Saturday, May 31, 2014

Planned Parenthood shreds documents in investigation of child rapes

Michelle Malkin has a post on the ongoing investigation of Kansas Planned Parenthood for covering up child rape:

Shredding Kathleen Sebelius

by Michelle Malkin

If a private health insurer had engaged in the kind of criminal obstruction that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been tied to in her home state of Kansas, it would be a federal case. Instead, it's a non-story in the Washington press. Nothing to see here. Move along.

On Monday, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. World Magazine, a Christian news publication, reported on new bombshell court filings showing that Kansas health officials "shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces." World Magazine reported: "The health department failed to disclose that fact for six years, until it was forced to do so in the current felony case over whether it manufactured client records."
'Oh, gee, officer, I may have misplaced the documents. Perhaps I accidently threw them out with that pile of baby corpses..."

What's the problem with shredding documents related to felony charges, when your main business is killing little children?

The records are at the heart of the fraud case against Planned Parenthood. Kansas health bureaucrats now shrug that the destruction of these key documents -- which they sheepishly admitted had "certain idiosyncrasies" -- was "routine." Who oversaw the agency accused of destroying the evidence six years ago? Sebelius.
"We do it routinely" is a quite effective defense against felony charges.
As governor of Kansas, Sebelius fought transparency motions in the proceedings tooth and nail for years. Prosecutors allege a long-running heinous cover-up to manufacture false records of patients who had late-term abortions -- and to whitewash Planned Parenthood's systemic failures to report child rape.

Former GOP state Attorney General Phill Kline's investigation turned up massive discrepancies in reported child rape statistics compared to Planned Parenthood and the late late-term abortionist George Tiller 's bogus claims. Planned Parenthood of Overland Park and Tiller together performed abortions on 166 girls aged 14 and under and only reported one each to authorities. So, 164 cases of underage rape or statutory rape went unreported and were not investigated by authorities.

Why report 164 cases of child rape to authorities? The child rape victims were paying good money and they might provide some return business...
A Kansas district judge found probable cause of criminality in the abortion providers' records; another district judge found probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood committed 107 criminal acts.
Not counting thousands of dead kids.
Sebelius' response? A bloody ideological soul mate of Tiller's, she launched a vengeful witch-hunt against Kline. The state ethics board accused him of lying. The left-wing state Supreme Court Sebelius appointed stymied Kline's subpoenas and appeals.
Sebelius was heavily funded by abortion money in Kansas. Tiller was one of her wealthiest benefactors.

Kline was cleared of all ethics violations. In fact, for 20 full months, the state's disciplinary board for lawyers suppressed an internal investigative report concluding there was zero probable cause to justify the ethics complaints.

Where there's obstructionist smoke, there's corruption fire. Under Sebelius' watch as governor, an inspector general also reported that her appointed health policy board had "applied pressure to alter an audit report, restricted access to legal advice and threatened to fire her for meeting independently with legislators," according to the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Entirely fitting, of course. The war on whistleblowers and inspectors general has been a hallmark of the current White House. And the radically pro-abortion rights Sebelius has ruled ruthlessly from her Beltway perch: policing citizen critics of Obamacare through a taxpayer-funded Internet snitch brigade; threatening private companies and insurers who have increased rates to cope with ObamaCare coverage mandates; lashing out at newspapers who dare report on the costly consequences of the federal law.
As she bullies private companies to meet discriminatory and arbitrary disclosure demands, Sebelius has yet to be held accountable for overseeing state government agencies that conspired to hide the deadly truth about the Big Government/Big Abortion alliance from taxpayers. Like her boss in Washington, Sebelius' political playbook has a single page: Destroy the messenger.
The abortion industry is a crime syndicate. It makes a fortune from killing, and channels a healthy chunk of its "profits" into buying politicians. Over the past 7 years, Planned Parenthood has recieved 657 million dollars in federal funding (i.e. your tax dollars).

It's hard to imagine a more odious enterprise.

Friday, May 30, 2014

The elephant in the secular room

Catholic leaders are telling the truth: Christianity is increasingly under siege:
Catholic Leaders Sound Alarm At Prayer Breakfast: ‘The Days Of Acceptable Christianity Are Over
What is not said-- but needs to be said-- is that wide swaths of the Catholic leadership in this country bear a lot of the blame for this state of affairs. Obama won the Catholic vote in both 2008 and 2012, despite his obvious anti-Christian and specifically obvious anti-Catholic agenda. His record on abortion alone justified a warning from the Catholic leadership that voting for Obama-- or for any Democrat for that matter-- was manifest participation in grave sin.

Heck, at the Democrat National Convention in 2012 the Progressive delegates booed God.

Catholics and other Christians need to understand that we are at war with atheist secularism. The party of atheist secularism is the Democrat Party, and the Catholic leadership has been horrendously remiss to  offer any support to Democrats. 

The excuse "well the Democrats may be wrong on abortion and religious tolerance but they're right on healthcare, social programs, etc" is nonsense. Even if one drinks liberal kool-aid and believes that liberal social programs help the poor (they don't), liberal support for abortion and opposition to religious freedom are deal-killers for Christians. It was un-Christian to vote for Nazis in 1933, regardless of their panoply of social programs (Hitler was a socialist after all). Even if one is a Christian and is dumb enough to be a Progressive, one does not support manifest evil-- and Progressivism is manifest evil in its support for abortion and its opposition to religious rights-- regardless of how many (idiot) social programs Progressives throw up as chaff.  

There are many reasons for our cultural and political cesspool, and for the peril that Christians now face when they practice their faith. One of the prime reasons for our current state of affairs is the negligence and foolishness of our Catholic leadership in the United States. 

