Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

I know, I know…since the dawn of the Obama Era, irony has become as ubiquitous as the sunrise, and through its cumulative effect, toxic to the Republic, which I’m sure is all part of the plan.  Nonetheless, after a week like this one, I can only conclude that our self-appointed betters and “thought leaders (now there’s an irony for you)” have decided that they have succeeded in creating a climate of apathy and ignorance so strong that no statement, and no circumstance is too outrageous to tumble from their lips.  The sad thing is, I think that they might be right, as this week seems to prove…

First on this week is the “Reverend” Al Sharpton.  Yes, the “drug informant” Al Sharpton, who brought us this spectacularly polished turd:

“I think that the message is, no matter what the world may do to unfairly, no matter how your crucified, nailed to the cross at home, or in your personal relationships, or on the job that you can rise if you don’t lose yourself during the hard times and the challenges.["]

Put aside the garbage where he’s trying to link the meaning of Easter to Barack Obama.

This is really, really bad theology.  Easter is about sin, a price that mankind would never be able to pay for redemption, and the willing sacrifice of God’s son to pay that price for ALL OF US, and to conquer death.  That doesn’t happen without Christ, no matter how much those who worship government try to convince us that we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.  An awful lot of rhetorical sulphur he’s preaching.  I think he might want to study up on what the book says about that kind of behavior.

Next up are the usual suspects with regard to Chelsea Clinton’s announcement  at the “Girls No Ceilings Conversation” event in New York City:

“One more thing to say very quickly,” the 34-year-old addressed the crowd. “Mark and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year. I certainly feel all the better whether it’s a girl or a boy that they’ll grow up in a world with so many strong female leaders…”

Now, given the positive reaction from the crowd, one can only assume that they believe that she will be going to a store and purchasing a baby when she thinks that the time is right, because otherwise, she would be referring to a lump of cells that she has a sacrosanct right to terminate at anytime because it isn’t a “child” or “baby”…at least that’s what wymyn’s groups and blood money grubbers like Planned Parenthood keep telling us.

Hillary couldn’t help but to also chime in:

“I’m expecting a grand child which I’m very excited about. We’re very excited about what’s happening in our family but we’re also very excited about what we’re doing.”

Congratulations, kid.  Grams needs a political prop, so you get to be born!

And our final entry on this week’s hit parade.  Fresh off of questions regarding his son’s motivations for wanting the land that Clive Bundy ranches on in Nevada, and scrutiny of the connections between himself and the head of the Bureau of Land Management (and after previously being in the news for diverting campaign funds to his grand-daughter), Harry had this to say about the Federal Government’s aborted attempt to “shock and awe” the prickly rancher in to submission to his Federal betters:

 “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.

Given Harry’s misappropriation of campaign money and his apparent intimate knowledge of private citizen’s Federal tax returns, such as Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers, and Clive Bundy, I guess that means that we’ll soon be treated to the sight of Harry “I-Never-Met-A-Budget-I’d-Pass” Reid being marched out of the Senate in handcuffs.

Yeah, I know.  The law is only for little people, and those who happen to not be Democrats.   Yea for “fundamental change”.

 

Read Full Post »

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  - Hebrews 11:1, NKJV

Today, was the second of two sermons on Isaiah 40.  As we started today’s portion, I reflected on the remarkable nature of the message of the Chapter.  Prospectively, the nation of Israel was headed for the seventy-years long Babylonian Captivity, and the first message God had for them was “Comfort!”

I pondered that as the Pastor started with today’s message.  Isaiah knew that Babylon was coming to take all that Israel had…its riches, its livelihood, and its people.  And still his word for them was “Comfort!”, knowing that there would be 70 years of bondage.  My mind kneaded this message in the face of what was coming to them, and in light of portents that seem all too frequent, such as the modern harbinger of bondage that I read about this morning, in which a Virginia lawmaker has floated the idea of making doctors accept Medicaid and Medicare patients.  The commonality was striking.  The common denominator of both is the concept of bondage…the centuries-old nemesis of freedom.  Putting aside the cruel irony of a nation that will still recoil with an obvious shock and horror from things even remotely associated with a past regarding slavery based on the color of skin, and the belief in the ability to own everything about another human being, but almost enthusiastically advocate for government to own the labor of a person, without any corresponding responsibility to them, I think that we, like Isaiah’s Israel are heading for dark times.

