How messed up do you have to be?

It's not just about abortion for this radical terrorist, it was about stopping births entirely. Why? My guess is brainwashing.

Tim Pool's take:

RFK Jr. still trying to steal Trump voters

In light of Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court, isn't RFK's pronouncement during this interview, a moot point?  The ruling has basically returned the issue to a state level matter, which is why Trump's new position is exactly right - it's a state matter now.

Beyond that, I still contend he's trying to siphon votes away from Donald Trump, and not be a serious contender.  This position certain walks into pro-Trump territory and away from left leaning voters, and reinforces my belief of the RFK Jr. ultimate goal.

I'm not saying it will work well, but it only needs to work enough, in the right states to make a difference, and that should worry us.

Roe v. Wade: Well, that just happened

I honestly though the leak was fake, designed to get voter blocks to return to the Democrat party. But apparently Roe v. Wade has just been overturned by the Supreme Court. Via Fox:

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion.

Evidence indicated that today could be the day but I was still doubtful.  Instead, I am pleasantly surprised.

Abortion activists breaking the law

 Tim Pool, on abortion activists going after SCOTUS justices at home:

CPAC 2019 - Heartbeat of humanity

NY Abortion Law Insanity

This is just crazy.

Trumps abortion Not-Gaffe

Donald Trump apparently made some abortion gaffe that is supposed to disqualify him from consideration for president.

In case you missed the tempest in a teapot, here's Chris Matthews, the 'interviewer' during the comments in question, on his take on the incident.  I say interviewer because it's clear that he was trying to set up Trump for future Democratic attacks.

What Trump said was not particularly a gaffe. He was basically saying, based on the premise proposed by Matthews, that if a woman breaks a law, she should be punished. It's just like his stance on illegal immigration. If it's illegal, someone who does it is breaking the law. For lawbreakers there is a penalty, or there should be.

Interestingly, at the liberal Huffington Post, they're saying that Trump is demanding accountability and not portraying a woman getting an abortion as an innocent victim in all of this but rather an active participant, most likely (though not always) as was the case during the conception as well. Granted, HuffPo says he gave the respect accidentally, providing the obligatory editorializing of their own pass for Trump.

Nevertheless the real reveal here was not that Trump is a law and order guy and it supercedes abortion considerations, rather the reveal is about Matthews. Clearly they view their political agendas ahead of the law of the land. It also reveals a little bit of inconsistency on the anti-abortion right - they have long held the view that the woman is not the target of the punishment but rather the provider is. When a man visits a prostitute in violation of anti-prostitution laws, both participants are in violation of the law. Why would this be any different?

This is not meant to be a full-throated, mind-numbed robot defense of Trump. As with Rush Limbaugh, I am simply pointing out what I'm seeing. I'm in line with Rush a number of other ways on Trump too. He's not my ideal candidate. I'm not endorsing him. I'm not trashing him either though - if he becomes the nominee, I would support him in a heartbeat over Clinton or Sanders.

People who live in glass Vaticans

Practice what you preach Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is more than head of the Catholic Church — he’s also the head of state of the Vatican, which as a government has possibly the most restrictive immigration and citizenship policies of any nation in the world.

If you think the Pope has the final say on American politics, ask Nancy Pelosi about the previous Pope's (well, all of the previous Popes') position on abortion.

The pontiff didn’t mention illegal immigration during his speech Thursday, but did refer to the large numbers of people coming from Latin America. Advocacy groups cheered his words, saying his call for unity and acceptance should temper some of the harsh rhetoric that’s flared recently.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Thursday Hillary Bash - Generations Edition

Making no sense whatsoever.

Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea doesn't get the irony that she wouldn't be around to make a statement like this if what she stated should have been different had been different like she wanted (whew);

New York, NY (CFAM) — From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.

“Every child a wanted child” is the rallying cry of family planning organizations that promote abortion as a way to achieve that goal. The New York Times Magazine recently described a study of women who were turned away from abortion clinics because their pregnancies were too far along. Researchers found that in the vast majority of cases – 95% – the mothers bonded with their babies. A significant percentage later denied having ever sought an abortion, despite the fact they were included in the study on that basis.

