Category: Tom Trinko

208146.jpg

Ford vs. Kavanaugh: There's Nothing to Investigate


The fact that Christine Blasey Ford is refusing to testify before Congress makes it clear that even she doesn’t think she’s credible.

But wait, you say: she’s willing to testify after an FBI investigation.

The problem with that is that there is nothing to investigate.  Christine Blasey Ford’s claims don’t involve rape; that’s just her opinion of what was going on.  She wasn’t even undressed; her clothes weren’t ripped; and once she got off the bed, the alleged rapist just let her walk away and eventually leave the house without any further problem.  That’s the worst-case scenario, assuming she’s not lying.  That sure sounds more like a drunk kid clumsily hitting on a girl who he thought was interested than a kid intent on raping a girl.  It’s bad, to be sure, but it’s not “destroy a person’s life decades later” bad.

Forget that for a moment.  Let’s assume that everything she’s said is true.  What could the FBI investigate?

The bureau would have to find every house in the area where there had been a party for teens over a period of several years and see if anyone remembered anything.  Remember: not only doesn’t Christine Blasey Ford remember the house that this amazingly traumatic event occurred in, but she’s not even sure what year it was.  

But what could any of those people remember?  If Christine Blasey Ford isn’t lying, there are only three possible witnesses: herself, Kavanaugh, and Judge.  According to Christine Blasey Ford’s account, whoever else – the number seems to be changing with time – was in the house would have no way of knowing if something had happened, since the stereo was too loud for anyone not in the room to hear her screams.

What Christine Blasey Ford is asking for is for the FBI to spend literally years tracking down every party anyone at Kavanaugh’s or her high school went to over a span of several years decades ago.  Then, having found nothing more than what we already know today – there are only three people who can be witnesses, according to Christine Blasey Ford, and we already know who they are – then and only then might Christine Blasey Ford be willing to testify.

Every sane person realizes that decades after an event such as what Christine Blasey Ford describes, the only evidence is the witnesses’ testimony.  We can’t do a rape kit when there was no rape.  We can’t check for DNA when there was no sex.  We can’t check phone records when there were no cell phones.

Whether it’s now or after an FBI investigation, it all boils down to the witnesses identified by Christine Blasey Ford.  Kavanaugh has never been accused of such behavior before in his life and says it didn’t happen.  Judge says it didn’t happen.  And Christine Blasey Ford didn’t even mention it to anyone for decades.  When she did mention it, her claim was contradicted by the notes her therapist took.  Which is more likely: he didn’t understand what she was saying, or she desperately needs to change her story to attack Kavanaugh?

What Christine Blasey Ford and her Democrat enablers are asking is that we should allow her charges to go forward without her actually having to expose herself to perjury charges until after a years-long FBI investigation.

The FBI looked at her claim and said there was nothing to investigate.  Either the Democrats have to say the FBI is incompetent, which will really undermine their war on Trump, or they have to accept that there is nothing to investigate.

It’s clear that the Democrats are just trying to delay the vote so they can keep the Court as a tool to make up the laws that Democrats can’t get passed through the democratic process.

It’s time to end this farce.  In every valid #MeToo case, the perpetrators harassed several women, and they harassed in the present, not just decades ago.  All the Democrats have is one politically active leftist woman who can’t even remember where the alleged assault occurred.  She has a lot of incentive to lie and, until she is forced to testify under oath, no reason to tell the truth if it doesn’t support her attack on Kavanaugh.

For those people who say we must believe the “victim,” we can only point to the many cases where women have lied about being assaulted.  Take the stripper in the Duke Lacrosse case, the college student in the Rolling Stone story, and Nikki Yovino.  While leftists think we should just presume that every non-leftist man is guilty based on the uncorroborated claims of one woman, that’s not how justice works.  Women aren’t always honest, and men aren’t always rapists.

Everything about Christine Blasey Ford’s actions – wanting to be able to accuse Kavanaugh anonymously, refusing to testify, not remembering the facts necessary to check her claims, waiting until after the last minute to come forward – is fundamentally different from the other #MeToo cases we’ve seen.  Further, Kavanaugh is completely different from the perpetrators in other #MeToo cases.  Women say he’s a gentleman.  No other accusations have surfaced since he was in high school.  There is no pattern of harassment – only the word of one politically active woman who hates his adherence to the Constitution.

Ignoring for the moment the double standard that let Ted Kennedy to murder a woman and stay in politics but demands that Kavanaugh be cast into darkness based on the uncorroborated, denied, and full of problems claims of one woman, if Kavanaugh isn’t appointed because of this, no conservative will ever be appointed again, because there will always be a leftist woman willing to lie so that she can make sure Americans can keep killing their unborn babies.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

The fact that Christine Blasey Ford is refusing to testify before Congress makes it clear that even she doesn’t think she’s credible.

But wait, you say: she’s willing to testify after an FBI investigation.

The problem with that is that there is nothing to investigate.  Christine Blasey Ford’s claims don’t involve rape; that’s just her opinion of what was going on.  She wasn’t even undressed; her clothes weren’t ripped; and once she got off the bed, the alleged rapist just let her walk away and eventually leave the house without any further problem.  That’s the worst-case scenario, assuming she’s not lying.  That sure sounds more like a drunk kid clumsily hitting on a girl who he thought was interested than a kid intent on raping a girl.  It’s bad, to be sure, but it’s not “destroy a person’s life decades later” bad.

Forget that for a moment.  Let’s assume that everything she’s said is true.  What could the FBI investigate?

The bureau would have to find every house in the area where there had been a party for teens over a period of several years and see if anyone remembered anything.  Remember: not only doesn’t Christine Blasey Ford remember the house that this amazingly traumatic event occurred in, but she’s not even sure what year it was.  

But what could any of those people remember?  If Christine Blasey Ford isn’t lying, there are only three possible witnesses: herself, Kavanaugh, and Judge.  According to Christine Blasey Ford’s account, whoever else – the number seems to be changing with time – was in the house would have no way of knowing if something had happened, since the stereo was too loud for anyone not in the room to hear her screams.

What Christine Blasey Ford is asking for is for the FBI to spend literally years tracking down every party anyone at Kavanaugh’s or her high school went to over a span of several years decades ago.  Then, having found nothing more than what we already know today – there are only three people who can be witnesses, according to Christine Blasey Ford, and we already know who they are – then and only then might Christine Blasey Ford be willing to testify.

Every sane person realizes that decades after an event such as what Christine Blasey Ford describes, the only evidence is the witnesses’ testimony.  We can’t do a rape kit when there was no rape.  We can’t check for DNA when there was no sex.  We can’t check phone records when there were no cell phones.

Whether it’s now or after an FBI investigation, it all boils down to the witnesses identified by Christine Blasey Ford.  Kavanaugh has never been accused of such behavior before in his life and says it didn’t happen.  Judge says it didn’t happen.  And Christine Blasey Ford didn’t even mention it to anyone for decades.  When she did mention it, her claim was contradicted by the notes her therapist took.  Which is more likely: he didn’t understand what she was saying, or she desperately needs to change her story to attack Kavanaugh?

What Christine Blasey Ford and her Democrat enablers are asking is that we should allow her charges to go forward without her actually having to expose herself to perjury charges until after a years-long FBI investigation.

The FBI looked at her claim and said there was nothing to investigate.  Either the Democrats have to say the FBI is incompetent, which will really undermine their war on Trump, or they have to accept that there is nothing to investigate.

It’s clear that the Democrats are just trying to delay the vote so they can keep the Court as a tool to make up the laws that Democrats can’t get passed through the democratic process.

It’s time to end this farce.  In every valid #MeToo case, the perpetrators harassed several women, and they harassed in the present, not just decades ago.  All the Democrats have is one politically active leftist woman who can’t even remember where the alleged assault occurred.  She has a lot of incentive to lie and, until she is forced to testify under oath, no reason to tell the truth if it doesn’t support her attack on Kavanaugh.

For those people who say we must believe the “victim,” we can only point to the many cases where women have lied about being assaulted.  Take the stripper in the Duke Lacrosse case, the college student in the Rolling Stone story, and Nikki Yovino.  While leftists think we should just presume that every non-leftist man is guilty based on the uncorroborated claims of one woman, that’s not how justice works.  Women aren’t always honest, and men aren’t always rapists.

Everything about Christine Blasey Ford’s actions – wanting to be able to accuse Kavanaugh anonymously, refusing to testify, not remembering the facts necessary to check her claims, waiting until after the last minute to come forward – is fundamentally different from the other #MeToo cases we’ve seen.  Further, Kavanaugh is completely different from the perpetrators in other #MeToo cases.  Women say he’s a gentleman.  No other accusations have surfaced since he was in high school.  There is no pattern of harassment – only the word of one politically active woman who hates his adherence to the Constitution.

Ignoring for the moment the double standard that let Ted Kennedy to murder a woman and stay in politics but demands that Kavanaugh be cast into darkness based on the uncorroborated, denied, and full of problems claims of one woman, if Kavanaugh isn’t appointed because of this, no conservative will ever be appointed again, because there will always be a leftist woman willing to lie so that she can make sure Americans can keep killing their unborn babies.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

209077.jpg

Dianne Feinstein Prepares a Deathblow for Kavanaugh


Yesterday, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein claimed that an anonymous woman may have accused Brett Kavanaugh of doing something in high school.

While the fake news media are having a field day, the truth is that only two Democrats have seen the letter, the person who wrote the letter is refusing to come forward, and we haven’t been told what the letter claims, but we have been told that it dates back to when Kavanaugh was in high school.

I’m so old that I remember when people like Feinstein were telling us that Obama’s regular, and criminal, use of drugs in high school was no big deal.  But now some anonymous accuser is claiming that Kavanaugh may have done something during high school, and leftists are beside themselves at the horror of it all.

