Saturday, April 30, 2016

Nationalism or One-world government: The choices before us…

These are the political options as I see it.  For those who dislike “black and white” comparisons, tough tamales (in deference to borderless Mexico).  It is black and white.

The parties and especially the candidates’ polices make this a black and white issue.

The Democrats are clearly for a one-world government.  Obama, the Clintons, Sanders, Pelosi – the whole crew promote free trade, borderless migration, infinite immigration, policing the world, and foreign handouts we cannot afford.  Reducing our nation’s sovereignty is an acceptable casualty of their aspirations. 

Every one of their policies rack up our national debt, cause us to eliminate jobs while making the United States less autonomous and more subject to the actions of other nations for our prosperity or impoverishment.  They are “progressives”, and the progressive mantra is elimination of national borders and culture while inexorably moving toward one-world governance. The options could also be seen as “greater national sovereignty or less.”

The Republican establishment comprised of the majority in Congress and their supporters and financiers - aka “special interests” - are in philosophical if not procedural lockstep with the Dems with regard to this One World business.  They have the same aspirations, but at a more gradual and less overt pace.  The analogy I will use is “radical Muslims” and “moderate Muslims.”  They both have the same ultimate objective – a one world Islamic Caliphate.  The radicals want it quicker.  The moderates will take their time.

Donald Trump, and to a significantly lesser extent, Teddy Cruz, are the exceptions.  Trumps’ mantra has recently crystalized into “nationalism” – America first.  This wasn’t real clear at the beginning of the campaigns, was it.  Now it is.  He wants every action taken by our government to benefit our Image result for nationalismnation – not the world at large.  Cruz occasionally sounds like he has a similar message, but his recent allies – Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Graham, Fiorina, and “one-world” leaning conservative media – along with his Goldman Sachs wife, Heidi, compromise his sincerity. 

Look at Trumps’ most often stated priorities:

  • Border wall – reducing cheap foreign labor that unfairly competes for our jobs; cutting welfare expense to illegals
  • Correct trade imbalances by entering into trade agreements that benefit American workers more than foreign workers
  • Strengthened military – so that we can bargain from a position of strength
  • Scrap job-killing Obamacare
  • Jobs:  Every action is focused on enhancing job opportunities and wages for American citizens
  • Reduce foreign aid – the level of handouts that we cannot afford given to nations that we cannot effectively influence
  • Stop subsidizing foreign defenses and encourage our allies to devote more of their own resources to defend themselves

Package all these policy proposals together and we have what progressives call “bigoted”, “racist”, and “xenophobic.”      Or in other words, what we have in the past cherished as “nationalistic”, “patriotic”, “loyal”, and “special.”  What just a few decades ago were thought of as great qualities of proud American citizens have been turned on their ear by progressives and become hateful qualities.  Trump is the one candidate who has hit a chord with what I sincerely hope is a majority of us who would like to return to these positive American, and yes, nationalistic qualities.

In Islam, nationalism is abhorrent.  Anti-nationalism is a common bond between progressives and Muslims that helps explain progressives’ affinity for and lack of real concern about Islam.  I just discovered THIS Islamic web site that demonstrates Islam’s anti-nationalist sentiment.Image result for the hanging tree islam

Europe is further along this progressivist, one-world road than is the United States.  A Trump presidency may provide a short-lived reprieve from our trek toward Bush’s New World Order.  But it might also provide a spark that ignites enough pride in our nation to foster a multi-generation march to rebuilding our damaged national pride and prosperity.

To see an example of the extent of sentiment against nationalism, I invite you to Google “Google Images” and enter the word “nationalism.”  You will see in a significant portion of the images how our media and much of the world view nationalism.  Progressives don’t mind sacrificing a very good thing, the former greatness of our nation to join the relative mediocrity of the rest of the world.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Among potential VP women, Joni Ernst stands out

This is how my research began…

My wife casually mentioned that Condoleezza Rice would be a good VP pick for Trump.  So I followed up on that suggestion by Googling “possible Trump VP candidates.”

I focused on women first because that would neutralize the Hillary gender card effect and  THIS website popped up that proposed five options for a female VP:

  • Susana Martinez, New Mexico Governor
  • Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Senator
  • Condoleezza Rice, former  Secretary of State under George Bush
  • Joni Ernst, Iowa Senator
  • Carly Fiorina, former HP exec. and former presidential candidate.

So what about these five?  Do any have potential land mines or obvious positives that would both counter the Hillary debacle and satisfy most conservatives?  While they all have some positives in terms of catering to gender or ethnicity, most have qualities that conflict with Trump’s messaging.