There should be a public accounting by our leadership, an admission of grave sin, and penance. 

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Gosnell's banker

Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups
That's $1.2 billion.

A man with his kind of money could do so much good. Buffet's choice: millions of dead kids.


Wednesday, May 28, 2014

"In her tenure as Secretary of State, what would you point to as Hillary's biggest accomplishment?"

... asked of Democrats at the annual Democratic Executive Committee Conference.

Something tells me that this could be a recurring theme for the RNC in the 2016 election.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

America's oldest civil rights organization unveils new ad

Great NRA video at this link.

I am not yet a member. I think I'm gonna join. It's becoming increasingly obvious that armed citizens are necessary and are a bulwark against a creeping atheist/leftist totalitarianism.

God bless these defenders of the Second Amendment, which is the Amendment that preserves the rest of the Constitution. 

Monday, May 26, 2014

'All experts agree...', vintage 1970.

Scientific predictions from Earth Day 1970:

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist 
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist 
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University 
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day 
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970 
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist 
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director 
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist 
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day 
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson 
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist 
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

This stuff never changes. Science apocalypticism is the scourge of the 20th century, and shows no sign of letting up in the 21st.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Coming out of the closet, pushing others back into the catacombs

Defensive End DeMarcus Walker:
Y'all praise Michael Sam for being gay but y'all mocked Tim Tebow for being a Christian...

HT: Jim Hoft 

Saturday, May 24, 2014

"This is not intended as an argument against abortion..."

From Theo Malekin:

When I was six, my friend Tom died. My Mum took me aside when I got home from school and explained that he had gone into the hospital for routine surgery but something had gone wrong. She said it was just as well that he had died. You see, Tom had Down syndrome. 
I don't mean to slander my mother. Like my father, she thought this was humane and rational -- that we should not cling to life if that life is one of terrible suffering. She was repeating the conventional wisdom of the day, and that wisdom said that if you had Down syndrome, your life was not worth living. Others who ought to have known better were often worse. In the eyes of many doctors, children with Down syndrome were burdens that would bring only disappointment to their families and they pressed parents to put their children in institutions and tell everyone that the baby had died. These children, it was believed, would never be any use to anyone, and their birth was treated as a tragedy. 
This is not intended as an argument against abortion. It is an argument for giving prospective parents of children with Down syndrome a full picture of what their life will be like. 
My daughter Hazel was born with Down syndrome five years ago. I found myself thinking of Tom a lot in the months that followed her birth. My wife and I, and especially Hazel, are lucky that things have changed since Tom died. Hazel has had an array of specialists who have helped her learn to walk and talk and she goes to a regular elementary school with other 'normal' kids. She still has challenges. We haven't got her potty-trained yet. On the other hand, she knows her alphabet and she can count better than some of her classmates. She likes learning and she is enthusiastic about going to school. Much more than I ever was. I hated school. 
We were also lucky that the head of the pediatric intensive care unit where Hazel spent her first month of life had a positive outlook on children with Down Syndrome. I remember him telling us not to place limits on what she could do, his relief when it became clear we were committed to our daughter. You see, old attitudes persist. Some people still believe that children with Down syndrome are a burden, their lives not worth living. A lot of people, to judge by message boards under articles about pregnancy screening. The problem is compounded by the doctors who present prospective parents with a uniformly gloomy outlook. Many parents of kids with Down syndrome can attest to this. In some cases, rather than congratulations new parents get a barrage of health statistics and there is still often an assumption by medical professionals that women carrying a child with Down syndrome will terminate the pregnancy. Around 80 percent of women who get a positive test for Down syndrome still choose to have an abortion. Yet I cannot think of any parents of a child with Down syndrome who would give them up for anything. 
Love has a way of making statistics irrelevant, and it brings its own kind of knowing. I do not love my daughter any less because she has Down syndrome. Her diagnosis says very little about who she is. She is not a disease or a syndrome but an individual: affectionate, naughty, infuriating at times, stubborn, self-willed and utterly charming. Certainly she has medical problems and developmental challenges not faced by other children. I'm not saying those don't exist. But they're one part of a much bigger picture. 
This is not intended as an argument against abortion. It is an argument for giving prospective parents of children with Down syndrome a full picture of what their life will be like. It includes a lot of work. Their child will likely have more medical problems due to their condition, and it will take time and effort to reach developmental milestones that other parents take for granted. But all these challenges are manageable, especially with the level of support available now. Expecting parents need at least to talk to the family of a child with Down syndrome. Otherwise they cannot know what it is like or what to expect. Statistics cannot tell you this. 
It is also an argument for changing attitudes that appear self-evident to too much of the general population. You cannot know if someone else's life is worth living without asking them and without even knowing them. A disability does not necessarily stop you living a full, satisfying life. Oddly enough, I'm not sure that disabilities have anything to do with living full satisfying lives. When it comes to Hazel, her life is not a burden to her family but an unending source of delight. For my part, I cannot imagine life without her. But most importantly, her life is valuable to herself, and definitely worth living.

But it is an argument against abortion. It is an argument for the sanctity of life-- every life. It is an argument that human worth is not determined by a test. It is not a matter of sentience, or intelligence, or even health or suffering.

Human worth is merely a matter of being human. We all have the same worth-- transcendent worth.

Mr. Malekin's experience is the experience that I see with nearly all of the families of the handicapped kids I care for (most of my patients are handicapped kids). These kids are a joy and a grace to their families. There can be hard times, of course, but life is about hard times. None of us ever really escape them, completely.

Our eugenic abortion culture is a lie about these kids and their families. Handicapped children are a gift, as are all children, and we need to clear away our pride and our fear to see them as they, and we, really are.   