Actually, I’m even older than that.  I remember when Feinstein told us Clinton’s lying under oath in order to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit had nothing to do with his fitness to be president.  She did say Clinton’s actions were “immoral, deplorable, and indefensible” and merited “strong condemnation and censure.”  Given that she voted to acquit Clinton, it would seem that Feinstein believes that being guilty of immoral, deplorable, and indefensible things has no bearing on a person’s suitability to be president.

But, apparently, anonymous sources claiming undefined things are enough to cause Feinstein to be even more upset at Kavanaugh.

There are actually several things going on here.

The most obvious is that as usual, leftists are resorting to character assassination when the facts don’t support their point of view.  The Democrats are trying to smear Kavanaugh – just as the racist Democrats tried to smear Justice Thomas because he didn’t stay on the Democrats’ thought plantation – with baseless charges.

Keep in mind that all the leftist positions are intellectually indefensible, so they’ve long since given up trying to use facts, reason, or logic to convince people that the left is right.  Rather, it’s all about emotions and personal attacks and the use of tyrannical force by the Supreme Court.  Trying to confuse voters by declaring that every rational person who disagrees with the left is a Nazi, deplorable, racist, homophobic hater is the left’s only rhetorical tool, along with lying about everything, of course.

Next most obvious is that Feinstein is facing a serious challenge to her seat in the Senate by an even farther left-wing Democrat loon from California.  Yes, in today’s circle of Democrats in power in California, Feinstein is far too moderate; she didn’t even get the Democrats’ endorsement for the Senate seat.

Interestingly, her challenger, Kevin de León, was president of the California state Senate when a massive #MeToo moment allegedly occurred.  One hundred forty-seven women signed a letter saying the Democrat-run capitol “perpetuates “pervasive” abuses, including sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and “dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces[.]”

De León even shared an apartment with one of the supposedly worst perpetrators, but of course de León had no idea what was going on.

So what better way to stick a shiv into de León than to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination while bringing the idea of women being molested by men of power to the fore?  We have no idea if the letter, assuming it’s not totally made up, involves a high school boy – one of the least powerful people on the planet when it comes to women – and a high school girl and #MeToo, but that’s what the left is hinting at – that way, it’s harder to sue when it turns out to be a lie, but it won’t protect them from laughter if it turns out to be a jilted girlfriend claiming a stolen kiss when she was 18.

Another aspect of this smear is that the Democrats are desperate to delay this appointment until after the election.  If they manage to win the Senate, they’ll try to delegitimize any vote taken after the election, and the leftist Republican senators will be more likely to go along with that.  Even if they don’t win the Senate, they’ll have made their base think they could defeat Kavanaugh, which will keep voters voting Democrat.

The last aspect is that the left believes that if it can’t control the court, it has to delegitimize it. 

While the left proclaimed the Court was just short of being Obama – the closest thing to God the left believes in – when the Court overthrew the laws of all 50 states to legalize abortion for any reason at any time up until birth and when it declared that the Founders had intended the Constitution to require marriage to be redefined, that “worship” must now change in a heartbeat to prevent the Court from actually doing its job.

Leftists believe that if the left can’t use the Court to tyrannize Americans, then Americans can’t use the Court to actually defend the Constitution.  If it doesn’t serve the left’s agenda, it needs to be burned to the ground.

One final note.  Feinstein has referred this anonymous missive to the FBI. 

Yeah, the same FBI that we know is so politically biased that it used unverified Russian-sourced Democrat-paid for opposition research to enable spying on the Trump campaign.  The same FBI that said it was okay for Hillary to expose all of her government emails to Chinese hackers.

It’ll be interesting to see what leaks, and how accurate they turn out to be, come from this.  After all, the latest set of revealing emails indicates that some of the reporters Peter Strzok was leaking to weren’t happy about the fact that the leaks contained inaccuracies, so it doesn’t appear that the FBI feels the need to carefully fact-check its anonymous leaks.

Vegas will probably be taking odds on how long before the FBI goes to the FISA court claiming that the anonymous letter proves that Kavanaugh is a Putin puppet.

Given that we’re in a fight for America, if the Democrats pick Kennedy’s replacement, we’ll have a Supreme Court that explicitly rejects any and all constitutional constraints on the left’s fascist program.  It’s critical that you tell your friends, family members, and co-workers that Feinstein’s ploy is unlikely to be true.

After all, if there were any truth to the claim, it would have been brought out by the Democrats during the hearings to make Trump look stupid.  But if it’s false, then it will discredit the #MeToo movement by making it look as though all women who are harassed are just lying about it for political gain.

Is it really a good deal to empower people like Harvey Weinstein in order to inconvenience Kavanaugh?

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Yesterday, Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein claimed that an anonymous woman may have accused Brett Kavanaugh of doing something in high school.

While the fake news media are having a field day, the truth is that only two Democrats have seen the letter, the person who wrote the letter is refusing to come forward, and we haven’t been told what the letter claims, but we have been told that it dates back to when Kavanaugh was in high school.

I’m so old that I remember when people like Feinstein were telling us that Obama’s regular, and criminal, use of drugs in high school was no big deal.  But now some anonymous accuser is claiming that Kavanaugh may have done something during high school, and leftists are beside themselves at the horror of it all.

Actually, I’m even older than that.  I remember when Feinstein told us Clinton’s lying under oath in order to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit had nothing to do with his fitness to be president.  She did say Clinton’s actions were “immoral, deplorable, and indefensible” and merited “strong condemnation and censure.”  Given that she voted to acquit Clinton, it would seem that Feinstein believes that being guilty of immoral, deplorable, and indefensible things has no bearing on a person’s suitability to be president.

But, apparently, anonymous sources claiming undefined things are enough to cause Feinstein to be even more upset at Kavanaugh.

There are actually several things going on here.

The most obvious is that as usual, leftists are resorting to character assassination when the facts don’t support their point of view.  The Democrats are trying to smear Kavanaugh – just as the racist Democrats tried to smear Justice Thomas because he didn’t stay on the Democrats’ thought plantation – with baseless charges.

Keep in mind that all the leftist positions are intellectually indefensible, so they’ve long since given up trying to use facts, reason, or logic to convince people that the left is right.  Rather, it’s all about emotions and personal attacks and the use of tyrannical force by the Supreme Court.  Trying to confuse voters by declaring that every rational person who disagrees with the left is a Nazi, deplorable, racist, homophobic hater is the left’s only rhetorical tool, along with lying about everything, of course.

Next most obvious is that Feinstein is facing a serious challenge to her seat in the Senate by an even farther left-wing Democrat loon from California.  Yes, in today’s circle of Democrats in power in California, Feinstein is far too moderate; she didn’t even get the Democrats’ endorsement for the Senate seat.

Interestingly, her challenger, Kevin de León, was president of the California state Senate when a massive #MeToo moment allegedly occurred.  One hundred forty-seven women signed a letter saying the Democrat-run capitol “perpetuates “pervasive” abuses, including sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation, and “dehumanizing behavior by men with power in our workplaces[.]”

De León even shared an apartment with one of the supposedly worst perpetrators, but of course de León had no idea what was going on.

So what better way to stick a shiv into de León than to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination while bringing the idea of women being molested by men of power to the fore?  We have no idea if the letter, assuming it’s not totally made up, involves a high school boy – one of the least powerful people on the planet when it comes to women – and a high school girl and #MeToo, but that’s what the left is hinting at – that way, it’s harder to sue when it turns out to be a lie, but it won’t protect them from laughter if it turns out to be a jilted girlfriend claiming a stolen kiss when she was 18.

Another aspect of this smear is that the Democrats are desperate to delay this appointment until after the election.  If they manage to win the Senate, they’ll try to delegitimize any vote taken after the election, and the leftist Republican senators will be more likely to go along with that.  Even if they don’t win the Senate, they’ll have made their base think they could defeat Kavanaugh, which will keep voters voting Democrat.

The last aspect is that the left believes that if it can’t control the court, it has to delegitimize it. 

While the left proclaimed the Court was just short of being Obama – the closest thing to God the left believes in – when the Court overthrew the laws of all 50 states to legalize abortion for any reason at any time up until birth and when it declared that the Founders had intended the Constitution to require marriage to be redefined, that “worship” must now change in a heartbeat to prevent the Court from actually doing its job.

Leftists believe that if the left can’t use the Court to tyrannize Americans, then Americans can’t use the Court to actually defend the Constitution.  If it doesn’t serve the left’s agenda, it needs to be burned to the ground.

One final note.  Feinstein has referred this anonymous missive to the FBI. 

Yeah, the same FBI that we know is so politically biased that it used unverified Russian-sourced Democrat-paid for opposition research to enable spying on the Trump campaign.  The same FBI that said it was okay for Hillary to expose all of her government emails to Chinese hackers.

It’ll be interesting to see what leaks, and how accurate they turn out to be, come from this.  After all, the latest set of revealing emails indicates that some of the reporters Peter Strzok was leaking to weren’t happy about the fact that the leaks contained inaccuracies, so it doesn’t appear that the FBI feels the need to carefully fact-check its anonymous leaks.

Vegas will probably be taking odds on how long before the FBI goes to the FISA court claiming that the anonymous letter proves that Kavanaugh is a Putin puppet.

Given that we’re in a fight for America, if the Democrats pick Kennedy’s replacement, we’ll have a Supreme Court that explicitly rejects any and all constitutional constraints on the left’s fascist program.  It’s critical that you tell your friends, family members, and co-workers that Feinstein’s ploy is unlikely to be true.

After all, if there were any truth to the claim, it would have been brought out by the Democrats during the hearings to make Trump look stupid.  But if it’s false, then it will discredit the #MeToo movement by making it look as though all women who are harassed are just lying about it for political gain.

Is it really a good deal to empower people like Harvey Weinstein in order to inconvenience Kavanaugh?