So much of what the world knows about bondage is rooted in the physical.  I suppose that is to be expected, as with the nihilism that comes with it.  When all you have is only what you can see, it gets very easy to believe that it is all there is, and more importantly, to become very hopeless about it.  But the truth is that bondage is first a spiritual condition.  And often, those so deeply held in the grips of it spiritually are the least able to recognize it.  This also makes it ok to urge it on others.  We see this at work in a culture that preaches tolerance, but holds its darkest contempt and hatred in reserve for those who do not see the world as they do.  We see it in a culture that creates grand designs on the idea of diversity, but ruthlessly hounds those who do not believe as the majority does.  It works overtime in a culture that exhorts a private right to murder the most innocent among us as the ultimate expression of “choice”, when only one choice is given any consideration.  In such a culture, the leap to the “right” to that which your neighbor has worked for isn’t as much a leap as it is a slow inevitability.

Still, by the time we get to the end of the chapter, we have the reminder that we too can be brought up on the wings of eagles.  And as I considered that, and 2 Kings 6:16-17, I found a calmness in the idea of trust…even when not all is revealed, enough already has been to know that bondage is what Christ came to break, and while we may have to suffer it for a time, it will not be eternal.

16 So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, “Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.  –2 Kings 6:16-17 NKJV

 

Read Full Post »

A friend of mine posted a link to an article this morning he prefaced with the question “Is sacrificing your religious liberty the price of market participation?”  The article, by Benjamin Wiker, entitled “The Religious-Liberty Quagmire to Come” discusses a recent Slate article sympathetic with the current HHS mandate overreach in which government attempts to abrogate the rights of people to exercise their religious liberty with their property, specifically duly chartered legal business entities.

The article’s author opposes the viewpoints expressed in the Slate article, by author Dalia Lithwick.  I oppose them also, but on grounds originating not just in my studies, but also by practical experience and logic.

The first point raised is this:

Lithwick argues, first of all, that corporations are distinct entities from individuals.

This is true in a literal sense.  Corporations have a legal identity that are separate from their owners in the same way that I have a legal identity that is separate from my oldest son.  You’ll note that I did not use my wife in that example.  It was not an accident.  While she is indeed an entity that is distinct from myself, we happen to live in a community property state, so we “enjoy” the dual status of having distinct legal identities, while legally being considered as having the same legal identity for legal, and more to the point, commercial, purposes.  This reality is imposed upon us by the state, which applies this status based upon an action we took based on a shared religious conviction, and retain based upon that same shared religious conviction.  We are each “owners” of that resultant fictional legal entity known as a “marital community”, which, at least in our case, exists and acts in both personal and commercial transactions in ways that express or are the result of our individual religious beliefs.

While individuals can have religious beliefs, corporations can’t. Once you establish a corporation, it is automatically a secular corporation.

This is what we called in law school a “false starting premise”.  The reason is simple.  The state’s blessing to act as a corporate entity does not automatically confer a “secular” (like the author of the piece, I also object to the common use of the word “secular”, and for the same reasons, however, for the purpose of this essay, I will use it in the context of the incorrectly presumed “neutrality” in which it is often used) status on the resulting entity.  The reason for this is simple.  State enabling statutes almost always permit corporations and limited liability companies to be established “for any lawful purpose”, which by its nature would include the conducting of any lawful business in a manner consistent with the religious faith of the owners of the entity in question.  In fact, thanks to the First Amendment, and its extension to the individual states, the states would be legally prohibited from restricting individuals from forming entities for such purposes.

The other obvious weakness in this rather remarkable assertion from Ms. Lithwick would be the fact that churches often incorporate as non-profit corporations in order to apply for Section 501(c)(3) status so that donations, gifts, and tithes maybe tax deductible to the donor. (Contrary to popular opinion, churches do not have to apply for this status to be tax-free.  They are already tax-free, as they should be, as a result of the First Amendment.)

Wiker states that Lithwick’s assertion is rooted in the decision in the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. decision.  The corporation is owned by a Mennonite Family which employs 950 people.  The family opposes the HHS mandates regarding abortion on religious grounds.  The Federal Judge hearing the case concluded:

“We simply cannot understand how a for-profit, secular corporation — apart from its owners — can exercise religion,” circuit Judge Robert Cowen wrote. “A holding to the contrary … would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.”

Aside from the naked and unsupported (and unsupportable) conclusion that a corporation is secular, there are a few other weaknesses.  State law would rightfully permit me to draft and file for a client Articles of Incorporation or a Certificate of Formation establishing that the entity is “being formed for the express purpose of selling ice cream, and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, and any other lawful purpose,”, and there is nothing that the state or the Federal government could Constitutionally do to prevent me from doing so. Being a distinct legal entity doesn’t mean that a corporation cannot express or conduct itself based upon a specific political or religious viewpoint.  And while there are instances in which government may lawfully restrict what an owner does with its private property in certain balancing of the equities situations, at this time, I can think of none which directly conflict with the right of conscience.