Her much beloved maternal grandmother could have ended up as an abortion and Chelsea Clinton wouldn't have been around to endorse abortion if abortion had been around in her great-grandparents' time.  That is all that needs to be said about her comments.

However, one has to wonder if Hillary has had some thoughts similar to Chelsea's having raised her and shaped her daughter's views.  She needs to be asked, on the record, for an opinion on her daughter's statement.

Gosnell guilty

Convicted.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of 3 counts of first degree murder for his actions in his late term abortions (seemingly post-term abortions)  at his abortion clinic.

I haven't commented on this before because I haven't followed it closely, but it seems the correct verdict was reached in this case.

Sentencing will follow.  As will more commentary.

Hey, it's not above your pay grade anymore!

So Mr. President, where is that Executive Order you promised to gullible and/or complicit Bart Stupak?



I'll just be over here holding my breath.

How to change the mind of a liberal

Do you ever get the feeling that President Obama has got this hyper-triangulation thing going on? He's shifting the country drastically leftward, yet talking to middle class as if he were a centrist. He's taking over banks and car companies but saying he doesn't want to be in those businesses. He's after cap and trade or something similar and CAFE standards but claiming to be on the side of American business and wanting GM to recover. He's beholden to the UAW but cap and trade and CAFE will prevent the automakers from recovering properly. He was against military tribunals for Gitmo detainees before he was for them. He talks fiscal sanity but is fiscally insane. Listening to him speak, who would know where he stands on abortion?

The list goes on and on. He's all over the map, but with a steady drift leftwards. Why is that? He wants the leftward drift and he's getting it. So is he some sort of political mad genius? An idiot-savant? Or is he just flailing around from problem to problem without real solutions and grasping for whatever life preservers are handy?

I think the answer is both. He doesn't know what he's doing as far as running the country goes, but he's politically astute enough to try to take every opportunity and turn it into a shift leftward. It's not so much hyper-triangulation as Dick Morris suggests, but rather hyper Rahm-Emmanuel-ism; never letting any issue, crisis or otherwise, go to waste.

The problem with that is that ideology ends up governing every solution and common sense gets elbowed out of the equation and the results will just get weirder and weirder. If you think Government Motors is surprising, by 2012 it might be the tamest thing to come out of the Obama administration. The beauty of conservatism is that common sense is the basis of every solution.

Revisiting what Rush said - 'I hope he fails', I do too. It is separate and distinct from I hope the country fails. I hope he fails to foist his neo-socialist policies on the country. Maybe enough Democrats will show some spine on health care to prevent it from happening, maybe not. But the real measure of his failure or success will not be determined by President Obama in the next four years.

Ultimately Obama will fail to execute his radical agenda. Enough conservative grassroots momentum will trigger changes in 2010. That momentum will carry through to 2012 and Obama will be a one term President. Then, any radical thing he's implemented will have the chance to be reversed. Any damage he does during his tenure need not be permanent if conservatives and enough moderates realize the implications of how he's jeopardizing the nation's future and act.

How can I be so sure he will fail? Honestly I can't. But the evidence, while painfully slowly, is beginning to mount that people are getting nervous about his agenda. His popularity will inevitably decline.

HOW TO CHANGE THE MIND OF A LIBERAL

But you can ensure that Obama's damage is contained. You have to become involved. You can't wait for the GOP or conservative pundits to do this for you - there's no time. Not everyone can attend a Tea Party, but if you can do so. More importantly, if every conservative were to convert a non conservative voter, we'd own the electoral map. Of course that's easier said than done, so I've included a recipe for you to follow. Don't worry, there's no Kool Aid involved.

1) Find a moderate or non-radical Democrat friend.

2) Determine what issue matters most to them.

3) School yourself on that issue and the details of both the liberal and conservative position.

4) Discuss, in a friendly, non-confrontational but convincing manner the advantages of the conservative position and the disadvantages of the liberal position.

5) Be prepared to back up your points with facts and ready to require them to cite their sources. You aren't looking to humiliate them though just enlighten them. If they can't cite a source, ask them why they believe it. If they can, ask them to question the source by checking out some other sources.

