't mention that since in fact no quid pro quo existed.  Ukraine got the aid and the meeting with Trump but didn't open any investigations. That's a matter of public record.

But Democrats say that the fact that Trump was tempted to hold up the aid because it would help his 2020 campaign is enough to justify impeachment no matter how good it would be for the country if Trump investigated the blatant corruption of the Biden family.

As many have pointed out this would mean that anything any President ever did would be impeachable.

For example Trump cut our taxes which has resulted in an economic boom which will help him get reelected. Hence there was component of selfishness in Trump driving down unemployment and putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

Which, according to Adam Schiff, means that Trump could be impeached for cutting your taxes.

What's really bizarre is that the whole American system depends on politicians doing what the people want and if they don't the people being able to throw the politicians out of office.

Hence when Democracy is working in the US the politicians are viewing every decision they make through the lens of "is this what the people want because I want to do what the people want so that I get reelected". Which means that according to Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi any politician who actually represents the people is a criminal since they're doing things that are in their own self interest, ie helping themselves get reelected.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

What the #FakeNews media & Democrats think of you if you're not a leftist

This is what the Democrats and the #FakeNews media think of Trump supporters:



Hillary says you're all "deplorable".

Mayor Buttigieg says that you're all racists.

Democrat leaders in America today look down on you just as their Democrat ancestors looked down on Black people.

You're too stupid to be allowed to run your own life.

Democrats must be able to tell what sort of straws to use, how much soda you can drink, and what your religion can teach.

Democrat politicians don't want to represent you they want to rule over you.

Back when the Democrats were fighting the Civil War to keep slavery legal while Republicans were dying to free the slaves Democrats used the same argument. They said that Blacks were just too stupid to be able to run their own lives and as a result by enslaving Blacks Democrats were doing Blacks a favor.

The Democrat mindset hasn't really changed.  They've just decided that everyone who isn't one of them, irrespective of their race, is too stupid to be allowed to run their own lives.


Democrat continuity: Segregation forever edition

Contrary to the lies pushed by the #FakeNews media the Democrat party has always been the party of racism.

Democrats fought the Civil War to keep slavery legal, founded the KKK, passed all the Jim Crow laws, and stood united in support of segregating minorities from white people in all aspects of life including schools.

Modern Democrats also support segregation.

The Democrat governor of Alabama, George Wallace, said in 1963:

“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever!”

American colleges today, run by radical leftists, are also advocating segregation.

Some examples:
  • University of Alabama has a "diversity" program that is open only to minorities and LGBT students but not whites or Asians
  • University of Boulder has a special retreat open only to minorities
  • Portland State University's Women's Resource Center holds meetings "solely for people of color"
  • Williams College had a symposium on science and technology which whites couldn't attend
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas has race based, ie segregated, housing
Modern Democrats, just like their ancestors, are rejecting Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's call to judge people on the content of their character not the color of their skin.

When some leftist friend of yours says how racist Trump or you or Republicans are remind him that it's the Democrat party that has always been the party of segregation.

Democrats declare that impeaching Clinton for a crime is wrong but impeaching Trump for bad thoughts is ok

Here are the Democrats talking about impeachment when everyone agreed that Bill Clinton had committed a high crime, a felony namely lying under oath--perjury--.



Clearly the Democrats hold to two different standards; one for Bill Clinton and one for Donald Trump.

As Nadler, one of the key people in the Democrats impeachment hoax, said back during Clinton's impeachment an impeachment done by one party would be wrong.  Yet today Trump is being impeached by the House where not one Republican voted for impeachment and several Democrats voted against it.

I'm so old that I remember that the Democrat defense of Clinton wasn't that he didn't lie under oath to keep from losing a #MeToo lawsuit for having sexually harassed a government employee but that committing a felony wasn't sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Yet today Democrats, many of whom were in office and defended Clinton, are saying that we can impeach Trump for having bad thoughts and exercising his Constitutional rights.

Why you can never trust the New York Times: they're "reporters" know nothing

I'm a physicist not an English major but even I know that Jane Austin didn't write Dracula.

But apparently the "reporters" at the NYT aren't so well informed.

Here's a recent correction by the NYT:

Correction: Jan. 24, 2020

In an earlier version of this article, the given name of the actress who introduced the couple was misspelled. She is Vaishnavi Sharma, not Vaishmavi. The given name of the wedding officiant was also misspelled. She is Gabra Zackman, not Dabra. Also, the author of “Dracula” was incorrect. He is Bram Stoker, not Jane Austen.


Butchering people's names is not something a reporter should do but saying that Jane Austen wrote Dracula is a demonstration of an amazing lack of knowledge.

Remember that that error made it through the entire NYT editorial review process.

It makes one wonder how many other huge errors are in the NYT that they don't admit to.

Clearly NYT reporters don't check on things they're not sure about which is really bad when they're reporting on issues, like impeachment, where all their friends and family believe everything Adam Schiff says.

Bernie Sanders wants convicted terrorist to be able to vote

In the majority of the US convicted felons aren't allowed to vote.

The reasoning is simple; people who have demonstrated a deep hatred of the law by murdering, raping, stealing, selling drugs to little children, etc shouldn't have a say in what the laws are because they would clearly vote for selfish interests not what's good for society.

But Bernie Sanders says that even convicted terrorists like Szhokhar Tsarnaev who was behind the Boston Marathon bombing should be allowed to vote.

He said:

“If somebody commits a serious crime, sexual assault, murder, they’re going to be punished,” Sanders said. “They may be in jail for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, their whole lives. That’s what happens when you commit a serious crime."