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

208802.png

A Solution to Internet Tyranny


There’s a simple constitutional solution to the problem of Internet tyranny which does not involve the government controlling the Internet.

Right now, the tech giants are having their cake and eating it too.  They say that they are content-neutral platforms which do not control what information appears on their sites, when they in fact control the content of their sites by censoring voices they don’t like.

The reason that it’s critical, from a financial perspective, for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. to be considered platforms is that platforms can’t be sued for libelous content.

But publishers can be sued for the simple reason that a publisher controls the information that is present on their site while a platform doesn’t.

It’s a good thing that platforms can’t be sued for content because that allows people to exercise their First Amendment rights and to communicate; that’s why the social media sites have been such a good thing for society up till now.

However, now that those sites have decided to silence voices they don’t like, they have become tools of tyranny; it’s not surprising that Google dropped its “Don’t be evil” motto.  We need to take action to prevent them from achieving their goal of “deplatforming” all voices they don’t like.

Deplatforming is the current left-wing euphemism for censorship and it is universally applied only to conservative voices.  It means censoring any speech by a group solely based on its legal content.

The simple technique that can be used to end the censorship is to have DoJ interpret existing law, or for Congress to pass a law, stating that any Internet site that controls its content for any reason other than criminal activity is a publisher, not a platform.

For example if a site removes only criminal posts — advocating violence, terrorist recruiting, child porn, etc. — then they would be considered a platform.  But if they removed content based on First Amendment protected speech — removing Antifa is violent posts vs removing posts that call for killing members of Antifa — they would be considered a publisher.

This is consistent with the common and legal understanding of publishers and platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if someone calls you up and libels you because AT&T doesn’t control what’s said over its phone lines. But if AT&T suddenly started censoring certain calls then you would be able to sue them because they would be controlling, and hence responsible for, their content.

Given the amoral sharklike nature of lawyers, the idea of being able to sue amazingly deep-pocketed companies like Facebook would bring about a legal feeding frenzy that would cost social-media companies a fortune and generate a great deal of bad publicity.

While libel is hard to show against public figures, it’s much easier to show against non-public figures.  Hence if someone calls Trump a Nazi, it’s essentially impossible for Trump to sue for libel.  But if some drugged-up Antifa calls a conservative black person a Klan member, the fact that the black person is not a public figure means that there is a good chance that he could win a libel suit.  That’s why lawyers would love this; what’s more likely to convince some jury to award huge amounts of money than a simple housewife, a gay man, or a black pastor being viciously libeled by an amazingly rich company?

Contrary to the concerns of the “let’s surrender now rather than wait for later” conservatives who declare that Facebook et al have the right to control their content — apparently unlike bakers in Colorado — demanding that sites that control their content be held responsible for their content is not an attack on the First Amendment but rather simply stating that a publisher is legally responsible for what they publish. If a book publisher published a book that lied about a non-public person it would be sued in an instant.  That’s why publishers employ fact checkers and require sourcing for claims.

Unless one wishes to argue that libel and slander laws are attacks on the First Amendment, asserting that sites that control their content — which is what censoring conservative voices is — are responsible for that content is not an assault on the First Amendment.

This leaves the job of enforcing neutrality on the people, not the government. The government doesn’t have to decide what should or shouldn’t be on the internet.  The definition of what comprises criminal posts is already contained in the law so no new action would be required.

The problem with censorship by left-wing social media platforms is due solely to the fact that we’ve let those sites become publishers without having to accept the responsibility that entails.  The “let’s surrender today” conservatives are right that as private companies Facebook et al can choose what they publish, but that doesn’t mean that those sites should get a pass on the same libel and slander laws that every other publisher has to worry about.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

There’s a simple constitutional solution to the problem of Internet tyranny which does not involve the government controlling the Internet.

Right now, the tech giants are having their cake and eating it too.  They say that they are content-neutral platforms which do not control what information appears on their sites, when they in fact control the content of their sites by censoring voices they don’t like.

The reason that it’s critical, from a financial perspective, for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. to be considered platforms is that platforms can’t be sued for libelous content.

But publishers can be sued for the simple reason that a publisher controls the information that is present on their site while a platform doesn’t.

It’s a good thing that platforms can’t be sued for content because that allows people to exercise their First Amendment rights and to communicate; that’s why the social media sites have been such a good thing for society up till now.

However, now that those sites have decided to silence voices they don’t like, they have become tools of tyranny; it’s not surprising that Google dropped its “Don’t be evil” motto.  We need to take action to prevent them from achieving their goal of “deplatforming” all voices they don’t like.

Deplatforming is the current left-wing euphemism for censorship and it is universally applied only to conservative voices.  It means censoring any speech by a group solely based on its legal content.

The simple technique that can be used to end the censorship is to have DoJ interpret existing law, or for Congress to pass a law, stating that any Internet site that controls its content for any reason other than criminal activity is a publisher, not a platform.

For example if a site removes only criminal posts — advocating violence, terrorist recruiting, child porn, etc. — then they would be considered a platform.  But if they removed content based on First Amendment protected speech — removing Antifa is violent posts vs removing posts that call for killing members of Antifa — they would be considered a publisher.

This is consistent with the common and legal understanding of publishers and platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if someone calls you up and libels you because AT&T doesn’t control what’s said over its phone lines. But if AT&T suddenly started censoring certain calls then you would be able to sue them because they would be controlling, and hence responsible for, their content.

Given the amoral sharklike nature of lawyers, the idea of being able to sue amazingly deep-pocketed companies like Facebook would bring about a legal feeding frenzy that would cost social-media companies a fortune and generate a great deal of bad publicity.

While libel is hard to show against public figures, it’s much easier to show against non-public figures.  Hence if someone calls Trump a Nazi, it’s essentially impossible for Trump to sue for libel.  But if some drugged-up Antifa calls a conservative black person a Klan member, the fact that the black person is not a public figure means that there is a good chance that he could win a libel suit.  That’s why lawyers would love this; what’s more likely to convince some jury to award huge amounts of money than a simple housewife, a gay man, or a black pastor being viciously libeled by an amazingly rich company?

Contrary to the concerns of the “let’s surrender now rather than wait for later” conservatives who declare that Facebook et al have the right to control their content — apparently unlike bakers in Colorado — demanding that sites that control their content be held responsible for their content is not an attack on the First Amendment but rather simply stating that a publisher is legally responsible for what they publish. If a book publisher published a book that lied about a non-public person it would be sued in an instant.  That’s why publishers employ fact checkers and require sourcing for claims.

Unless one wishes to argue that libel and slander laws are attacks on the First Amendment, asserting that sites that control their content — which is what censoring conservative voices is — are responsible for that content is not an assault on the First Amendment.

This leaves the job of enforcing neutrality on the people, not the government. The government doesn’t have to decide what should or shouldn’t be on the internet.  The definition of what comprises criminal posts is already contained in the law so no new action would be required.

The problem with censorship by left-wing social media platforms is due solely to the fact that we’ve let those sites become publishers without having to accept the responsibility that entails.  The “let’s surrender today” conservatives are right that as private companies Facebook et al can choose what they publish, but that doesn’t mean that those sites should get a pass on the same libel and slander laws that every other publisher has to worry about.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

Pope Francis and Church Doctrine


The fake news media (FNM) lie, through omission and commission, all the time about anything that impacts their political agenda.  Hence, it’s not surprising that they’re distorting what Pope Francis said about the death penalty.

Pope Francis has not changed Church doctrine.  What he’s said does not mean that the Church can change its stance on the morality of the active gay lifestyle or divorce and remarriage.

This is far from the first time that the FNM have distorted what Pope Francis really said.  We’ve all heard a lot about what Pope Francis has said about our responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, but how many of you have heard that Pope Francis wrote the following?

Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?

That’s right: the pope has said that being “pro-choice” is incompatible with being green.

Similarly, during the election, the FNM told us the pope said Trump isn’t a Christian.  However, when the actual transcript of what the pope said was made available, it was clear that Pope Francis had said no such thing.

To understand what Pope Francis actually said, it’s necessary to know what the Church has always taught about the death penalty.  For 2,000 years, the Church has said society has the right to protect itself from criminals by executing those criminals.  That is, the death penalty, unlike abortion, is not intrinsically and always immoral.

Saint Pope John Paul II said we should reject the death penalty not because it’s intrinsically immoral, which it isn’t, but because in doing so, we make a radical stand against the Culture of Death.  In our world, leftists call for killing the unborn, the elderly, and the differently abled because they are a “burden” on society.  What more blatant rejection of that utilitarian philosophy that treats people as commodities is there than saying we won’t kill even those who are monstrously evil?

Saint Pope John Paul II also said that given the ability of modern society to prevent criminals from killing again without executing them, through life sentences, etc., it’s rare that society needs to execute someone.

It’s important to note that that is what Catholics call a prudential judgment, not a statement of moral theology.  A prudential judgment is where people apply a moral principle to a real-world problem.  Saint Pope John Paul II said that in his personal opinion, modern society can protect itself, in most cases, without executing anyone.  That is assessing the state of the world, not defining what Christ taught about how we are to behave.

For example, Saint Pope John Paul II also taught that we need to have a preferential option for the poor, and the Church has always taught that we have an obligation to help the poor.  But it’s a matter of prudential judgment whether the best way to help the poor is through a massive, inefficient, and costly federal bureaucracy or by reducing taxes so individuals can give more to efficient private charities with the federal government running a minimal safety net, as Ronald Reagan called it, to ensure that no one starves.

On prudential matters, the Church teaches that good people can have different opinions and not be going against the Church so long as they are trying to achieve the moral objective that the Church promulgates.

While Catholics are obliged to listen to and think about what the pope says on matters of prudential judgment, they are not required to agree with him.  Contrary to what many Americans think, while the popes can make infallible statements on matters of faith and morals, they do not do so with any regularity, and they are not infallible on matters of prudential judgment.