The assertion of an automatic secular nature of corporations based on a theory of complete segregation between a legal entity and those that own them faces other philosophical and logical difficulties aside from being an assumption of a fact not in evidence.  First among them is the fact that one of the pillars the good Judge rests his opinion on is the notion that that an individual can exercise religious freedom, but a corporation cannot.  This point ignores the fact that corporations ARE allowed to exercise other First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, and Freedom of Association, which is the main principle underlying the freedom to enter into contracts with people of your choosing, or the freedom to hire people who you think make a good fit with your corporation, and will make a good employee.  Recognizing this, there is no logical or legal basis to presume that these freedoms can be exercised by a corporation or an LLC, but that those same entities can or should be barred from exercising religious freedom to act in a manner consistent with the religious beliefs of its owner.

The second weakness with this assertion is the fact that the income from many of these “separate, distinct legal entities” is reported not on a separate tax form for that entity, but on the personal tax forms for those who own those entities, which would hardly make sense if these were indeed separate and distinct from their owners.

The third weakness of this viewpoint is that our economy would be in much worse shape without corporations and LLCs because they make it possible for more people to provide goods and services at prices and in quantities that the risk that they would necessarily have to bear individually would either make prohibitively expensive, or practically impossible to provide.  While the very word “corporation” often evokes the image of boardrooms filled with grey suits making decisions that impact the livelihood of hundreds or thousands, or more, the fact is that the majority of corporations are closely-held businesses, where the ownership consists of a individuals, or small numbers of people, often members of the same family, or of one or two families. And in some instances, this is also true of those large corporations that I previously spoke of.  Ford is one example that comes to mind.  However, even if it wasn’t for the fact that a majority of these entities are small, closely held corporations or LLCs that permit individuals to offer products or services because of the risk management that the law permits through the use of these entities, there is also the fact that the law DOES allow certain individuals who offer goods and services through corporations and LLCs to refuse to offer those goods and services based on the individual owner’s right of conscience and/or religious beliefs, among other factors.  Doctors, who can refuse to perform abortions, and attorneys, who can refuse representation based on any factor at all, are two that come to mind.  While competence or having the requisite skill are among the reasons for these rights of refusal, they are not the ONLY ones.  And while it might be tempting to say that the personal nature of services rendered by these professions support such an exemption, the fact is that for nearly all closely-held business entities, the nature of what those individuals do is personal.  For such individuals, their business is at the forefront of their thinking.  It is the first thing they think of in the morning, it is what they contemplate as they drift off to sleep at night.  Their businesses ARE an expression of who they are, and  that “separate legal entity” invariably becomes associated with the individuals who own them.  The manner in which they conduct their business often expresses an opinion or a philosophy held dear to the owner of that business.  It is not reasonable or logical to suggest or expect that these individuals segregate their religious and spiritual identity and activity from the profession or career that they otherwise breathe and eat; to do so would be a denial of the very essence of the person that the law and society would find morally objectionable and repugnant if any other belief or activity was being discussed instead of the free exercise of religion. This is no less true for a baker of wedding cakes, or a photographer than it is for a doctor or a lawyer who has incorporated so they can ply their trade without risking the loss of everything they own and have worked for to one lawsuit.

Another logical weakness in this assertion is that many of these entities often are operated day-to-day in accordance with various codes of ethics voluntarily committed to by the owners and employees of the corporations and LLCs.  For an entity to be, even indirectly, conducted according to such a code of ethics, but presumably not capable of exercising a religious point of view is facially absurd.

——————————————————————————————————————————-
I’d like to think that things will get better, but the current prevailing prejudice against religion in some of the most litigious groups in our society leads me to believe that we’re in for a lengthy fight to preserve our first liberties.  Especially if examples such as the New Mexico photographer, and the pink swastika philosophy that seeks to punish those who do not wish to participate in their activities, regardless of whether not it makes any logical sense to compel those who object with their beliefs to provide a personal service or product is any indication.  But then, with a federal government that is engaging in similar unconstitutional behavior as a guide, there really is no reason to be surprised at the bold entitlement demonstrated in this strategy, which is why legal interest groups such as the ADF are going to become increasingly important and need our help in the coming years.

Read Full Post »

Remember when Rush Limbaugh had forever tainted the reputation of professional activist and rabble-rouser Sandra Fluke when he called her an unflattering name when she demanded that a nominally catholic institution, Georgetown University, supply THOUSANDS of dollars to individual female students annually?  This was another major engagement in the “War on Women”, which forever proved that those eeeeeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll conservatives really hate women because they aren’t willing to accept the idea that a religious-based institution should be compelled to go against its conscience and guiding principles to supply contraceptives to students who voluntarily chose to attend the institution, knowing that this “demand” would be controversial, and frankly reveal those making the demand to be unreasonable, sniveling ingrates.  And when Rush happened to suggest that a law student at a top-tier law school who is obsessed with extorting THOUSANDS of dollars worth of contraceptives for individual students annually might be working toward a career in the wrong profession, an entire segment of society that would not recognize shame if it walked up to them, beat them up, and stole their money suddenly rediscovered the concept and, with all the outrage they could muster, rushed to her defense, claiming it was he who had sullied her reputation, while breathing fire, and sipping on kitten and puppy shakes.  It never once occurred to these stalwart defenders of Ms. Fluke’s virtue that perhaps it was she who had accomplished that with her dubious, attention-grabbing demands.

