Free speech has long been attacked by the Left everywhere it could be, but particularly in college campuses, where one is forced to go to a specific “free speech zone” in order to be able to speak freely, which is a clear and obvious violation to people’s First Amendment rights of free speech. Georgia Gwinnett College is one such campus where students are not allowed to share their opinions outside of “free speech zones” so as to not “offend” people who disagree.
And in 2016, they forced a Christian student named Chike Uzuegbunam to adhere to such an unconstitutional campus policy and told him he needed to use a “free speech zone” to share his Christian faith on campus.
According to The Daily Caller, Uzuegbunam complied with orders to use a “free speech zone”, but even still, he was threatened with disciplinary action by campus police only minutes after speaking if he continued to speak in that “free speech zone.”
So not only was Gwinnett College violating the student’s 1A rights by restricting where he could theoretically speak his opinion, which is already bad enough, but they also did not even let him speak his mind whatsoever even in that “free speech zone” that is literally supposed to be used for that purpose.
Seeing as he was sharing his Christian faith, it’s entirely likely that the college is anti-Christian and hates the faith, so they would try to do whatever they could to stimy it and suppress it to the best of their abilities, even going outside the bounds of the law to do so (and even going outside the bounds of their own campus policy rules).
But, as this obviously reached the Supreme Court, the story did not end there. Uzuegbunam was supported by a number of people and institutions, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the American Humanist Association, Frederick Douglass Foundation, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and, surprisingly, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whom all filed amicus briefs in support of the student.
The case went through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which actually sided against Uzuegbunam, claiming that the student “didn’t have standing to sue the college over its policy that severely restricted his speech,” according to The Daily Caller.
Yes, apparently, whenever a court doesn’t like it when people sue tyrants, they simply claim such people “don’t have standing to sue” and leave it at that.
However, Uzuegbunam’s lawyers took this case to the Supreme Court, where eight of the nine justices decided in favor of Uzuegbunam.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued the opinion of the court on this case, affirming the student’s (and all students’) right to share his Christian faith on campus, writing: “It is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him.”
Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said in a statement following this decision: “The Supreme Court has rightly affirmed that government officials should be held accountable for the injuries they cause. When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims.”
Tyson Langhofer, director of ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom, told The Daily Caller News Foundation: “School officials violated [Uzuegbunam’s] constitutional rights when they stopped him twice from speaking in an open area of campus. The only permit students need to speak on campus is the First Amendment.”
I completely agree with that idea, which is why I find it intolerable that any school would have a “free speech zone.” The entire COUNTRY is a free speech zone, and for anyone to limit that at any capacity, unless it is for the purposes of employment (employees of a company tend to represent that company, so it makes sense for some limitations to be placed with such a regard. Employees are logically and legally not allowed to share company secrets with other people, for example), is nothing short of tyrannical and antithetical to the founding principles of this country.
Which is why the Left adores these kinds of policies, as they do not want any speech which contradicts their own opinions. Do you think college professors have to use those “free speech zones” to indoctrinate their students to believe in Marxism and communism? No, they have their classrooms for that. But students cannot step out of the classrooms to un-brainwash the students of that crap, else they are faced with some sort of punishment by the school.
The Court definitely made the right decision here, but look again at the title and the decision itself. There is a lone dissenter in this case.
The lone dissenter might not necessarily be very surprising, apart from the fact that he is alone in this. Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone dissenter in this case, which is fairly surprising, not by virtue of his own ideologies and politics (the guy is a commie bastard, so that’s not what makes this surprising), but by virtue of the fact that he was ALONE on this decision. The Court is, one could argue, split 6-3 with conservatives being the majority.
Roberts is, for some reason, considered a conservative, so he would be part of that 6. More often, however, it is more akin to 5-4 in favor of conservatives (though even that one is iffy, with Alito and Thomas being the only two consistent conservatives on here, though have sometimes erred in crucial moments). But Roberts was appointed by Bush (and is making a case for the Iraq War not being Bush’s worst legacy decision), so he’s counted amongst the conservative majority.
The reason I even bring this up is, again, he was alone here. EVEN THE THREE CONSISTENT LIBERALS, STEPHEN BREYER, SONIA SOTOMAYOR AND ELENA KAGAN, TWO OF WHICH WERE APPOINTED BY SOCIALIST OBAMA, ALL SIDED IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH.
When you are the lone dissenter in a slam-dunk free speech case, deciding AGAINST free speech, and three of your other eight colleagues are liberals who are not exactly friends of free speech, you seriously messed up somewhere along the way.
And he offers a poor excuse, too.
Justice Roberts said that he agreed with the court of appeals, and he dissented on this case because the college, following Uzuegbunam’s lawsuit, changed its free speech policy. As a result, Roberts argued that the case was moot.
“Today’s decision risks a major expansion of the judicial role. Until now, we have said that federal courts can review the legality of policies and actions only as a necessary incident to resolving real disputes.”
Oh, THIS, the defense of free speech and First Amendment rights, is an expansion of judicial role because the Court had never ruled on the legality of policies of college campuses? Not the Court’s decision to declare that a state has no standing in suing another state for breaking its own election laws and rules and process?
The Supreme Court defending the First Amendment is expanding its judicial role? Because it has to do with a college campus’ policy? So is that to say that the extent of the constitution, which the Court is supposed to uphold, does not reach American campuses? Do students, faculty, and anyone within the boundary of college campuses not have constitutional rights? Are college campuses a separate country, independent from the United States?
This is a poor excuse for a number of reasons, perhaps one of the biggest being that EVEN THE LIBERALS DIDN’T TRY TO MAKE SOME SORT OF EXCUSE FOR VOTING AGAISNT FREE SPEECH. Why is that? Because EVEN THE LIBERALS voted in FAVOR of free speech.
No, it doesn’t matter that the campus changed its policy after the lawsuit – THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD SUCH A POLICY TO BEGIN WITH. Students all over the country are being restricted of their free speech rights by their colleges, forced to go to “free speech zones” to freely speak, and even if they do that, they still get harassed and told they cannot speak freely if they share opinions which the college finds unfavorable.
The Georgia college erred in two ways: first, and foremost, in their restricting of free speech on their students, and secondly, in their inconsistent enforcement of the rules that THEY created.
If they have unconstitutional “free speech zones”, they damn well better at least allow students to use it, regardless of what is said. Again, they shouldn’t even have those things to begin with as they are clearly unconstitutional, but if they do, it at least better be consistently and equally enforced.
It doesn’t matter that the college changed its policy following the lawsuit. That wasn’t an important detail even for the liberals on the court, for crying out loud!
Chief Justice Roberts, like I alluded to earlier, has been making a serious case as to why the war in Iraq wasn’t Bush’s worst decision as President of the United States.
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
I want to begin this article by making a couple of disclaimers. First, and perhaps most importantly, I am not a lawyer. I cannot give legal advice or counsel, nor can I give expert opinion on the procedures and logistics of possibilities for the Trump legal team to seek legal action against a clearly rigged election result. However, I will be largely quoting actual lawyers, who themselves have already written plenty about the legal options of the Trump team, both back in late November and more recently on Christmas Eve.
So whatever legal opinions are shared here, they will largely either be quotes or paraphrases of these lawyers, or at least backed up by what these lawyers are sharing.
The second disclaimer I want to make is that I am not saying that Trump only has this option for resolving the issue of a stolen election. This one is a little less important, since I don’t think too many people would interpret that title as whittling down Trump’s options for victory, but I still want to make this perfectly clear simply due to my not trusting the Supreme Court at this point (for good reason) and not believing that they are willing to actually do anything to save the Republic or even themselves, not to mention that I also don’t trust the current Acting AG.