Here are the land mines:

  • Susana Martinez:  She does NOT support repeal of Obamacare in its entirely.  She supports Common Core.  While her Mexican heritage may bring Latino votes, it may also raise concerns about Mexican immigration, both legal and illegal.
  • Kelly Ayotte:  She voted for the comprehensive immigration reform bill of the Gang of Eight.  She voted to extend unemployment benefits to disincentivized the unemployed seeking employment.  She believes “climate change” is real and caused by human activity and supports the Clean Power Plan to address climate change and protect the environment.
  • Condoleezza Rice:  Her baggage is her role as Bush’s surrogate during the Iraq war – she was a proponent of that war.  She championed the ill-informed notion that democracies can be made of centuries old Islamic tribes and Sharia-inclined governments. From Wikipedia:  “In early December 2008, Rice praised President-elect Barack Obama's selection of New York Senator Hillary Clinton to succeed her as Secretary of State, saying "she's terrific".
  • Carly Fiorina:  Carly is Cruz’s VP pick.  Not a good one, either.  She is viewed by many as a failed executive.  She sides with the notion that climate change is real and caused by human activity.  She supported the DREAM Act that provided a path to citizenship illegals who graduate from US colleges or serve in the armed forces.  She was critical of Trump’s proposal to stop Muslim immigration “until we can figure what the hell is going on.”  She expresses little concern about Islam.  And her favorite business author is Communism’s inspiration, Hegel?  Wow!  Here is more on why Carly is a poor choice.


Joni Ernst:  I did not find ANY land mines in Joni Ernst’s Wikipedia profile.

In fact, virtually ALL of her political positions would support the concerns expressed by Trump throughout his campaign.  missing-bioAdd to that the fact that she is the only one of this bunch who served in the US military – having served from 1993 to 2015,  and retired from the National Guard as a Lt. Colonel.  Her current position as a mid-West senator will strengthen Trump’s status in our heartland.  She has been mild and forgiving in Trump’s comments about some women despite the biased headlines that infer otherwise.

Her lack of negatives and her many positives that promote the conservative agenda make her not merely a legitimate pick for Trump’s VP but also superior to Cruz’s pick.  And she represents more of what thinking citizens believe is urgently needed to be done to make America great again.

Here is an interview during Joni’s 2014 Senate campaign…

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Being a known “rule” doesn’t make it right…

I have listened to way too many pundits defending the delegate rules Republicans have used for decades.   They rail against those who believe the rules are “unfair” or “trickery”.  They claim there is nothing unfair about them because they have been in existence a long time.  They claim there is no trickery because the rules are there for anyone to see.

Those defenses of the “rules” miss the point of the concern of the American voter.  While the rules may have existed for a long time Majority Rules cartoons, Majority Rules cartoon, funny, Majority Rules picture, Majority Rules pictures, Majority Rules image, Majority Rules images, Majority Rules illustration, Majority Rules illustrationsand were there for anyone who looked to see, the rules themselves promote insider dealing and lock the voter out of the process.

Not even none other than the otherwise intelligent Rush Limbaugh has made the point clearly.  Even he is all about “well, the rule has been there.”  So has cancer.

Just because a rule is there that benefits “the Party” does not make it fair to the voter.  What’s fair about a rule bypassing the voter and putting some bribed delegate in line ahead of the voters to influence the outcome of the national nomination?  The rules perpetuate a rigged system in favor of the establishment, which Ted Cruz is revealing he is a part of more than we were led to believe.

There are several examples of “rules” that have outlived their usefulness, or perhaps were not even fair or legitimate to begin with.

The rules of British combat during the American Revolution – line ‘em up, head ‘em out to the beat of a drum with an audience of loyalists along the sidelines -  proved to be a severe detriment to British success.

The rules against African American use of the lunch counters or white only Image result for insider  rulesrestrooms were well known and in effect for decades.  Did that make them right?

Congress, too, is well known for making fairly outlandish rules.

And currently, there are rules that intimidate and prevent  those who understand the threat of Islamic doctrine from freely speaking out with the truth about Islam in many parts of Europe, but will lead to disaster for those nations being Islamified into submission because of them.

Just because a rule has been around awhile and is well known does not make it a fair, equitable, legitimate or provide a good outcome.

View this:

Gap between party rules and popular democracy widening...

Those who defend the delegate rules because “they’ve been there the whole time for all to see” does not mean the rule is legitimate and promotes good government.   To the contrary, such rules deprive the citizens of a legitimate say in the nominating process, place the Party ahead of the will of the people, and ultimately disenfranchise the voters in the entire so-called democratic voting process.   If tradition is wrong – to hell with tradition.  If the rule is wrong – to hell with the rule. 

