Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

08 August 2015

The Republican Party And Loyalty Oaths

A response to Jonah Goldberg...

Listen, I have no use for Donald Trump, but, frankly, I'm unimpressed with the idea of pledging loyalty to the GOP absolutely, under any circumstances, forever, etc. My problem, you see, is this sort of thing only goes one way. It is easy to get upset with Trump for not pledging his fealty to the Republican Party. Why? It is said that, if one is a Republican, Then. S/he. Must. Support. The. And. Vote. For. The. Party's. Nominee. Period.
But, how does that work when the loyalty shoe is put on the GOPe's foot? Must I really cite the myriad of examples or can I just offer up the Party's 2008 presidential nominee as wholly and clearly illustrative?
In July of 2013, the aging, bombastic, insulting, insincere, go-along-to-get-along a/k/a 'crossing the aisle' a/k/a complete surrender and capitulation to the Democrats Senator from the Great State of Arizona, one John Sidney McCain III, was asked by the lefty mag, The New Republic, for whom would he vote in 2016 if the presidential contest was between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul.
And, what did the alleged 'Reagan Republican' stalwart and one of the so-called leaders of the GOP in Washington say in response?

'It’s gonna be a tough choice.'

Wait. Wut??? Where's the loyalty? If one is a true Republican - in fact so much a Republican that he was given the Republican nomination for President - how could one ever contemplate voting for the disingenuous, corrupt, 'bimbo'-bashing (#WarOnWomen, indeed), achievement-less, disastrous Progressive, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was to the left of Barack Obama on many issues while in the Senate?
If the establishment believes that all candidates must pledge all-encompassing loyalty to the party and 'get behind' the eventual nominee, then why does that only seem to apply to upstarts like (the buffoonish) Trump and (the brilliant) Cruz? In other words, why shouldn't Senator McCain be forced to pledge to support the eventual nominee? No. Matter. What.
I admit that I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican (but I am certainly not a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, but I repeat myself). The Party has the absolute right to set its own rules and demands, but shouldn't those, in the very least, be consistent?
I am not a Trump supporter although I do like people who take it to the Establishment. This whole loyalty oath brouhaha is emblematic of one of the Republican Party's core problems: You will vote for our moderate candidate, who will always choose pale pastels over bold colours. You will continue to support us when we betray you. (Remember our promises to limit the size and scope of government, cut taxes, reduce regulation, defund Obamacare and never fund 'President Obama's illegal and unconstitutional amnesty'? Well, never mind. Keep cutting those cheques!)
And, that is exactly how we wind up with people like McCain, McConnell, Boehner, etc. All hat and no cattle. Seriously, the bloody Iranians are better negotiators than Boehner and Putin has a spine where the Majority Leader is just another spineless, chinless, DC Corruptocrat, who buckles under as soon as the bullies, Obama and Reid, hurl their opening salvos. They are weak and, frankly, very different from their bases. They love Big Government...especially when they supposedly control the levers of power...and even as they cede more and more of that power to the Executive Branch...and the fourth branch of government, The Regulatory State.
Recently, I heard a clip from a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee wherein Senator Ted Cruz, in my opinion, completely eviscerated Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter over President Obama's insanely reckless and delusional nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, who are fanatical and apocalyptic.