But regardless of those things, allow me to share with you the thoughts of a couple of prominent conservative legal scholars who are giving their opinions about the SCOTUS having rejected the Texas suit against four “swing” states (generally titled Texas v. Pennsylvania), and who make a suggestion (which they have gone so far as to formally submit to President Trump himself) about what legal steps the president can take to right the many wrongs committed during this election that have resulted in a fake president-elect.
First, they give their opinions of the ghastly decision by the SCOTUS to reject the Texas suit:
“In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”
“However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully – by a different plaintiff…”
The lawyers, named William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney, note that the SCOTUS made a massive mistake which could have huge ramifications if not corrected. In rejecting the suit, the Court committed wrongs against Texas and the roughly 20 states which supported its suit (which includes Arizona, for some reason), the United States itself, the President, and We the People.
You see, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, wrote that courts have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Courts have the obligation to explain their decisions satisfactorily to the People, else the reasoning behind the decisions can easily be seen as partisan or corrupted. In its refusal to take up the case, the Court (all nine justices, though it was a 7-2 decision, technically) only issued the reason of “lacking standing”, explaining that reason with one sentence: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.”
That is simply not enough to issue reasoned judgment. It arbitrarily says “yeah, we’re not taking it up because I don’t really think you care about how other states do their elections.” I don’t know the exact wording of every page of Texas’ suit, but I can hardly imagine they went so far as to sue those four states (and be joined by around 20 other states) without providing much of a reason. Texas is most certainly interested in how another state conducts its election because the results of that election affect Texas, or at least, the process of that election’s result.
The winner of that election can institute policy which could harm Texas (Biden’s “green” policies would hurt the Lone Star State), but even more important than that, it would affect Texas illegally. No, a state cannot sue another state for having voted one way or another, as that would pretty much destroy the entire system of the Republic. Texas can’t sue Pennsylvania for having gone to Biden instead of Trump like California can’t sue Texas for having gone to Trump instead of Biden. However, Texas can sue Pennsylvania for having clearly and overtly (to the admission of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court) gone against both its state constitution and the U.S. Constitution by implementing and executing rules that are not legal or constitutional.
Because those rules were unconstitutional, and they helped Biden “win” that state, that is an illegal result, and so Texas has standing based on that, since they would be illegally and unconstitutionally affected by the result of the election. Furthermore, by doing what Pennsylvania and those other states did, they are utterly corrupting the electoral process by which we select our president. If those states are allowed to do what they did with impunity, then Texas’ voice, as well as all other states, don’t matter in this election. Their electoral power and voice are eliminated entirely because of an illegal and fake result in those states.
Like the lawyers said: “If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support.” Again, if it were all legal, Texas, Trump and his voters would all have to suck it up and admit defeat. But because it was blatantly illegal, we cannot simply accept the result because we know it is not legitimate.
So it’s not only absolutely unacceptable for the SCOTUS to have issued a one-sentence explanation for their decision regarding what is perhaps the biggest suit in the history of the country, but the explanation itself is illogical and constitutionally unsound.
The lawyers put it pretty well: “In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.”
If a state cannot be allowed to sue another state which has clearly broken not only its own constitution but also the constitution of the United States, what exactly is the reason for the union to remain? The Constitution is a contract which all states sign on to. If one of them breaks that contract and gets away with it, what reason is there for the others to keep honoring it? What reason is there for the states to remain unified under a broken contract?
It’s why I am not against secession if Biden ends up being the occupier of the oval office. Secession, ironically, would be the only way to preserve the union. We’re not quite there yet, and I pray to God we never get there, because secession would definitely lead to another civil war at one point or another. War is sometimes necessary, but it’s never ideal, and I would much rather avoid it if it can be avoided. But if it’s the only way to preserve the union, it cannot be taken off the table, due to its alternative: full-on communism.
At any rate, after disparaging the Supreme Court for its cowardly actions to defend the constitution at a crucial moment, the lawyers went on to note a way in which this legal case can still be made and be heard by the Supreme Court:
“A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation… Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.”
That strategy could theoretically work because the majority of the Supreme Court (two of which are solidly conservative and the others less so but appointed by Trump) could hardly argue that the United States of America does not have a standing or interest in defending the United States constitution.
My only worry is in the fact that it would be up to Acting AG Rosen to file such a suit, which I am not sure he would be willing to do. And at this point, having had great hopes for both Jeff Sessions and William Barr to seek justice wherever they can, without politics being involved in the decision-making process, and being completely disappointed by both of them when they were of great need, I cannot say I have much hope in Acting AG Rosen to seek this option, even under direct order from President Trump.
Trump’s legal team can’t issue this suit since that would have to make it a private suit as opposed to a federal one, and there would be almost zero chance that the SCOTUS would take it up.
Olson and McSweeney’s suggestion could be plausible, and if actually performed (that is, Rosen actually files that suit), would pretty much be guaranteed to have its day in court, but there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about it, at best. I do not trust anyone in the swamp, and while I don’t know a lot about Rosen, do not outright trust him to be willing to go through with this.
Of course, as I mentioned towards the beginning, this legal challenge is not all Trump has to right the wrongs of this election. One Republican representative and Senator objecting to the results of the election on January 6th are all that’s needed to send Congress (presided by Pence) into deliberation and activation of the 12th amendment, leading state legislatures in those states to having one representative voting for the party they have to vote for, leading to Trump’s victory.
But I write this to remind people that there are still a number of options out there, both politically and legally (Martial Law and the use of the military should be last resorts, but not off the table options), to ensure that the rightful winner of this election actually ends up winning this election.
The SCOTUS should absolutely be ashamed of itself for potentially destroying the Republic with that heinous decision, and the people involved in attempting to steal this election should face extreme consequences for their treason.
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”
There is this saying that people often say during an election year: “the things that will determine the results of the election have not happened yet.” Well, we are close enough to the election for that to not really be the case anymore, to a certain extent.
With RBG’s death, filling her seat has become the Democrat’s biggest reason for voting for Biden.
The old man hiding in a basement has no draw to him whatsoever. While the polls show he is “ahead” of Trump, enthusiasm never goes his way. People aren’t excited to vote for Biden, and even if they think they kinda just have to in order to avoid four more years of Trump, that won’t be enough to get a sufficient amount of votes for Biden to defeat Trump.
NO ONE is enthused about voting for Biden. But for those who understand the significance of this vacancy in the Supreme Court, such people are definitely enthused to go out to vote for whichever one of the two are most likely to win.
No one cares about Biden enough to go out to win, but people, particularly on the Left, care enough about the Court being liberal and care enough about their supposed “right” to kill the unborn that they would go out to vote for whomever would ensure such a “right” remains in place.
Now, one can make the argument that such a situation of another SCOTUS vacancy should be expected in the next four years and as such, whomever was not going to vote for Biden anyway will not do so this time around. However, we cannot expect Democrat voters to be reasonable or think that far ahead. It’s one thing to worry about the next four years if RBG would be alive – it’s quite another to have her die 45 days before the election. The issue is now at the forefront of the Democrat voters’ minds.
This issue alone can drive Democrats to vote for Biden. That’s why it would make absolutely no sense for the Trump administration or the Senate GOP Majority to dilly-dally on this. Trump will announce RBG’s replacement later this week, but the GOP Senate should not delay much at all about holding a confirmation hearing and a vote.
Now, on average, since 1988, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held a confirmation hearing 45 days after a nomination and a confirmation vote occurred on average 26 days after that. However, there is obviously far less time to do these things now and there is nothing in the Constitution saying there needs to be a hearing, particularly as some Justices were confirmed the day they were nominated. The last time that happened was 1945, which, all things considered, wasn’t that long ago.
While these things usually take some time, time is a commodity Trump and Republicans do not really have. Thankfully, there is precedent even going back just 40 years, of relatively quick confirmations. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated by President Reagan on August 19th, 1981. Just 21 days later, on September 9th, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing which lasted for three days and was ultimately confirmed by the Senate on September 21st – just 33 days after her nomination.