Quit defending the indefensible!

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Asexual, bisexual, unisexual, transsexual: Confused minds reign supreme…

This is from the Department of Utter Confusion, not to be confused with the transsexual female perspective, “udder confusion.”

It was bound to happen.  Gay marriage, celebration of homosexuality, open homosexuality mandated in the military; these have all led to acceptance of many other forms of behavior formerly universally understood to be  perverted , now sanctioned by law and pop culture.  The latest is the implied sanction given to perverts to use the restroom, men’s or woman’s, of their choice.  Sexual perversion is granted the same legal protection as racial integration. 

Here is one commentator’s view of this cultural oddity:

In my opinion it’s a no-win situation.  Trump’s answer was an attempt to escape through the horns of the bull.

That would be my stance also, but the freakin’ ACLU and the confused bastards who don’t know WTF they are will beat it to death (no pun intended).

We’ll just have to see how it plays out.  That having been said, I’d throw it back to the entity that offers the bathrooms.  Mark’em “men only” and “women only” or “confused men” and “confused women.”  Or maybe clarify it with “pricks” and “pussys.”  Or if trans-gender becomes national law “men—keep your hands to yourself” and “women—no peeking.”  Or maybe have all bathrooms labelled “gender neutral” with the added line on ladies  rooms “caution, no urinals.”    Or maybe have just men and women as it is now with the added line “if you’re confused, come back when you figured it out.”  Would it be permissible to have “gender neutral” on both bathrooms with the added line “no perverts?”  How about changing the admonition that used to be seen at FBOs in men’s rooms at smaller airports: “All pilots with small props and low manifold pressure please taxi closer to the fuel pits”  To read “All men with no props, please go sit.”

However we poke fun at our moral decline, it is just that:  A nation that is fine with the moral abyss in the name of “freedom of choice” - a radical obsession with judging those who hang on to any sense of morality as “bigots.”    Stated another way, we are a nation seeing no use for traditional morality.

The mentally confused perverts of our nation are driving our social and legal agenda.  How the hell did that happen?  Here’s how.  Most churches, the self-proclaimed Christians, religious Jews, and those who took traditional morality for granted no longer care.  It is easier to “go with the flow.”  They cannot think of any good reason to uphold moral principles.  It’s too hard, too time consuming, and besides, there are too many other priorities that are more fun, more rewarding, and less controversial.

There are a more than a few of us “holdouts” who clearly see this as a leading indicator of, if not the fall of Western civilization, the precipitous decline of a formerly great nation.

While I love Donald Trump’s message of “make America great again”, that will not and cannot happen without the moral underpinnings that made us great in the first place.  Fiscal discipline and prosperity and status as a respected world power are not sustainable without self-disciplined moral principles (mores) based on beliefs in powers much greater than our mere selves.  Such powers and principles have begun to allude a critical mass of our population.

Image result for princeHere is one more example of the priorities of our pop culture.  Try entering the word “Prince” into Google images.  Instead of respected national leaders of formerly great nations  popping up in that search, 98% of the images are of Prince, the deceased pop iconic performer.  The death of Prince has consumed more hours of national news in his death than I remember any other national figure receiving in the last decade. 
PRINCE'S DRUG DEALER SPEAKS: $40,000 AT A TIME FOR 25 YEARS...  Yes, our culture worships THAT!  So why should we wonder why we don’t care who uses which bathroom?

God help us!

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Give up liberty or give up safety–a chicken and egg dichotomy, oh my…

You’ve heard it said in defense of extreme libertarian intransigence:   “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”  I’m certain this attempt to quote Ben Franklin was made hundreds of times to discredit the FBI’s attempt to hack into the Islamic terrorist’s Apple phone.

Here is what Franklin REALLY said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

While the context of Franklin’s quote was more about taxes for defense of western lands then either liberty or security – as explained HERE - it is not a stretch to interpret the quote in the context of “liberty versus safety.”

There are several other things wrong with this misrepresentation of Franklin’s quote besides misrepresenting it.

First, giving up one or the other is NOT an “all or nothing” event.  There are a thousand shades of both liberty and safety.  Hacking Apple’s phone to achieve an additional increment of “safety” will not obliterate “liberty.”  “Liberty is not destroyed by the NSA doing bulk scans of phone conversations.

I am more prone to reverse the misquote of Franklin’s saying to this:

“Those who refuse to give up a little liberty to achieve safety may end up with neither.”

How can I suggest such a politically incorrect, dangerous and immoral thing?