Flash forward a year, and we have the aftermath of a trial of an abortion “doctor” (yeah, Mengle went by that appellation also, and look what HE did) which the media had to be shamed into covering at all, despite the fact that his clinic was found to be filthy, not just unsanitary, filled with all manner of gruesome trophies collected over a lifetime of murdering both the not-yet-born, and the newly born, while largely not giving a damn about the health and welfare of his “patients”, leading to death for some of them.  Yet, like committed party members who were taken to the concentration camps and still denied the atrocities committed in them, the hardcore abortion proponents, in the face of undeniable evidence, maintained that this “right” was sacrosanct, and NO regulation of the “industry” would be tolerated. (Thus voiding the second of the three prongs of their decades-old battle cry “Safe, Rare, and Legal”.)  Against this backdrop, the state of Texas decided that some regulations should be put in place to maintain minimum safe conditions, so that women who decided to kill their unborn children might not have to be butchered by the incompetent, or contract deadly infections from unsanitary conditions and unwashed instruments.  Oh, and they decided that late-term abortion really shouldn’t be allowed either, so they inserted a provision in the bill banning abortions after 20 weeks.  (For the math-challenged among you, 20 weeks is 5 Months. )

The bloodthirsty harpie lobby remained true to their word, and attacked the law, bizarrely concluding that being prevented from killing your unborn child after you have carried him or her around in your womb for FIVE MONTHS is somehow a government seizure of your body, the rescission of an important constitutional right, and probably involuntary servitude as well.  On the night the legislature was to vote, one of their allies in the legislature filibustered until she could hold out no longer, then smiled as her co-conspirators in the galleries made a voice vote under normal circumstances impossible, and the time for passing the bill expired. 

The legislature has again taken up the bill, and the blood money lobby and its useful idiots have lost their collective minds.  Protests with these women using CHILDREN, carrying signs with coat-hangers (to protest a bill that would require SAFER conditions), replacing the Texas Longhorns logo with a uterus, reading a ridiculous “If My Vagina Was A Gun” poem, and protesting with a number of signs that can only lead a reasonable witness to believe that not only are these poor, put-upon women nothing more than the sum of their lady parts, but that they proudly think so little of themselves that they refer to themselves as “Hoes”.  Then the articles from the “bro-choicers“, who think that the unrestricted right to abortion is crucial, because otherwise, they might have to actually face the consequences of their animalistic, instinctual sport screwing.  (I knew that not all men in favor of unrestricted abortions were whiney, sniveling beta males…I just never expected the alpha douches to be so open in their support, or that these women would think so little of themselves that they would gladly accept it.)

The Sum of Her Lad

Which brings me to today, where these civil paragons of the pro-death movement discussed plans to attend today’s session and hurl body waste at legislators and at counter-demonstrators, which is yet more evidence of the depths that the “tolerant” left is willing to sink to in order to insure that the rest of us will do and allow only what THEY are tolerant of.  And then I saw this:

Dignity, Always Dignity

And this:

Dignity 2

To the adults who are throwing away every principle previously claimed as part of this private right to murder in the single-minded pursuit to retain the right to kill your children regardless of not just the hazard to them, but also to yourselves, that’s fine. I have no qualms with the world seeing you frantically rally around the only thing in life that you will squander everything to keep…your principles, the moral high ground you always claimed but never occupied, and finally, your dignity, in a way that makes it unmistakable that you always expected and demanded that everyone else think more of you than you obviously thought of yourself. Some of us knew that was the only bottom line that mattered to you, and the rest was for show anyway, even as we always accepted the idea that you could be more than the sum of your lady parts, and that it should be secondary to your identity as a person, rather than the beginning and end of your personal and collective raison d’etre.

But when you subvert children (and let’s be honest, the girls in the previous two pictures are CHILDREN), and convince them to debase themselves by embracing vulgarity and barbarity, so that your blood lust can continue to fund an industry that kills girls and boys indescriminately FOR MONEY, you have taken what was never yours to have, from children who could no more give their informed consent to be used in such a crass and callous manner than they could to having surgery performed without the consent of someone older and wiser, usually a parent or guardian. Unless she elects to have an abortion. In which case, she undoubtedly could be whisked away in the company of strangers to snuff her child without her parents’ knowledge or consent.