"But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy," he continued. "Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away ... you’re running down a slippery slope. ... I do believe that even if they are in jail, they’re paying their price to society, but that should not take away their inherent American right to participate in our democracy.”


Apparently in Bernie's mind white nationalists who murder blacks because they're black deserve the right to participate in our society.

Of course if convicted felons tended to vote Republican Bernie wouldn't be saying this. But Bernie knows that felons, like illegal immigrants, tend to vote Democrat so he's all in for letting them vote.

The one core moral principle of all Democrat politicians these days is that anything that helps them get more power is good and anything that denies them power is bad.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

#FakeNews media lie to you: TV networks covered Democrat impeachment talks wall to wall but aren't doing so for Trump's defense

There are lies of commission, Democrats care about Blacks, and there are lies of omission, not mentioning that thousands of Blacks are shot year after year in Democrat run cities.

When the House impeachment mangers droned on endlessly and repetitively about their totally made up impeachment case ABC, CBS, and NBC dropped regular programming and showed Schiff lying through his teeth.

This week when Trump's lawyers are eviscerating Schiff's lies those same networks aren't covering them.

Clearly the FCC and the folks who monitor illegal campaign donations need to count all the hours that those networks spent covering Schiff as in kind contributions.

Quick Question: Why did Joe Biden fire only 1 corrupt Ukrainian official?

Democrats and the #FakeNews media are saying that Biden isn't corrupt because the prosecutor he fired was corrupt and "everyone" wanted him fired.

They say that the fact that that firing ended the investigation into Burisma, the company that paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars, was just a coincidence

The question that that position raises is given that at the time the US had identified many people in the Ukraine government as being corrupt why did Biden use a quid pro quo to only fire the one corrupt Ukrainian who could hurt Biden personally?

Why didn't Joe use the $1B in aid to get other corrupt Ukrainian actors fired too?

And if Joe was really waging a relentless war against Ukrainian corruption rather than paying back Burisma, the corrupt company that was being investigated and which had paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars, why didn't he demand that the investigation into Burisma be continued by the new "non-corrupt" prosecutor?

Which leads us to another thought.  If the new prosecutor wasn't corrupt, and if he was corrupt it renders Biden's actions useless, why did he drop the investigation into Burisma a company that everyone then and now says engages in corrupt business practices?

Biden corruption: The facts

Trump's lawyers laid out the case for Joe Biden being corrupt.

This is important because if there is cause for a reasonable person, ie not a Democrat, to think that Biden engaged in corrupt practices in Ukraine then it's hard to see how Trump wanting to investigate that could be an abuse of power.

So here are the undisputed facts:

  • Obama made Joe Biden responsible for US policy vis a vis the Ukraine
  • Hunter Biden is hired by corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma
  • Hunter Biden has said, on TV, that he was hired because his dad is Joe Biden
  • Hunter Biden had 0 experience in the energy business and never went to the Ukraine
  • Burisma paid Hunter Biden around $3.1 million, between $50K and $83K a month
  • A Ukrainian prosecutor started an investigation into Burisma
  • Joe Biden told the Ukraine that if that prosecutor wasn't fired he'd withhold $1B in US aid
  • Joe Biden gave the Ukrainians 6 hours to comply
  • The prosecutor was fired and the investigation into Burisma was dropped
  • This was the only time his 8 years as VP that Biden personally caused any foreign prosecutor to be fired

Clearly if we switched Joe Biden for Trump and Hunter Biden for Trump Jr. the very same people who are saying it's absurd to think Biden is corrupt would be demanding that Trump be perp walked out of the White House in handcuffs.

Democrat's defense is that the prosecutor was corrupt and everyone wanted him fired.  But what are the odds that the one time Biden used a quid pro quo to fire a corrupt foreign prosecutor that prosecutor just happened to be investigating a company that paid his son millions of dollars?

In fact prior to Biden become a Democrat Presidential candidate and prior to lying Adam Schiff trying to impeach Trump because he dared to want Biden's corruption investigated #FakeNews media companies like the Atlantic and the Washington Post had written about how the whole situation was highly troubling.

Further Ambassador Yovanovitch, a saint according to impeachment crazy Democrats, raised the issue of the problem when it was happening.

At least one other State Department official said that even if nothing wrong was going on it appeared to be corrupt which made it harder for the US to get Ukraine to clean up its act and end corruption.

Which leads to another question.  At the time Joe Biden used a quid pro quo to fire the prosecutor there were many other Ukraine officials who were highly corrupt.  Why did Joe only demand that the one person who was hurting Burisma, the company that gave the Bidens millions of dollars, be fired?

If Joe was on a crusade against Ukraine corruption why did it begin and end with the only person in the Ukraine who was personally impacting the Biden families wealth?

There is some tiny chance that the Biden's aren't corrupt, though the fact that the Ukraine playbook was also run by Hunter in China and the US tends to argue against that, but it's clear that no honest person could think that it would be wrong for Trump to want to investigate the matter.

Corruption in government is no small thing and allowing Biden's blatant actions to go uninvestigated could lead to more extensive corruption in our government.

Study shows leftism denies Black kids a decent education

A new report is out entitled "The Secret Shame: How America's most Progressive Cities Betray Their Commitment to Educational Opportunity for All"

The basic message is that controlling for all other factors the cause for a gap in educational outcomes for minority children is if the city they live in is run by "progressives"; ie leftists.

For example in the ultra progressive San Francisco 70% of white students are proficient in math but only 12% of Black students are; that's a 58% gap.  Washington DC is another ultra leftist city and the gap there is 62%



But in conservative cities like Virginia Beach, Anaheim, and Fort Worth, the gap is 0.

