Hearings From Hell

Watching the circus that was supposed to be a Senate Judiciary Committee evaluation of a Supreme Court candidate, I could not believe what the Democrats had done. The timing of the accusations has all the earmarks of the Democrat’s attempt to discredit, delay, and eventually minimize if not disqualify one of the most qualified judges that has been nominated to the position. We, as Americans, should be extremely concerned over the handling of this entire matter.

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.” – Judge Brett Kavenaugh, Opening Statement, Senate Judiciary Hearing, September 27, 2018.

I agree with Judge Kavenaugh on several points – this is a political hit job by the Democrats, Dr. Ford was probably assaulted at some point in her life, and it wasn’t him.

To me, Dr. Ford is not a credible witness. I know of several women who have been sexually assaulted, and they remember every single excruciating detail including time, place, circumstances, and what was done. She, one the other hand, can’t seemingly remember relevant details of what amounts to a teenage groping incident, and is not a full blown assault. Equally damaging to her credibility is the fact that her social media accounts were scrubbed prior to her coming out as the accusing party. Again, perhaps the incident did occur, but given her reputation as a party girl that has been given in the media, she has confused who did what and when. What clinched the last for me was that her good friend stated that the incident did not occur.

Judge Kavenaugh, on the other hand, was very credible. He had calendars and notes, as well as dozens of character witnesses including many women who have stated that he could not and would not have done such a thing. Years and years of interactions with women, and not one peep of impropriety. On top of that, a half-dozen FBI background checks which went much deeper that what is currently required by the Judiciary Committee.

So what’s left?

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.” – Senator Lindsey Graham, Senate Judiciary Hearing, September 27, 2018.

That’s right, power.

Elevating Judge Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court would severely limit the Democrat’s ability to legislate from the Supreme Court. One such example was Roe v Wade (note: read the notes that are on Wikipedia concerning this decision, and one cannot conclude otherwise that the Supreme Court ruled in such a fashion that is not consistent with the Constitution). Challenges to lower court rulings coming before the Supreme Court with a Constitutional-leaning majority would result in the majority of left-wing rulings being overturned. This would cramp or hinder their quest for getting policies and laws that would otherwise not be possible through the legislatures.

Let’s explore one example…

One of the hysterical assertions that the Liberal Democrats have been screaming about is that the elevation of Judge Kavenaugh to the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and “hundreds of women would die from back-alley abortions.” Should a challenge to Roe v. Wade be presented to the Court, it could very well be overturned, and the responsibility of regulating abortion be returned to the States (it should never have been a Federal matter to begin with).

So what does this matter? States would once again be responsible for regulating abortions as before, and the woman’s right to privacy would be re-argued on the State level. The citizens of the State would then hold their State Legislators to the standards that they deem necessary.

So again, why the problem with allowing States to regulate abortion while following current HIPA laws?

In short, money and power.

I read the other day that the political arm of Planned Parenthood was contributing $30+ million toward Democratic candidates. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the money for candidates at the Federal level dries up as there is no longer a reason to help fund the campaigns of friendly House, Senate, and Presidential candidates.

Planned Parenthood is also funded with $500,000,000 of Federal taxpayer dollars per year. While that money is, by law, not to fund abortions, what it does do is free up other money in the organization to perform abortions. So in a round-a-bout way, taxpayer money is funding abortions. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, that $500,000,000 has a very real chance of being cut if not entirely going away.

That’s the money angle – what about power?

The Democrat Party has stood on the bloody platform of abortion for years, lumping the “procedure” in with the “women’s health” issue as well as stating abortion is a Constitutional “right”. By combining these issues into one, the mere thought of a “right” being taken away with certain death women as the outcome stirs up the emotions. FiveThirtyEight.com had this:

“The number of Democratic women in Congress has surged in the last two decades, and now about a third of Democrats in Congress are female. Many of those women got support from the group Emily’s List, which supports female Democratic candidates, but only those who back abortion rights. Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services, including abortions, is deeply enmeshed in Democratic politics. Its political action committee invests heavily to help the party win elections.

“The essential issue with abortion [among Democrats] is that it’s not about access to a perfectly legal health choice,” Chatelain said. “It’s about all of the issues around state rights, around privacy, about gender and the family, about wages, I think abortion has become a proxy for a number of very complicated issues. … It’s about so much more on the left.”

In other words, supporting abortion (through Planned Parenthood) leads to political positions and power.