Justice John Paul Stevens, the last Justice the Senate had voted to confirm prior to O’Connor, was nominated by President Ford on November 28th, 1975, and was confirmed on December 17th of the same year. Just 19 days.
And with the gift of the nuclear option given to us by Harry Reid and the Democrats, all that is necessary for a Supreme Court Justice confirmation is a simple majority. Usually, as there are 100 total Senators, that means 51 votes. But there are only 45 Democrats and 2 Independents (let’s assume they all vote the same way, since they usually do). Republicans have 53 votes. Even if Romney, Collins and Murkowski all do not vote to confirm whomever Trump picks, that still gives Republicans 50 votes and Democrats 47 – a simple majority. Assuming those three vote against Trump’s pick and the vote is split 50-50, the deciding vote goes to the President of the Senate: Vice President Mike Pence.
We can lose 6 Republicans and still get the nominee through via a Pence tie breaker. What we can’t have is 4 Republicans voting against the nominee, but I doubt that would happen. Murkowski and Collins said they wouldn’t vote, not that they would vote against the nominee.
So the votes, or even a lack thereof, are not a problem. The problem is the amount of time we have to fill the SCOTUS vacancy and take away the only thing that might actually get Democrats to go out to vote.
Again, no one is excited about voting for Biden. The only reason Democrats give to vote for him is that he’s “not Trump.” That kind of attitude is not a winning one, neither would it naturally lead to a Biden victory, especially as Trump’s own voting base has grown (I don’t believe for a second that there is anyone out there who voted for Trump, even if hesitantly, and changed their mind about him after the past four years. If anything, I KNOW there are more people out there who either did not vote for him who will this time or who voted hesitantly and have been convinced he deserves a second term).
One reason I write this article is because I have seen some conservatives (actual conservatives, mind you, not RINOs) who have argued that it would be a good thing to fill the vacancy after the election is over so that Trump supporters and Republicans are even more enthused to vote for Trump. That is a bad idea because those who are willing to vote for Trump are already enthused to do so or have made up their minds to do so. Leaving that vacancy open throughout the election gives Democrats a fire in the belly which they did not have previously.
Trump voters were already going to turn out in droves. No sense in giving the opposition a reason to come out for Biden.
So, while I do not know how fast the GOP-led Senate can hold a hearing for Trump’s pick and follow that up with a fairly quick vote, I know that there is precedent for a quick process even going back 40 to 50 years ago. And while that is a long time for rules to have changed, the Democrats gave us the gift of the nuclear option. It used to be that a supermajority of two-thirds, and at some points, three-fourths of the Senate were needed to confirm a nominee, but with the nuclear option, all that’s required is a simple majority. As far as the process goes, a nomination (obviously) and a confirmation vote (obviously) are necessary. But I cannot find anywhere that there is a minimum amount of time that needs to go by before a nominee can be confirmed, nor that a confirmation hearing must take place.
What’s more, even while the last relatively quick confirmation was 39 years ago, I do not think we were ever in the situation we are today: a Republican President getting to fill a SCOTUS vacancy roughly 40 days before an election, and the Senate is held by the party belonging to the President.
Call Republicans “hypocrites” all you want with wanting to go forth with this vote, but we all know that:
1) They are not hypocrites because Republicans held the Senate when a Democrat President wanted to fill Scalia’s seat and the Senate has to give advice and consent to doing so according to Article II Section 2: “… and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate…” and
2) Elections have consequences and the party in power should be free to exercise said power.
Voters put Trump, a Republican, in the White House in 2016. The President gets to nominate judges and Supreme Court Justices wherever there is a vacancy. Voters expanded the Republicans’ hold over the Senate, giving them a 53-47 majority. The Senate gets to vote to confirm or deny any such nominees. It’s not a constitutional crisis for the President and Senate to do their constitutionally appointed jobs.
There is no point in delaying any confirmation hearings or votes. I do not know all of the rules pertaining such a process but I know there is precedent for quick confirmation processes. Senate Republicans should follow such a precedent in this time, when it is necessary.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”
Much as that might sound like the beginning to a punchline of a joke, this is what happened earlier this week as the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments regarding whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to transgenders in the workplace.
On one side are the progressive uber-Leftists who are trying to force the transgender agenda down Americans’ throats and on the other, we find conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders fighting back against it.
You know an issue is particularly important and major if conservatives and lesbian feminists are fighting ON THE SAME SIDE.
While the Supreme Court Justices were hearing oral arguments inside the High Court, on the steps of the building were demonstrators and protesters on both sides of the issue, each trying to make their case in public.
Walt Heyer is one of these people, making his case against the transgender agenda. And while nutcase Leftists might try and pin him as a transphobe or a sexist or what-have-you, there is particular reason to hear his testimony: he, himself, used to be a transgender woman (biological male to female).
Heyer recounted: “It all started when I was four-years-old and my grandmother started crossdressing me and I enjoyed it very much. But that crossdressing started a confusion within me about who I was. And it was in 1944, before we had any words like gender dysphoria. I was just a confused kid that was being affirmed by my grandmother who actually caused me to have this tremendous confusion, which started this journey to transgenderism.”
Heyer said that he uncovered the truth about his life when he began studying to become a counselor: “I wanted to be a therapist. So I studied at U.C. Santa Cruz and realized in studying the books in the stacks that people who identified with gender identity disorder had mental disorders. And I thought we’re not approaching this from the right direction. We need to be addressing the co-morbid problems that are causing people to believe they’re a different gender. It seems to be compassionate to me to reach out to those people and actually guide them in the right direction and not fill their bodies with hormones and cut body parts off and rearrange everything in their lives so their lives are totally destroyed.”
Heyer also has a website called sexchangeregret.com and he says that hundreds of thousands of people have visited it. “Today, we have a worldwide ministry that reaches over 300 million people a year and people now are de-transitioning by the hundreds,” said Heyer
In the site, Heyer also recounts what he went through, having had gender reassignment surgery in 1983 but being left unsatisfied and then de-transitioning back to male 25 years ago. He is now happily married for 20 years to a woman, but he recognizes the permanent damage that surgery caused to his body, having to take hormones now to “try to regulate a system that is permanently altered,” according to Heyer.
The site also notes the fact that males have XY chromosomes, even those who are transgender women, and that the genes responsible for the determination of sex, SRY, and the genes that determine possible male infertility, AZF a, b, and c, are not found to be abnormal in transsexual people, meaning there is no biological reason for people to be transgender.
If you want to read more of Heyer’s testimony, go to this Breitbart News link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/former-transgender-woman-on-sex-change-regret-people-are-de-transitioning-in-the-hundreds/.
Moving on to lesbian feminists, however, we also find another great speech.
The speech was given by Natasha Chart, a feminist writer at FeministCurrent.org, and while her speech was relatively long and I can’t share everything she said, here are the main points:
If you wish to read her full speech, here is the link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/watch-feminist-speaks-against-transgender-ideology-i-will-not-submit/.
But what she says is completely right and insanely powerful. I’ve already noted how feminists get banned from Twitter if they speak out against men in women’s sports and other transgender issues. And the risk of transgender bathroom laws, as I have always maintained, is that women are put into the precarious situation where they might be raped or sexually assaulted.
Chart herself noted in her speech: “If a woman complains that a man has dropped his trousers in front of her at a job, the left will shout ‘Me Too!’ in solidarity, and he’ll be cancelled. If a woman complains because he dropped his trousers in front of her at a gym locker, but he says he’s a woman, they’ll cancel her. Is that kind?”
Basically, transgender bathroom laws, despite their supposed intentions, leave women at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted and without the ability to hold the man accountable because of identity politics (and yes, Chart railed on the hypocrisy of the Left more than in just this instance).