On average the proficiency gap difference is around a factor of 2x between leftists cities and conservative cities.

The study doesn't attempt to explain why leftist cities are so bad but there are a number of obvious reasons.

Leftists strongly oppose school choice even though Blacks want a chance for their kids to get out of the failing public schools.  Why is that?  Could it be that poorly educated Blacks are more likely to vote Democrat?

Also leftists keep telling Black kids that they can't succeed because society is so endemically racist which gives Black kids an excuse for not working hard.

Leftists because of their racist beliefs think that Black kids being violent or misbehaving in schools can't be helped and that the small fraction of violent Black students should be punished which means that education is disrupted for all Black students.

Whatever the reason it's clear it's not the fault of Blacks or Hispanics.  The Blacks in SF and the Blacks in Anaheim are the same; the difference is how the government treated them.

To people who know history this is not surprising.

The Democrat party has always been a racist party.

  • It was founded by a racist.
  • It fought the Civil War to keep slavery legal
  • It founded the KKK
  • It passed all the Jim Crow laws that kept Blacks at the back of the bus
  • It passed welfare laws knowing that they'd hurt the Black family
  • It ignores the thousands of Blacks shot in Democrat run cities each year
  • It says that allowing Blacks school choice is "racist"
  • It doesn't care that Black women abort at 3 times the rate of white women

That Democrats don't care if Black kids get a good education is what one would expect from a party that doesn't care about thousands of Blacks being shot each year.


Monday, January 27, 2020

The law doesn't apply to Democrats: California abortion funding edition

The Democrats in California are forcing religious organizations, like Catholic nuns and Protestant churches, to support abortion.

The problem is that's against the law; specifically the Weldon Amendment.  That Amendment says that health care entities can't be punished for not providing abortion coverage.

But of course the Democrats in CA said that didn't matter.

Now Trump's HHS has notified the Democrats that they're going to lose millions of dollars of federal funding if they continue to break the law.

Clearly Democrats second love is money, their first love is power, so this may get them to actually respect the 1st Amendment.

But don't count on it.

Bolton says Trump may have thought bad thoughts; not that Trump did anything bad

One of two three things is true; Bolton is lying, Bolton is telling the truth and saying that Trump wanted to hold up aid until  Ukraine investigated Russian election interference in 2016, or Bolton is telling the truth that Trump wanted to hold up aid until Ukraine investigated Biden.

And yes Virginia the #FakeNews media is creating a scandal even though they don't know if Bolton is talking about investigating Biden or investigating Russian election interference.

Of those three options only the last one would be relevant to the Democrats impeachment fantasy.

The problem is all Bolton is said to have said, remember the story is based on what someone told the NYT not on the NYT actually seeing the manuscript, is that Trump wanted to withhold aid.

Can you imagine a Democrat saying that we should jail someone who thought about dealing drugs but didn't actually deal drugs?

Or how about throwing an Antifa member in jail because he told someone he wanted to punch Trump in the face but didn't actually punch Trump in the face?

Yet that's what Democrats are trying to do to Trump.

All the aid flowed to Ukraine and Ukraine hasn't started or announced it's going to start any investigations.

Even better the Democrats are calling the President of Ukraine and the Foreign Minister of Ukraine liars because they say that they didn't ever feel that there was any quid pro quo.

So the Democrats want to impeach Trump for wanting to do something he didn't actually do.

By that reasoning probably most of America could be jailed.

Nothing we've heard so far from Bolton even shows any effort on Trump's part to see if he could set up a quid pro quo; just that Trump wanted to make the Ukrainians investigate some sort of crime.

But truth doesn't matter to the likes of Adam Schiff or the #FakeNews media.

America less racist under Trump than under Obama

Gallup asked Americans if they were satisfied about the state of certain aspects of life in America.

On every singe issue more Americans are satisfied now than at the end of President Obama's reign.

But what's really interesting is that Trump has nearly doubled the fraction of Americans who are satisfied about the state of race relations.

This is to be expected since Obama pursued racist policies designed to make Blacks feel persecuted while Trump has pursued race neutral policies to improve the economic outlook of all Americans.

Democrats view of the law: investigate the cop who shot a man who was hitting him with a bottle

The new San Francisco DA, Chesa Boudin, ran on a platform that essentially said the only criminals in SF are the police.

He's following through with that, he was of course elected by the rich left wing loons who run SF, by not charging a man who attacked the police striking one officer with a vodka bottle.

The reason; Chesa is investigating the cops for shooting at the attacker so the cops couldn't be expected to testify against their assailant why they're being investigated.

This is a great example of what Democrats think.  Cops are probably in the wrong for shooting at someone who is smashing them with a hard glass bottle.  On the other hand the guy who started the fight is not guilty of anything.

Essentially sane people say "assault a cop go to jail" but Chesa says "it's good to assault cops and if the cops defend themselves I'll throw them in jail".

With crime already skyrocketing in SF, it's essential legal to steal so long as the value of the stolen items is less than $950, this is going to make things worse.

Cops are going to be hesitant to engage violent criminals to protect civilians.  And body cams won't help since this incident is on tape and that doesn't seem to matter.

The SF police chief wrote the following in an e-mail:

“This unprovoked attack was a violent, criminal act,” [San Francisco police chief Bill] Scott said in the email obtained by the Examiner. “I want you to know that we remain committed to working with the DA to see that justice is done in this case for our officers



The head of the police officers association wrote:

“We urge you to protect police officers and the public from dangerous individuals such as Jamaica Hampton and hold him accountable for his assault,” [SF Police Officers Association chief Tony] Montoya said Friday in the letter obtained by the Examiner. “Failure to do so sends a message to every suspect that it is perfectly acceptable to physically assault an officer to get away with your crimes.”