Friday, May 23, 2014

Government-run healthcare has a bad week

Or, rather, victims of government-run healthcare have a bad week.
How VA hospitals are a government-run disaster
Why on earth would we want the government to run everyone's healthcare, when they are killing the unfortunate veterans who are stuck in the government health-care system that already exists?

And why haven't the mainstream media pointed out the obvious-- that liberals want to make all of America's healthcare like the VA system?

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Justice Ginsburg: abortion was for babies "that we don't want to have too many of"

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a New York Times interview in 2009:

[Question by reporter]: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [emphasis mine]

The McRae case was decided in 1980. So for at least seven years after Roe v. Wade, future Justice Ginsburg was untroubled by her knowledge that abortion was a strategy for eliminating certain kinds of people.

In case you were wondering what Ginsburg was doing in the 1970's, in 1972 she co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU. In 1973, she became the ACLU's General Counsel, where she remained until she was appointed to the federal bench in 1980.

During the time she was the ACLU's General Counsel, by her own admission, she believed that the purpose for Roe vrs Wade-- which she passionately supported and still supports-- was to eliminate certain kinds of people by abortion.

What kind of people, pray tell, did Ginsburg have in mind? (see above)

Since 1973, black children have been aborted at a rate twice that of whites. Planned Parenthood preferentially sites their abortion mills in minority neighborhoods, and PP accepts contributions designated to prevent the birth of black babies. From a telephone sting by Lila Rose's Live Action:

The donor and a representative of New Mexico Planned Parenthood were recorded as saying:

Donor: "I really face trouble with affirmative action. I don't want my kids to be disadvantaged ..."

Planned Parenthood representative: "Yeah."

Donor: "... against blacks in college. The less black kids out there the better."

Planned Parenthood representative: "Yeah, yeah, it's a strange time to be sure."
Rose claimed that Planned Parenthood development officials in all seven states that her group contacted gave similar responses and were encouraging donations that were limited to funding only abortions for black women.
A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood wrote FOX News that the group questioned the “authenticity of elements of these edited tapes” and added that Planned Parenthood had expanded its employee training program so that employees understand that “our organization helps all individuals — regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.”
'Expanding the training program' is an admission of the authenticity of the tapes.

Bottom line:

Justice Ginsburg admits that she knew for years that the abortion movement is motivated by desire to limit 'population growth' of blacks, and remained silent. 

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Off to Europe!

I'll be traveling in Europe for the next two weeks to attend two conferences. I've been invited to speak on the mind and neuroscience in Poland and Florence. Should be very interesting and a lot of fun!

I'm taking my youngest (college-age) daughter with me, so it'll be a great father-daughter time as well. We'll take a side trip to Rome, and spend a day at the Vatican. I've long dreamed of attending Mass at St. Peter's!

There are posts in queue each day, and I've tried to make them as topical as I can. I may be commenting a bit less for a couple of weeks, due to the travel.

"Woman's health"?

Lauren Rankin at Rolling Stone:
2014's Most Outrageous Attacks on Women's Health (So Far)
Orwellian swill. The issue at hand is abortion, not "choice", and abortion is indeed a matter of women's health, in the sense that 25 million very young women have had their lives snuffed out by this homicidal practice in the U.S. since 1973. A similar number of very young men have been killed in a similar fashion.

Around the world, there are 100 million missing women, mostly in Asia, mostly because of sex-selective abortions (and female infanticide) motivated by mandatory birth control policies in countries like China and India.

Abortion is the greatest selective killer of women in human history. It is very much a women's health issue, and the killers of women are people like Lauren Rankin who shill for this barbarous practice and employ the Orwellian phrase "women's health" to defend it. 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Prelude to an IRS audit

Elementary school teacher publicly disses Common Core:
‘Today was the first day I was ever ashamed to be a teacher’
Common Core is merely an opportunity for education elites to gain power and make sure the indoctrination of our kids is airtight, as well as provide a lucrative opportunity for government contracting and product placement. The guy has balls to call it out.

Somewhere there's a light on in an IRS office, working late. 

Monday, May 19, 2014

'All the Genitalia and Melanin Fit to Print'

Kevin Williamson has a scintillating take on the circus going on at the New York Times.

We conservatives like to beat up on the New York Times, and it gives us many, many reasons to do so, not least its sanctimony, which is on unfortunate display during this episode. But cities and countries need newspapers, and we criticize theTimes as much for what it fails to do as for the offenses it gives. I only wish that the paper were as excited about its intellectual standards as it is about the genital configuration of its editor. 
The Newspaper of Record unceremoniously dumps its female editor, after paying her a fraction of what it paid her male predecessor, to hire a black editor.

No doubt transgender candidates are getting hopeful. Their time is coming!

Who cares about intellectual standards and journalistic integrity, when there's so much race and sex to worry about. 

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Islam, again

Another Islamic atrocity:
Sudanese Christians have condemned the sentencing of a Christian woman to death by hanging after she married a Christian man. 
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, refused to recant her Christian faith as ordered by the court.
A doctor who is eight months pregnant and currently in detention with her 20-month-old son, Ibrahim was charged with adultery last year. Recently, the court added an apostasy charge when she declared her Christian faith in court. 
"This is very disturbing," said Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Daniel Adwok of Khartoum. 
Born of a Muslim father and an Orthodox Christian mother, Ibrahim married Daniel Wani, a South Sudanese Christian with U.S. citizenship, in 2012.