Are there other examples? Yes, there are. I would get into the 2nd Amendment issues that the Democrat Party fears, but my time is limited today. Just take my word for it that the Democrats would go for a full repeal on the 2nd Amendment if they could a la Diane Fienstein.

Here’s the bottom line on all of this: The Democrats will use every means necessary to block, delay, or destroy a Trump Supreme Court nominee. They believe that the means they use will justify achieving any political goal they have, no matter whom they destroy in the process.

After all, if they are willing to stand in the blood of the unborn, they have no limits on the personal destruction of a person’s character or life.

Unicorns and Rainbows – Part 1

The typical Progressive Liberal confuses me, and quite frankly, I think they are confused as well.  What they say and do are so contradictory to a rational line of thinking leaves me with multiple WTH moments.  Let’s take the following “for instance”:


The recent expose of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts and the reactions of various political figures is telling on many fronts.  Forget about having a rational discussion – it’s all finger-pointing, misdirection, and “feelings.”

Let’s get down to the brass-tacks right up front – abortion is the willful killing of a developing human being, i.e., baby or fetus.  It does not matter if the fetus is an hour old, a week old, a month old, or however old – the fetus is genetically human.  This is a scientific fact and cannot be refuted except in today’s legal world.

In today’s tortured legalistic world, a fetus is not a human up to a certain point in time.  After this time has passed, the fetus miraculously becomes not a mass of cells, but a person.  But is that really true?  How about the following true case.

During a robbery, pregnant woman was shot, causing her to lose the baby.  The robber was charged with murder, but the defense attorneys countered that the baby wasn’t a baby in the legal sense since it was only 2-months old at the time of the robbery / shooting.  Since the laws of the state at the time allowed for an abortion up to the 4-month mark, the fetus wasn’t a person, and that his client should be charged with a lesser crime.  The court would have none of that, and tossed the defense motion & the robber was later convicted of murder.

So what does this tell us?  If a baby is wanted, it’s a person no matter how old, and if the baby is unwanted, there’s an expiration date up to which to abort the baby?  Exactly how insane is this idea?

Let’s stack this thought up with the typical Progressive Liberal mantra of “it’s for the children” for any and all governmental funding of boondoggles with taxpayer money for their favorite mismanaged social program.  They always state that children should be protected and deserve the very best that can be offered.

Really?  Seriously?  If children are truly so precious, so innocent, so deserving of protection, should they not be protected from the moment of conception?

Obviously not in the view of the Progressive Liberal…

In their world, a baby isn’t a baby until it’s wanted by someone or past some legal date that has no basis in reality.  After that point in time, they become a person.

How screwed up is that?  To determine when a person is a person is like trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  It can’t be done, and any rationalization is contorted legalized reasoning.  Such was the falsified testimony during the “Roe vs. Wade” arguments which lead to the Supreme Court deciding that abortion was a woman’s right.  Let’s be perfectly clear:  To hide behind the statement that it’s “the law of the land” will not absolve anyone from the moral implications of performing or having an abortion.

However, is this really what we’ve come to?  To determine when life is created from a legalized standpoint?  That is exactly what our legal minds have come up with – a legal definition of life.

To reject out of hand that a fetus is not human is the most irresponsible attitude toward human life I have ever heard of. The fact is, science doesn’t know at what point a growing embryo ceases to be just a mass of cells and becomes conscious human life. In the absence of such knowledge, one should err on the side of caution.  And barring any unforeseen issues, that mass of cells will become a human being in time.

But that fact does not deter many politicians from defending the murder of their fellow human beings, the most innocent and defenseless of us all.  It is estimated that abortion has ended the lives of somewhere between 50 and 55 million children in the womb from 1973 to 2011.

Lastly, we, as a society, have become mostly numb to this “procedure” that has killed millions. What does that say about us?  Not what we would like to think about ourselves, that’s for sure.

Save the whales, save the polar bears, save the Earth from global warming climate change, save the trees, save whatever cause is in vogue this week – that seems to be what our Progressive Liberals want to focus on.  What about save the babies?

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do (Progressive) Liberals support, in any and all of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?

By The Numbers

One of the statements on the White House website that I’m going to take out of context for the topic on the site (preventing gun violence) is the following:

“If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act. Now is the time to do the right thing for our children, our communities, and the country we love.”