Contrary to Obama's vile, crass, and, frankly, un-American assertion that, if one objects to his beautiful deal (that rests almost exclusively on the bet that, in a decade, the Iranian government will have moderated), s/he is making 'common cause' with the hardliners in Iran, it is precisely the opposite. I hate to break it to you, Mr President, but the hardliners in Iran ARE the 'Supreme Leader' (as you insist on calling him) and the government. The moderates - those with whom many of us, who oppose the Iranian deal, stood - were the ones getting shot in the street in 2009 during the Green Revolution. President Obama turned his back on the 'moderates' then. Out of ideology, a personal preference for dictators over democrats, or political expediency (‘I cannot piss off the hardliners ' legacy!), who knows?
Anyhoo, during this colloquy, Kerry asserted that he has never seen anything from either the 'Supreme Leader' or the Iranian government that indicates a real desire to 'wipe Israel off the map or destroy the United States'. Seriously.
Only days before, the Ayatollah Khamenei, as he has done for decades, led a frenzied crowd in chanting 'Death to America! Death to Israel!' while holding a Kalashnikov. And, the supposedly 'moderate' President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has explicitly stated in the past that he and his co-religionists would be willing to sacrifice TWENTY MILLION of their OWN countrymen in a nuclear exchange with Israel if such resulted in the destruction of the Jewish State and its 6 million Jews (and 2 million Arabs).  As Senator Chuck Schumer said in his eloquent essay on why he is voting against Obama’s nuclear sell-out ‘agreement’, this deal is premised on the idea and ideal that treating Iran as an equal, letting it back into the ‘community of nations’, and introducing Western ideas into Iranian society through an opening of markets will result in either moderation or regime change is a bet that is almost certainly not going to pay off.  I’m paraphrasing him here, but as hard as it is to say, when he is right, he is right.
It is really indisputable – except to ideologues, sycophants, and antiwar organisations like Code Pink, who do, in fact, constantly make ‘common cause’ with the anti-Semitic, anti-American, Holocaust-denying regime in Iran – that the moderates and real democrats in that country are the very ones that had as much input into this ‘historic accord’ as did Israel, which is to say, NONE.  
Sixty – SIXTY! – percent (60%) of Iran’s population of 73 million is under the age of 30.  They have made it clear that they do not want to live under theocratic rule.  They are the people that should be encouraged and enabled. Providing a path to nukes to the country’s nutters in government doesn’t just present an existential threat to Israel and the world, it crushes the moderates further under the iron fist of the 12th’ers, who want nothing more than to impose Islam on the entire world and to bring about the return of the Mahdi through bloodshed and chaos.  Don’t take my word for it.  Go read the ‘Supreme Leader’s’ book that was published days after President Obama’s 'great gift to America, Israel and the freedom-loving world.'
So, in light of the quite obvious reality with regard to Iran, the nuclear deal, and his own hawkish national security positions, one would believe that Senator McCain would have been silently cheering on Senator Ted Cruz as he deftly and expertly interrogated Kerry, Carter, and Muniz. (There's a reason that the liberal Alan Dershowitz has said that Cruz was his most brilliant student in 50 years and why he won 9 cases before the Supreme Court). But, of course, we are talking about John McCain. So, instead of supporting or, at least, remaining silent during Cruz's time, the self-proclaimed 'Reagan Republican', John McCain, came to the rescue of his old buddy, Lurch Kerry, and cut off Cruz.
This is EXACTLY what you get when your party requires absolute loyalty under any circumstance, but refuses to be loyal to you, their constituents. With the GOP, there's always another hill to die on...Obamacare, immigration, the IRS, the budget, debt/deficits, taxes, regulations, and even the funding of Planned Butcherhood is just not that hill. Impeachment and using the power of the purse have been taken off the table so the Republicans have no leverage.

If the country's Constitution, sovereignty, national defence, and unborn aren't 'hills to die on', then, perhaps, the Republican Party just isn't that in to you. Further, I would suggest, that you not continue to submit to the GOP Establishment's loyalty demands. 

'I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me,' Ronald Reagan once said. Perhaps, it is time for the 'Hobbits and Whacko-Birds' of the Republican Party to tell the Establishment, loudly, clearly, and once and for all, that:

'It's not me. It's YOU.'

If not now, when? 

After another Bush loses to another Clinton and cements permanently the 'fundamental transformation' of the United States of America into something that would have, in generations past, resulted in citizens taking up arms against their elitist rulers? 

We owe ourselves, our children, and generations unborn a better country led by better leaders. 

Trump isn't that guy, but neither is any spawn of the Bush-Dole-Romney wing of the Republican Party and the Washington Cartel.

PS: If you think that I am unduly pessimistic, ‘extremist’, ‘warmongering’, and ‘partisan’ in my contempt for the Iranian nuclear deal, then let me disabuse you of that notion summarily and forthwith.  I need only one example to prove to how naïve and delusional that President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and all of their colleagues and supporters. While President Obama grudgingly was forced to admit that Iran ‘might’ use some of the billions of dollars gained as a result of sanctions’ relief, he asserted that the Iranian government will definitely use most of the money on ‘paying government pensions and repairing crumbling infrastructure.’  I. Am. Not. Kidding.