The transgender agenda gives license to rapist and sexually-deviant men to get away with whatever they want and have the Left side with them. Only look at someone like “Jessica Yaniv”, the transgender “woman” who is all-too happy to sue a wax parlor because the female worker would not touch his male genitals.
Because of cases like Yaniv, is it really so surprising to see conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders – who discovered the grim reality of what gender reassignment and transgenderism bring someone – fighting on the same side against a highly-dangerous and morally-evil agenda?
I’m not sure if I have stated this previously, as I have said a lot of things at this point in my career, but I have felt for a while that the transgender movement would have to be completely divorced from the rest of the gay movement. It totally goes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals, who by definition affirm the reality of two genders.
If Hegelian dialectics are anything to go by, this antithesis of transgenderism to the thesis of the rest of the gay movement will have to bring about a synthesis, where the two theses collide with one another. I think that’s what’s happening here, with lesbians and other gay people fighting against the transgender movement. This also is the case for feminism against transgenderism.
Put simply: transgenderism and feminism cannot peaceably coexist. One must abandon key beliefs in order to appease the other and live with it to some extent. If more men enter women’s sports because they are wimps and can’t win against other men, women’s sports will disappear because the women, most of the time, cannot compete against physically-superior men.
There is a reason there is an NBA and a WNBA – a reason there is a men’s and women’s tennis (though there are mixed teams too, but still).
One of the reasons Serena Williams was so successful is because she has a uniquely man-like physique that makes her bigger, stronger and generally physically superior to many women. And even then, when facing against a man ranked 203rd in 1998, the man destroyed her and then her sister, beating Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2. Despite her physical advantages against women, she is still, herself, a woman and physically inferior to most athletic men. The mere fact that she even said that no man outside the top 200 could beat the Williams sisters is an indication that she didn’t think she could beat Carlos Moya, who was the same rank as Serena (no. 5) in 1998, and an indication that she did not believe she could beat a man of her skill range. Despite the similarities in rank at the time, the Williams sisters didn’t think they could beat men in their same rank range, such as Carlos Moya, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, or even number 199, Lorenzo Manta.
If men and women are not physically different, why wouldn’t Serena and Venus Williams have challenged men who were in a similar rank to them at the time?
But regardless, my point is that the transgender movement is very dangerous for society as a whole, not to mention people the Left already victimizes, like women and homosexuals.
It’s very dangerous to children, as hormone treatment can permanently destroy children’s lives, and it makes absolutely no sense to be in favor of this.
But the hate-filled Left will see none of this logic and change their minds. They think transgenderism is something they must back in order to attain power, even though Obama himself admitted on NPR that his support for transgenderism might’ve made Trump’s election easier.
This is far too dangerous and destructive to be allowed and I hope and pray that God will guide the SCOTUS to the right decision. Otherwise, may God help us.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
In recent time, the Supreme Court ruled (7-2, which was surprising), that Indiana had the right to require “medical facilities” like Planned Parenthood to provide dignified burials or cremation for aborted children. And while that is a nice little win for pro-lifers, the Court decided against ruling on a supposedly controversial part of the law that prohibited abortions on the basis of race, gender or disabilities.
Justice Clarence Thomas, after the ruling, said in a statement that while “further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression,” and that the Court was smart to not rule on this part of the Indiana law, the Court cannot avoid this issue forever.
“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool for eugenic manipulation, the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination.”
He added: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”
The Indiana law in question largely focuses on the disabilities aspect, targeting abortions performed for the reasons of a baby having Down syndrome.
The law reads: “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’ race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
According to The Daily Wire, “Thomas referenced genetic screening in his concurrence, noting that a baby’s gender can be determined by an elective blood test given between 7 and 10 weeks, and that disabilities like Down syndrome can be detected before the end of the first trimester.” Thomas said that pairing these screenings with largely unrestricted abortion access leads us to “modern-day eugenics.”
Thomas ended by writing: “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement. In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
All-in-all, I largely agree with what Justice Clarence Thomas is saying here except for two points. One, I do not think it was smart of the Court to pass up on not ruling on this part of the Indiana law. More time given to look things over when they ought to be clear as day allows for other states that do not have a similar law to perform the sort of ethnic cleansing Margaret Sanger often dreamed of.
If one discriminates against someone based on any of these factors at any level, whether that be in business, in school, in sports, or in any other area, that person is punished to some capacity. Not allowing a black person to eat at your restaurant for the reason of his or her race is not allowed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nowhere can someone openly discriminate against someone for the reason of race, sex, etc. except in the womb. Let us not ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood disproportionally targets black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with almost 80% of their facilities located within walking distance of minorities. Let’s not ignore the fact that 52% of African American pregnancies end in abortion or that roughly 1,800 black babies are aborted every day.
Let’s not ignore the fact that babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are 60 to 80% likely to be aborted, according to the Guttmacher Institute. And that’s just in the U.S. In Europe, Down syndrome is basically non-existent, not because they found a cure, but because they systematically abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome.
And in places like China and India, unborn girls face a high probability of being aborted. The UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund. Yes, the letters don’t match, but that’s because they used to be called the United Nations Fund for Population Activities) says that “126 million women and girls were missing in 2010 due to gender-biased sex selection, which can include, for example, excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection.”
That last reason they give, “prenatal sex selection” is simply their Leftist way of acknowledging abortion is the cause without actually blaming abortion. But you can plainly see that abortion is at least partly responsible for over 100 million women and girls “missing” (not sure what exactly that is supposed to mean here, but I may have a few ideas).
Countries like India show quite an imbalance in sex ratios, where there are 110 boys born for every 100 girls from 2011-2013. But that is nothing compared to China, which had 115.9 boys for every 100 girls born in 2014.
So throughout the world, abortion is already very much a tool of eugenics. Matter of fact, it always has been! And that’s the second point that I don’t entirely agree with Thomas. Abortion does not lead to eugenics. Abortion is already a tool of eugenics and always has been.
Let’s not forget that Margaret Sanger saw black people as a “weed” to be uprooted and frequently employed Nazi sympathizers like Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard. And let’s not forget that there have been a plethora of eugenics-based organizations, such as the Eugenics Record Office, the National Conference on Race Betterment, and the American Breeders Association.
These racist organizations were so vile that one particular man remarked: “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” And that “The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason. If systematically executed, it represents the most humane act of mankind.”
And just who was this man who viewed American eugenics and abortion as “the most humane act of mankind”?
None other than the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. Yes, he absolutely adored American eugenics programs and sought to adopt them into his own German empire.
Margaret Sanger sought to utilize abortion as a eugenics tool long before there was even a Planned Parenthood. She sought to keep minorities, whom she considered “weeds” and “imbecilic” and overall “defective”, from reproducing as much as possible.
And given the statistics we see today, that sort of racial discrimination is not only alive and well, but outright THRIVING. We easily see the dreams of Margaret Sanger, Clarence Gamble, Lothrop Stoddard, and Adolf Hitler being carried out by Planned Parenthood and other abortionists throughout the world.
Already, 61 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973 and 1.5 billion in the world since 1980. Almost 20 million in the U.S. were black.
Justice Clarence Thomas is certainly right in drawing the links between abortion and eugenics, particularly in race-based, sex-based, etc. abortions. The problem is that abortion doesn’t lead to eugenics. Abortion IS eugenics. Now, not all eugenics are abortions, but all abortions are eugenics. The reasoning behind the abortions may not sound like eugenics, but at the end of the day, they are.
It’s not “women’s healthcare” or “liberation” for a black woman to kill off her own offspring (the literal definition of a fetus). It’s eugenics, through and through.
And Thomas is certainly right in saying that the Supreme Court can’t keep kicking this particular can down the road. Eventually, it will have to face the reality that this kind of abortion is outright discrimination and should be treated like any other kind of discrimination is today.