You are detestable, and will be a byword to future generations, to whom your madness and fatal self-absorption will be painfully obvious.

Read Full Post »

It is hard to believe Republican men think they know so much when they are SO freaking stupid!! They had better pray to the God they say they are channeling that the female members of their families are not raped, or become pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. How is it wrong to abort a fetus, and then let an unwanted child be raised by 1 or 2 parents that beat the crap of it for 3-6 years before the child dies. Now tell me those children do not feel more pain than an aborted fetus!!

—A friend of an old school classmate on Facebook

One of the reasons I LIKE Facebook is the opportunity to be exposed to so much faulty thinking. It underscores a bleak and undeniable answer to the question “How the hell did this country get so #^$%@* Up?” If I were a researcher seeking insight into the nearly criminal failings of the modern American educational system, I could have no greater source material to draw on than the postings made on that website.

Abortion has been, and remains, one of the great head scratchers of our time. We live in a culture that has been transformed by nearly 50 years racial remediation, starting with Affirmative Action, and the lowered standards for some people that came with it, which over time morphed into the dubious notion of “diversity”, in which society has been forced to adopt a bankrupt ideology that essentially says that “All cultures are equal, therefore the only one that will be measured against any objective standard, after application of a “privilege” penalty, is the majority one.”

The result has not been to raise formerly discriminated against minorities into all strata of society by creating an equality of opportunity, but rather to harm all of society by imposing a tyrannical mediocrity by way of an ill-conceived and poorly executed scheme of equality of condition, executed with predictable effect by a kleptocratic government, which purposely fosters a culture of division by pursuing “identity politics”, and pandering to these various groups, all while making certain that the power and wealth of the political class itself benefits first and foremost from this strategy. This is why it is that members of Congress, who are only paid annual salaries between $100,000 and $200,000 annually can retire after careers in Washington as multi-millionaires, while diverting ever-increasing sums of taxpayer money each year to a “war” they have no intention of winning, the “War on Poverty”. In such a climate, success can ever only expect to be penalized, and excellence becomes the exception and not the rule.

In such a realm, where the now-divided segments of society are set upon each other, to fight amongst themselves for the scraps that a supposedly benevolent government deigns to toss to them, much like latter-day nobility tossing scraps from their banquet table to burlap-wearing peasants scrambling for a morsel of what their labor produced, one of the biggest hogs at that trough is “Planned Parenthood”, an organization that makes a great deal of taxpayer money ensuring that prospective parents never actually become parents.

The ironic reality of this cabal that ensures that “The blood money must flow” has its roots in the work of Margaret Sanger, a favorite darling of the left, and a racist eugenics supporter, who believed that “undesirables” and their breeding habits were certain to destroy the makeup of this country if they were allowed to proceed unchecked. Yet those who followed in her footsteps wrought a tortured legal history that mystically transmogrified a brutal act of murder into a “Constitutional right”, based on nothing more on a Supreme Court Justice’s assertion that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the unborn, because “Shut Up”, he said.

Once freed, the legal murder lobby was free to quietly and incrementally distance itself from its mantra of “Safe, rare, and legal”, first by convincing women that abortion is perfectly acceptable birth control, in which choice was more about avoiding the consequences of choice by changing their minds, and then more recently by ignoring and downplaying the utterly shocking and deplorable practices of Kermit Gosnel and other abortionists like him, who, for decades made a mockery of the dignity of human life by how he treated the children he he savagely murdered, inside or outside the womb, and with his callous disregard for the safety of his “patients”. This inexcusable behavior needs to be mentioned and an explanation demanded every single time these bloodthirsty harpies and their castrated beta males wail about any reasonable regulation that would impose minimum standards for safety with the tired and hypocritical “No more wire hangers! No more back alleys!”, because with standards such as they have now, the blood money lobby will be only too happy to bring botched abortions, unsanitary conditions, exsanguination, and sepsis to you! No more having to sneak around to get it! You’ve come a long away, baby! (This is an equally appropriate response to the claim that it is a “Women’s Health” issue…because women are always made healthier by unsterilized (or even washed) instruments, and facilities operated like disassembly lines that would be more easily comprehended in an abattoir instead of one of these charnel houses masquerading as a “women’s health facility”.