Curious what you're missing? Request asample issue of NCR
Adwok said he could not understand why the sentence was issued when the 2005 Interim National Constitution allowed freedom of religion throughout the country. 
"She had openly declared her Christian faith," Adwok said. "I don't think it's right to deny her that freedom." 
But the Sudanese minister for information, Ahmed Bilal Osman, told Agence France-Presse that Sudan is not unique in its law against apostasy. 
"In Saudi Arabia, in all the Muslim countries, it is not allowed at all for a Muslim to change his religion," he said.
Muslims sentence a pregnant woman to death for converting to Christianity.


Around the world, even "enlightened" Muslims remain silent about the death penalty for apostasy, which is a crime against humanity.

We Christians need to wake up and understand what we're facing. Between Islamic and atheist fascists, we are facing persecution on a massive scale.

Please pray for Ms. Ibrahim, that her courage and her faith in the Lord will not cost her her life. 

Saturday, May 17, 2014

'The End is Near'-- but from whom?

It seems that humanity isn't listening to our science masters:
But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me? 
Preeminent scientists are warning about serious threats to human life in the not-distant future, including climate change and superintelligent computers. Most people don't care...
I wonder why it is that people don't seem to care when scientists tell them that the apocalypse is upon us?

Perhaps it's because people remember the Malthusian apocalypses, and the Eugenic apocalypses, and the Pesticide apocalypses, and the Overpopulation apocalypses, and the Global Cooling apocalypses, and the Acid Rain apocalypses, and the Heterosexual AIDS apocalypses.

Scientists have been shoveling bullshit for a couple of centuries now, and people are smart enough to know when government contractors (which is what scientists are) hype imminent catastrophes to gin up funding and draw attention to themselves.

If the death toll from Malthusian policies and Eugenic cleansing and DDT deprivation and 'One Child' crimes against humanity in developing countries (upwards of a couple hundred million deaths) is taken as a prelude, the real extinction threat humanity faces is from scientists themselves.  

Friday, May 16, 2014

Just when you thought she couldn't get any worse...

Hillary Clinton's Boko Haram problem

from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school. 
It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the State Department would have refused to designate it as such.

All of the usual excuses will be offered: just a judgement call, not all information was available, what difference does it make now, etc.

Another explanation is obvious, but won't be pursued, unfortunately. I think it's the most likely explanation.

The Clintons are a crime family, like the Gambinos, only more violent and less ethical. They have deep ties to international gangsters. Hillary's body servant has intimate blood ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hillary's tenure at State has not been a disaster for everyone. The Muslim Brotherhood has prospered, and radical Islamists (ya' know, the kind with the unlimited untraceable funds who have close relatives  in Hillary's bedroom) have done very well under Hillary's watch.

Perhaps Boko Haram was kept off the terrorism list for reasons unrelated to their exemplary behavior.

How could I say such a thing! Since when would the Clintons cooperate with terrorists and criminals for their own personal gain? Since when would the Clintons associate with people who pay money for favors?

Wouldn't you love to have the Clinton's banking records during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State, when she presided over one victory after another of oil-rich Muslim terrorists?

Will we find out the truth here? Dream on. This is America 2014. The government knows everything about you, not the other way around. 

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Donald Sperling, the NAACP, and the "civil rights" shakedown

The face of the NAACP: a rich racist and a disbarred judge. 

From ABC:
LA NAACP Head Resigns Over Move to Honor Sterling
The real scandal in the Sterling fiasco isn't about an elitist philandering trail lawyer with girlfriends who could be his granddaughters and who is a shameless racist. After all, jerks like Sterling have worn hoods with eyeholes (and made common cause with guys with hoods with eyeholes) for a century and a half. And I hasten to remind the reader that they all have been Progressives.

Another one turns out to be a racist. Knock me over with a feather.

The real interesting scandal here is the cozy relationship this octogenarian Bull Connor has with the NAACP.

What the hell, you might ask, would the nation's premiere civil rights organization (I'm not counting the NRA) be doing when it planned to present this well-known life-long racist-- a man who was actually prosecuted successfully by the Justice Department for racial discrimination-- with an NAACP "2014 Lifetime Achievement Award" for his "generosity, inspiration, and leadership"?

Was Sperling chosen for the civil rights award because George Wallace was dead and David Duke was unavailable?

From the ABC report:

The Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP offered the same thing for Clippers owner Donald Sterling and civil rights advocate Leon Jenkins — an opportunity for image rehabilitation. 
Sterling, a big-name donor, made contributions that helped earn him NAACP awards as he tried to recover from a damaging discrimination lawsuit. Jenkins, the LA chapter's president, sought to use his volunteer work to show he was ready to return to practicing law after having been disbarred.
Disbarred? The Los Angeles NAACP president is a disbarred lawyer?
Sterling and Jenkins have known each other at least since 2009, when the business magnate was honored by the new leader of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It was the same year Sterling agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle federal charges that he refused to rent apartments to blacks and Hispanics.
So this is the second time the NAACP has honored this Sterling? The first time was right after he paid millions of dollars in a Justice Department prosecution for racism.
Sterling had been honored for donating to minority charities and giving game tickets to inner-city children, Jenkins said. 
How sweet and innocent. At least Sterling never gave money to the NAACP itself.
The Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation gave $5,000 to the NAACP's Los Angeles chapter in 2010, according to tax records. There was no record of contributions in other years. 
Jenkins' resignation represents a second major public setback. 
Well, I'm sure that the NAACP was beyond reproach in this matter.
More than 25 years ago, federal prosecutors charged Jenkins, then a young Michigan judge, with extortion and racketeering conspiracy. Authorities said he requested and received money, jewelry, a handgun and other gifts to dismiss traffic tickets and other misdemeanors. 
Jenkins was acquitted after two trials, but in 1991 the Michigan Supreme Court removed him from the bench, saying he "systematically and routinely sold his office and his public trust." Michigan and California subsequently banned him from practicing law.