The reality is that we don't pay cops enough to do their job when they have the support of the DA. There is no way we pay them enough to risk their lives knowing that the DA is more likely to go after them than after criminals.

Citizens are going to be afraid to defend themselves; after all if the DA is going to go after the cops when they're attacked what's the DA going to do to a civilian who fights back against a violent assault?

Chesa says it's all fine since the attacker is in the hospital and therefore not a short term threat.  Of course if the attacker isn't charged as soon as he's recovered, probably at taxpayer expense, he'll be able to go out and attack more cops.

More importantly Chesa doesn't seem to comprehend that the issue isn't just will this violent criminal attack more cops but that he, Chesa, has told the entire criminal community in SF that attacking a cop isn't necessarily a bad thing.

When it becomes open season on cops society descends into anarchy.


Rashida Tlaib pushes fake story that Jewish settlers murdered 7 year old Palestinian boy




The only true part of this story is that the boy died.

He wasn't killed by a herd, note the comparison of Jews to animals, of violent Jews.

Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian politician, has deleted her tweet and Tlaib has deleted hers.

But Tlaib didn't correct the record or apologize.

What's clear is that Tlaib will believe any lie about Jews and Israel which helps explain why she's calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

If you're Jewish or if you're against countries being wiped off the face of the earth you should keep in mind when voting in November that Democrats view Tlaib as a rising star and a voice of wisdom and truth.

John Bolton from Satan to Savior: Ukraine aid edition

The left viewed John Bolton as the devil incarnate since he continuously pushed for more foreign involvement, more forever wars.

But now they're labelling him a saint because he claims that Trump explicitly linked aid to Ukraine with Ukraine investigating American corruption. Actually that's not clear. The NYT article which is based on second hand sources, like so many other eventually discredited NYT stories, seems to imply that the investigation that Trump wanted wasn't into Biden but into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

However the Democrats and the #FakeNews media are assuming that the NYT is wrong and that Bolton is talking about the Biden investigation; an investigation that never happened even though aid was delivered.

Apparently the fact that Bolton is using the same book agents, and leaking to the same reporters as Comey did has no bearing on whether or not he's not reliable.  Neither does the fact that this "leak" occurred to help Bolton make more money from the book that's just gone on the market.

This leak ensures that people who would have spit on Bolton will now buy his book.

Further the fact that Trump fired Bolton and publicly bad mouthed him has, according to the #FakeNews media, no bearing on whether or not Bolton might be lying.

So there's a lot of reasons to doubt the veracity of what Bolton says.

But even if Bolton is right and he's talking about the Biden investigation it doesn't matter.

Why?

Well there are a bunch of reasons.

  • What Trump wanted doesn't matter.  What Trump did matters.  Trump released the aid to Ukraine without Ukraine even announcing an investigation. Hence Trump didn't hold up the aid until Biden's obvious corruption was investigated
  • Trump, as President, has an obligation to investigate corruption by US government officials. Note that not one Democrat or #FakeNews media member has said "An investigation wouldn't be bad since it would show that Biden was innocent" or "Since Biden is innocent why is he afraid of an investigation" because they all know that Biden is guilty as Hell
  • Contrary to Democrat desires running for President doesn't give one a get out of jail free card if one engages in acts that are appear to be corrupt.  After all Democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump associates. Hence with the clear facts of Biden's corruption no responsible honest President could ignore them.
  • The transcript of the phone call shows that Trump didn't in fact condition US aid on an investigation
  • The President and the Foreign Minister of the Ukraine say they never felt any pressure to investigate Biden and in fact they didn't even know that the aid had been temporarily held up

Essentially it's Bolton vs facts and the statements of the alleged victims.

We know that Comey lied so simply presuming that Bolton is not is illogical.

Oh and here's a few other tidbits of interest vis a vis this story.

The NYT, whose record of lying is well established, based the report on comments from people who had talked to people who had allegedly seen the manuscript.  Given that that type of sourcing is what the NYT used in story after story about collusion that have been shown to be false means that we have no reason to believe the NYT now.

What's interesting is that the book was being reviewed by....wait for it yes Lt. Col.--don't call me Mr-- Alexander Vindman's brother. So there's a good chance that this is nothing more than a new lie coming out of corrupt leftists entrenched in the government.

Bolton has refused to confirm or deny the leak but he has said that the review process is obviously corrupt.

Finally, and not that it matters to Democrats or the #FakeNews media, Trump says that he never said that and points out that if he wanted to do so the transcript of the phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky would have been very different.

Which of course is why this is all absurd.  Imagine if Trump said in a fit of anger that he'd like to bomb China but didn't really mean it.  Would that be a crime?  Clearly not.

So if Trump out of frustration about how Democrats are treated vs how he's treated said that he'd like to force the Ukrainians to investigate Biden but never actually did that how is that wrong?

Remember that when confronted with the obvious evidence of his corruption Joe Biden said it wasn't so and the entire Democrat and #FakeNews media simply took him at his word and ignored all the evidence.

On the other hand for 3 years Trump has been accused of things that didn't happen and investigated based on lies from Russia paid for by Hillary.

Once again the #FakeNews media are trying to make nothing something.

However if in fact Bolton is talking about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election then that blows the entire Democrat position out of the water unless they're going to say that after they've spent 3 years investigating that it's a crime for Trump to investigate it too.