What Pope Francis has said about the death penalty is a matter of prudential judgment.  He declared in his revision to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption[.]

Note that this is a prudential judgment.  It’s a statement about what works in the world, not about the relevant moral principle.

Even in the U.S., a prisoner incarcerated for life can be a threat to society.  The person may escape and kill again, or he may kill a guard or a fellow prisoner.  Even worse, he could be a gang leader who continues to order killings from his prison cell.

There is clearly room for discussion and investigation into just how safe life sentences are versus executions.  In the U.S., the pope could be right.  But just as clearly, when one looks at places like Somalia, Libya, and any number of other third-world countries with porous jails and corrupt judicial systems, it’s not obvious that those societies can protect themselves without the death penalty.

It’s obvious, then, that the pope hasn’t changed the Church’s doctrine that society has the right to execute criminals in order to defend the innocent.  Rather, he’s made the prudential judgment that in today’s world, protecting society no longer requires the death penalty.

He may be right, and he may be wrong, but he is not changing Church teaching because the Church’s moral teaching is that society has a right to protect itself.  It’s a matter of prudential judgment to apply that moral requirement to the real fallen world we live in.

When you see an article claiming that Pope Francis’s position about the death penalty means that the Church’s teachings on morality, such the morality of sex outside marriage between one man and one woman, can change, you now know why that’s simply not true.

Pope Francis has not said the death penalty is intrinsically evil or that society doesn’t have the right to protect itself from evil people, which are moral teachings of the Church.

Rather, he’s said that in his prudential judgment, society does not need to execute people to protect itself.  Furthermore, if execution is not needed, then it’s better to allow evil people to live so that they may repent and be saved.

This issue is just one more example of the fact that the FNM can’t be trusted on any issue.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

The fake news media (FNM) lie, through omission and commission, all the time about anything that impacts their political agenda.  Hence, it’s not surprising that they’re distorting what Pope Francis said about the death penalty.

Pope Francis has not changed Church doctrine.  What he’s said does not mean that the Church can change its stance on the morality of the active gay lifestyle or divorce and remarriage.

This is far from the first time that the FNM have distorted what Pope Francis really said.  We’ve all heard a lot about what Pope Francis has said about our responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, but how many of you have heard that Pope Francis wrote the following?

Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?

That’s right: the pope has said that being “pro-choice” is incompatible with being green.

Similarly, during the election, the FNM told us the pope said Trump isn’t a Christian.  However, when the actual transcript of what the pope said was made available, it was clear that Pope Francis had said no such thing.

To understand what Pope Francis actually said, it’s necessary to know what the Church has always taught about the death penalty.  For 2,000 years, the Church has said society has the right to protect itself from criminals by executing those criminals.  That is, the death penalty, unlike abortion, is not intrinsically and always immoral.

Saint Pope John Paul II said we should reject the death penalty not because it’s intrinsically immoral, which it isn’t, but because in doing so, we make a radical stand against the Culture of Death.  In our world, leftists call for killing the unborn, the elderly, and the differently abled because they are a “burden” on society.  What more blatant rejection of that utilitarian philosophy that treats people as commodities is there than saying we won’t kill even those who are monstrously evil?

Saint Pope John Paul II also said that given the ability of modern society to prevent criminals from killing again without executing them, through life sentences, etc., it’s rare that society needs to execute someone.

It’s important to note that that is what Catholics call a prudential judgment, not a statement of moral theology.  A prudential judgment is where people apply a moral principle to a real-world problem.  Saint Pope John Paul II said that in his personal opinion, modern society can protect itself, in most cases, without executing anyone.  That is assessing the state of the world, not defining what Christ taught about how we are to behave.

For example, Saint Pope John Paul II also taught that we need to have a preferential option for the poor, and the Church has always taught that we have an obligation to help the poor.  But it’s a matter of prudential judgment whether the best way to help the poor is through a massive, inefficient, and costly federal bureaucracy or by reducing taxes so individuals can give more to efficient private charities with the federal government running a minimal safety net, as Ronald Reagan called it, to ensure that no one starves.

On prudential matters, the Church teaches that good people can have different opinions and not be going against the Church so long as they are trying to achieve the moral objective that the Church promulgates.

While Catholics are obliged to listen to and think about what the pope says on matters of prudential judgment, they are not required to agree with him.  Contrary to what many Americans think, while the popes can make infallible statements on matters of faith and morals, they do not do so with any regularity, and they are not infallible on matters of prudential judgment.

What Pope Francis has said about the death penalty is a matter of prudential judgment.  He declared in his revision to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption[.]

Note that this is a prudential judgment.  It’s a statement about what works in the world, not about the relevant moral principle.

Even in the U.S., a prisoner incarcerated for life can be a threat to society.  The person may escape and kill again, or he may kill a guard or a fellow prisoner.  Even worse, he could be a gang leader who continues to order killings from his prison cell.

There is clearly room for discussion and investigation into just how safe life sentences are versus executions.  In the U.S., the pope could be right.  But just as clearly, when one looks at places like Somalia, Libya, and any number of other third-world countries with porous jails and corrupt judicial systems, it’s not obvious that those societies can protect themselves without the death penalty.

It’s obvious, then, that the pope hasn’t changed the Church’s doctrine that society has the right to execute criminals in order to defend the innocent.  Rather, he’s made the prudential judgment that in today’s world, protecting society no longer requires the death penalty.

He may be right, and he may be wrong, but he is not changing Church teaching because the Church’s moral teaching is that society has a right to protect itself.  It’s a matter of prudential judgment to apply that moral requirement to the real fallen world we live in.

When you see an article claiming that Pope Francis’s position about the death penalty means that the Church’s teachings on morality, such the morality of sex outside marriage between one man and one woman, can change, you now know why that’s simply not true.

Pope Francis has not said the death penalty is intrinsically evil or that society doesn’t have the right to protect itself from evil people, which are moral teachings of the Church.

Rather, he’s said that in his prudential judgment, society does not need to execute people to protect itself.  Furthermore, if execution is not needed, then it’s better to allow evil people to live so that they may repent and be saved.

This issue is just one more example of the fact that the FNM can’t be trusted on any issue.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

None of These People Deserves Our Trust Anymore


It’s not that long ago that we were told that James Comey is an honest and unbiased individual.  We now know that he’s untrustworthy, dishonest, and partisan.

We know he’s untrustworthy because he told Trump that Trump wasn’t under investigation, but until he was forced to testify under oath before Congress, he refused to tell the media that Trump wasn’t under investigation.

He’s dishonest because he leaked information indicating that Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but then, when under oath, he admitted that Trump had not in fact ordered him to do anything wrong.

He’s partisan because he is attacking Trump left and right while ensuring that Hillary Clinton got away with gross negligence in her handling of highly classified information.

Then we were told that Robert Mueller is a paragon of correctness and honesty.  We all know how that worked out.

Now we’re being told that the seizure of all of Trump’s privileged communications with his lawyer must be based on strong evidence because Rod Rosenstein must have signed off on it.

Those same people – sadly, many supposed conservatives among them – are saying Rosenstein is trustworthy.  But isn’t that the same Rosenstein who authorized Mueller to investigate something after Mueller had already illegally investigated it?

Isn’t that the same Rosenstein who has done nothing to keep Mueller focused on collusion in the election?

Isn’t that the same Rosenstein who is allowing Mueller to drag on an investigation that was started based on Comey’s dishonest leaks?

It’s time that conservatives, even the anti-Trump ones, acknowledge that pretty much everyone in DOJ and FBI leadership is a partisan.  Those who aren’t Democrats first and civil servants second are Deep State actors first and civil servants second.

Our go-to assumption should be that Rosenstein is part of the Deep State cabal, which will do anything to get rid of Trump because Trump is an outsider, one of the common folk, not an elitist government club member.

Hence, our assumption should be that the raid on Trump’s lawyer is not based on deep secret truths that are amazingly harmful to Trump but haven’t been leaked to the NYT or WaPo.  Instead, we should assume that like the FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign, this raid is based on nothing more than a desire to violate the president’s constitutional rights in an attempt to find some dirt since these people haven’t been able to find anything through the Mueller investigation.

As of now, the same FBI that used uncorroborated dirt from Russia paid for by Hillary to illegally spy on Trump and have access to pretty much everything Trump has said in confidence to his lawyer.  Trump could have said non-criminal but embarrassing things, and now the only thing standing in front of that appearing in the NYT or WaPo is the ethical standards of Deep State employees.

When Alan Dershowitz says something is a grave violation of the Constitution, I think we should pause a second and ask ourselves whether we think it’s more likely that he’s unreliable or that Rosenstein, et al. are willing to do anything to nullify the last election and secure the power of the Democrats and the Deep State.

What we’re seeing is the natural continuation of the slow coup the Democrats have been waging for decades.  It started with the Supreme Court making law and cutting the people out of the process.  It proceeded with the weaponization of the IRS and DOJ under Obama.  It continues with federal judges declaring that they have veto power over everything Trump does, thereby abolishing any limits on judicial power and destroying the separation of powers, which is the core of our government.

In this latest phase, we’re seeing the Deep State use fascist tactics to overturn an election that their candidate didn’t win. 

Judicial activism has already stolen much of our freedom.  If you doubt that, ask yourself why the biggest deal about a presidential candidate is whom he’ll put on the Supreme Court.

If the Democrats and the Deep State get rid of Trump, our elections will be just as much of a sham as the “elections” in communist China or Russia.  We will cease to be a free people and become serfs lorded over by the rich judges and the leftists elites.