The implication here is that a child’s life is precious, and must be protected.  I couldn’t agree more.  But the greatest loss of life in this country isn’t from the barrel of a gun as the politicians would let us believe – it’s from abortion.

It is estimated that abortion has ended the lives of somewhere between 50 and 55 million children in the womb from 1973 to 2011.  By contrast, the total number of homicides by gun  in the same time period (by my fuzzy math of a high average of 12,000 per year) is 456,000, and this number includes adults.

Thus, it is no source of confusion on my part about the following statement concerning the Progressive Liberals:

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do (Progressive) Liberals support, in any and all of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?

The justification or defense that I most often hear or read about is that the fertilized egg or group of cells is not life much less a human being.  I must respectfully reject that legal definition that a group of cells of human origin, created by the human reproductive process, and has the potential of developing into a human being is not life.  And there is a reason why I state that a fertilized egg or a group of cells is indeed life.

NASA has spent millions if not billions of dollars on interplanetary exploration in the quest for information.  One of those investigations is evidence for life in our solar system.  NASA scientists are looking for organic material such as DNA or even evidence of a single-cell organism, and has multiple robots and probes scouring our little island of a solar system for said evidence.  If science defines a single cell as being alive, then what is a fertilized egg?

I ran across this quote from Faye Wattleton from Planned Parenthood given during an interview with Ms. magazine (from Abort73.com)

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” – Faye Wattleton, “Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67

I fully understand that Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in the United States.  To hide behind the statement that it’s “the law of the land” will not absolve anyone from the moral & ethical implications of performing or having an abortion. If you recall, “the law of the land” banned abortions in the not so distant past, and was changed only on the basis of falsified testimony. If you don’t believe this last statement, do your own research and learn along the way exactly what an abortion is.  It is perhaps the greatest and most sickening crime against humanity that I can think of.  And yet abortion seemingly continues without question.

So I challenge our politicians who state that they want to protect the children – Draft and pass laws restricting or outlawing abortions.  In other words, do what you say you believe.

Just Reality–An Opinion

Well, back to reality…  Just a few things that are on my mind.


During the manhunt for the Boston bombers, was anyone else uncomfortable with the following?

  • Police sporting full body armor, fully-automatic weapons, riding around on armored personnel carriers?
  • The pseudo “martial law” which suggested / ordered that everyone stay indoors for their own safety?  (I wonder – From the police or from the criminals?)
  • Videos of police breaking down doors and herding the occupants of the houses with their hands over their heads? (definitely without warrants or probable cause?)
  • Police not finding their suspect until the “martial law” was lifted, and a home owner noticed something amiss with his boat?
  • The state of Massachusetts has some of the more restrictive gun laws in the nation, and yet the bombers had no problems obtaining weapons.

Anyone?


The Boston bomber’s family were in this country under a political refugee status.  It is slowly being revealed that the relatives appear to be less than honest people, with shoplifting and fraud being part of their repertoire.  It also looks like they were not political refugees, but just to come to this country to rip the taxpayers off of anything they could get.  I understand that they all were on Welfare for over ten years, and did not hold any jobs to support themselves.

The bombers themselves had grants to go to school, again on the taxpayer’s back.  I’ve seen pictures of them with nice cars & cell phones, all paid for with various assistance programs.  And their friends are no better – they were here under expired student visas because they failed to attend class.

If the above doesn’t scream for reform of both immigration and welfare / assistance programs, nothing else would.

My personal solutions to the above would include:

  • Cancellation of all new student visas.  There are enough students from foreign countries that we have no idea where they are.  Find the slackers and deport them immediately.
  • Return to the policy that a potential immigrant must have an American citizen vouch for them, and can prove that they will be a productive member of society.  We have way too many people gaming the system and getting everything for nothing.
  • Fully investigate all claims for immigration under a political refugee, and deport those who do not pass muster (especially those who are under long-term public assistance, cannot support themselves, and/or have criminal records).

I personally am tired of people committing fraud to enter this country and picking my pocket.


While I’m at it, I’m becoming more opposed to the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform proposals.  I’m sorry to break it to the politically correct, but illegal means illegal, not undocumented.  People broke our laws by crossing our border without the proper authorization, and should be deported.  If I entered any other country illegally, I would be imprisoned, deported, or executed (depending on the country).  To make the illegal legal is nothing more than a political power play, and will weaken this country.

After all, is this a nation of laws, or of feelings?  If we’re the first, then we are strong and can grow & prosper.  If we’re the second, then we deserve absolute chaos and destruction.