The NAACP Los Angeles chapter president is a disbarred judge who sold judicial favors in exchange for money and who planned to award a "lifetime achievement award" to a filthy rich racist who... dispensed money to minorities.

Wanna bet how much of Sterling's money actually went to poor black kids in Watts?

The modern "civil rights"movement, embodied by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP, is hardly more than a shake-down operation. Just gangsters.

This of course will be stuffed down the mainstream media memory hole asap. The reporter who wrote this ABC News story is probably already looking for another job.

Can you imagine the stink if it was discovered that Sterling was scheduled to receive a lifetime achievement award from a conservative Republican organization? It would be headline news for the next two years, right through the next couple of election cycles.

The real modern civil rights movement is the movement-- made up almost entirely of conservative Republicans, which was the demographic of the original civil rights movement from the 1850's to today-- to secure color-blind law and make character, rather than race, the basis for our social contract. 

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Latest dispatch from the Ministry of Truth

You can't make this up:

The Guardian reported:

"The kidnapping of over 200 Nigerian school girls, and the massacre of as many as 300 civilians in the town of Gamboru Ngala, by the militant al-Qaeda affiliated group, Boko Haram, has shocked the world.
But while condemnations have rightly been forthcoming from a whole range of senior figures from celebrities to government officials, less attention has been paid to the roots of the crisis.
Instability in Nigeria, however, has been growing steadily over the last decade – and one reason is climate change. In 2009, a UK Department for International Development (Dfid) study warned that climate change could contribute to increasing resource shortages in the country due to land scarcity from desertification, water shortages, and mounting crop failures.
A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmeda “basic causal mechanism” that “links climate change with violence in Nigeria.” The report concludes:
“…poor responses to climatic shifts create shortages of resources such as land and water. Shortages are followed by negative secondary impacts, such as more sickness, hunger, and joblessness. Poor responses to these, in turn, open the door to conflict.”
Unfortunately, a business-as-usual scenario sees Nigeria’s climate undergoing “growing shifts in temperature, rainfall, storms, and sea levels throughout the twenty-first century. Poor adaptive responses to these shifts could help fuel violent conflict in some areas of the country.”

Not one mention of "Islam" or "Muslims". The root cause of Boko Haram is... global warming.

My usual inexhaustible capacity for commentary fails me.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

"But it may be too late"

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman demonstrates that there's no I.Q. test to be a columnist. His column, with my commentary.
Supreme Court blesses town prayer 
Thanks to immigration, America's religious makeup has changed. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are much more common than they once were. In 20 or 30 years, it's possible these groups will attain numerical dominance in a town here or there.
There's probably already Muslim dominance in Deerborn, and various non-Christian dominance in neighborhoods in many of our major cities. Freedom of religion is like that. It's a good thing.
Many Christians will applaud today's Supreme Court decision allowing a town council in Greece, N.Y. to begin its meetings with an invocation by a "chaplain of the month," even if the invited clergy choose to proclaim "the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.” It's nice to have the government publicly endorse your faith. But if it can champion Christianity today, why not Islam tomorrow?
I have no problem with Islamic prayer at public meetings. It's completely Constitutional, and I respect other people's religious practice.
If Christians attending the local city council meeting had to sit through a prayer to Allah or Vishnu, they would most likely feel excluded and offended. But somehow they think non-Christians should have to put up with the equivalent without complaint or recourse.
Why would I feel excluded and offended by other people praying according to their faith? This happens often in my life-- my in-laws are Jewish, and I often attend family events at which Jewish prayers are said. I don't feel excluded at all. In fact, I feel privileged to be invited. They know I'm Catholic, and I'm honored to be a part of their worship. I was at a niece's Bat Mitzvah recently, and when we were praying in the temple, I said a silent prayer to Jesus and enjoyed the service. If I were at a government event in, say, an Orthodox Jewish community or a Muslim community and the prayer was Jewish or Muslim, I'd listen quietly and respectfully and say the Lord's Prayer to myself. I like it when other people pray. It doesn't exclude or offend me. What does exclude and offend me is when an atheist calls a federal judge who threatens to fine or jail anyone who prays. That's exclusion and offense.
Five Supreme Court justices members agree, with three of the four dissents coming from justices who know something about religious discrimination, being Jewish. The fourth, Sonia Sotomayor, apparently does not belong to a church.
What could Chapman possibly mean about "religious discrimination" against Jews in the U.S.? Jews prosper in the U.S.. Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan are Jewish. They have lived enormously successful, even privileged, lives. Jews are highly over-represented on the Court. Two percent of the population is Jewish. One third of the court is Jewish. In what way have Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan experienced discrimination? What a stupid thing to say. Now there is one person on the Court who has experienced real discrimination, and still is attacked for his race. Clarence Thomas has been attacked racially, by Democrats, for decades.
This is one case where being in the majority can blind one to the perspective of the minority. Christians may someday find out how it feels to be on the other side. Then they will remember what Jesus said about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But it may be too late.
"Too late" for what? Too late for Christians to be paranoid anti-religious bigots, like atheists?

Try to understand what this moron is saying. He is asserting that Christians should oppose the Court's honest interpretation of the Constitution, which plainly permits government prayer,  because he believes that Christians should allow their paranoia and bigotry against other faiths to determine their opinions on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Chapman is saying this: 'Christians, you shouldn't be so happy about this interpretation of the Constitution, not because it is an incorrect interpretation, but because it allows people you hate and fear to pray in public.'

What offensive swill.

Bottom line: the Constitution says what it says, regardless of our bigotry and paranoia. Public government prayer is constitutional, period. And Christians overwhelmingly do welcome prayers from other faiths-- how many lawsuits have Christians filed trying to stop other people from praying? Our nemesis here isn't Jews or Muslims or Hindus who might get to say a prayer or two at our city council meetings.