1 Samuel 16:7
“But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Often times in the fake news media, the Left will call us Trump supporters a “cult”. Well, now we can clearly see just how much of a cult mindset there exists not within the Right or Trump supporters, but within the Left.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not getting younger, and that terrifies the Left. The fact that she has now missed a few days on the court for the first time in her entire career as a Supreme Court Justice shows she is not getting healthier either. The Left fears that she will soon either die or have to retire from the court, leaving yet another vacancy for Trump to fill with (hopefully) a conservative judge like Amy Coney Barrett.
Such an instance would mean that Trump gets to pick three justices to the Supreme Court, the first president to do so since Ronald Reagan.
And such an instance would mean that the balance of power would shift further Right from 5-4 to 6-3. Sure, Roberts is a wild card and Kavanaugh seems to be fairly similar thus far, but that new number would make things easier for constitutionality to reign supreme instead of Leftist agendas.
The mere thought of RBG being replaced by a Trump pick is terrifying to the Left. So, former Politico columnist Roger Simon put up the following hypothetical: “If it were possible, would you subtract one day off your life and add it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life for one extra day of good health? If just 10,000 people did this, it would add 27 productive years to her life.”
Now, of course, such a hypothetical can only ever be just that: a hypothetical. But that still does not mean this is any less cultist.
No, it’s not actually possible to subtract one day of your life to give to someone else. That’s ludicrous. But the fact that Roger Simon would be willing to do so, and call on others to do the same were this to be possible shows you the sort of mindset these people have.
He’s not suggesting to subtract a day of his own life to give to someone who ACTUALLY needs it like a terminal patient. He’s not even suggesting he do this for the benefit of RBG as a person. He’s only suggesting it out of pure politics. He doesn’t want RBG to be replaced not because she’s a good person in the Left’s eyes, but because she’s a useful tool to the Left.
Were this sort of thing to be possible; were he to be able to reduce the amount of days he has in his own life to give to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he would not hesitate to do it. Beyond that, he even asks if others would be willing to do the same.
Funny enough, I went through his comments (not all of them, but a good number of them) and I did not find a single person who would be willing to do so.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats would be willing to do so. The first comment that I saw read as follows: “Absolutely not, she should have been responsible and stepped down during the Obama administration. Republicans wouldn’t have blocked her replacement, they only blocked Garland because of their insane fantasy that the ‘Scalia seat’ is ‘theirs’.”
Not really true, as the biggest reason McConnell blocked Garland was because it was during a presidential election that, in case you didn’t know, everyone and their grandmother expected Hillary to win. So Democrats would’ve gotten a Leftist in the Supreme Court had they won.
But that’s not the point. This is very clearly a Democrat, but he is not willing to follow in Roger Simon’s lunatic Leftist cultist fantasy of giving up some of his life to give to RBG.
Another comment reads as follows: “This is a joke, right? She’s had a full life. And if she wasn’t so selfish, she would’ve stepped down during Obama’s presidency. Now Trump will appoint another conservative judge.”
That one was from a conservative, as far as I could tell, because he ended his tweet with a thumbs up emoji.
Other comments, which really more broadly ridiculed Simon were: “Maybe instead of embracing vampiric forces, the Democrats could just win more elections?” and one that really made me laugh: “God, now they want to redistribute the health.”
The point is that most people don’t seemingly subscribe to this Leftist cult, even some Democrats themselves. However, there is no denying that such a cult exists. Let’s not forget that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke her ribs, people on the Left literally offered THEIR OWN RIBS TO HER.
And now that it appears as though RBG’s days on the Court are numbered, Simon poses the question of whether people would be willing to give up one day of their lives to give to RBG just so that Mean Orange Man Trump doesn’t get another pick?
Were the situations reversed, with a Democrat President and a conservative on the court whose health is deteriorating, we would not be wishing for the literal impossible to keep them around (and Democrats would likely be openly wishing for that conservative’s death every day of the week, but that’s beside the point).
This is the cult of the Left in a nutshell right here. It’s very reminiscent of when Michael Moore put up a Christmas tree decoration of RBG to replace the star over Bethlehem and an angel sitting atop the tree. Like I said then, it was straight up idolatry.
And while there is no physical idol doll to be talked about here, it is not very different from Moore. These people, at least Simon, pretty much worship Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They rely on her to be their savior against President Trump. They hope she can do something, anything to keep Trump restrained. And even if she can’t, they hope she can at least hang in there until Trump is out of office so that he can’t replace her. Of course, I wonder what they would do if Trump were to get re-elected. RBG might not outlast Trump’s presidency.
But that’s beside the point. Again, these people basically worship RBG, which is very clearly idolatry. Even if they don’t pray to her or anything like that, the fact that she is closer to their hearts than Christ shows their idolatry.
Like I said in my article discussing Moore and idolatry, RBG is merely a mortal. She is human and will eventually die. Mohammed died, Moses died, Buddha died and they are all still dead where they are buried. Christ on the other hand, while He did die, He also rose from the dead because death has no power over Him.
As fanatical as the Left might think Trump supporters might be, it’s clear to me and to many other people who truly are the ones who are fanatical.
“Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Ok, class, let’s turn our attention to our book, titled: “No, Duh!”, where we will find Claire McCaskill, the outgoing Democrat Senator from Missouri, actually admitting that the way the Democrat Party handled the Kavanaugh confirmation process and his sexual assault allegations might’ve cost her her re-election.
McCaskill recently told NPR that “I don’t think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred. There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled. I don’t think that communication [from Ford] to the judiciary committee should have been kept private as long as it was. The FBI deals with a lot of confidential information, and that would have absolved [Feinstein] of the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
Okay, there are a good amount of things to go through here.
First of all, I would argue that her vote against Kavanaugh did hurt her an awful lot. Those who voted against Kavanaugh’s confirmation (that is, all but 1 Democrat, who just-so-happened to win his race in November) essentially voted in favor of allowing someone’s entire career and life be derailed by the simple accusation of sexual assault. No evidence is necessary. No corroborating witnesses need apply. If a woman says a man sexually assaulted her, that guy should be thoroughly punished, evidence be damned.
Almost all Democrats voted for that sort of world when they voted against Kavanaugh (and this includes Lisa Murkowski, who is a supposed Republican. No, she didn’t vote against Kavanaugh, but planned to before abstaining). The Democrat Party’s mindset was the utter disregard and destruction of due process for the simple reason that they do not like the guy’s political leanings.
Second of all, the Democrat Party did not make “mistakes”. It was an outright assault on a highly-qualified candidate strictly for political reasons, and their murder weapon was a sloppily-constructed sexual assault allegation, a second, even more sloppily-constructed sexual harassment allegation, and a rape allegation that is so outlandish and unbelievable, it would be found in the fiction section of a library, were it to be written into a book. Granted, the same could be said for the other allegations, but that rape allegation was particularly incredible.
The Democrat Party did not make a mistake when it came to the Ford allegation, since Feinstein sat on it, waiting until the 11th hour to release it. It was a calculated plan of attack. Of course, they still did not have the proof for the claims, but that was not necessary in their minds. With the way the media was going along with it, flat out calling Kavanaugh a serial rapist, evidence was not something they thought they would need. And they came incredibly and uncomfortably close to succeeding too.
Frankly, the only mistake I could see regarding the whole thing was allowing the creepy porn lawyer to release an even more mentally disturbed person to make such outlandish allegations that they practically sunk the previous allegations made.
Turns out that not many people will believe a college-aged woman would attend high school parties in which the boys would regularly run rape trains on the girls and that said college-aged woman would ATTEND SUCH A PARTY TEN DIFFERENT TIMES!
Not to mention that the entire thing pretty much fell apart when Swetnik flat out said she did not remember Kavanaugh actually participating in the raping of girls.