Here’s how.   Given the state of the world, given the intent and mission of the world’s supremacists via Islamic jihad and the greed and avarice of human nature generally, safety is essential.  Safety by its very nature entails giving up a piece of liberty.  Giving up a piece of liberty for safety assures our liberty.

Those who favor the 2nd amendment and own a handgun to help assure their safety gave up something to purchase and learn how to effectively use their handgun.  They gave up a piece of their liberty to purchase something else with the $500 spent on the handgun.  They gave up a piece of their liberty to spend their time on something else instead of their handgun training.

Some families choose to install a home burglar alarm system.Image result for barbarians at the gate  The same trade offs apply to this purchase.   A little liberty for a little more safety.

If we had neither guns for defense, alarms for intruders, fences for trespassers, walls for privacy, nor armies for defense, we would have no safety.  Having security insures our liberty.

Government programs that monitor and track those intent on destroying or subverting our nation insures our liberty.  Having NO government program to address those intent on destroying or subverting our nation will insure that our liberties are eliminated.

Be careful when you hear neatly misquoted sayings from famous people of the past.  They are often not only applied to current conditions outside of their original context, but end up making little sense if the implications of that distorted advice is actually applied to current conditions.

If we fail to give up a little liberty to achieve safety, we will, in fact, eventually end up with neither.  I always thought there was something a little “one off” with that misquoted expression used against enhancing our national security.  Now that I have thought it through, I am certain.

Here are my preferred expressions:

“We need only enough safety to protect our essential liberties.  Excess safety erodes our essential liberties.”

“Our ‘essential liberties’ are those liberties that remain after we devote some on the safety necessary to assure the preservation of those liberties.”

Saturday, April 16, 2016

The 9-11 Commission Report, 28 secret pages, and Saudi Arabia’s threats…

Recall that 15 of the 19 Muslim 9-11 jihadis were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

Three years later, in July 2004, the 9-11 Commission Report was published, minus 28 pages of details that were not released to the public and which continue to be classified “Secret.”  The entire report, minus the still secret 28 pages is located HERE.

Ever since the 9-11 Commissionn Report was published, the families of the 3,000 victims of 9-11 and millions of others have called for the secret portion of the report to be made public.  In fact, a web site, 28PAGES.ORG, was created as“an information & activism hub for the growing movement to declassify 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11.”

Congress is now actively considering legislation to de-classify those 28 pages.

The revelations that most of us suspected all along are making the Saudi government a bit edgy.  So edgy, in fact, that Saudi Arabia is threatening the United States with selling off $750 billion in US assets if the Saudi Arabian government is implicated in the 9-11 attack.

We know that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens.  It is not a stretch that the Saudi Arabian government was behind that attack.

The timing of Saudi Arabia’s threat is telling.  Congress is about to declassify 28 pages of the 9-11 report that most already suspect demonstrates the Saudi government facilitated if not directed the attack.  If the missing 28 pages do NOT implicate Saudi Arabia, why, then, would they have any reason to threaten us?

Image result for Obama bows to saudi kingThe ironic and troubling thing is that Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US, especially under Barack Obama, with his deep bows to the Saudi King.  We spent and continue to spend billions for Saudi oil each year.  In fact, Saudi Arabian oil imports into the US are second only to Canada, constituting 11% of all oil imports.


Trump on the role of Saudi Arabia…

“In all fairness, we went after Iraq – they did not knock down the World Trade Center, okay? It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center,” he said.

“We went after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay.”

“But it wasn’t the Iraqis,” Trump continued. “You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers there that are very secret. You may find it’s the Saudis, okay?

“But you will find out,” he said.


You have to admit, ever since, and including George Dubya Bush, our relationship and trade with Saudi Arabia has been inexplicable.  The very least our government owes our people is the release ALL of the findings of the 9-11 Report, Saudi Arabian threats be damned.

No, George, Islam is NOT “peace.”  And no, Barack, Saudi Arabia is no friend.  Islam is supremacism, submission, and jihad.  Saudi Arabia is pure Islamic, 100%, and tolerates no others.  And remember, Saudi Arabia is spending billions funding “Middle Eastern Studies” in dozens of US universities.  Middle Eastern Studies indeed.  More accurately, supremacist promotion of Islamic doctrine and incitement against American government and culture.

Diana West adds to the discussion HERE.

And now THIS from the New York Post.  And here is the headline from the New York Daily News.  Read the article HERE.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Republicans great at disenfranchising voters…

Rush Limbaugh says “it’s just part of the ‘game’.”

Michael Savage says “it’s a rigged election.”

Ted Cruz says “Thank you Colorado for another resounding victory!”

And most [establishment] media simply say “Cruz has a better ground game.”