Our nemesis is atheists with a totalitarian itch who violate the Constitution and try to strip citizens' rights to pray in public, and columnists who write highly repellant swill that plays to Americans' worst instincts on the assumption that Christians hate and fear other religions as much as atheists do.

Monday, May 12, 2014


Mark Steyn at his best.

... The California schools superintendent who wanted his Eighth Graders to turn in essays arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen is called Mohammad Z Islam. That's why they got the assignment, not because they wanted to turn themselves into the Oxford Union. As Laura Rosen Cohen pointed out, there are all kinds of lively topics Mr Cooke might propose for our schools: Did Mohammed exist? What's the deal with his nine-year-old bride? But in the real world even mild questioning of whether Islam is a "religion of peace" is beyond the pale, and across the Continent the Holocaust is disappearing from school curricula. 
That's the problem. There's no point winning an Oxford debate if the other side win[s] everything else.

Imponderable question of the week: why is L.A. schools superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam still employed? 

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there!

Please don't forget your mom today!

Saturday, May 10, 2014

She's the Apple of his eye

Man's Court Battle To Marry His Laptop
...He added: "If anything, my marriage to a machine possesses less of a risk, since a possible acrimonious divorce proceeding could be avoided, if the marriage fails."
I don't know. His spouse-to-be seems awfully calculating to me. I think she's just attracted to his power. 

Friday, May 9, 2014

There is no place for racists on the Supreme Court

Kansas City Star commentator Mary Sanchez, with my commentary:
Good for Sonia Sotomayor. 
She called out her U.S. Supreme Court peers for their dismissive attitudes toward our nation’s troubling racial history and their wishful thinking on how far we have come in such matters. 
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination," Sotomayor wrote in a withering 58-page dissenting opinion.
Sotomayor has ruled in the highest court in the land that race should be a central factor in admissions at state universities. It is a plainly racist viewpoint.

How's that for 'speaking openly and candidly on the subject of race'?
Eight states have outlawed race as a consideration in admissions at state universities. The court’s decision opens the door to voting majorities in other states to reach the same conclusion, without considering the historical burdens many minority people still struggle with — a stark break from the court’s past role as a guardian of fairness and justice for all.
Consideration of historical burdens with which minority people still struggle is for the people and legislatures to consider, in referendums and legislation, respectively.

Sotomayor's job as a jurist is to rule based on the law and the Constitution, both of which she flouted.
By writing her brave dissent, Sotomayor illustrated for America what she meant in a controversial remark she made during her Senate confirmation hearings. Remember that quote? The one where she said that a Latina jurist might "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." 
That prediction has come true.
Bizarrely, Sotomayor believes that Wiselatinahood somehow serves as a basis for interpretation of the law and of the Constitution. Wisecaucasianhood, or Wisemalehood, or WiseWASPhood, seem not to have the same salubrious effect on jurisprudence.

Affirmative action applies not merely to college admissions, but now to judicial rulings, it seems.

I can't think of a more compelling reason to impeach her and remove her from the bench.

In this case, she showed herself to be a better guardian of a long legal legacy the high court set down in numerous prior decisions: protecting minorities from discriminatory laws enacted by electoral majorities. She accused her peers of abandoning that legacy. "We ordinarily understand our precedents to mean what they actually say, not what we later think they could or should have said," she scolded.
What the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act "actually say" is irrelevant to Sotomayor. Both demand colorblind application of the law. Sotomayor's opinion is based entirely on what she "later think[s] they could or should have said".

The fact is that Sotomayor sits at the terminus of a long line of bigots. The electoral majorities who have discriminated against minorities were always progressive Democrat majorities-- progressive Democrat politics has traditionally been the politics of Jim Crow and segregation. Even those rare Progressives who have abjured personal racist politics-- Hubert Humphrey comes to mind-- spent hours in smoky rooms cutting deals with their racist segregationalist buddies to gain power.

Sotomayor sits at the end of a long line of racists. Her judical ruling in favor of racism makes perfect sense in that light. Sotomayor's nightmare is a colorblind system of law.

The good people of Michigan disagree with her, and she is intent on forcing racial discrimination on Michigan despite the colorblind wishes of the citizens of that state.
The court’s ruling does not by any means decide the complicated issues of how race or race-neutral considerations like socio-economic status will be used in college admissions. What it does is change how those decisions can be made. Michigan’s anti-affirmative action law was passed in 2006 by ballot initiative, with the support of 58 percent of Michigan voters. 
In her dissent, Sotomayor pointed out what should be obvious: "Under our Constitution, majority rule is not without limit." Race still matters in America. The burdens of past racial discrimination — in the case of African-Americans, hundreds of years of slavery, terrorization and apartheid — are still palpable in unequal life conditions. And racial, ethnic and gender discrimination continues to abide.
Read more here:
The Constitution and the Civil Rights Act require equal treatment under law without regard to race.

Not a single white applicant to college in Michigan has been convicted of violating the rights of a black person. Yet Sotomayor insists that the government disadvantage white applicants simply because of the color of their skin.

What about the 14th Amendment guarantee of the right to equal protection of the law? What about the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination based on race? What about the 5th Amendment guarantee of the right to due process of law?

How can a government policy disadvantage a white (or Asian) college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any legal finding that the applicant had any personal culpability in any discrimination? How can a government policy advantage a black college applicant on the pretext of past racial discrimination, without any finding that the applicant had actually suffered any personal harm from said discrimination? On what legal basis should a poor white or Asian kid from a single-parent home be disadvantaged to admit a rich black kid from a successful intact family or a recent black immigrant who personally suffered no racial discrimination in the United States at all?