But in a very lucrative taxpayer-funded business where the only consistency (logical or otherwise) is that anyone who threatens this bloody sinecure which taints every single citizen in United States, and mocks the mission statement of this country, contained in our national charter, that being LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is immediately denounced as a heretic, someone who is against wymyn’s health, wants to oppress wymyn, or isn’t entitled to have an opinion due to a lack of ovaries. Of these disqualifications, the last is perhaps the stupidest. The idea that you can’t call a private right to murder what it is because you aren’t the one who would carry a child to term if such a “right” was properly denied is an extraordinary proposition. I can only hope that those who would advance this belief would feel the shame at their thought processes if they were told that they couldn’t denounce murders propagated against someone of the opposite sex, or a different skin color, or religion. And to cling to the practice on the basis of rape or incest is to facilitate the exception swallowing the rule, as well as condemning an innocent party to a penalty that will not be shared by the offender, and doing so without trial, or even the most basic due process that even the lowliest criminal could expect.

This public condemnation is advanced by a combination of aging hippies behaving badly, and conscienceless presstitutes who want to cast any whisper regarding race or the differences between them (while we’re expected to celebrate “diversity”, no less) as racist, so as to invoke the civil rights “struggle” as continuing today, much like “the revolution” is constantly invoked as a cure-all against any question raised against those who consider themselves the guardians and arbiters of such ideas and concepts, while ignoring the fact that the more than 8 million abortions done in this country since Roe made its second pass before the Revered Nine is proof of the only real civil rights issue that needs recognition today: Millions of unborn humans killed with taxpayer money in this country, under the falsest of pretenses and for the basest of motives…money. Blood money. The practice calls to mind a quote by Thomas Jefferson, in regard to another abomination perpetrated for too long in this country, and also for financial reasons.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Read Full Post »

…is not compatible with the American Mission Statement set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The Gosnell trial was telling, not only because it revealed a physician running a charnel house that would have to sterilize with a squad of flamethrowers before it could pass inspection as meat-packing plant, but until Katie Pavelich shamed her colleagues into actually reporting on the story, the indifference to it in the legacy media was just as disgusting. While the verdict found the butcher guilty on three counts of murder in the case of babies delivered alive, then nearly beheaded when he “snipped” their spinal cords, even now the usual suspects have engaged in some serious creativity to avoid referring to these babies as babies, since doing so might spark some viewers/readers to consider the weighty question of why exactly a murder verdict is appropriate for children who were only seconds earlier still inside their mothers and fair game for the good doctor to dispatch with relish.

Gosnell’s clinic was by all accounts unsanitary and extremely filthy. This doesn’t just indicate a disregard for the babies he enjoyed dispatching, but a disregard for his “patients”, who were routinely infected with STDs as a result of unsterilized equipment. On its own, it is a stinging indictment of the laughable mantra “Safe, Rare, and Legal”, but coupled with such horrors as jars filled with babies feet, and baby corpses stuffed in a freezer, the evil on the inside becomes physically manifest.

And yet, much like the Bene Geserit Reverend Mother in Lynch’s DUNE whispering “The Spice Must Flow…”, Klanned Murderhood is out, unrepentantly claiming that Gosnell is the exception, making sure that the real questions never get asked because “The [Taxpayer] Money Must Flow.”

We can’t encourage murder for hire by pretending that it’s ok if we call it part of some greater right of “privacy” and then expect that the evil that it is won’t be manifested by the practitioners. It was easy to convict Gosnell because he used the scissors, but the fact is that we’re all guilty for perpetrating the fiction that the taking of the most innocent lives among us is a legitimate “women’s health” procedure. Two go in and one comes out (sometimes) is NOT a health procedure, no matter what the ghouls with the bloody upturned palms tell us.

Read Full Post »

When some people started pushing back against the Official Gun Control Narrative after Sandy Hook with the seemingly obvious retort that instead of more laws that would be ignored by those determined to do bad things, it might be time to revisit the issue of Crazy People Control instead, I was …unsettled with the idea… in part because I know the history of the Soviet Union, and I know that the political prisoners who weren’t shipped to the gulags were institutionalized in asylums after being diagnosed by the state-run medical system as “mentally ill”. With ObamaCare looming, along with its cadre of experts ready to guide diagnosis and treatment on political and financial considerations first, this should be enough to give anyone who is thinking two or three moves ahead some pause.

But for a while now, something else about the idea has been nagging at me, much like a yippy little dog tugging at my pant leg, and this week, an errant turn of phrase allowed me to see this concern for what it really is. 

As as society, we are no longer sane ourselves.

Sane people do not believe in the existence of a “private” right to murder, as long as it is exercised by a woman against her unborn child (with the assistance of a medical doctor).

Sane people do not ignore or attempt to cover up the astonishing story of one of these “doctors” snipping spines of children who survive abortion attempts, then keeping their feet in jars like trophies.

Sane governments do not foster the belief that such a “right” is for them to grant, and moreover subsidize, while at the same time indignantly defending the practice as a woman’s “right to choose”.