All the above comments were in response to the Republican Party in Colorado deciding a few months ago to deprive the citizens of Colorado the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate.  At the Colorado Republican Convention a few days ago a small number of Republican elite gave Cruz 30 of the 37 delegates without a single vote being cast by voters in the state.  The remaining 7 are uncommitted.

According to the Denver Post in August 2015,

“State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.”

The most recent major presidential poll in Colorado was taken in November 2015 by Quinnipiac University.  That poll gave Trump 17% of the vote when most of the 17 candidates were still in the race. 

Carson was leading with 25%, Rubio was second with 19%, Trump was third  with 17% and Cruz was fourth with 14%.  Given that Carson and Rubio are no longer in the race, Trumps’ and Cruz’  percentage would be much higher if a poll was taken last week.

So what occurred in Colorado?  Is it a “game” with the “rules” made up by 24 Republican leaders among 2,947,020 active Republican voters in the state?  Or is it a superior Cruz ground game?  This debacle is more the result of the Republican Party’s “anyone but Trump” campaign than it is a “great ground game by Cruz.”  Cruz reaped the spoils not intended for him as much as aimed against Trump.

I agree with the Trump camp.  It is gestapo tactics.   I describe it as the Republican version of the Russian Politburo.  I don’t think the term “republic” in “Republican” anticipated 24 Party elites deciding who should get all the delegates in a state with nearly 3 million voters.  This smacks of the Soviet “nomenklatura”, the elite membership of the Soviet governing system, so called because their names appear on the nomenklature or list of the most loyal Party officials eligible for senior posts at home and overseas.

How would you feel as a Colorado Republican voter who didn’t care much for Cruz?

This will bode not just poorly for the “Party” by will go a long way toward  disenfranchising half the voters, splitting and possibly destroying the Republican brand.

What were they thinking?  Is there that much weed in Colorado?

Thursday, March 31, 2016

The hypocrisy of abortion opponents…

Donald Trump caught a bunch of flack for his comments on abortion Wednesday.  The flack didn’t come from just the pro-abortionists, but from conservative anti-abortionists as well.

What did Trump say that caused the media and conservative firestorm?

From NBC News,

“When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban [on abortion], Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."

For the first time that I can recall in the campaign, Trump backtracked and said, in essence, that the doctors performing the abortion are the ones who should be punished.

The anti-abortion folks jumped on Trump’s comments.  Here is Ted Cruz’ criticism representing the popular (but oddly inconsistent) position of anti-abortionists (from “The Right Scoop”):

“Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who opposes abortion rights.

“Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,” Cruz said.

Read more:

No wonder the anti-abortionists have essentially lost their fight.  They are plagued by a severe case of hypocrisy.

Here is the clarifying statement later made by the Trump campaign, which if logic were to prevail, is very unfortunate…

"If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," the statement said. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."

And here is the hypocrisy of many of those “conservatives” who are allegedly against abortion (excerpted from the quoted article, below):

“If abortion is murder, then why aren’t those who oppose it pushing to put people who perform abortions — the doctors and nurses — and those who instigate them — the mothers — and who facilitate them — the fathers — in prison?

“That’s what we do with actual murderers. If I shoot Mr. Pink, then I go to jail, and my pal who loaned me the gun goes to jail, and my cousin who drove the car goes to jail.

Isn’t the pregnant woman at least an accessory in the abortion?  If abortion is 'murder,' why do abortion foes not advocate prosecuting accessories to the crime?

To suggest that the woman who willingly got herself pregnant (not talking about rape or incest here) is the totally innocent victim is irrational and inconsistent with every other aspect of our criminal justice system.

Mr. Trump’s problem in expressing his initial opinion on the punishment of women for abortion is he was being too rational.  His comment revealed a gross hypocrisy among abortion foes.  If the anti-abortion crowd truly believed “abortion is murder” then they would not have such a difficult time with Trump’s comment.  The woman who aborts is at least an accessory to the murder and deserves some sort of punishment.

We had “back ally abortionists” back in the day because not all parties were subject to the penalties of the law.  Apparently only the doctors were.  The primary accessories to the abortion, the woman and the impregnator, where excused as if they had nothing to do with the crime.

The “crime” was the perverted belief that the woman was the victim.  That nonsense continues today and is just one more manifestation of our culture of victimhood – everyone is a victim – no one bears any responsibility for anything.


March for Life quote: 

“No Pro-Life American Advocates Punishment for Abortion”


And therein lies the fatal flaw in the entire pro-life movement.  Beyond that, the statement is not true.

If a crime deserves no punshment, how can it be called a “crime.”  If pro-life folks insist that abortion is “murder” and argue against punishment, they are the bggest hypocrits.  How can you have it both ways?