We need to fight back, which will unfortunately require us to vote for the Republicans who let us down on immigration and Obamacare.  Make no doubt about it: if the Republicans lose the House, the Democrats will impeach Trump and effectively make it clear that only Democrats, or McCain Republicans, need apply for the presidency in the future.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Image: Nick Youngson via The Blue Diamond Gallery.

It’s not that long ago that we were told that James Comey is an honest and unbiased individual.  We now know that he’s untrustworthy, dishonest, and partisan.

We know he’s untrustworthy because he told Trump that Trump wasn’t under investigation, but until he was forced to testify under oath before Congress, he refused to tell the media that Trump wasn’t under investigation.

He’s dishonest because he leaked information indicating that Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but then, when under oath, he admitted that Trump had not in fact ordered him to do anything wrong.

He’s partisan because he is attacking Trump left and right while ensuring that Hillary Clinton got away with gross negligence in her handling of highly classified information.

Then we were told that Robert Mueller is a paragon of correctness and honesty.  We all know how that worked out.

Now we’re being told that the seizure of all of Trump’s privileged communications with his lawyer must be based on strong evidence because Rod Rosenstein must have signed off on it.

Those same people – sadly, many supposed conservatives among them – are saying Rosenstein is trustworthy.  But isn’t that the same Rosenstein who authorized Mueller to investigate something after Mueller had already illegally investigated it?

Isn’t that the same Rosenstein who has done nothing to keep Mueller focused on collusion in the election?

Isn’t that the same Rosenstein who is allowing Mueller to drag on an investigation that was started based on Comey’s dishonest leaks?

It’s time that conservatives, even the anti-Trump ones, acknowledge that pretty much everyone in DOJ and FBI leadership is a partisan.  Those who aren’t Democrats first and civil servants second are Deep State actors first and civil servants second.

Our go-to assumption should be that Rosenstein is part of the Deep State cabal, which will do anything to get rid of Trump because Trump is an outsider, one of the common folk, not an elitist government club member.

Hence, our assumption should be that the raid on Trump’s lawyer is not based on deep secret truths that are amazingly harmful to Trump but haven’t been leaked to the NYT or WaPo.  Instead, we should assume that like the FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign, this raid is based on nothing more than a desire to violate the president’s constitutional rights in an attempt to find some dirt since these people haven’t been able to find anything through the Mueller investigation.

As of now, the same FBI that used uncorroborated dirt from Russia paid for by Hillary to illegally spy on Trump and have access to pretty much everything Trump has said in confidence to his lawyer.  Trump could have said non-criminal but embarrassing things, and now the only thing standing in front of that appearing in the NYT or WaPo is the ethical standards of Deep State employees.

When Alan Dershowitz says something is a grave violation of the Constitution, I think we should pause a second and ask ourselves whether we think it’s more likely that he’s unreliable or that Rosenstein, et al. are willing to do anything to nullify the last election and secure the power of the Democrats and the Deep State.

What we’re seeing is the natural continuation of the slow coup the Democrats have been waging for decades.  It started with the Supreme Court making law and cutting the people out of the process.  It proceeded with the weaponization of the IRS and DOJ under Obama.  It continues with federal judges declaring that they have veto power over everything Trump does, thereby abolishing any limits on judicial power and destroying the separation of powers, which is the core of our government.

In this latest phase, we’re seeing the Deep State use fascist tactics to overturn an election that their candidate didn’t win. 

Judicial activism has already stolen much of our freedom.  If you doubt that, ask yourself why the biggest deal about a presidential candidate is whom he’ll put on the Supreme Court.

If the Democrats and the Deep State get rid of Trump, our elections will be just as much of a sham as the “elections” in communist China or Russia.  We will cease to be a free people and become serfs lorded over by the rich judges and the leftists elites.

We need to fight back, which will unfortunately require us to vote for the Republicans who let us down on immigration and Obamacare.  Make no doubt about it: if the Republicans lose the House, the Democrats will impeach Trump and effectively make it clear that only Democrats, or McCain Republicans, need apply for the presidency in the future.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Image: Nick Youngson via The Blue Diamond Gallery.



Source link

Their World, Our World


Hillary can pay Russians, who may be working for the Russian government, for unconfirmed dirt on Trump and use that dirt during the campaign as well as using it to get the government to spy on Trump for her, but it’s not collusion.

Our World:

Trump is guilty of collusion even though there is not a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong.

Their World:

Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch while Lynch is supposedly investigating his wife is perfectly okay.

Our World:

Trump asking, but not ordering, James Comey to go easy on Flynn just as Comey went easy on Hillary is obstruction of justice.

Their World:

Obama can ignore federal court orders to restart issuing permits for drilling in the Gulf and to stop issuing DACA waivers.

Our World:

One random federal judge can stop the president from doing what the Constitution says the president can do.

Their World:

Obama can rescind every executive order Bush made.

Our World:

Obama is a super-president whose executive orders can’t be overturned by Trump

Their World:

Supporting the mass murder of a million babies a year, disproportionately minorities, and sex-selection abortions where unborn women are killed because the parents want a boy shows how much they care about women.

Our World:

Objecting to killing the unborn shows that we are heartless sexist pigs.

Their World:

A Russian oligarch who contributes $25,000,000 to Hillary’s foundation is cool.

Our World:

The same oligarch giving $150,000 to Trump’s foundation is cause for a federal investigation.

Their World:

Hillary putting large quantities of highly classified information on an unsecured server that foreign governments can easily access is perfectly fine.

Our World:

A Navy seaman who put his life on the line to protect his country is sent to prison for taking photos of the ship he served on, which are classified but not highly classified.

Their World:

They can oppose school choice for black children, not care that black women are three times as likely to abort their babies as white women, bring in lots of cheap illegal labor to drive down black wages, and not care that thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democrat-run cities but still be pro-black.

Our World:

We want to end what Jesse Jackson called black genocide – targeting blacks for abortion, want to give black kids a choice on what school they go to so they can get a decent education, oppose bringing in cheap illegal labor, and want to make black neighborhoods safe, but we’re racist to the core.

Their World:

They care about the middle class even though they want to raise taxes on them.

Our World:

We care about only the rich even though we want to reduce everyone’s taxes.

Their World:

They push for ever increasing government spending and ever increasing taxation while giving little of their own money to help those in need, but they are the ones who care.

Our World:

We give much more of our own time and money to help those in need, but we’re selfish and uncaring.

Their World:

Going easy on Putin as part of a reset of relations with Russia shows that Hillary is a great diplomat.

Our World:

Trump punishing the Russians for their actions shows that he colluded with them.

Their World:

Even though they reject the fact that life begins at conception and believe that DNA doesn’t determine our sex, they have science on their side.

Our World:

We’re anti-science because we don’t believe that it’s a proven fact that mankind is causing global warming, which will have devastating consequences.  This in spite of the fact that we know that much of the “science” related to global warming is either just made up or fraudulent.

Their World:

A Democrat senator can be on trial for corruption for seven weeks, and the major networks don’t cover it.

Our World:

Trump’s “crimes” get 24-7 coverage even though there is no evidence he’s done anything wrong.

Their World:

Even though they silence or bully every voice that doesn’t agree with them, they are tolerant and inclusive.

Our World:

Even though we oppose censoring of leftist voices, we oppose diversity.

Their World:

Even though gun control has done nothing to stop crime and it violates the Second Amendment, their support of it shows that they care.

Our World:

Our support for Americans being able to defend themselves shows that we don’t care about children.

Their World:

Even though they advocate censorship of political views they don’t like and the legalization of pornography, which was not part of the First Amendment, they are fans of free speech.

Our World:

We are all haters because we believe we should be able to speak truth to power.

Their World:

Even though they attacked the women who said Bill Clinton attacked them, and even though they said Clinton’s affairs had no bearing on his ability to be president, they care about women.

Our World:

That Trump had consensual affairs over a decade ago shows that he is unfit to be president.

Their World:

Facebook allowing Obama’s team to access huge amounts of private user data was a great thing.

Our World:

Facebook not having taken steps to prevent a company hired by the Trump campaign to access the same data that Obama did is a monstrous crime.

Their World:

It’s great that the same FBI that used unverified Russian-sourced dirt about Trump to obtain a FISA warrant enabling Democrats in power to use the full power of the government to spy on the Trump campaign now has access to confidential attorney-client communications between the president and his lawyer.

Our World:

It’s unpatriotic that we question the impartiality of the FBI even though we have documentation of the agency’s political bias.

Their World:

It’s perfectly fine to force bakers, etc. to go against their religious beliefs when those beliefs conflict with the beliefs of gays.

Our World:

We’re haters because we want to let people of all faiths exercise their First Amendment rights.

Their World:

No man would pretend to self-identify as a woman in order to get access to women’s bathrooms.

Our World:

Even if the average person suffering from gender identity disorder won’t molest women, there is no reason to believe that sex offenders won’t lie about their “gender identity” in order to legally be able to harass women.

Their World:

Allowing teachers to preach atheism is a wonderful thing.

Our World:

Students or teachers who mention the God that 72% of Americans believe in outside of class are evil monsters who are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Their World:

If Hillary had proposed the same temporary travel ban that Trump had, it would be legal according to our masters, federal judges, because her thoughts conform to leftist dogma.

Our World:

Trump’s temporary travel ban is unconstitutional because Trump’s thoughts don’t conform to what leftists thought police require.

You probably felt a sense of déjà vu in reading about these differences.  That’s because this two-world approach is nothing new to Democrats.  It’s just like the two-world system they set up in the South: one world for whites and another world for blacks.

But this time, who lives in which world is based on ideology not skin color.  Make no mistake about it: leftists are demanding that in the public square, conservatives sit in the back of the bus and confine their religion to the four walls of their church buildings.

But the same fascist beliefs that leftists are more equal than other Americans justify both segregation policies.