Sane people do not repeatedly elect government officials who spend more than the government takes in, and then spends a great deal of this borrowed money on offering services and benefits to people who have no lawful right to be in this country in the first place, or on foreigners, who make no secret of their contempt of us.

Sane governments do not invite foreigners inside their borders, make them citizens, and give them welfare without a care to the inclinations, intentions, or activities of these “guests”.

Sane governments do not conclude that the way to curtail crime in neighboring countries is to significantly curtail the freedoms of their own citizens, instead of acting to secure a border so porous that it is a threat to the national security of both countries, even when determining not to do so aids and abets an ongoing slow-motion invasion in exchange for the votes and political power the blind eye delivers, because it would be foolish to assume that the same government will benefit from the final result.

Sane people don’t mindlessly echo the mantra that “Something must be done about gun violence”, even “If it only saves one child”, and yet get whipped into an outrage because a private foundation choses to no longer spend money subsidizing the murder of unborn children.

Sane people do not accept the idea that their 15-year-old cannot take an aspirin to school, but can purchase a powerful and dangerous abortifacient over the counter, or be transported by school officials to obtain an abortion without the parents’ knowledge or consent.

Sane people do not chain themselves to trees to stop loggers, or ram whaling ships to prevent whales from being slaughtered, but turn a blind eye to the actions of Kermit Gosnell, and other abortion doctors operating human abbotoirs with little or no oversight by governments charged with licensing and monitoring of medical professionals for the public safety.

Sane people do not stand by quietly or meekly as governments dilute the nature and benefits of citizenship by encouraging or allowing illegal immigration, and then passing laws that allow these same people who do not respect our laws to vote and to serve on juries.

Sane people do not quietly accept the notion that passing bills that have not yet been fully written or that no one could have possibly read is in any way acceptable behavior for those who were elected to represent their interests.

Sane people do not subscribe to the notion that it is in any way, shape, or form, the purview of government to dictate to them what they may eat, portion size, or salt and trans fat content of what they chose to eat, and sane people know that if such intrusions are justified by government’s expanding role in delivering and overseeing their health care, then that is an excellent object lesson in why government has no business in our health care.

Sane people do not immerse themselves in a self-centered and single-minded devotion to the fulfillment of their own desires and self-gratification to the degree that they abandon the dignity inherent in the liberty of accorded by God to the individual, and sane governments would not foster such practices, because sooner or later, they will run out of the material possessions and bounty of others used by governments to create such terrifying and locust-like dependents.

I could go on, citing news story after news story, where the new normal is getting reality backwards, or indulging in a number of ridiculous fictions which we are being forced to go along with, and treated as if we’re the insane ones when we question their gaslighting of us on any number of topics, but the point is, I’m reluctant to rally for Crazy People Control, because I’m no longer certain that our society recognizes insanity any more.   But I am sure that the wrong people would be only too happy to politicize it, and that even if we could implement it correctly, the inmates would outnumber the orderlies…by perhaps as much as three-to-one.  It’s like C.M. Kornbluth’s ‘The Marching Morons’ on steroids, and it rapidly appears that we have two options: Embrace the Madness, or Resist Until We Are Overcome.

Read Full Post »

I was going to write about this too, but my friend Sam Janney, one of the brilliant PolitiChicks, already took him to task.

I don’t know why so many American women want to be Julia, and don’t see Klanned Murderhood for the intersection of Government and Medical malfeasance that it is.

Go now, and read it.

Read Full Post »

Conscious efforts to reduce the native population (through systematic abortion for convenience + hubristic junk science creating the impression that the hoi poli are killing the planet)

+

“gun control” that won’t do a thing to stop bad actors but WILL make it difficult or next to impossible for the average citizen to be legally armed

= new aristocracy with a population just big enough to serve but never big enough to be a threat.

Helen Keller could see this, and yet apparently we have rocket surgeons in the US Senate who can’t…or can they?

Read Full Post »

I can remember not too long ago having a conversation with someone about the unthinkable becoming mainstream if we as a society decide that there is no reason to oppose “gay” marriage.  I remember the anger and incredulity at the mere suggestion that it gets harder to deny everyone else with different tastes, like polygamy and polyandry, and incest and pedophilia, and beastiality…especially directed at the last three.  “Kids and animals can’t consent!” I was furiously admonished.  “It simply wouldn’t be acceptable!”

Except that I’ve started to see the arguments in favor of polygamy and polyandry if there is a right to “gay” marriage.  Arguments being seriously made and seriously discussed by serious people, who understand that if we accept that “consenting adults” can marry someone of the same sex, than there really is no argument to be made against multiple partners or spouses.  But at least we still aren’t going to mainstream incest and pedophilia, right?  Right? 