Here is an article written back in 2011 that poses these questions and attempts to impose some logic onto the twisted view so many abortion opponents have concerning the “crime/victim” obfuscation:


Sunday, April 10, 2011

If abortion is 'murder,' why do abortion foes not advocate prosecuting and imprisoning accessories?

Neil Steinberg's column today poses a tough question in the abortion debate:

If abortion is murder, then why aren’t those who oppose it pushing to put people who perform abortions — the doctors and nurses — and those who instigate them — the mothers — and who facilitate them — the fathers — in prison?

That’s what we do with actual murderers. If I shoot Mr. Pink, then I go to jail, and my pal who loaned me the gun goes to jail, and my cousin who drove the car goes to jail...

The hunch that I’ve that “abortion is murder” is not a sincere conviction, but mere rhetoric.

Well, it's either that or a concession to present political reality.  Foes of abortion rights aren't calling for the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of women, their friends who drive them to the clinic and the entire clinic staff on charges of premeditated murder (what else could it be)yet.

I addressed this question in 2002 during a Rhubarb Patch debate with Nora O'Callaghan, then the director of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago's Respect Life Office.  Here are the excerpts dealing with prosecution:

ZORN: The laws protecting infants make it a felony--first-degree murder, punishable by death or life without parole--for someone of sound mind to participate in the killing of that infant, regardless of the circumstances of its conception.

It’s not an absurd or insincere question to ask of pro-lifers, then, if they would support a severe prison sentence for, say, a 21-year-old woman who had an abortion after discovering herself one month pregnant with the child of a man who had raped her.

The vast majority of people would say no; probably even the vast majority of people in your movement would say no. They would have an almost instinctive sense that such an act would not be equivalent to taking a baby to an executioner one month after birth. Not even close.

I do not raise this just to play gotcha,  but to point out that both sides in this debate really are on the continuum and do see some ambiguities.

O'CALLAGHAN: When the states had laws against abortion, women who had them were treated as “secondary victims” of the offense.  It was the doctors who were prosecuted, with evidence provided by the women.  When a society is far out of whack, corrective laws must take into account the “background” social conditions that led to the  injustice.  I would think it will take a long time to rid ourselves of the cultural degradation caused by Roe, and I don’t think that locking up women who have abortions would be helpful in healing our culture, nor that it would be supported by a majority of people.  Coercion is normally the last (and often least effective) means for creating a just society.  No one even thinks of buying or selling a human being today -- not because they fear jail, but because our culture has internalized the morality of the 13th amendment.

ZORN:  Your own logic locks you into prosecuting women who seek abortions for murder.  You write of such women as “secondary victims” and hem and haw about transition periods and the ineffectiveness of coercion because you know how utterly unpalatable such prosecutions  would be for the vast majority of Americans who do, in the end, see, feel and sense a real distinction between an embryo and, say, a one day old baby.

O'CALLAGHAN: You can say you don’t accept my answer on jailing women for abortion if you wish, it doesn’t change my views.  As an empirical matter, women were not prosecuted under U.S. abortion laws when they were in effect, and compared to the situation today, abortion was very rare.

ZORN: I've been pushing you on the question of whether a woman who seeks and obtains a first trimester abortion, for example, should be charged with first-degree murder in order to probe how profound your belief is that such an abortion is morally equivalent to murder and to invite readers of this debate to consider the implications of that absolute position. I know you don't want to answer--you fall back on historical empiricism rather than tell me what you would do if you were in charge--because the inescapable answer, like the answer that you did provide to my "hard case" hypothetical of the 13 year old made pregnant by her dad,  reveals the morally absolute stance as unpopular at best, unworkably extreme at worst.

Not to say that the absolute pro-choice position is any less extreme or more workable; just to point out, again, that most people on both sides of this debate do not enjoy the refuge of perfect moral clarity or consistency.

I unearthed parts of this debate in April, 2006, in two posts:

  1. Women in prison -- a "partial-birth" abortion issue for the left?
  2. Women in prison? Part two

I'm guessing that, five years later, abortion-rights foes have no better answers than they did then.

UPDATE: On Neil Steinberg's Facebook page he's posted this video in which anti-abortion protesters have a very hard time answering this question. Many, it seems, haven't even thought about it.

Monday, March 28, 2016

The ultimate frustration: Not being able to discuss Islam with the willfully ignorant…


Every now and then, in the course of human events, we experience a situation that tests the limits of Ann Landers-taught social protocol.  I experienced such situation recently.