But aside from that, since the main focus was Blasey Ford, whom the Left elevated to the status of a survivor bravely sharing her story (*whispering* after pretty much not telling anyone for about 30 years), one can hardly say that the Democrats made a mistake here. They knew what they were doing and the media was in on it as well. After the test run that was the Iran nuke deal, the Democrat Party figured out they could literally tell the media that JFK was revived using unicorn magic and the suckers would buy it hook, line and sinker.
As a result, they knew that any allegation that the Democrat Party ran with, the media would run with it as well and even more strongly.
Lastly, and just about the only good thing I could say about this woman and what she’s saying, I can appreciate the fact that she is admitting that this was an “11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
I don’t imagine very many Democrats, even the ones that have since lost their elections, would be so willing to admit that the Kavanaugh witch hunt was just that. So I will give credit where credit is due.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Kavanaugh was so sought after with false allegations that were uncorroborated and unproven that his name will forever leave a sour taste in people’s mouths. Despite the fact that there’s been no evidence to prove even one of the allegations made, the Left, Hollywood, and Democrat voters will forever see Kavanaugh as a sexual assaulter and rapist.
That’s the sort of damage they’ve caused. Sure, he’s in the Supreme Court for life now, but there are a lot of other cases where a man is accused of something that he didn’t do and is punished for the mere allegation. In fact, Democrats are trying to challenge a bill that would return due process on college campus, allowing for people accused to be innocent until proven guilty as it works everywhere else in the country.
This is the path the Left wants to take. Their rampant “feminism” has led to the belief that all women, regardless of credibility or even evidence presented, must be believed at all costs. And the only time that doesn’t happen is when a prominent Leftist is being accused of it (*ahem* Neil DeGrasse Tyson *ahem*). Of course, in the case of DeGrasse Tyson, and even Michael Avenatti’s accusation of domestic violence, the two of them deserve due process and deserve to be seen innocent until proven guilty. That’s just the way it works and the way it should work, regardless of political leanings.
But the point here is that those very same people will ignore that if the target is someone to the Right of Marx.
And this double-standard goes farther than sexual assault or domestic violence. Paul Manafort is in prison for things a lot of Democrats have also done, but they enjoy their freedom. Now, Manafort SHOULD be in prison since he did break the law, but so should anyone else WHO BREAKS THE SAME EXACT LAWS!
Hillary Clinton sold 20% of our Uranium supply as Secretary of State, colluded with foreign agents to steal an American election, and wiped a server full of over 30k emails containing highly confidential information. She’s currently going on a coughing tour and selling tickets for less than the price of popcorn at a movie theater. And even then, the Clintons can barely sell any tickets. If I had any interest in going, I would buy a ticket and wear a MAGA hat just to tick them off.
But in any case, there exists a painfully clear double-standard in our injustice system (yes, I will call it that until I see some actual justice being served). Those who are helpful and an asset to the Left and the Leftist agenda are allowed to break more laws than Al Capone, while those who are a challenge to the Left, a liability, or even a good sacrificial lamb will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and simple accusations, regardless of evidence or lack thereof, will be enough for them.
As for Claire McCaskill, she would not have come even close to admitting this had she won her election and especially had the Democrats gotten away with destroying the career and life of an innocent man. Only once the dust has settled and there is no more fighting does she come to accept the fact that this was a last-minute and last-ditch attempt at destroying someone they didn’t like.
For the record, I am a little bit surprised that she would admit this, considering she has nothing to gain from it, and I do give her credit for actually admitting this, which is more than I ever expected out of any Democrat, but the sentiment that maybe what they were doing wasn’t right shouldn’t have come in this late. Kavanaugh’s already in the Supreme Court and has been for a couple months now.
I guess hindsight really is 20/20.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
After about a month (or at least what felt like a month) of smear campaign after smear campaign against Judge (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh, the dangerous mob rule of the Left has been defeated by sanity and logic.
But just because Brett Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Justice does not mean that the Left will simply lay down in defeat. Much like the 2016 Presidential election, they will deem this confirmation illegitimate and have even warned that, should they retake the House, they will impeach Brett Kavanaugh and undermine President Trump, and subsequently, the American people who wanted him confirmed in the first place.
The behavior the Left displayed in the weeks running up to Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote was absolutely horrendous, shameful and even terrifying. But what is even more terrifying is the knowledge that this is only the beginning.
This whole thing started with Sen. Diane Feinstein releasing a letter that was sent to her describing a horrible act that was supposedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh. For a long while, that was all people were talking about. The supposed ire that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford went through roughly 30 years ago.
The biggest problem that the Left faced (but tried to ignore until it came back to bite them) is that Ford’s claims were uncorroborated. She presented no evidence to prove her claims and no witnesses to corroborate her claims. In fact, the witnesses she names either deny having been there or deny such a party even happening in the first place.
But instead of moving on to something substantial in their fight against Brett Kavanaugh, the Left chose to double down. They didn’t just ignore the fact that Ford’s claims were uncorroborated, they flat out denied that they even needed to be corroborated.
Multiple Leftists tried to take away Kavanaugh’s right to presumption of innocence. They painted him as a rapist even before the most ludicrous accusation, that of Swetnik’s, even came up. In their minds, Ford calling him a sexual assaulter made him one. They didn’t just ignore logic or sanity. They adamantly rejected both of them.
After Ford came out with her story and seeing how the media and the Democrats reacted, more women tried to come in and achieve something similar. The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow reported a story of Brett Kavanaugh having exposed himself in front of a woman named Deborah Ramirez. That story was also uncorroborated.
But as if either of those uncorroborated stories weren’t enough, in came Michael Avenatti with his client, a woman named Julia Swetnik. While Ford did not try to go as far as to say Kavanaugh had raped her (though she said she thought he would have tried to) and Ramirez tried to fan the flames just a little bit with a story of sexual misconduct, not necessarily assault, Swetnik came in chucking a gallon of gas into the fire.
The problem was that, apart from the fact that her story was also uncorroborated, it was also largely incredible. As in hardly anyone with a functioning brain would believe it.
Who would believe a college-age girl would go to high school parties where there would be gang rapes and drugging of girls? Beyond that, who would believe a college-age girl would attend such parties 10 DIFFERENT TIMES?!
But did that actually insane story stop the Left from pushing it? Of course not, because these people are just as unhinged as that story was.
Multiple Democrats roped in Swetnik’s accusation along with Ford’s and Ramirez’s. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who largely made a name for herself in this case against Kavanaugh, said: “We already have three credible reports of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh” when calling for an FBI investigation against the nominee.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said: “We now have three credible accusers of sexual assault.”
And Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) issued a press release titled: “Senate Democrats: FBI Must Investigate All Three Credible Allegations of Sexual Assault Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”
They all deemed Swetnik’s ludicrous accusation to be just as credible as the other two. While I would consider Ford’s to be somewhat believable to an extent, and Ramirez to a lesser extent, Swetnik’s accusation is flat out unbelievable, let alone incredible. Whether you like Brett Kavanaugh or not, you would be hard-pressed to believe a girl would repeatedly go to parties where girls get drugged and raped by a line of boys.
Had it been once, then we could chuck it up to being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having survived something horrendous that one time. But 10? Not even fiction writers would find this believable.
And yet, the Left ran with it. They abandoned sanity and logic in favor of partisan politics. But alas, they failed.
The circus show that they created wound up coming back to bite them. And even Democrats and the MSM have been blaming Avenatti for making things as wild as they were (and they are right to some extent, but not without a share of the blame themselves for running with it in the first place).
They saw what happened in the Alabama special election and thought they could recreate that with Kavanaugh. The problem was that at least some of the accusations against Roy Moore were believable and credible. He DID date a 16-year-old girl (not that it is illegal in Alabama, for some reason). So some of the accusations were at least believable (I won’t call them credible because virtually nothing happened after Moore lost, which makes me think it was nothing more than a political hit-job).