It’s time for us to rise up and say: enough.  We need to refuse to submit to leftists’ double standards.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

There are currently two worlds: one for the rich, leftists, and the Deep State actors, and one for the average American.  Here are some of the differences:

Their World:

Hillary can pay Russians, who may be working for the Russian government, for unconfirmed dirt on Trump and use that dirt during the campaign as well as using it to get the government to spy on Trump for her, but it’s not collusion.

Our World:

Trump is guilty of collusion even though there is not a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong.

Their World:

Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch while Lynch is supposedly investigating his wife is perfectly okay.

Our World:

Trump asking, but not ordering, James Comey to go easy on Flynn just as Comey went easy on Hillary is obstruction of justice.

Their World:

Obama can ignore federal court orders to restart issuing permits for drilling in the Gulf and to stop issuing DACA waivers.

Our World:

One random federal judge can stop the president from doing what the Constitution says the president can do.

Their World:

Obama can rescind every executive order Bush made.

Our World:

Obama is a super-president whose executive orders can’t be overturned by Trump

Their World:

Supporting the mass murder of a million babies a year, disproportionately minorities, and sex-selection abortions where unborn women are killed because the parents want a boy shows how much they care about women.

Our World:

Objecting to killing the unborn shows that we are heartless sexist pigs.

Their World:

A Russian oligarch who contributes $25,000,000 to Hillary’s foundation is cool.

Our World:

The same oligarch giving $150,000 to Trump’s foundation is cause for a federal investigation.

Their World:

Hillary putting large quantities of highly classified information on an unsecured server that foreign governments can easily access is perfectly fine.

Our World:

A Navy seaman who put his life on the line to protect his country is sent to prison for taking photos of the ship he served on, which are classified but not highly classified.

Their World:

They can oppose school choice for black children, not care that black women are three times as likely to abort their babies as white women, bring in lots of cheap illegal labor to drive down black wages, and not care that thousands of blacks are shot each year in Democrat-run cities but still be pro-black.

Our World:

We want to end what Jesse Jackson called black genocide – targeting blacks for abortion, want to give black kids a choice on what school they go to so they can get a decent education, oppose bringing in cheap illegal labor, and want to make black neighborhoods safe, but we’re racist to the core.

Their World:

They care about the middle class even though they want to raise taxes on them.

Our World:

We care about only the rich even though we want to reduce everyone’s taxes.

Their World:

They push for ever increasing government spending and ever increasing taxation while giving little of their own money to help those in need, but they are the ones who care.

Our World:

We give much more of our own time and money to help those in need, but we’re selfish and uncaring.

Their World:

Going easy on Putin as part of a reset of relations with Russia shows that Hillary is a great diplomat.

Our World:

Trump punishing the Russians for their actions shows that he colluded with them.

Their World:

Even though they reject the fact that life begins at conception and believe that DNA doesn’t determine our sex, they have science on their side.

Our World:

We’re anti-science because we don’t believe that it’s a proven fact that mankind is causing global warming, which will have devastating consequences.  This in spite of the fact that we know that much of the “science” related to global warming is either just made up or fraudulent.

Their World:

A Democrat senator can be on trial for corruption for seven weeks, and the major networks don’t cover it.

Our World:

Trump’s “crimes” get 24-7 coverage even though there is no evidence he’s done anything wrong.

Their World:

Even though they silence or bully every voice that doesn’t agree with them, they are tolerant and inclusive.

Our World:

Even though we oppose censoring of leftist voices, we oppose diversity.

Their World:

Even though gun control has done nothing to stop crime and it violates the Second Amendment, their support of it shows that they care.

Our World:

Our support for Americans being able to defend themselves shows that we don’t care about children.

Their World:

Even though they advocate censorship of political views they don’t like and the legalization of pornography, which was not part of the First Amendment, they are fans of free speech.

Our World:

We are all haters because we believe we should be able to speak truth to power.

Their World:

Even though they attacked the women who said Bill Clinton attacked them, and even though they said Clinton’s affairs had no bearing on his ability to be president, they care about women.

Our World:

That Trump had consensual affairs over a decade ago shows that he is unfit to be president.

Their World:

Facebook allowing Obama’s team to access huge amounts of private user data was a great thing.

Our World:

Facebook not having taken steps to prevent a company hired by the Trump campaign to access the same data that Obama did is a monstrous crime.

Their World:

It’s great that the same FBI that used unverified Russian-sourced dirt about Trump to obtain a FISA warrant enabling Democrats in power to use the full power of the government to spy on the Trump campaign now has access to confidential attorney-client communications between the president and his lawyer.

Our World:

It’s unpatriotic that we question the impartiality of the FBI even though we have documentation of the agency’s political bias.

Their World:

It’s perfectly fine to force bakers, etc. to go against their religious beliefs when those beliefs conflict with the beliefs of gays.

Our World:

We’re haters because we want to let people of all faiths exercise their First Amendment rights.

Their World:

No man would pretend to self-identify as a woman in order to get access to women’s bathrooms.

Our World:

Even if the average person suffering from gender identity disorder won’t molest women, there is no reason to believe that sex offenders won’t lie about their “gender identity” in order to legally be able to harass women.

Their World:

Allowing teachers to preach atheism is a wonderful thing.

Our World:

Students or teachers who mention the God that 72% of Americans believe in outside of class are evil monsters who are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

Their World:

If Hillary had proposed the same temporary travel ban that Trump had, it would be legal according to our masters, federal judges, because her thoughts conform to leftist dogma.

Our World:

Trump’s temporary travel ban is unconstitutional because Trump’s thoughts don’t conform to what leftists thought police require.

You probably felt a sense of déjà vu in reading about these differences.  That’s because this two-world approach is nothing new to Democrats.  It’s just like the two-world system they set up in the South: one world for whites and another world for blacks.

But this time, who lives in which world is based on ideology not skin color.  Make no mistake about it: leftists are demanding that in the public square, conservatives sit in the back of the bus and confine their religion to the four walls of their church buildings.

But the same fascist beliefs that leftists are more equal than other Americans justify both segregation policies.

It’s time for us to rise up and say: enough.  We need to refuse to submit to leftists’ double standards.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

Yes, Virginia, the Pope does Believe in Hell


Recently there has been a flurry of #fakenews claiming, incorrectly, that Pope Francis doesn’t believe in Hell.

It’s important to note that the source of all this is a 93-year-old Italian reporter, who is an atheist and who doesn’t take notes or record conversations.  He goes by memory, even when using “quotes,” and he’s misattributed things to the pope in the past.

The Vatican has denied that the pope said what that reporter said the pope said.  However, since the denial doesn’t explicitly say that the pope believes in Hell, the nattering nabobs of the left, and the right, are saying that maybe it wasn’t really a denial.

The good news is that since his election to the papacy, Pope Francis has made his beliefs on Hell clear:

Yet the danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them… the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is Hell.

Referring to members of the Mafia, Pope Francis said:

There is still time not to end up in hell, which awaits you if you continue on this road.

And the pope said this to a group of children in response to the question “If God forgives everybody, why does hell exist?”:

This is hell: It is telling God, ‘You take care of yourself because I’ll take care of myself.’  They don’t send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there.  Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God’s love.  This is hell.  Do you understand?

Based on the pope’s consistent public declaration of the existence of Hell, it’s safe to say that the Italian reporter’s claims are baseless.

This is just another example of the leftist media running with anything that might indicate that the Pope supports modern liberal beliefs. Some other examples of the media distorting what Pope Francis has said include:

Misrepresenting the pope’s position on DACA.

Saying the pope condemned Trump when the pope didn’t do that.

Misrepresenting the pope’s comments to Congress on immigration.

Saying the pope equated not accepting all immigrants with murder when he didn’t.

Interestingly, the same media ignore those things the pope says that go against the liberal worldview, including:

Economics: How to help the poor: “We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a ‘dignified sustenance’ for all people [i.e., welfare], but also their ‘general temporal welfare and prosperity'” [159].  “This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labour that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.”

Abortion: “Defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right[.]”  “It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.  Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems.”

So-called gay marriage: “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God.  We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Environment: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.  How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”  “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”

The sad reality is that it’s nearly impossible to trust that the leftist media will ever accurately portray what the pope really says on any issue.

No matter what your faith tradition or your opinion of the pope, the reality is that the pope has not changed the 2,000-year-old Catholic teaching on the existence of Hell.

Use this weaponization of the pope by the media as an opportunity to explain to your friends why the leftist media can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Recently there has been a flurry of #fakenews claiming, incorrectly, that Pope Francis doesn’t believe in Hell.

It’s important to note that the source of all this is a 93-year-old Italian reporter, who is an atheist and who doesn’t take notes or record conversations.  He goes by memory, even when using “quotes,” and he’s misattributed things to the pope in the past.

The Vatican has denied that the pope said what that reporter said the pope said.  However, since the denial doesn’t explicitly say that the pope believes in Hell, the nattering nabobs of the left, and the right, are saying that maybe it wasn’t really a denial.

The good news is that since his election to the papacy, Pope Francis has made his beliefs on Hell clear:

Yet the danger always remains that by a constant refusal to open the doors of their hearts to Christ who knocks on them… the poor, the proud, rich and powerful will end up condemning themselves and plunging into the eternal abyss of solitude which is Hell.

Referring to members of the Mafia, Pope Francis said:

There is still time not to end up in hell, which awaits you if you continue on this road.

And the pope said this to a group of children in response to the question “If God forgives everybody, why does hell exist?”:

This is hell: It is telling God, ‘You take care of yourself because I’ll take care of myself.’  They don’t send you to hell, you go there because you choose to be there.  Hell is wanting to be distant from God because I do not want God’s love.  This is hell.  Do you understand?

Based on the pope’s consistent public declaration of the existence of Hell, it’s safe to say that the Italian reporter’s claims are baseless.

This is just another example of the leftist media running with anything that might indicate that the Pope supports modern liberal beliefs. Some other examples of the media distorting what Pope Francis has said include:

Misrepresenting the pope’s position on DACA.