I haven’t been following the Gosnell trial too closely – the descriptions of aborted babies is so horrifying that I just cannot stomach it.

I am opposed to abortion on the fact that a person is terminating another person’s life.  I really do not care that there are legal definitions of what a baby, fetus, or cluster of cells represents and what a mother or doctor can legally do during what term of a pregnancy.  This is a developing human life.  The only reason that a pregnancy should be terminated is if the mother is in imminent danger of death, and that survival is not possible.


As a follow up to the above, I find it hypocritical that many of the same people that advocate the right of a woman to abort her baby also state that children are precious.  For example: 

President Obama praises Planned Parenthood (one of the nations leading abortion providers) for their role in women’s health (which includes abortion), and yet making multiple statements that we must restrict or ban guns because we need to save the children.

Let’s talk numbers – First up is the number of abortions in the United States: 

According to the CDC, 784,507 abortions were performed in 2009.  Other years were higher: 825,564 in 2008, 827,609 in 2007, and 846,181 in 2006. 

How does this compare with the total number of murders by firearms for the same years?  From the FBI:  2009 – 9,804, 2008 – 10,195, 2007 – 10,811, and for 2006 -10,225.  Note that the majority of murders (if I’m reading the statistics correctly) are adults (late teens to full adults).

Does this sound like he’s really interested in saving the children?  Not to me…

Common Ground With Liberals?

This topic has been rattling around in my brain for a couple of weeks, and I finally had time to write it up.

In many respects, I can understand the Liberal mindset on issues. They have the same concerns that I have, even though I do not agree with their methods on how to accomplish the stated goal. For example…

The stated Liberal concern for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is their safety. I too am concerned for the men and women of our armed services, and do not want them to be killed or wounded. Our reasoning on how that may best be accomplished and whether Iraq is a lost cause or not differ (and I have written numerous posts on this subject), but we do agree that the sons & daughters of Americans need to be protected.

Let’s next take a look at the educational system. Liberals want our children to be protected from bullying and harm. At the same time, our children need to be endowed with high self-esteem. While I agree with the need for zero tolerance for violence policies and our children needing high self-esteem, we differ on the methods. Where I believe that responsibility for actions and accomplishment lead to high self-esteem and social responsibility, the Liberals want to give unearned praise as the way for establishing this feeling and social attitude (I know, because I’ve seen it firsthand in my son’s school). But again, we do agree that our sons & daughters should have the best school experience possible in as safe an environment as we can give them.

One of the most important topics that we agree on is our children’s safety. Expanding on the above, we want our children to be safe no matter where they may be – in school, at the mall, driving a car, at a party, etc. As such, sometimes ridiculous policies are placed in the schools for their safety. One such example is the removal of pop machines from school property. I would much rather that the children take responsibility for their actions rather than the Liberal tactic of making excuses for their actions and removing the pop machines. While I do think that removing the machines was a good thing, it’s the principle of the matter. But regardless of this Liberal victim mentality, we agree that the health and well being of our children is important.

We also agree that children need to be raised in a responsible manner. After all, a prominent Liberal wrote a book on how it takes a village to raise a child. I personally think it takes two committed and loving parents (man & wife) to do the job correctly. But again, raising children is important – after all, they are our flesh and blood.

Last is the issue of Global Warming. Liberals, by & large, state that man is creating the Global Warming situation. I do agree that the data shows that the Earth is on a warming trend, but I do not agree that it is man-made or if mankind is influencing this trend. Depending on which “expert” and model is being looked at, mankind’s activities are having no effect, some effect, or a huge impact upon the Earth’s weather. Some years ago, the scientists were concerned that the Earth was cooling down, and that a new ice age was just around the corner. Now these same scientists are concerned that the Earth will turn into the next Venus. But regardless of how you look at the data and which side of the issue you are, the main concern is that we both want to leave an Earth for our children and grandchildren to live in and enjoy.

I think that I’ve established some common ground on how important children are to both Liberals and Conservatives. They need to be nurtured and protected from the ills of the world until they are ready to take their place in it. They are to be given the best possible chance to succeed in life, to be happy and productive in whatever career they may choose. Which leads me to one question:

If children are so precious that they must be protected against all harm, real and imagined, then why, why, do Liberals support, in any and all of its grotesque & horrific forms, the abortion of innocent unborn children?