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Adam Schiff is a fascist: Guilty until proven innocent edition

On Meet the Press dishonest Adam Schiff said:

“If they’re successful in depriving the country with a fair trial[ie the Senate doesn't call witnesses that the House didn't call], there is no exoneration. There is no exoneration."

That's saying that Trump is guilty until proven innocent. People who aren't convicted of a crime don't need exoneration.

What Schiff is saying is that in his world anyone accused by Democrats of anything is guilty until that person can prove they're innocent, ie be exonerated.

That's the thinking of Nazi's and Communists not the Constitution.  

In America everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Oddly Schiff doesn't think that the Bidens are guilty of corruption because they haven't been exonerated. That's because like the fascist he is Schiff doesn't think that the law applies to him or his fellow fascists. They are above us and above the law.

We see that in Schiff saying that the Senate is failing if it doesn't call witnesses that he himself didn't call.  It's ok for Democrats to not call witnesses but it's "treasonous", according to Democrat Nadler, for Republicans to not call witnesses.

Democrat politicians like Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, AOC, Ilhan Omar,  "know" that they're better than us and should rule over us not represent us.

What this tells us is that if Democrats get power in 2020 they will use this new reasoning, that conservatives are guilty until proven innocent, to oppress you.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, condemned abortion

When she traveled to the Soviet Union Sanger was bothered by how many abortions were being performed.

While she was all for birth control she wasn't enthused about abortion saying:

“In my opinion it[abortion] is a cruel method of dealing with the problem, because abortion, no matter how well done, is a terrific nervous strain and an exhausting physical hardship.”

That's not the only time that Sanger condemned abortion. In her 1920 book "Woman and the New Race she writes:

So, too, with woman’s struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman’s aspiration toward freedom has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion.

She goes so far to write that abortion is a "disgrace" to civilization:

While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

In a response to Pope Pius XI's document "Casti Connubi" Sanger wrote:

Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. 

In her 1938 autobiography Sanger declares that abortion is the taking of a human life; a point that Planned Parenthood and "pro-choice" people declare is false despite the clear statements of science that support Sanger:

To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun.

Here's what science says on the subject:

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co 

Sanger, for all her other faults, is right; abortion kills a human being.

What she didn't know is that many modern forms of contraception are in fact abortifacients that kill the child. They do so because to be effective enough in preventing pregnancies a purely contraceptive pill is also strong enough to seriously hurt the women taking it. Hence the dose of contraceptive chemicals has been reduced in many modern contraceptives while the dose that causes the death of a living human being has increased.

Hence if she were consistent she'd condemn many modern forms of contraception.

In any case it's clear that Sanger was what Planned Parenthood's leaders would call a pro-life anti-woman fanatic.

Given that Planned Parenthood is currently extolling abortions, asking women to shout out that they've had one it would seem that PP is no longer conforming to what Sanger believed.

Which is odd given how much gushing praise PP heaps on Sanger.

While it's true she was a racist who demanded that genetically "inferior" people not be allowed to immigrate into the US she drew the line at killing the unborn.

It's therefor interesting that the organization that hails her is the countries biggest abortion mill; killing around 40% of all the unborn babies that are killed in the US each year.

Adam Schiff is allergic to the truth: Impeachment edtion

While the #FakeNews media, which couldn't be bothered to investigate if Democrat Ilhan Omar married her brother as part of an immigration scam, are extolling the wonders of Adam Schiff's wall to wall lying we should look at a few of the lies that Schiff told.

1) Schiff keeps telling us, even after Mueller, that the Steele dossier is truth.  Even though we now know thanks to the IG report that the Hillary paid for lies from Russia wasn't trusted by the FBI once they interviewed the primary sub source who basically said it was all made up.

Even worse the FISA court has stated that at least the last two warrants used to spy on the Trump campaign, and based solely on the Steele dossier, are invalid, ie illegal.

But during his endless prattling presenting his "case" against Trump Schiff talked on and on about Russia even though without the Steele dossier there is absolutely 0 evidence of any Russian collusion.

2) Which leads us to the next of Schiff's big lies.  He keeps saying that he has "ample evidence" of collusion between Russia and Trump. When he told those lies everything was classified so we couldn't know for sure that he's lying.

Now with the IG report out we know that he was lying, there was no evidence.

3)Back in 2017 Nunes released a memo showing how the FISA court had been abused to spy on Trump because the Steele dossier was a big lie.  Schiff relentlessly denied that and said that the FISA warrants were based on much more than the Steele lies.  With Mueller, the fact that the FISA court is now saying that at least the last 2 warrants were illegal, and the IG report we now know for sure that Nunes was right and that Steel was lying.

4)The reason that Schiff is demanding that the "whistleblower's" identity be kept secret has nothing to do with worrying about the "whistleblower's" safety.  Schiff needs to keep the guys identity secret because Schiff colluded with him to set Trump up for impeachment.

We now know that Schiff hired the "whistleblower's" friend, with whom the "whistleblower" was overheard to discuss how to remove Trump from office shortly after the election, and that Schiff's office had contact with the "whistleblower" despite Schiff's claims to the contrary.

It would be very damaging to Schiff's fake impeachment if we the people found out that the "whistleblower" was working hand in hand with Schiff to set Trump up by lying about the Ukraine phone call.

5) Schiff keeps citing Ambassador Sondland as saying that there was a quid pro quo. That's true. What makes it a lie is that when questioned Sondland admitted two key things:

  • No one every told him there was a quid pro quo; he simply "presumed" there was one
  • When Sondland asked Trump about it Trump emphatically stated that he did not want a quid pro quo

Hence while Sondland said the words "there was a quid pro quo" when questioned it was clear that he was lying since he admitted that the only first hand knowledge he had from the horse's mouth, Trump, was that not only wasn't there a quid pro quo but Trump didn't want there to be one.