Do you know what happened immediately after the deal was announced?

General Soleimani, the Commander of Iran’s elite, ruthless Quds Force, defied the sanctions and flew to Moscow.

Did Soleimani travel to Russia to get advice on pension funding and infrastructure remediation from Vladimir Putin?


No, he was sent at the behest of the ‘Supreme Leader’ to secure an arms deal.

So, just exactly who is the delusional, naïve, extreme, and reckless one here?

04 August 2015

Hillary Clinton & The Holy Sacrament Of Abortion

M2RB: The Sex Pistols

As George Will wrote years ago, 'In a 1999 colloquy between Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), the question of just when does a baby become a person, under the law, and vested fully with constitutional rights.  The exchange, to say the least, was 'disturbing':

Santorum: 'Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?' 

Boxer: 'I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.'

Santorum persisted: 'Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?”'

Barbara Boxer would not say 'yes.' Instead, she said, understandably: 

Boxer: 'I don’t want to engage in this.'

See for yourselves:

Roberta Durán Boxer

Honestly, who could blame her for saying 'no mas'?  The pro-abortion rights movement's illogical arguments are hard to maintain and, needless to say, demand a 'willing suspension of disbelief'.  

Actually, they require something even more rigourous, deeper, obstinate, extreme, and fanatical: It demands an absolute willful blindness and the dehuminisation of both the pro-abortioner and the 'foetus' that it claims is nothing more than 'a clump of cells', ''similar to a wart', or the more clinical term, 'tissue'. 

In order to maintain the argument that abortion is not murder and a woman has the right to have a foetus removed from her body, at any time and up until the moment of birth just as she has the sovereignty over her body to decide to have a wart or tumour removed or demand a tattoo artist ink her child's name in a large font around her neck.  As an aside, I wonder if I should have the right to demand this 'artist':

'Rape victim' Emma Sulkowicz some 'performance art' for me of the in utero dismemberment of an unborn child, sorry 'trigger warning' demanders, a 'foetus'.  For the record, 'foetus' in original Latin means: 1. 'bearing young';  2. 'breeding'; 3. 'conception'; 4. 'laying (egg) |birth/bringing forth young'; 5. 'brood/litter'; 6. 'children (of a parent);' and 7. offspring/young (animals).  One must fast forward to the 16th century before 'foetus' becomes 1. embryo (Cal) and 2. fetus/fetus, young while still in the womb.

Returning to the disconnection, pro-abortionists 'believe' (actually, I don't really think that they believe this. They know what a 'foetus' is and do not care because sexual and women's liberation, as well as never having to pay the consequences of one's actions because, after all, it is always someone else's fault: Conservatives, Libertarians, Capitalism, the 'rich, white, racist' Founding Fathers, the greedy CEOs, the bourgeoisie, the evil bankers, climate change, the Koch brothers, white people in the suburbs, small government advocates, the Tea Party, 'Jesusland' a/k/a 'The South' (which is holding America and 'Progress' back), and, last, but definitely not least (in fact, the top of the charts in a lot of cases) THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!

If it's not the stupid-racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-home-schooled-dirt-eating-snake-handling-brother-marrying-deer-shooting-squirrel-eating-hick-n-hustering-trailer-park-living-moonshine-running-meth-cooking-one-tooth-brushing-single-hair-comb-overing-blue-plate-'n-light-special-luvin'-stand-at-attention-WalMart-shopping-ignorant-untravelled-flag-waving-cry-in-my-beers-with-Lee-Greenwood-Teabag-waving-guns-n-Bibles-bitter-clinging Neanderthals that spread a woman's legs, then it is the same people who 'instituted a coup against the United States' by assassinating President John F Kennedy: The CIA, J Edgar Hoovers, da Booooooshes, Neo-Cons, Israel-Firsters, Bilderbergers, Fascists, Birchers, NWOers, Tri-Lateralists, CFRers, chemtrail pilots, vaccine scientists, secret water fluorinators, black helicopter pilots, false-flag planners, MK-ULTRA practitioners, paid propagandists, Richard Nixon, Elvis (He was later 'deputised' by President Richard Nixon, so there), the ghosts of such figures as Lee Harvey 'The Stooge' Oswald, Jacob Leon Rubenstein a/k/a 'Jack Ruby' (He was a JOOOOOOOOOO, doncha know?), Idi Amin, Henry VIII, and a spirit that bears a remarkable resemblance and is 'reminiscent of Gain-gus Khan', MI6 agents, Q, DGSE infiltrators, the Mossad (Da JOOOOOOOOOOOOS! - again), Abbot & Costello, The Three Stooges, and a drag queen by the name of ‘Lypsynka,’ who was the love child of three parents: Moammar Qaddafi, Joycelyn Wilderstein, and Michael Jackson.