But when it comes to all the accusations against Kavanaugh, the most believable one is Ford’s and even that is a bit of a stretch to say it’s believable. She could not remember the when or where of it and could not remember who drove her home. She remembered the incident in detail but anyone can do that, particularly if they have 30+ years to do it.
And the subsequent allegations became less and less believable until you get to Swetnik who was basically a nuclear bomb directed at Kavanaugh, but likely impacted the Left a lot more.
But the fact that the Left ran with all of them, despite them not being corroborated with evidence, and even going as far as to believe it was up to Kavanaugh to prove his innocence rather than Ford to prove his guilt tells me all I need to know about where we are headed as a nation against the Left.
Like wild dogs, they will bite and maul at anyone and anything. And I would not be surprised if they started to get violent.
The Kavanaugh confirmation process is proof that the Left is ready to abandon any and all sense of morality, logic and sanity. I’ve said before that Trump’s election did not create the Left’s insane nature, but rather exposed it. The confirmation process for Kavanaugh exposed something else: the Left is not ashamed of what they are.
They wanted to destroy Kavanaugh and went to any length they deemed necessary. They slandered him and dragged his name through the mud. They targeted him and his family and have tried to utterly destroy his name. A writer for Stephen Colbert even tweeted on the day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation: “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”
That tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it? It wasn’t about making sure a woman was heard. It wasn’t about defending victims of sexual assault. It wasn’t about standing up to a possible sexual assaulter. It was about ruining a man who stands in the Left’s way. They wanted to do to Kavanaugh what they want to do to Trump. Only, they thought they could destroy Kavanaugh if they went twice as hard against him as they did against Trump.
Yesterday, it was Brett Kavanaugh. Who will it be today? Or tomorrow? Or Novemver 6th, 2018? Or further down the road?
I recently had a conversation with someone regarding this whole issue. They made the point that this was a war against men that the Left is waging. I made the point that it was a war against conservatives that the Left is waging. Upon further analysis and thought, I could say that it’s really both.
The Left hates this thing called the “patriarchy”. And within this patriarchy, there exist men of all kinds, even Leftist men. Just the title of a man is enough to be considered part of this patriarchy regardless of your beliefs.
Leftist men like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, George Takei, Bill Cosby, Al Franken and others have been destroyed by the #MeToo movement. As well they should have. What they did was horrendous, particularly Weinstein.
As far as I can tell, the #MeToo movement has destroyed far more Leftist men than conservatives.
It depicts a war against men. Yes, most, if not all of them are sexual assaulters, so there definitely has to be some punishment against them. But the Left has hijacked this movement and aimed its sights at conservatives who did not do anything.
Anyone who is a conservative is considered a sexual assault apologist at best and a sexual assaulter and rapist at worst. The Women’s March, another Leftist organization, even went as far as to call Senator Susan Collins a “Rape Apologist” for having voted in favor of Kavanaugh.
So this war the Left is waging, I would say, is both against men in general and conservatives (or anyone who stands in their way, since I would not call Collins a “conservative” even after this).
This is where the Left is going. It’s somewhere that, if you have any sense for right and wrong, or any sanity within you, you cannot follow. What they want is a society where they are in control, anyone who opposes them is punished and everyone else submits to them out of fear.
A society where rule of law does not exist, only rule of mob. A society where good, innocent men are disparaged and destroyed just because they are nominated by a guy the Left does not like, or even just because they are men and that’s good enough to destroy them. Frankly, aside from key details, I would not be surprised if they had been as savage and barbaric towards Amy Coney Barrett (who I look forward to replacing RBG). She also would have stood in their way and they would have gone to any lengths they felt were needed to destroy her.
Doubtful it would’ve been with sexual assault allegations given she’s a woman, but they would have done something.
And all things considered, I am glad Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump over Barrett. Not because I prefer him over her. In fact, I think she’s even more conservative than Kavanaugh and was my favorite candidate out of the list that Trump released. But I am glad Kavanaugh was chosen because this process further exposed the Left for what they are: totally and unequivocally unhinged and deranged.
I’d rather know the enemy I am facing, even if it terrifies me, than be oblivious to my enemy and live in blissful ignorance that would ultimately kill me.
I’m glad we all got to see the Left for the crap that they are. This process has affirmed my belief in voting Republican. Not necessarily because I might like the Republican candidate, but because I absolutely cannot allow a Democrat to win. Not anymore. And while Manchin voted in favor of Kavanaugh, he only did it because he thought it’d help him in November. I thank him for voting the way he did, but will not give him more credit than what is due.
As for the rest of the Democrat Party, I do not see a single one that I would consider sane in any way. At best, maybe Nancy Pelosi, but if I consider her to be the least deranged out of the bunch, that tells me a lot about the Democrat Party.
The good news is that God is always in control and that the Left’s recent behavior will likely cost them in the midterms. Only insane people support insane people. And I do not think there are that many of them to vote Democrat. With the WalkAway movement, which likely gained more traction after this, I doubt sane people will vote Democrat.
But I won’t count my eggs before they hatch. We are still a month away from the midterms and a lot can happen in that time span. But it would take a miracle for the Left to put out the dumpster fire they have created for themselves. And knowing them, they will not only ignore the fact that they are a dumpster fire, but will flat out reject that there is any other alternative than being a dumpster fire.
“Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of cost to you. You will receive a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
One of the bigger stories for the past couple of weeks has been the accusation of Supreme Court pick Justice Brett Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted a woman decades ago while he was a teenager and intoxicated.
On the outset, this represents nothing more than a political hit job against Kavanaugh simply for being conservative and for being picked to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump, whom the Left abhors. And while this is accurate, I believe the stipulations for this particular case go well beyond this and highlights a problem in today’s world, a problem that Socrates himself saw in ancient Greece: a trend away from logic and into ignorance.
Let’s look at what we know from this case. The accuser has refused to come forward and face the man he’s accusing, she has passed a polygraph test, but cannot recall with accuracy where or even when this sexual assault even took place, only offering the vague timeline of sometime over 30 years ago. She presents no evidence to support her claims, no evidence to corroborate her claims and the two people she accuses, both Kavanaugh and someone she claims helped Kavanaugh, both have refuted her claims.
Not to mention that her lawyer has even boldly stated that it wasn’t the accuser’s job to corroborate her story and the accuser herself is a huge Leftist activist who has supported Obama, Hillary and the DNC.
So basically, this woman is saying the soon-to-be-confirmed (yes, I believe he will be confirmed no matter what) conservative Christian judge selected by President Donald Trump, whom the Left vehemently hates, floats a huge claim that she refuses to corroborate or present any evidence of, refuses to even step forth to face the man she’s accusing, cannot accurately recall the where or when of this event, and we’re just supposed to believe her?
This isn’t just an attack on a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court, it’s an attack on logic and people’s very intelligence.
But it perfectly represents what the #MeToo movement, and the Left overall, are in today’s world: feelings over facts.
It doesn’t matter that the woman’s accusation is incredibly shoddy, in both what she’s claiming and the timing for the claims. If it helps the Left in any matter, that’s fine. It’s this willingness to ignore logic in favor of moving a political agenda that drives closer a comparison between today’s America and Socrates’ Greece. Socrates feared that ignorance was prevalent and that logic was dwindling. He perfectly understood that civilized society could not survive ignorance. That ignorance turns civilization from a civilized society to a savage and barbaric society devoid of knowledge and logic, doomed to return to a primal form of life.
This is what the Left is doing. The #MeToo movement takes any woman’s accusations and takes them to be 100% truthful. It doesn’t matter if there is a lack of evidence or if the claims do not appear credible. In their minds, every claim by every woman is credible… unless a woman makes a claim against a top Democrat in the government.