The attribution of culpability and privilege based on race is the definition of racism, and has no basis in law or ethics.

Sotomayor's job is to apply those crystal-clear principles of black-letter law, which, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, are color-blind.

No one gives a sh*t about Sotomayor's personal views on racism or history. Yet she has scandalously imposed her own bigoted views on her judicial decisions, in plain defiance of the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act, all of which demand equal protection of the law.
Asserting merely that the majority should rule, even in cases where it stacks the deck against minorities, is not fair in America. It wasn’t fair a century ago when literacy tests and poll taxes were put in place, and it’s not fair in 2014.
The referendum's repudiation of affirmative action is an explicit rejection of racism. The public is demanding an end to racism in law and government policy, and Sotomayor is demanding that racism in law and government policy continue.

You decide who the racist is.

...That was not all there was to her dissent, however. There was a minute detailing of this country’s long history of discriminatory law, of states and municipalities using the vote of the majority to limit the rights of the minority. It’s a long and lamentable list. Grandfather clauses, good character requirements, poll taxes and gerrymandering provisions all were concocted to keep minorities in their place, and all were invalidated by the court.
Affirmative action is racism, and is one more domino in a long line of progressive Democrat racist policies. It needs to end.
As the nation’s first Latina Supreme Court justice, she is in a unique position to speak to experiences that her colleagues can only read about — and apparently are all too ready to dismiss.
WTF? Clarence Thomas needs to consult Wiselatina Sonya about racism? He can only read about racism?

Justice Thomas-- a man who has fought racism all his life-- was the victim of a high-tech lynching by Sotomayor's racist compatriots in his confirmation hearings because he was a black man who strayed off the Democrat plantation. He doesn't have to read about racism. He has experienced racism first-hand, from Sotomayor's patrons.
She is also a rigorous jurist, and she won’t let the court abandon its proud and righteous legacy without putting up a fight.
Sotomayor is a rigorous racist, not a rigorous jurist, and nothing she wrote in that dissent has anything to do with jurisprudence. She is a bigot who has substituted her personal bigotry for law.

There is no place for racists on the Supreme Court.
Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Goodness gracious Jerry Coyne is a moron

Jerry Coyne writes something on the Supreme Courts' Greece v Galloway decision that is almost too stupid to be worth commentary. Almost.

The most frightening thing on there, though, was this (my emphasis):

An opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, explained their refusal to join Part II-B of Justice Kennedy’s opinion. They argued that the Establishment Clause should not be seen as being applicable to the states. 
Do we need to remind Scalia, who is an “originalist” (i.e., one who adheres to what he sees as the original intent of the U.S. Constitution’s writers), what the Establishment Clause is? It’s at the beginning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
Under what interpretation is that not applicable to the states? Are Scalia and Thomas saying that although Congress can’t have make an established religion, or prohibit exercise of some religions, or prohibit freedom of the press, the states can?

That’s insane. I look forward to reading their opinions; this is going to be juicy.

A prime purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments of religion-- at the time of ratification, many states had official state churches. The Establishment Clause guaranteed that the federal government couldn't establish a national religion, which would deprive the individual states of their own state religions. Established state churches continued into the middle decades of the 19th century, and were perfectly constitutional, protected by the Establishment Clause from interference by the federal government. 

It wasn't until 1940, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Cantwell v. Connecticut, that the Establishment Clause was fully incorporated to the states, based on the 14th Amendment.

The Incorporation Doctrine is itself dubious. It is not stated explicitly in the 14th Amendment, and many legal scholars and Supreme Court justices (including Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia) have argued cogently that the Establishment Clause cannot be incorporated to the states, precisely because the Establishment Clause is an anti-incorporation doctrine. The Establishment Clause basically takes the federal government out of the state-religion-regulation game, and can't therefore be used as a basis for federal state-religion regulation. 

Coyne of course knows none of this. He poses as a public intellectual, even as a sage on Establishment Clause issues, but he is ignorant of the most rudimentary aspects of Establishment Clause history and jurisprudence.

It is a sorry state of affairs that this semi-literate anti-Christian bigot is taken seriously in our public discourse. 

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

David Duke: hey, where's my Lifetime Achievement Award from the NAACP?

Waiting for the phone to ring...

[Dissociated Press] David Duke is waiting. Patiently. Tapping his fingers.

"Why haven't they called?" the former Grand Wizard and lifelong racist asked, staring at the phone.

Yesterday this reporter had the rare opportunity to interview the American White nationalist, writer, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, former Republican Louisiana state representative, candidate in the Democrat and Republican presidential primaries in 1988 and 1992, and general-purpose racist. Emeritus Grand Wizard Duke has been considerably miffed about revelations accompanying the scandal over Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's recent racist remarks.

"Hell", Duke said, cocking his hooded head in the living room of his three-room trailer. "Sterling has been a racist all his life-- a real nasty jerk. So why does he get a Lifetime Achievement Award from the... the... the frackin' NAACP?!"

Duke's neck, visible along the skirt of his hood, turned red. 

"I mean the old cradle-robber Sterling actually paid a $2.7 million dollar fine to the Justice Department in 2009, after he paid a fine of $4.9 in 2005, for denying housing to blacks and Koreans! Then, right after he paid the last fine for racism, in 2009, the NAACP gave him an achievement award. And this month he was scheduled to get another one!"

Duke slammed his pasty fist on the laminate table.

 "I might have a few opinions that the NAACP don't like, but heck, I'm not a convicted racist or nothin'. I never broke no law. Why the heck ain't I getting no award from the NAACP? I ain't done half the racist stuff Sterling did."