6) Schiff got up and pretended to read the transcript of the Ukraine telephone conversation to the House but in fact made up a dialog that had nothing to do with what was actually said and which painted Trump as some gangster demanding protection money.

7) Schiff even lies to other Democrats. He sent a highly redacted text message to Jerry Nadler which implied that Lev Parnas had been trying to set up a meeting with Ukraine President Zelensky. But when an unredacted version showed up, and Schiff had to have access to the unredacted version, it turned out that Lev Parnas's Mr Z wasn't Zelensky but Mykola Zlochevsky the founder of Burisma the company that bribed Joe Biden.

8) In his closing remarks he cited a CBS report that alleged that Republican Senators were told that their heads would be on pikes if they voted against Trump; a claim that even very liberal Republican Senators rejected.

9) Schiff said that Mick Mulvaney had said that the president's critics should "just get over it" about his conduct in Ukraine. But that's not what Mulvaney said:

Karl: Let’s be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

Mulvaney: We do that all the time with foreign policy. If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this, and I have news for everybody: get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

What Mulvaney was saying is that Democrats have to get over the idea that Trump is the first president in history to allow politics to impact foreign policy not that people should just ignore what Trump did.  So Schiff lied about that.

Also note something interesting.  The reporter correctly noted that the discussion of the US supplying weapons to Ukraine wasn't followed by a discussion about investigating the corrupt Bidens but about investigating who really hacked into the DNC server.  That made sense in a conversation with the Ukraine president because the company that the DNC hired to "investigate" the hack is owned by an Ukrainian American and the actual DNC servers are currently believed to be in Ukraine.

In fact the first mention of the Bidens occurs long after this point and the Ukraine's desire for weapons is never discussed in association with the Biden investigation.  So that shows that when Schiff says otherwise he's lying.

The list could go on; deceptively edited videos, Schiff's constantly talking about things that aren't in the articles of impeachment etc.

Adam Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi et al are abusing the Constitution for the sake of improving their chances of winning in 2020.

Adam Schiff is on record as being willing to tell any lie abuse any law in order to get more power for the Democrats.






The "Parnas" tape: Much ado about nothing

According to ABC there's a tape, illegally recorded in all likelihood, of Trump being told that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been bad mouthing him and he responding by saying she should be fired.

First thing of course is that all Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President so they can be fired for any reason. In fact when a new president comes in most Ambassadors are fired so the President can make folks who helped get him elected Ambassadors.

Second the tape was made in April 2018 but Yovanovitch wasn't fired until May 2019 so it's clear that Trump didn't just suddenly fire her based on a dinner conversation.

Third what President would tolerate an Ambassador who was attacking them?  Certainly Obama wouldn't have. So what's the problem?  Apparently Democrats and the #FakeNews media believe that Trump, and Trump alone, must tolerate subordinates who are working against his vision of US foreign policy.

Fourth Ukrainian leaders had said that Yovanovitch was treating them poorly, precisely the opposite of what an Ambassador is supposed to do.

All in all this is just one more Big Lie that the #FakeNews media is throwing up in hopes of confusing at least some voters.

Additionally the tape allegedly shows Trump interacting with Parnas.  That's supposedly a big deal because Trump said he doesn't know Parnas.

The problem with the left's claim is that politicians, especially the President, meet with literally thousands of people at small dinners.  To expect them to remember everyone of them is absurd.

Hence the tape doesn't show that Trump lied.  But even if Trump did lie Democrats have told us that Bill Clinton lying under oath isn't an impeachable offense so Trump lying when not under oath clearly can't be impeachable either.


Elizabeth Warren wants to by the votes of irresponsible people with your money

A hard working dad who saved the money to pay for his daughters college asked Elizabeth Warren, who's proposing free college, if he'd get his money back.  She unhesitatingly says "Of course not".

Which is a really significant admission.  Essentially if you're irresponsible and don't save for college you'll get a big fat check from the government paid for by the responsible hard working people of America.

Not to mention that with only 40% of Americans going to college hard working plumbers, carpenters, small business owners, and union members will be forced to pay for upper middle class white kids getting degrees in gender studies.

If you examine all the policies that Democrats are proposing this year-- Medicare for all, free college etc--you'll find that they only benefit people who are irresponsible and that they hurt people who are responsible.

Adam Schiff lies about impeachment

Of course Democrat has been lying about impeachment since it started when he told us that he had nothing to do with the "whistleblower".  We now have good reason to believe that Schiff and his staff were coordinating with the "whistleblower" from the beginning.

His latest lie was in his closing remarks when he said:

"CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true,"

Senate Republicans, even the most liberal ones, were outraged because that simply wasn't true.

But compared to the other lies that Schiff has told, like saying that Sondland said there was a quid pro quo but not mentioning that when asked Sondland said he had no knowledge of a quid pro quo he simply "presumed" there was one, this is relatively mild.

On the other hand we know that when trying to get the votes for impeachment Democrats were told that if they didn't vote for impeachment they wouldn't get any money from the DNC for their reelection campaigns.

Just one more case of Schiff projecting the dishonest Democrat tactics on Republicans.

One other thing. Have you noticed how everyone in the #FakeNews media and the Democrats are asking if Republicans will be unbiased but not one of that lot ever asks if Democrats will be unbiased?

Friday, January 24, 2020

Abortion is about selfishness not healthcare; in fact abortion hurts women

Abortion is about convenience and the ability of men to use women as objects; it's not about healthcare.