Wrong.

First, from a story about David Epstein, a political science professor at Columbia, who slept with his adult daughter for 3 years:

The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.

Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.

Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could ‘best be described as an accomplice’.

He told ABCNews.com: ‘Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so.

‘At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms.

‘It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?

‘We have to figure out why some behaviour is tolerated and some is not.’

First, Attorney Galluzzo needs to be made to pull a Black’s Law Dictionary off the shelf in the court, and read aloud the definition of “consanguinity”.  Then he needs to be told in no uncertain terms by the judge that if he raises that “question” in his pleadings, he’s going to be on the wrong side of a Rule 11 sanction for making a frivolous argument, and as a result, he’s going to make a very generous donation to a fund for abused children.  The rest of the article raises a valid point about how the inequity in the relationship, whether between adults or not, should call into question the issue of “consent”, regardless of the protests that the predator and victim might make. 

In a society that hasn’t lost its collective mind and decided to make policy decisions based on genitals and gratification, anyone who uttered this aloud would be shamed and or beaten until they were put in the knowledge of the utter unacceptability of the question to begin with, or at least instilled with the firm knowledge that there really are limits to sexual behavior that should not be exceeded.  That said, we don’t live in that society, we live in the one where a popular President was allowed to seduce a very young intern and have sex with her in the Oval Office, and people saw nothing wrong with that, rationalizing it both as being a “private” matter, and something that if his wife wasn’t ripping his eyeballs out over, we couldn’t either.  We live in the society where self-styled feminists and feminist groups actually defended the man, despite the clear imbalance in power between the furniture and the wood polisher.  Because we live in that society, and because I haven’t read about Epstein losing his job, being rejected by friends and neighbors, and ejected from clubs, associations, and professional groups, AND because members of my tribe are daring to utter such things out loud without any obvious fear of sanction, I predict we’re going to hear more of this.  And that as we hear more of it, people’s opinions on it will soften, and those who oppose this behavior will be denounced as incestaphobic, or haters.

But that’s not the worst of it.  I’ve also been reading stories, first in the foreign press, suggesting that maybe pedophiles should be reconsidered, since shrinks are taking a look at their behavior and concluding that maybe it’s just a “normal” expression of sexuality.  At first, I took the ostrich approach, choosing to believe that his was just a manifestation of the europeons growing dhimitude.  And then I saw this piece today from the LA Times which talks about pedophilia being a “deep-seated predisposition that doesn’t change”.  After reading about the “research” being done, I decided that I did not feel better for having read the article.

Some of the new understanding of pedophilia comes from studies done on convicted sex criminals at the Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto, where researchers use a procedure known as phallometry to identify men whose peak attraction is to children.

A man sits alone in a room viewing a series of images and listening to descriptions of various sexual acts with adults and children, male and female, while wearing a device that monitors blood flow to his penis.

Now, when I read stuff like that, my mind starts racing.  “Who the hell comes up with this for a research topic?  Do they all sit around in a meeting and ask themselves “What can we study that will really make taxpayers ask ” I gave up a week at the beach to pay for THAT?”?”  And then the lawyer in me says “What the hell are these researchers doing with child porn in the first place, and who decided it would be good to show it to pedophiles?”” 

But the bigger problem is the way the findings are discussed in the article. 

Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.

Among the most compelling findings is that 30% of pedophiles are left-handed or ambidextrous, triple the general rate. Because hand dominance is established through some combination of genetics and the environment of the womb, scientists see that association as a powerful indicator that something is different about pedophiles at birth.

“The only explanation is a physiological one,” said James Cantor, a leader of the research.

Heh.  “Born that way.”  It seems like we’ve heard this before.  And if it was used to justify one “sexual orientation”, then why not another, right?  I know, I know.  “Consent”.  But as the previous story indicates, some are already making excuses for one taboo.  Anyone paying attention over the last 40 years is kidding themselves if they read this and say “We protect children.  We make that a priority.”  Millions of children who didn’t consent to anything were murdered in the womb, and we allowed “privacy” to be a cloak for it, much as we have allowed “privacy” to be a cloak for institutionalizing the orbit of our genitals.  Gratification is king, and if killing a child has to be made subservient to it, then one has no reason to think that “consent” will protect children from being made victims at the hands of those we now make excuses for, any more than the idea that we can see the obvious distinction that marks the difference between someone else’s adult child and our own adult children.  Billy Jeff blurred the first line, aided and abetted by those who had the most reason to object, and people like this “professor” will blur the second.  Celebrating the commonality of it, and pretending at normalcy virtually guarantees that lust, and the apologetic “tolerance” that goes with it will overcome and eventually erase the squick factor.  Don’t even get me started on the apologists for bestiality.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 381 other followers