Saying the pope condemned Trump when the pope didn’t do that.

Misrepresenting the pope’s comments to Congress on immigration.

Saying the pope equated not accepting all immigrants with murder when he didn’t.

Interestingly, the same media ignore those things the pope says that go against the liberal worldview, including:

Economics: How to help the poor: “We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a ‘dignified sustenance’ for all people [i.e., welfare], but also their ‘general temporal welfare and prosperity'” [159].  “This means education, access to health care, and above all employment, for it is through free, creative, participatory and mutually supportive labour that human beings express and enhance the dignity of their lives.”

Abortion: “Defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right[.]”  “It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.  Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems.”

So-called gay marriage: “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God.  We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Environment: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.  How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”  “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.”

The sad reality is that it’s nearly impossible to trust that the leftist media will ever accurately portray what the pope really says on any issue.

No matter what your faith tradition or your opinion of the pope, the reality is that the pope has not changed the 2,000-year-old Catholic teaching on the existence of Hell.

Use this weaponization of the pope by the media as an opportunity to explain to your friends why the leftist media can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link

Leftists: Establishing a Religion


In the case of Jack Philips, the baker who doesn’t want to be forced to support a gay “wedding,” leftists have revealed their freedom-hating fascist fanaticism and their desire to establish their faith as a government-mandated religion.

Religion interacts with politics by defining moral and behavioral codes. For example, Catholics believe murder is wrong, a moral code, and that you shouldn’t eat meat on the Fridays of Lent (a penance that was ended in 1984, but is recently making a comeback), a behavioral code. Hence establishing a religion in the context of the 1st Amendment would involve providing preferential treatment to the moral and behavioral code of one particular faith, as the English government did with the Church of England.

The Constitution was specifically designed to provide freedom of religion while preventing the government from picking one religion as the winner. Historically Americans were more divided based on behavioral issues than on morality; the Ten Commandments has always been something most Americans agree on. As a result, the morality of our laws hasn’t been much of an issue, apart from slavery, of course, until very recently. Even better, most Americans have no interest in using the power of the government to impose their behavioral beliefs on the rest of America; Catholics don’t want to force people to eat fish on Fridays, Jews don’t want pork banned from restaurants, and Protestants don’t want to require people to go to services.

Sadly, leftists are trying to impose their behavioral beliefs on all Americans.

Contrary to leftist revisionism, the Framers wrote the First Amendment not to put a wall between religion and government but to prevent the government from picking one religion over all others. They did so because many of them had suffered because of the Church of England’s oppression of other faiths.

The key point is that the government should not pick one set of behavioral beliefs, on which people can disagree, and impose it on all Americans without some very compelling reason.

Contrary to the Constitution, leftists are claiming that the government has the right to force people to go against their own moral beliefs and submit to the morals defined by leftists even when there is no compelling government interest.

Leftists demanding that all Americans be forced to accept leftist moral precepts and leftist behavioral rules — that marriage needs to be redefined, and that you must allow the “transgendered” into women’s bathrooms. This, in effect, is creating a government-sanctioned religion that is more equal than all the other faiths in America.

Leftists are working hard to ensure that anyone who disagrees with their morals/behaviors will be punished by the government. Precisely the sort of thing that the 1st Amendment was written to prevent.

This attack on the 1st Amendment by leftists is nothing new. Demanding that leftist morals/behaviors be allowed in schools and public settings while demanding that the morals/behaviors of all other faiths be silenced has been a key theme of leftism for quite some time.

For example, allowing teachers in public schools to extol the moral/behavioral beliefs of Nietzsche while declaring that even mentioning Jesus is verboten is nothing more than an establishment of one faith, leftist atheism, above all others.

Further, leftists demand complete obedience even in cases where no one actually suffers. No gay couple has been unable to purchase a wedding cake, for example. But leftists demand complete intellectual submission to their morals/behaviors. It’s as though Catholics were demanding that all orthodox Jewish delis serve pork.

Historically people understand that the 1st Amendment is not absolute; if one’s religion requires human sacrifice the government has a compelling interest to stop murder for example.

But in the case of the baker no sane person would argue that there is a compelling government interest in gay’s having “wedding” cakes.

What leftists are saying is that gay’s “right” to decide who will provide their “wedding” cake overrides the explicit 1st Amendment right of Americans to exercise their religion. Essentially the leftist religion overrides all other faiths in America. For example, leftists stated in their arguments to the Supreme Court that the government would have the right to force a Catholic church to host a gay wedding and for Catholic lawyers to defend gay causes.

Leftists will argue that their moral and behavioral beliefs aren’t a religion because they don’t involve a god or a formal structure. That is an invalid argument for two reasons; the Framers were concerned about the government imposing a set of moral and behavioral beliefs on the people and they used the term “religion” because at the time in America only religions had defined those things, not because they were okay with atheists imposing their beliefs. We all agree that Buddhism, which is decentralized and which does not believe in a god, is a religion. No one would think that giving Buddhist beliefs special privileges would be consistent with the First Amendment so it’s clear that giving the leftist faith special rights is wrong.

While leftists try and couch the discussion in terms of discrimination we can tell that’s a sham. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the group that ordered Christian baker Jack Philips to endorse a gay “wedding,” also found that gay bakers don’t have to bake a cake with a Bible citation condemning active homosexuality. That’s a clear example of moral/behavioral beliefs that align with leftist’s faith — being gay is good — are protected but moral/behavioral beliefs from other faiths — marriage is between a man and a woman — are not.

It’s time to start condemning the left’s attack on other faiths and demand that the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans’ be protected.

There is no reason why what leftist define as moral and good behavior should be backed by the full power of the government. True diversity, which leftists constantly claim to support, means that all faiths should be on an equal footing in America. If a gay baker can refuse to bake a cake which cites Biblical condemnations of homosexuality, then a Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake that will be used in a gay “wedding”.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

In the case of Jack Philips, the baker who doesn’t want to be forced to support a gay “wedding,” leftists have revealed their freedom-hating fascist fanaticism and their desire to establish their faith as a government-mandated religion.

Religion interacts with politics by defining moral and behavioral codes. For example, Catholics believe murder is wrong, a moral code, and that you shouldn’t eat meat on the Fridays of Lent (a penance that was ended in 1984, but is recently making a comeback), a behavioral code. Hence establishing a religion in the context of the 1st Amendment would involve providing preferential treatment to the moral and behavioral code of one particular faith, as the English government did with the Church of England.

The Constitution was specifically designed to provide freedom of religion while preventing the government from picking one religion as the winner. Historically Americans were more divided based on behavioral issues than on morality; the Ten Commandments has always been something most Americans agree on. As a result, the morality of our laws hasn’t been much of an issue, apart from slavery, of course, until very recently. Even better, most Americans have no interest in using the power of the government to impose their behavioral beliefs on the rest of America; Catholics don’t want to force people to eat fish on Fridays, Jews don’t want pork banned from restaurants, and Protestants don’t want to require people to go to services.

Sadly, leftists are trying to impose their behavioral beliefs on all Americans.

Contrary to leftist revisionism, the Framers wrote the First Amendment not to put a wall between religion and government but to prevent the government from picking one religion over all others. They did so because many of them had suffered because of the Church of England’s oppression of other faiths.

The key point is that the government should not pick one set of behavioral beliefs, on which people can disagree, and impose it on all Americans without some very compelling reason.

Contrary to the Constitution, leftists are claiming that the government has the right to force people to go against their own moral beliefs and submit to the morals defined by leftists even when there is no compelling government interest.

Leftists demanding that all Americans be forced to accept leftist moral precepts and leftist behavioral rules — that marriage needs to be redefined, and that you must allow the “transgendered” into women’s bathrooms. This, in effect, is creating a government-sanctioned religion that is more equal than all the other faiths in America.

Leftists are working hard to ensure that anyone who disagrees with their morals/behaviors will be punished by the government. Precisely the sort of thing that the 1st Amendment was written to prevent.

This attack on the 1st Amendment by leftists is nothing new. Demanding that leftist morals/behaviors be allowed in schools and public settings while demanding that the morals/behaviors of all other faiths be silenced has been a key theme of leftism for quite some time.

For example, allowing teachers in public schools to extol the moral/behavioral beliefs of Nietzsche while declaring that even mentioning Jesus is verboten is nothing more than an establishment of one faith, leftist atheism, above all others.

Further, leftists demand complete obedience even in cases where no one actually suffers. No gay couple has been unable to purchase a wedding cake, for example. But leftists demand complete intellectual submission to their morals/behaviors. It’s as though Catholics were demanding that all orthodox Jewish delis serve pork.

Historically people understand that the 1st Amendment is not absolute; if one’s religion requires human sacrifice the government has a compelling interest to stop murder for example.

But in the case of the baker no sane person would argue that there is a compelling government interest in gay’s having “wedding” cakes.

What leftists are saying is that gay’s “right” to decide who will provide their “wedding” cake overrides the explicit 1st Amendment right of Americans to exercise their religion. Essentially the leftist religion overrides all other faiths in America. For example, leftists stated in their arguments to the Supreme Court that the government would have the right to force a Catholic church to host a gay wedding and for Catholic lawyers to defend gay causes.

Leftists will argue that their moral and behavioral beliefs aren’t a religion because they don’t involve a god or a formal structure. That is an invalid argument for two reasons; the Framers were concerned about the government imposing a set of moral and behavioral beliefs on the people and they used the term “religion” because at the time in America only religions had defined those things, not because they were okay with atheists imposing their beliefs. We all agree that Buddhism, which is decentralized and which does not believe in a god, is a religion. No one would think that giving Buddhist beliefs special privileges would be consistent with the First Amendment so it’s clear that giving the leftist faith special rights is wrong.