6) Be patient. The acceptance does not come overnight in most cases.

Remember unlike the left that wants to badger and ridicule people into agreement, we want them to come willingly and enlightened into the fold. You are here to persuade them that they can come to a clearer world view. You want them to come to you for more detail, or with questions. When that happens, you have opened a door for them to walk through.

I know that seems like a lot of effort, but the country's future is worth it. And compared to the effort of radical liberals/progressives/socialists/Alinsky-ites it's nothing. You don't need to paint your face, wear a pink wig - unless you really, really want to do that. You don't need to shout silly pre-programmed slogans or assault anyone. DON'T.

Once you've completed that effort, come back and share your comments here on your successes and failures. This can be a learning experience for all of us on how to best change the mind of a liberal. I'd also like to keep 'score' on the success rate of people who try it.

Wedge issues - don't fall for them

One well-known political ploy has always been to find a wedge issue to divide those on the side of your opponent. There are different ways to leverage wedge issues. The abortion example is something both Democrats and Republicans have tried to use to use to peel supporters away from their political opponents.

Another way to use a wedge issue is to find something that simply divides your opponents into disagreeing parties. Divide and conquer. The reaction of the GOP to the Rush Limbaugh issue is a great example. When the Chairman of the GOP Michael Steele bad-mouths Rush after the fact, the Republican party has effectively been wedged. The Democrat intent may have been solely to drive a wedge between the Republican party and mainstream Americans. It wouldn't accomplish that. It may have widened the wedge between the GOP and it's existing haters, but mainstream America wouldn't notice or won't bother to remember the issue come 2010.

But they did accomplish something whether intended or not. They fermented some chaos within Republican circles and re-ignited the moderates versus conservatives issue. Notice Democrats picked up on the idea and started running with it - 'if they want to have Rush as their leader, I think it's a mistake but it's their decision'.

NewsBlaze has the drivel;

The nominal head of the Republican Party is Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele is responsible for overseeing the party's campaigning and fundraising operations, and he will probably excel as a behind-the-scenes organizer. But Steele has all the charisma of a burned out light bulb, and he will fail miserably if he attempts to portray himself as the real leader of the GOP.

The Republicans are in a real quandary, they are in a desperate search for a statesman who can bring together the disparate factions of their party. The Democrats aren't doing them a favor when they argue that Rush Limbaugh is the genuine boss of the GOP. The Dems would love to see the big fat blowhard regarded as the kingpin of the Republican Party, the more Rushbo bloviates the more reasoned and intelligent he makes Obama look.

The Republicans are in such a sad state of affairs, that a case can be made that Limbaugh really is their top dog. Limbaugh's army of dittoheads are ready at a moment's notice to do their master's bidding. If Rushbo orders them to send emails to Congress to protest a specific piece of legislation, in minutes senators and congressmen will be flooded with email.

Really? Is Newsblaze that myopic? Anyway, once again the left is attempting to run the same play with a phony Meghan McCain - Laura Ingrham debate. These are not mere distractions if they keep coming at Republicans. The elevate to nuisance and then to obstacles.

Every day conservatives focus on the minutia of who is right and who is wrong in each case and cannot agree (which is inevitable in every case because it's natural to bring unique perspective to every issue), is a day that is missed for improving the chances of the party for 2010.

Ignore this stuff and start working on what's needed for the next election. President Obama has passed his 50 day mark - what have conservatives done? Tea Party attendance is a real start at something in terms of protest. It doesn't get the GOP better candidates for 2010 but it might get some attention. Ignore the Rush vs. Steel issue and start working on get out the Tea Party attendance (GOTP).

One last note - the wedge issue has been a predominantly defensive issue for the Republicans, we should be using it as an offensive tactic. Topics for use are most welcome - please add your comments.

Stop the Insanity!

Where is Susan Powter when you need her? In yet another cover-your-rear (you know what I mean) move, Senator Chris Dodd is moving to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to temporarily borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury Department.