It turns out that hardly any abortions are due to a risk to the life of the mother:

0.3% are due to a threat to the life of the mother
0.01% are due to incest
0.14% are due to rape
1.4% are due to a non-life threatening health issue for the mother

That means that 98%+ of abortions are just women killing their unborn child because they had consensual sex and didn't want to deal with the consequences.  Well that's not always true. In fact in many cases women are pressured by the father, "get rid of the kid or I'll walk", or their families, "this baby will wreck your life; kill her".  But either way it's not healthcare to kill  a child.

Remember that not only does science say that the unborn child is a human being Planned Parenthood does, or did, too.

Here's what embryology textbooks say about when human life begins:

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.


“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.


“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

Note that they all agree with what you learned in high school; the life of any organism that belongs to a sexually reproducing species begins when its DNA is formed at the moment of conception.

Interestingly back in the past before Planned Parenthood became the biggest abortionist in America raking in millions every year it said that abortion was the killing of a human being too:


Which brings us to another key point; abortions hurt women and not just the many women who develop complications.

Whether you believe that woman are designed to be mothers by God or by 4,000,000,000 years of evolution it's obvious that women will do most anything to protect their children.  Stories of women lifting up cars to save their child are well known.  

But every abortion has the woman go against her most fundamental biological identity.  Abortion keeps her child from sending the mothers genes to the future which, if there is no god, is the only objective of a woman's life.

Hence it's not shocking that studies show that women who kill their own unborn children are likely to develop a variety of mental problems.

A study from the British Journal of Psychiatry showed that women who had an abortion were 81% more likely to have some mental problem than women who didn't have an abortion.

Women who had an abortion were:

34% more likely to develop an anxiety disorder
37% more likely to have depression
110% more likely to misuse alcohol
155% more likely to commit suicide
220% more likely to use marijuana

This is hardly shocking; going against one's fundamental biological identity is going to carry a price tag.

Interestingly pro-aborts dispute this even as they admit to the fact that women of a certain age worry about their biological clock and whether or not they will have a child.  Clearly if having a baby wasn't a fundamentally important thing to women we wouldn't hear so often about the ticking clock of thirty year old women.

But why do the societal elites support abortion? Well Hunter Biden gives us a good example.  If his stripper mistress had aborted their child then he wouldn't be being forced to pay child support; an obligation that he seems to have been shirking.

The simple reality is that abortion isn't a tool for feminism it's a tool the patriarchy uses to ensure that women can be used as sexual objects rather than loved as people.

To the men who want to exploit women for selfish pleasure the idea of child support is unacceptable but the idea of coercing women into hurting themselves is fine. After all if the man is just using the woman for sex he clearly doesn't care about her as a person so why wouldn't he try to get her to do things that she doesn't want to do, kill her baby, so that he isn't stuck with child support?

Abortion in America is also very racist. Blacks women abort at 3 times the rate that white women do.

In every other aspect of life the people who argue loudest for abortion say that any disparity in outcome definitively shows racism.  Yet when confronted with the huge disparity in abortion rates the pro-abortion community is silent.

One could say one is for abortion but that the fact that Blacks are so much more likely to kill their babies has to be fixed but there are no pro-abortion voices saying that.

Perhaps it's intentional.  The superhero of the abortion movement is Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood's founder, Margret Sanger, was a racist who liked Hitler's eugenics policies--though she didn't declare support for the Holocaust.  However she did group Blacks in with those she considered to be undesirables and she argued that those "inferior" people shouldn't have many children.

That around 80% of PP "clinics" are in minority neighborhoods speaks a lot as to what PP's real objective is.

The simple truth is that abortion is a monstrously selfish act which hurts all involved;  it kills a defenseless child, it wounds the mother, and it hardens the father's heart.

As Saint Teresa said:

“How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers.”

“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.”

“And if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”



“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

“We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other.”

“By abortion the mother does not learn to love, but kills her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women to the same trouble. So abortion leads to more abortion.”

“Any country that accepts abortion is the poorest of the poor.”
“Many people are concerned with children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today—abortion which brings people to such blindness.”



“We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.”

“Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows easily… And abortion, which often follows from contraception, brings a people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome.”





The biggest most selfless human rights protest in the world: The March for Life

You've probably never heard of it since the #FakeNews media refused to cover it but every year since 1974 hundreds of thousands of people have gone to Washington DC in the middle of winter to protest the mass murder of the unborn.

It's the annual March for Life.  This year President Trump became the first US president to actually attend the rally.

The rally is the most selfless protest for human rights because each and every person who shows up, young or old, is already born. They personally gain nothing by demanding an end for the slaughter of the unborn.

We all support and are in awe of the bravery of the protesters in places like Hong Kong and Iran who are demanding freedom and an end to tyranny.  But those protestors are protesting for something that will make their own lives better.

Pro-life protesters are like the white folk who marched in Civil Rights protests; they are only concerned about helping others not about helping themselves.

Democrat politicians and leftists in general often say that abortion is necessary to keep down crime and welfare costs--both based on the implicit racist and classist assumption that the lives of Blacks and the poor aren't worth living.  Which is saying that support abortion for selfish reasons.

Of course the biggest reason that people support abortion is that it is absolutely necessary to live a hedonistic selfish lifestyle.

A normal woman using the Pill has about a 40% chance of one more unplanned pregnancies during her life.  That's way to high a chance to let women who use the Pill avoid pregnancies. But many women and most promiscuous men want sex without consequences.  After all if a woman could get pregnant and couldn't kill her unborn daughter then men couldn't use her as an object.  The financial consequences of 18 years of child support are very high.