While the Left tries to push the rhetoric that Kavanaugh’s accuser is telling the truth and is to be believed, they try to bury the far more credible and provable story that Keith Ellison has physically abused his ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, despite the fact that Monahan has presented text and 911-call evidence to support her claim.
But since Keith Ellison is a top Democrat representative and key leader in the resistance movement against Donald Trump, the Left utterly ignores the woman’s plea.
Much like the double-standard that exists in the justice system regarding Republicans and Democrats (Republicans pay heftily for things Democrats do all the time), there is also a double-standard in the #MeToo movement’s unofficial justice system. Any woman who comes forward to accuse a Republican is immediately credible, regardless of lack of evidence or even willingness to corroborate her story under oath, but any woman who comes forward to accuse an important Democrat figure must be silenced.
And it’s not like this is anything new. With Justice Clarence Thomas, the Left completely believed Anita Hill’s story. With Bill Clinton, the Left tried to destroy the women who claimed he sexually abused them or worse. Anita Hill is considered a hero to the Left and women like Monica Lewinski, Juanita Broaddrick and others are either sluts or not to be believed, despite the evidence they present.
But it’s not just that there’s an issue of a double-standard. The very fact that there even is such a double-standard at play here highlights the Left’s willingness to move away from logic and reason and to complete and utter ignorance.
Not that this should come as any surprise to anyone. I’ve often said that the Left needs a perpetually dependent base for them to have power. This dependency isn’t just financial, but also intellectual. The Left feeds people crap like “we’re killing the planet” or “a fetus is not alive” and people eat it up, leading to people continuing to support, vote and keep these deceptive people in power.
The Left’s mission is to rule the people with an iron grip. Their desire to bring about socialism in this country only solidifies that fact as true. But things aren’t quite so simple. In order to achieve this, a number of things must happen, chief among which is the destruction of logic and wisdom, something that would set us back by millennia.
Think about it, people who regularly and effectively employ logic can recognize the illogical inconsistencies and fallacies of Leftist narrative. The Left REQUIRES people to simply believe their claims and will go to any lengths, most particularly lying, to get people to believe them.
Regarding Kavanaugh’s accuser, it’s completely illogical to believe her story. She does not present any sort of evidence, does not and will not corroborate her story, does not accurately remember key factors of her story which any ACTUAL victim of sexual abuse likely would, did not come forward about this story until THIRTY YEARS later when her supposed assaulter is about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States and has a history of being a Leftist activist and Democrat supporter.
It’s not for any of the first few reasons that the Left believes her. It’s because she is useful to the Left that they believe her.
If I were to accuse Senator Elizabeth Warren of having sexually abused me a decade ago, offered no evidence or witnesses to support my claim, offered not even any intention of corroborating my story and have been shown to be a far-Right conservative Christian who is anti-Left, anti-socialist and would vote against Warren were I to live in her state of Massachusetts, the Left would dismiss me as not credible and a liar seeking to perform character assassination on Warren. And they would be right to do so.
But because Kavanaugh’s accuser is a devout Leftist who can help the Left in their pitiful resistance efforts, the Left dismisses all the idiocy of the entire accusation.
It does not help further anyone’s intelligence, but rather flat out insults them. It marks a threat to logic and intelligence itself for it to be as successful as it is. It should have immediately been recognized as a political hit job and Kavanaugh should be well on his way to getting confirmed as scheduled without any possible or actual delays.
The fact that it wasn’t immediately tossed aside like Booker’s and Harris’ attacks against Kavanaugh is indicative of the problem Socrates faced in Athens: ignorance is taking over and logic and intelligence are being cast aside.
Like I said, allowing for ignorance to take hold of a civilization is to witness the regression of a civilized society being turned into a barbaric one.
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. This newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles and gives you easier access to our online store. And the best part is that it’s 100% free. Unlike the Left who idiotically expect you to believe that free healthcare is actually free, I won’t lie to you about how free this newsletter is. All you have to do is put your email address in the allotted box on the right of the web page, click the button to subscribe and you’re done!
During the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, I had chosen to abstain from writing anything about it. Largely because I do not know how long these things usually last and didn’t want to upload something in regards to it while it was still going on. However, I feel it necessary to speak about this particular topic on its own.
Aside from the craziness and near coup the Democrats are staging with the interruptions and protests and smearing campaigns throughout the hearing (which will result in nothing more than ammunition for Republicans to use in November) there was a point in the second day of the hearing that China’s useful idiot Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) tried to back Kavanaugh into a corner with a question regarding abortion and Roe v. Wade.
Feinstein tried to paint the picture that “a lot of women died” prior to abortion becoming legal and cited some statistics which have since been refuted, saying: “Deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million… so, a lot of women died in that period.”
Feinstein also mentioned Roe v Wade, but Kavanaugh was having none of it. He responded with: “I will tell you what my view now is: It is an important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the last 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.”
Feinstein tried to trap him again by asking him to define “settled law” but Kavanaugh did his best to circumvent the question.
Now, that’s as far as I want to get into regarding the whole confirmation hearing. That’s really all I need to set up this article. What I really want to talk about is those statistics Feinstein was using.
Like I said, they’ve been refuted. According to LifeNews, “Actual government statistics prior to the Roe decision in 1973 show nowhere near 1.2 million women (or even 200,000) died in abortions. A 1972 Center for Disease Control report noted the maternal death rate from abortions was 39 in the United States, the year prior to Roe.”
LifeNews even points out that “even abortion activists have admitted that the notion of women dying in so-called back-alley abortions before Roe is a myth because most abortions done prior to 1973 were done by doctors whose illegal abortions became legal after that infamous Supreme Court decision.”
But of course, they don’t expect you to take their word for it. They quote Dr. Mary Calderone, who in 1960 was the medical director for Planned Parenthood and wrote in the American Journal of Public Health that “about 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians… Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist… So remember… abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.”
Even Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, which itself claimed between 5 and 10 thousand women died every year from dangerous, back-alley abortions, admitted that he “knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think about it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted… The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”
So two different pro-abortion sources have exposed the fact that the numbers Feinstein uses are completely made up, so that’s one way to dispute her arguments.
But let’s just say that those numbers were true. Let’s just say that 200,000 to 1.2 million women died from abortion before 1972. If that’s the case, it seems to me like the real problem here is the actual abortions, not the legality of them.
Had those hypothetical women not gotten abortions and instead had come to their senses that aborting their fetuses is effectively ending the life of not only another human being but their VERY OWN CHILD then I’m hard-pressed to believe that they would have hypothetically died, since they wouldn’t have gotten those abortions.
Why would a woman get an abortion if they thought there would be a chance that they would end up dying too? It seems like this statistic is more harmful to the pro-abortion crowd than the pro-life crowd.
But either way, true or false (definitely false), this is an argument that goes against what China’s employee of the month wants. Either that statistic is true and it highlights the problem of abortion itself, not the legality of it, or the statistic is false and it highlights Feinstein’s deceitful nature.
Of course, at the end of the day, it hardly matters when it comes to the confirmation hearing. Feinstein was more likely to sprout wings and fly than she was of voting in favor of confirming Brett Kavanaugh. She was always going to vote against him regardless of his answers. The good news is that he was smart enough to not be straightforward with his answers because there are some Republican traitors who are pro-abortion and would look for any seemingly legit reason to vote against Kavanaugh.
Do you know how we avoid that problem? By flooding Congress with Republicans and get as close to giving them a super-majority as we possibly can.
I, for one, can’t wait until Justice Ginsburg retires and Trump gets to pick her replacement.
“The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”
Also, please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the title suggests, it’s a newsletter that comes out every week, compiling every article that has come out throughout the week. And like I said, it’s completely free. Unlike China’s useful idiot, I won’t lie to you by bringing up false statistics and numbers. When I say it costs $0, that means it costs $0. All you have to do is type in your email address in the allotted box, click on the big, black button below and you’re done!
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...