While leftists try and couch the discussion in terms of discrimination we can tell that’s a sham. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the group that ordered Christian baker Jack Philips to endorse a gay “wedding,” also found that gay bakers don’t have to bake a cake with a Bible citation condemning active homosexuality. That’s a clear example of moral/behavioral beliefs that align with leftist’s faith — being gay is good — are protected but moral/behavioral beliefs from other faiths — marriage is between a man and a woman — are not.

It’s time to start condemning the left’s attack on other faiths and demand that the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans’ be protected.

There is no reason why what leftist define as moral and good behavior should be backed by the full power of the government. True diversity, which leftists constantly claim to support, means that all faiths should be on an equal footing in America. If a gay baker can refuse to bake a cake which cites Biblical condemnations of homosexuality, then a Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake that will be used in a gay “wedding”.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

Liberal Lingo: 'Sanctuary Cities'


A sanctuary is a place where people can go to be safe. Generally speaking we think of good people going to sanctuaries to escape evil; some Jews found sanctuary from the Holocaust in England and the United States, for example.

Liberals like to repurpose words with positive connotations, like sanctuary, in order to add a false impression of sanity to liberal positions which are otherwise indefensible.

In the case of the now ubiquitous “Sanctuary Cities” phrase, liberals hope to evoke Americans desire for fairness and our propensity to stick up for the little guy.

After all, even if you’re some coldhearted racist conservative, liberals reason, your heartstrings will be plucked by the idea of cruel ICE agents swooping in on a hard working “undocumented” family who pay their taxes, never take government aid, and work hard at jobs where they are underpaid because “gringo” bosses threaten to call ICE on them; jobs which no citizen would do.

Ignoring for a moment the prevalence, or lack thereof, of such illegals, and also ignoring the blacks who can’t find a job because “honest” illegals will work for less, the reality is that “Sanctuary Cities” have nothing to do with “honest” illegals.

The only people who get sanctuary in “Sanctuary Cities” are criminals. Cities and states can’t stop ICE from enforcing the law; laws supported by generations of Democrat politicians, by the way. They can’t provide safe haven for “honest” illegals; not that they need to since “honest” illegals are not that frequently targeted even by the “racist” Trump administration.

But what local governments can do is shield illegals who commit additional crimes in the US from being deported. “Sanctuary Cities” do so by preventing the police from notifying ICE when an illegal has been arrested for a crime. Historically the police would notify ICE, ICE would go to the police station and conduct a safe — for the illegal and the community — transfer to ICE so that the criminal could be deported.

In “Sanctuary Cities” illegals who drive drunk, for example, are simply allowed back into society without ICE having a chance to deport them.

That’s right; “Sanctuary Cities” exist to ensure that illegals who drive drunk or commit a wide range of other crimes don’t risk deportation. While the specific laws that illegals can break and be protected from deportation vary between different “Sanctuary Cities” they are not restricted to jaywalking, having a taillight out on their car, and littering. In fact, only if the offense is serious enough that the illegal is put in jail, at least temporarily, does the “Sanctuary City” policy have any role; if the illegal doesn’t go to jail the jail can’t notify ICE when he’s going to be released so that ICE can pick him up.

The net effect of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that illegals who continue to commit other crimes are shielded from deportation; that’s right liberal politicians are working hard to increase the criminal population in “Sanctuary Cities.”

Haven’t you ever wished we could just throw drunk drivers out of your city so that they can’t kill people you may know the next time they slip up? Well, we can’t do that for citizens, including legal immigrants, but we can for those who sneak into our country. Yet the whole purpose of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that criminals are allowed to stay in the country enabling them to commit more crimes.

Why would any sane person support such a thing?

Maybe it’s because liberals know that criminals are both likely to not be concerned about illegally voting and likely to vote for liberal candidates who work to make life easy for criminals — so long as they don’t prey on the rich people the politicians schmooze with.

Or maybe it’s the liberals all or nothing approach to issues; either we let all illegals stay or we’re going to force all of them out. After all liberals staunchly defend the right of a woman to abort her viable, pain feeling, unborn daughter because she, or her spouse, wants a boy so extremism in the protection of violence is nothing new to liberals.

Or maybe it’s because illegals provide cheap labor for rich white liberals, and even criminal illegals rarely prey directly on the ruling elites whose safety and prosperity is the main concern of modern liberals.

In any case, “Sanctuary Cities” do nothing to help illegals whose only crime was breaking into our country. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if “Sanctuary Cites” were causing more suffering for the “honest” illegals.

The man who killed Kate Steinle, for example, doesn’t speak English. Given that it’s not absurd to think that illegals like him, with criminal records and minimal English skills, would tend to prey on “honest” illegals more than on American citizens. If that is the case, then by protecting illegals who continue to commit crimes “Sanctuary Cities” are hurting the “honest” illegals they claim to be trying to help, not to mention the legal Hispanic immigrants.

But words have power, so whenever and wherever you see, hear, or read the phrase “Sanctuary City” make sure you explain to anyone you can, in a polite way, that the real term should be “Sanctuary for Criminals Cities.”

It wouldn’t be shocking if most of the people who support “Sanctuary Cities” think that those cities protect “honest” illegals given the way the media covers the issue. Hence by shining a light into the swamp you might be able to get people who would normally vote for a liberal to realize that there’s a huge difference between mass deportation and deporting illegals who drive drunk.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

A sanctuary is a place where people can go to be safe. Generally speaking we think of good people going to sanctuaries to escape evil; some Jews found sanctuary from the Holocaust in England and the United States, for example.

Liberals like to repurpose words with positive connotations, like sanctuary, in order to add a false impression of sanity to liberal positions which are otherwise indefensible.

In the case of the now ubiquitous “Sanctuary Cities” phrase, liberals hope to evoke Americans desire for fairness and our propensity to stick up for the little guy.

After all, even if you’re some coldhearted racist conservative, liberals reason, your heartstrings will be plucked by the idea of cruel ICE agents swooping in on a hard working “undocumented” family who pay their taxes, never take government aid, and work hard at jobs where they are underpaid because “gringo” bosses threaten to call ICE on them; jobs which no citizen would do.

Ignoring for a moment the prevalence, or lack thereof, of such illegals, and also ignoring the blacks who can’t find a job because “honest” illegals will work for less, the reality is that “Sanctuary Cities” have nothing to do with “honest” illegals.

The only people who get sanctuary in “Sanctuary Cities” are criminals. Cities and states can’t stop ICE from enforcing the law; laws supported by generations of Democrat politicians, by the way. They can’t provide safe haven for “honest” illegals; not that they need to since “honest” illegals are not that frequently targeted even by the “racist” Trump administration.

But what local governments can do is shield illegals who commit additional crimes in the US from being deported. “Sanctuary Cities” do so by preventing the police from notifying ICE when an illegal has been arrested for a crime. Historically the police would notify ICE, ICE would go to the police station and conduct a safe — for the illegal and the community — transfer to ICE so that the criminal could be deported.

In “Sanctuary Cities” illegals who drive drunk, for example, are simply allowed back into society without ICE having a chance to deport them.

That’s right; “Sanctuary Cities” exist to ensure that illegals who drive drunk or commit a wide range of other crimes don’t risk deportation. While the specific laws that illegals can break and be protected from deportation vary between different “Sanctuary Cities” they are not restricted to jaywalking, having a taillight out on their car, and littering. In fact, only if the offense is serious enough that the illegal is put in jail, at least temporarily, does the “Sanctuary City” policy have any role; if the illegal doesn’t go to jail the jail can’t notify ICE when he’s going to be released so that ICE can pick him up.

The net effect of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that illegals who continue to commit other crimes are shielded from deportation; that’s right liberal politicians are working hard to increase the criminal population in “Sanctuary Cities.”

Haven’t you ever wished we could just throw drunk drivers out of your city so that they can’t kill people you may know the next time they slip up? Well, we can’t do that for citizens, including legal immigrants, but we can for those who sneak into our country. Yet the whole purpose of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that criminals are allowed to stay in the country enabling them to commit more crimes.

Why would any sane person support such a thing?

Maybe it’s because liberals know that criminals are both likely to not be concerned about illegally voting and likely to vote for liberal candidates who work to make life easy for criminals — so long as they don’t prey on the rich people the politicians schmooze with.

Or maybe it’s the liberals all or nothing approach to issues; either we let all illegals stay or we’re going to force all of them out. After all liberals staunchly defend the right of a woman to abort her viable, pain feeling, unborn daughter because she, or her spouse, wants a boy so extremism in the protection of violence is nothing new to liberals.

Or maybe it’s because illegals provide cheap labor for rich white liberals, and even criminal illegals rarely prey directly on the ruling elites whose safety and prosperity is the main concern of modern liberals.

In any case, “Sanctuary Cities” do nothing to help illegals whose only crime was breaking into our country. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if “Sanctuary Cites” were causing more suffering for the “honest” illegals.

The man who killed Kate Steinle, for example, doesn’t speak English. Given that it’s not absurd to think that illegals like him, with criminal records and minimal English skills, would tend to prey on “honest” illegals more than on American citizens. If that is the case, then by protecting illegals who continue to commit crimes “Sanctuary Cities” are hurting the “honest” illegals they claim to be trying to help, not to mention the legal Hispanic immigrants.

But words have power, so whenever and wherever you see, hear, or read the phrase “Sanctuary City” make sure you explain to anyone you can, in a polite way, that the real term should be “Sanctuary for Criminals Cities.”

It wouldn’t be shocking if most of the people who support “Sanctuary Cities” think that those cities protect “honest” illegals given the way the media covers the issue. Hence by shining a light into the swamp you might be able to get people who would normally vote for a liberal to realize that there’s a huge difference between mass deportation and deporting illegals who drive drunk.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

Scrupulous Conservatives and the Moore Conundrum


Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link