The situation I experienced was a visit to the home of a couple whose rules of conversational engagement with their visitors are known well – and enforced without mercy:  “Do not discuss religion or politics.”Image result for gagging the truth about islam  In the spirit of exercising my meager social skills I visited despite this taboo.

Of course, the hosts’ definition of “politics” assumed the broadest interpretation anyone can imagine – “the science of good sense applied to public affairs.”  Yes, of course we should stifle the discussion of good sense in public affairs during visits with friends (no wonder our nation is headed to the trash heap of history.)  And “religion?”  I suspect that means any discussion about the belief in anything is taboo.  The permissible topics are limited to gossip about friends, failing health, achievements of grandchildren, and the latest recipes.

The situation that caused me to choke, gag, and severely injure my lips and tongue involved the hostesses mention of her Muslim acquaintance.  She related how she had such pity on this dear Muslim woman because she felt shunned in our culture.  While the Muslima is married to a Catholic husband, and is thought not to practice the Muslim faith, she looks Muslim, not from what she wears, but from the color of her skin, claims her friend. 

I asked if she her friend might just  be a “cultural” Muslim.  I used the example of cultural Jews or Christians who may not attend Synagogue or Church but merely identify with the Jewish or Christian culture and mores. 

I wondered two things:  How did she know her acquaintance was Muslim?  And if the Muslim is not practicing, why does she still insist on identifying herself as a Muslim?

My imagined but rational answers that I kept to myself were these: 

My host likely learned her acquaintance was a Muslim only if she conveyed her beliefs to her – along with a large dose of “poor me – a persecuted Muslim.” 

Image result for gagging the truth about islamAnd why does she insist on identifying as a Muslim despite the reputation Muslims have gained throughout the world?  Most likely NOT because she disbelieves Islamic doctrine and the “perfect” life of Muhammad, but because she DOES believe in these things. 

Her level of belief and devoutness of course cannot be known by mere infidels because Muslims are taught not to trust or take a kafir as a true friend.  I’ve wondered why anyone would openly declare a belief in something that has developed such a bad rep unless they really did believe in it and taken it to heart.

Four seconds expired since I asked my last question.  My “look” at pondering these possibilities must have been a tad transparent because my friend blurted out this statement:  “I believe it is fine that anyone practices whatever religion they want, Catholic, Jew, Muslim.  I think they are all fine.”Image result for gagging the truth about islam

Yes indeed, she thinks they are all fine.  Just like all rattlesnakes are just as fine as green grass snakes.  And the pre-ordained gag order kicked in.  No discussion of religion or politics.   I could not express a word about how ill-informed she was concerning Islam.  Willful ignorance is her preferred state.

I couldn’t mention the blast by devout Muslims in Pakistan that killed 65 and injured 300  Christians celebrating Easter in a park.

I couldn't mention the 20 plus killed and over 130 injured by Muslims at the Brussels, Belgium airport, including several Americans.

I couldn’t mention the Pew poll that reveals that between 63 and 287 million people in Muslim countries support ISIS.  And those are just the ones who are forthcoming.

I couldn’t mention that 51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.   And those are just the ones who are forthcoming.

I couldn’t mention the genocide against Christians in the Middle East at the hands of devout Muslims practicing their faith.

And I couldn’t mention the hundreds of terror attacks per month in name of Islam by Muslims as reported by the Religion of Peace web site.

Jihad Report
Last 30 Days




Suicide Blasts


List of Attacks

I needed to remain Ann-Landers-polite and not offend my host.  And so I was.  And she remains willfully ignorant of Islam, like much of our nation’s self-absorbed population.


Some people edit out Islam as a cause for concern the same way the FBI edits out Islam as a cause of terror attacks.  Read the Clare Lopez report on the FBI purging everything Islamic HERE.  In the case of the FBI it is the seditious Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) that “convinced” them to be willfully ignorant.  What’s our excuse?

More willfull ignorance – this from the New York Times:  Governments can’t figure out why people become terrorists, they “defy a single profile”


Bonus feature:  What millions of us hope for in the US (source unknown):

It has started - Finally!

The first countries to ban Islam:  See how the world is acting fast on the threat posed by Islam and its barbaric Sharia Law.

Japan has always refused Muslims to live permanently in their country and cannot own any real estate or any type of business, and have banned any worship of Islam. Any Muslim tourist caught spreading the word of Islam will be deported immediately, including all family members.

rejects plans for first mosque.

The African nation of Angola
and several other nations have officially banned Islam.

Record number of Muslims, (over 2,000) deported from Norway
as a way of fighting crime. Since these Muslim criminals have been deported, crime has dropped by a staggering 72%. Prison Officials are reporting that nearly half of their jail cells are now  vacant, Courtrooms nearly empty, Police are now free to attend to other  matters, mainly traffic offences to keep their roads and highways safe and assisting the public in as many ways as they can.