It. Is. Never. Their. Fault.

Nor is it EVER A BABY.

In fact, many pro-aborts call pregnancy a disease.  So, I suppose if pregnancy is a disease, it makes sense that the patient is the woman and should have the right to have the 'disease' removed.

'The National Institute of Health has said that it is a danger to women's health and safety of their families, that for 30 years, to be exposed to the prospects of pregnancy.'

- Congresswoman Gwendolynne Moore (D-WI)

Of course, these same people will strenuously argue that pregnancy in sea turtles, the Delta smelt, or, if the big cat, Cecil the Lion, had been actually a transgendered 'Cait' named Cecile the Lion must be Federally protected. And, Gaia forbid anyone, anywhere harms one of these sacred 'unborn animals', they should face enormous fines and lengthy sentences in Leavenworth...if not extradition to a dictatorship with absolutely no due process nor human rights and whose leader recently celebrated his 91st birthday with a feast that included Baby Elephants...or, summary execution (Yeah, I'm looking at you Piers Morgan, Mia Farrow, Cher, etc). As another aside, if you want to learn what is actually going on in Zimbabwe, then I beg you to watch Mugabe and the White African and Fighting For Survival.  While the West convulses in moral hysteria over the 'murder' of Cecil, 99% of Zimbabweans had never heard of him and are wondering where the world has been as they suffer through starvation (Recall that Zimbabwe was 'the breadbasket of Africa' before Mugabwe took over, collectivised, and 'redistributed' the white-owned land to the peasants and workers his family, friends, and political supporters), the most extreme poverty, thirst, lack of medical care, housing, education, representation, and basic human rights and civil liberties.  Zimbabwe is a corrupt, communist, tinpot dictatorship run by a virulent racist, Robert Zimbabwe, who once said in a reference to ALL white people everywhere:

'I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for...The only man you can trust is a dead white man.'

If you are hoping that change is soon to come to Zimbabwe due to Mugabe's advanced age, think again.  'Gucci' Grace Zimbabwe, the country's First Lady AND FIRST SHOPPER, who claims supernatural powers, is angling to break the real Last. Glass. Ceiling: Becoming the world's FIRST! WOMAN! DICTATOR!  You go, G!

Her Royal Thighness, Queen Hillary Clinton, ain't got nuthin' on Gracie. Okay, she's got a lot on her: Hillary Clinton And The 'Searing Truth'; Whitewater; Rose Law Firm records; Travelgate; VRWC, Clintoon Crime Family Foundation, Libya ('We Came. We saw. He died!' How's dat working out for ya?); Benghazi; 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good'; 'Businesses don't create jobs' ; 'The unfettered free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation'; 'We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it'; 'Too many people have made too much money'; 'Other developed countries…are more committed to social stability than we have been, and they tailor their economic policies to maintain it', etc, etc, etc.  Oh, and she did once claim that she 'conversed' with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt while in the White House so I suppose that's a supernatural power of a sort.

But, here's the problem with all of this: Pregnancy, itself, is NOT a disease. A 'foetus' is NOT a wart. A 'foetus' is NOT a tumour.  And, the 'Party of Science' denies Science! every time that it argues otherwise.  Unlike a disease, pregnancy is part of biology and the human existence.  Yes, of course, pregnancies can develop complications like toxemia or pose great risks to women with pre-existing conditions, but pregnancy, itself, IS. NOT. A. DISEASE.