Only 0.3% of the nearly 1,000,000 abortions done each year are due to a threat to the life of the mother.  Similarly only 0.14% are due to rape.  The vast majority of abortions, > 98%, are due to convenience; a woman wanted to have sex but didn't want a kid.

In no other area of American law do we allow someone to kill someone else so as to not suffer the consequences of their actions. Abortion is like saying that a drunk driver could kill someone whose car he rammed to avoid having to pay his victim.  Given that 99.86% of abortions are the result of consensual sex it's a simple fact that abortion is the killing of a human being to avoid the consequences of a persons freely chosen acts.

So when you don't hear about the March for Life today remember that each year since 1974, that's 46 years, hundreds of thousands of people have marched in freezing weather not out of any selfish interest but to protect the lives of the most innocent among us; unborn children.

New Abortion study shows that the unborn feel pain long before 20 weeks

A recent study by two pro-abortion researchers published in the Journal of Medical Ethics shows that the unborn feel pain as early as 13 weeks.  Previously the threshold was thought to be 20 weeks.

But both of these results are tainted somewhat in that they talk about pain in the context of something perceived by a specific part of the brain. But of course animals who aren't conscious don't feel pain at all in that sense but pro-aborts don't think we should let people torture animals.

However the new study shows that our understanding of the brain isn't sufficient to know for sure that the unborn don't feel pain at a much earlier point in their  development.

Previous studies have said that despite the fact that an unborn child reacts to negative stimuli, which is what most of us would call pain, they didn't feel pain because science said that certain brain structure, thalamocortical projections, is necessary to feel pain.

The new study shows that the thalamic projections into the subplot are functional at 12 weeks and are equivalent to the thalamocortical projections.

The first thing to note is that when people say that this or that part of the brain does this or that they're  way overstating modern scientific knowledge.  There are many examples of people lacking certain brain structures, due to birth defects, surgeries, or injuries, that have the functionality that scientists say they shouldn't have.

Hence it's not really scientific to say that the lack of a certain part of the brain means that the unborn can't feel pain.

Further the fact that this new study shows that a structure that hadn't previously been associated with pain is in fact associated with pain means there could be other structures that develop even earlier in a child's development that allow the unborn child to feel pain.

But even if we ignore all that this new study makes it clear that aborting a baby after 12 weeks is a barbarous act since the baby feels the pain of being burned to death by chemicals or the pain of being hacked to pieces with a scalpel.

Yet despite that Democrats are pushing to make abortion legal up through and including when the mother is in labor; some 40 weeks after the child first existed.

The good news is that unlike pro-abortion activists scientists are being swayed by real data.  While both of the authors of this paper are pro-abortion they both agree that there is huge ethical issue of butchering unborn babies who can feel pain.

In their paper they say:

"We also agree that if fetal pain is likely then that has ethical and clinical significance independent of any views on the morality of abortion per se. That said, it is also clear to us that the issue of fetal pain has ethical significance because of abortion practices and not because of other surgical or therapeutic fetal procedures.”

Remember the oath doctors take is that they are to do no harm.  Clearly hacking a human being apart who can feel pain doesn't conform to what doctors swore to uphold.

Science says abortion is the killing of a human being

It's interesting that when pro-abortion folk talk about abortion they're always using euphemisms; termination of the pregnancy, blob of cells, right to choose.

That's because science is clear; every abortion kills a human being:

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.


“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.


“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

Of course we all know this because we learned it in High School biology class. At the instant of conception a new unique set of human DNA is produced and it's that DNA that defines all of the physical aspects of that new human being.

At no point is a woman's unborn daughter part of her body.  One of the reasons the umbilical cord exists is to isolate a woman's daughter from her immune system because at the most fundamental biological level the mother's immune system recognizes her daughter as "not self" and would attack and kill her if it could.

That an unborn child depends on her mother is true but it's also true after a child is born.

From conception on human life is a continuum with no breaks or sudden changes.

When we're born we don't become independent; that's why when abortionists leave babies who survived an abortion out on a table and deny them care they, the babies, die.

Heck in America today kids aren't independent of their parents until long after they're out of college in many cases.

But the point is that every abortion, according to science not the Pope, is the willed killing of a human being.

That's simply not something honest informed people can disagree about.

To back that science up here's some photos of what those "blobs of cells" look like.

Remember abortion is legal through when a woman is in labor or around 40 weeks. Science agrees that at least by 20 weeks the unborn feel pain but new studies show that in fact the unborn feel pain much earlier than that.

At 8 weeks:

At 16 weeks:
 At 20 weeks:



Thursday, January 23, 2020

Democrats make housing unaffordable

Leftist millennials who vote Democrat are whining about the high cost of housing and how they can't afford to buy a house.

They do so despite the fact that Democrats are the problem not the solution.

The median price of a house in America is $200,000.

The median price of a house in Democrat run California is $556,000.

The median cost of a house in Democrat run New York City its $775,000.

The median cost of a house in Democrat run San Francisco is $1,387,000.

Hence the housing prices in the vast majority of American that voted for Trump are much lower than in the Democrat run locations.

Leftists want us to pretend that there is no relationship between Democrat policies and high housing costs but that's simply not true.

For example California Democrats drove up the cost of each new house by around $20,000 by demanding that they have solar power.

Similarly Democrats in California support all sorts of laws, rules, and regulations that make it more expensive to build a house.

The truth is simple; Democrat policies always hurt hard working Americans but benefit illegal immigrants, the very rich, and those who could work but who don't want to.