Duke sat silently, staring at the telephone on the table.

I broke the silence. I asked: so why do you think hasn't the NAACP given you a "Lifetime Achievement Award"?

Duke lifted his sheet, pulled his wallet out of his back pocket, and fingered it wistfully.
"I guess my resume wasn't thick enough for the NAACP".

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Prayer Police have a bad day

Supreme Court: Sectarian prayers before legislative sessions don’t violate the Constitution
Score so far this month: Sanity 1, Prayer Police 0.

It comes as a big shock that the First Amendment, which does not ban prayer at government meetings, written by men who prayed at government meetings who were elected by people who wanted prayer at government meetings, in a modern court case in a country where the vast majority of citizens still want prayer at government meetings, in a Court that begins its sessions with a prayer, might permit prayer at government meetings.

Who knew?

It was a 5-4 decision, which means that four a**holes need to be impeached. I know... I'm dreaming. But the thought that we tolerate racists and anti-Christian bigots on the Supreme Court who flagrantly disobey the Constitution leaves me staggered.

This case should have been laughed out of court and the atheist tools who brought it should have been assessed court costs.

I don't know why the American people tolerate this.

Monday, May 5, 2014

The girls of Chibok

Nicholas Kristoff has an essay on the girls kidnapped by Islamists in Nigeria:
‘Bring Back Our Girls’
Where is the outrage about this atrocity, especially from the Muslim community? This is one of the most distressing things about Islam today-- not merely that it is disproportionately involved in terrorism, but that even Muslims who have no personal connection to radical Islamists usually remain silent about the atrocities.

Kristoff's essay is generally laudable, although he slips into execrable political correctness. To wit:
The attack in Nigeria is part of a global backlash against girls’ education by extremists. The Pakistani Taliban shot Malala Yousafzai in the head at age 15 because she advocated for girls’ education. Extremists threw acid in the faces of girls walking to school in Afghanistan. And in Nigeria, militantsdestroyed 50 schools last year alone... 
Northern Nigeria is a deeply conservative area, and if the schoolgirls are recovered, it may be difficult for them to marry because of suspicions that they are no longer virgins.
The terrorist kidnappers were Islamists, not "extremists", and Northern Nigeria is Islamic, not "deeply conservative" (one doubts Northern Nigerians have memorial portraits of Ronald Reagan in their living rooms). There's nothing "conservative' about kidnapping and murdering schoolgirls. But there is a lot Islamic about it-- in fact, virtually all of the atrocities committed against young girls simply because they are getting an education is committed by Muslims, not conservatives (you can see the headline "Conservatives Hijack Another Airliner").

There should be a major coordinated international effort to find the girls and to hold those who kidnapped them responsible. Like the search for the Malaysian airline, magnified ten times. There won't be, though, because the world is like Brandeis University, and won't tolerate even a wisp of honesty about Islam.

Please pray for the girls that they may return unharmed to their families.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Capital punishment and being pro-life

Recent news of a botched execution in Oklahoma provides a backdrop for this essay:
The conservative case for capital punishment
Capital punishment is where I part ways with many of my conservative and Christian brethren. I believe that capital punishment is neither conservative nor Christian.

From a conservative standpoint, it is the ultimate exercise of state power. No matter how heinous the crime committed by the offender, the deliberate, planned and technocratic killing of a human being by the state is wrong. As a conservative, I believe in small government. I believe also in law and order and safe streets, and of course public safely is the prime reason for government. But government killing people-- even evil people-- is the antithesis of small government. Capital punishment is not a conservative act.

From a Christian standpoint, I take the stance of the Church (as I understand it). Capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil, as, for example, abortion and euthanasia are. There have been situations in which capital punishment was moral-- specifically, in societies without the ability to incarcerate violent criminals. Without prisons (which were a modern invention), capital punishment was the only way to protect the public. As such, it was moral from a Christian standpoint, because the primary intent was to protect the innocent, not to kill the offender, and the innocent could not be protected any other way.

However, in the modern world, violent criminals can be locked up for life, and taking a human life is no longer necessary for public safety. As such, it is immoral to execute a criminal, no matter how heinous his crime.

I don't oppose capital punishment out of a misplaced sympathy for killers. Most of the folks on death row deserve worse than death, and they will get it, if they do not repent and get right with the Lord. But it is always wrong to kill a human being as a primary intent. It is no longer necessary to use capital punishment to protect the public.

And I don't accept the view that capital punishment is moral because it is merely justice. It is indeed just-- heck, for a lot of these guys on death row boiling in oil would be just-- but none of us would fare well if we were treated according to a calculus of strict justice.

We all fall short, and all need God's mercy. Some of us fall a lot shorter than others. But sinners who profess righteousness and demand harsh justice for other sinners earned the particular ire of our Lord.

Capital punishment should be abolished. A government that kills isn't a small government. Neither the state nor anyone (abortionists no less than executioners) should take human life.

That is what being conservative, Christian and pro-life is all about. 

Saturday, May 3, 2014

"Help Obama repeal the Bill of RIghts"

Mark Dice asks folks (Obama voters to a man no doubt) to sign a petition to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Sleep well. 

Friday, May 2, 2014

A suggestion on Elizabeth Warren's autobiography

System-gaming envy-monger Elizabeth Warren announces the publication of her autobiography "A Fighting Chance":
Elizabeth Warren makes heap big omission in autobiography
I'm sure it's a great read, but here's a title of Warren's autobiography-- one that sums up the real secret to her meteoric rise-- that I'd pay money for:

Thursday, May 1, 2014

An explanation of how we got rich

Makes a lot of sense:

Freedom, along with sound morality, is the secret to flourishing.

Socialism, you may have noticed, is the antithesis of both.