Another $500 Billion bailout? At least this is from one government agency to another, but it also reinforces the idea that the thinking in Washington - at least among those with the power to make decisions affecting EVERY LIVING AND NOT YET BORN AMERICAN - is to just throw money at every problem. Perhaps in Dodd's case there's a bit of cover your tracks thinking behind this as well. If you throw enough money at the problem and it solves it, then you might hide the fact that you were taking questionable loans from those you were supposed to be over-seeing.

What's the government tally up to now? Has anybody been keeping a running tally of not only the immediate cost but also the debt financing required to carry this? Numbers are varying from source to source - but all are in the trillions, some ranging as high as $20 trillion. The entire world does not have that kind of money. They only way to do this is to borrow against future generations, and that's where the narcissism and selfishness on the left kicks in. The Democrats don't care about the future - and they don't care about future generations. Is it any wonder that a party intent on legalizing abortion would give a damn about what the current generation's grandchildren will have to face? It's a non-issue for them, and it means it's a non-starter in trying to persuade them to think about the unbearable cost implications of what they are doing.

Is it nihilism or a sense of entitlement to instant gratification that is driving this shopping spree? In either case they are going to do what they are going to do. There's no stopping it - we're all doomed. America, North America, the whole world. It's an unstoppable catastrophe.

Or alternatively, you could stand up and be heard.

Please choose the latter. I'm just saying...

Economic house of cards

When you stand back and take a look at the individual elements of the Democrats approach to the economy, whether it be in relation to the current economic 'crisis' or in an overall view of their belief system, a clearer picture of things starts to emerge. It's something conservatives haven't effectively tried to connect the dots on. Their approach to every issue ties into some other aspect of their approach. It's either a clever holistic approach or a patchwork of disparate agendas piled on top of each other that require certain philosophical approaches to keep things from coming apart at the seams. The latter seems more plausible, because upon taking time to examine the the structural integrity of the interconnections, the house of cards really begins to crystallize.

A house of cards is built by layering on multiples of legs standing against each other for support. There's an inherent structural weakness in that removing one card can cause a collapse. When someone therefore, makes an Empire State Building out of cards, it's quite impressive - an achievement of effort, dedication and patience. When a group of people try to cobble together a political philosophy on the same principle, it's inherently dangerous - for them as a political movement, and for the country as a whole.

The Democratic party has a few legs it is able to stand on that, especially in light of a massive spending bill, that apparently will get passed in some form. But a few of the elements that lean on each other do so in some untenable ways. For example, Democrats favor a minimum wage at a fairly high level. But they also favor naturalizing illegal immigrants. Which means scads of cheap labor I suppose the theory goes. But then they favor extensive family planning and legalizing abortion, which probably inhibits domestic population growth in the lower income range more than other ranges. Which means that the re-supply of cheap labor has to come once again from immigration, and to get the numbers needed, means that would include illegal immigration sourcing. Not to mention that the whole tying together of these practices seems as anti-African American as it does pro-immigration. If the African American population is under served by the United States educational system (and elsewhere), then how is adding to the population doing anything to support that demographic? It's just crowding it out - and family planning isn't helping the matter any. Yet the African American community is a pillar of Democrat support. Would it continue to be if it realized the situation fully? Hence the house of cards.

A - minimum wage + B - naturalizing illegal immigrants = C - cheap labor BUT

D - family planning/abortion = E - lower income families reduced = F - reduced labor supply = G - more immigration needed + G - domestic lower income families disenfranchised.

Further looking at the foundations around that leg, another card is the ACORNs of the world. The Democratic party either blindly or with a blind eye, is indirectly engaged in voter fraud. So if that intersects with illegal immigrants being made able to vote, and tangible proof is found, the whole leg of naturalizing illegals, and not preventing illegal immigration is exposed as duplicitous and again, the house would come collapsing down.

Keep in mind that the liberal agenda is all about creating a dependant class, that can be manipulated and controlled by promising them what amounts to a meager share of the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. When you take the time to connect the dots, it's pretty easy to find all sorts of weak spots in the liberal agenda. That makes our job as conservatives a lot easier to define, and the opportunity for victory that much easier.

Next up - a couple of other legs to remove from the house of Democrat cards.