In Germany
alone in the last year there were 81 violent attacks targeting mosques.

Austrian police arrested 13 men targeting suspected jihad recruiters.

A Chinese
court sends 22 Muslim Imams to jail for 16 to 20 years for spreading Islam hatred and have executed eighteen Jihadists; China campaigns against Separatism (disallowing Islamists to have their own separate state).  Muslim prayers banned in government buildings and schools in Xinjiang  (Western China). Hundreds of Muslim families prepared to leave China for their own safety and return back to their own Middle Eastern countries.

Muslim refugees are beginning to realize that they are not welcome in Christian countries because of their violent ways and the continuing wars in Syria and Iraq whipped up by the hideous IS who are murdering young children and using mothers and daughters as sex slaves.

Home Secretary prepares to introduce 'Anti-social Behavior Order' for extremists and strip dual nationals of their Citizenship. Deportation laws also being prepared.

The Czech Republic
blatantly refuses Islam in their country, regarding it as evil.

Alabama - A new controversial amendment that will ban the recognition of "foreign laws which would include sharia law".

The Polish Defence League issues a warning to Muslims. 16 States have all Introduced Legislation to Ban Sharia Law.

Many Muslims in Northern Ireland have announced plans to leave the Country to avoid anti-Islamic violence by Irish locals. The announcement comes after an attack on groups of Muslims in the city of Belfast, Groups of Irish locals went berserk and bashed teenage Muslim gangs who were referring to young Irish girls as sluts and should be all gang raped, according to Islam and ''Sharia Law''.
Even hospital staff were reluctant to treat the battered Muslim patients. The majority were given the Band-Aid treatment and sent home with staff muttering ''Good Riddance''.

North Carolina bans Islamic "Sharia Law"
in the State, regarding it
now as a criminal offence.

Dutch MP's call for removal of all mosques in the Netherlands.
Member of the Dutch Parliament said: "We want to clean Netherlands of Islam". Dutch MP Machiel De Graaf spoke on behalf of the Party for Freedom when he said, "All mosques in the Netherlands should be shut down. Without Islam, the Netherlands would be a wonderful safe country to live in, as it was before the arrival of Muslim refugees''.

..and still the bleeding hearts think it is acceptable to accept them into OUR country on "humanitarian grounds" really ? -wake up AMERICA.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

One-world, no borders Catholics complain about candidates…

Global Sisters Report Staff couldn’t care less about the nation that gives them religious freedom.

A full page report in the Florida Catholic of the Orlando Diocese, March 25-April 7, 2016, issue, page A9 lays out their absolute disregard of our nations’ laws in favor of no-borders immigration.

In fact, “Global Sisters” goes so as far as lying about the words of the Image result for catholics and illegal immigrationcandidates.  One example is this:  “…Trump…has basically called Mexican immigrants criminals.   No!  Trump did not basically say that.  He called those who enter the United States illegally, breaking our national immigration laws, criminals.  They are criminals.  They broke our immigration laws.  Makes sense to me, but not to bleeding heart Catholics who prefer to distort the facts to fit their open borders agenda than report facts accurately. 

The balance of the article could just as well have been written by Che Guevara, Chairman Mao or Barack Obama.

One bright spot.  The writers claim that “there appears to be a disconnect among many Catholics between Catholic social justice teaching on immigration and their views.”  True, the majority rank and file Catholics are not for open borders.  They prefer the rule of law which the hierarchy of the Church apparently disdain.  Thank God for Catholic laity!  Most don’t have the same tax-sucking, self-serving illegal immigration agenda as do Church hierarchy. 

The article proposes their Catholic “social justice” agenda include several points:

1)  The right to migrate while giving lip service to the right of countries to make their own laws, apparently only if they agree not to enforce them.

2) “We are a nation of immigrants and I think we tend to forget that.”  But being a nation of immigrants does not justify ignoring our immigration laws.  Apparently, the Global Sisters are confused between “legal and illegal”, and between “law abiding and law breaking.”

Here is a picture of Catholics avoiding application of “The Golden Rule.”

Finally, the article cites the Golden Rule.  The way they wish us to apply it is “if we are ok with ignoring our laws, we should not criticize others for breaking laws.”  Yes, do unto others as we would want others to do unto us if we wanted to ignore our laws.  They want our legal system to be deaf, dumb, blind, and non-existent.

The Global Sisters attitude toward our nation, illegal immigration, and disregard for our legal system verges on sedition.  Shame shame.