Secondly, and this is essential, an embryo, zygote or foetus is NOT just like a wart, a tumour, or whatever.  If you examine a wart that has been removed from a woman, the cells contained therein have the exact same DNA as the patient. The same goes for a tumour or a toe or a heart or a lung or a kidney or a hair follicle.  A 'foetus' has its own DNA.  How many people have two sets of DNA? A 'foetus' has its own brain.  How many individuals in history have ever had two brains?  Gaia knows, there are many Progtards that should be singing 'All I Want For Winter Solstice Or Festivus Is A Brain!'  Just one.  A 'foetus' has its own heart.  How many people in the history of mankind have had two hearts?  It would be nice if the ghouls at Planned Butcherhood and its orthodox followers had just one.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, when first asked about the recent Planned Parenthood videos, she said that they were 'disturbing'.

Sometimes, things are so bad, so obvious that one can no longer be willfully blind or claim some sort of ignorance.

Clinton may be the rich, white, elitist Democratic frontrunner, but even she had to apologise and genuflect before the Altar of Abortion, which is the Holy Sacrament of the Church of Progressivism.  After all, this woman claimed to be a Progressive in the manner of one of her heroines, Margaret Sanger.

In accepting Planned Butcherhood's Margaret Sanger Award, Mrs Clinton said:

'Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision ... And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her....Margaret Sanger's work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done...Here at home, there are still too many women who are denied their rights because of income, because of opposition, because of attitudes that they harbor. But around the world, too many women are denied even the OPPORTUNITY to know about how to plan and space their families. They're denied the power to do anything about the most intimate of decisions.'

So, women are 'denied the power to do anything about the most intimate of decisions' in America? Lady, there were 1.06 MILLION abortions last years so shut your lying trap already.  Further, on this issue of women and 'choice', do they have the 'right to choose' to kill their adulterous husbands?  Both unplanned, unborn children and adulterous husbands are unfair, unjust, sexist social constructs that place undue and unnecessary 'burdens' on women.  Why is it legal for a woman to kill one, but not the other?

24-week old 'foetus' killed during an abortion

Adulterous husband

One innocent.  The other, not so much.

Hillary said this about the alleged human being, Margaret Sanger, that said these:

'The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.' 

Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.”

'[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.'

'Plan for Peace' from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

'Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit… Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.' 

'Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.'

Birth Control Review, pg. 108, April 1932  

'Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.'

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12. 

'We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members'. 

Margaret Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts, 19  December 1939 Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976. 

'A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.' 

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1 

'[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity. 

In the aforementioned tome, Margaret Sanger also spoke about her philosophy of eugenics asserting the only people that she and her peers viewed as 'quality' were worthy of life and should be allowed.  Like the Socialist that she was, she echoed Karl Marx's position on speaks on her eugenic philosophy – that only the types of “quality” people she and her peers viewed as worthy of life should be allowed to live.  Just look:

'Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash (Voekerabfall, i.e. 'racial trash') always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution. … The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress.' 

- Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1849 

'The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust.' 

- Karl Marx, Marx People’s Paper, 16 April 1856 

According to Marx, all European countries contain ‘left-overs of earlier inhabitants’, now rightly brought into subjugation by more advanced peoples. Amongst such ‘racial trash’ (Voekerabfall) were listed Scottish Highlanders, Bretons, Basques, South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs) and Czechs.  He also maintained this position on Negroes and Gypsies. Sanger further included the mentally ill, deviants, and, of course, Da JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS.

Now, we return to Sanger:

'Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.'

'Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.'

- 'Family Limitation,' Eighth edition revised, 1918

Here we have a woman, Hillary Clinton, who called the Planned Butcherhood videos 'disturbing' and Margaret Sanger a heroine, but was 'forced' to apoligise to those that believe a 'foetus' is just another 'clump of cells' even though it has its own DNA, brain, heart, central nervous system, circulatory system, spinal column, liver, kidneys, legs, fingers, hands, arms, toes and everything that a living human being normally has.

So, for Mrs Clinton, I have two simple questions:

According to a report by the New York City Department entitled Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, 31,328 black 'foetuses' were aborted and 24,758 black children were born.  For those who are math-challenged, 31,328 > 24,758.  Furthermore,  in 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born (24,758).  While the African-American population only makes up 25.1% of the population of the Big Apple, 42.2% of all abortions performed in 2012 were of black, unborn children.

So, Mrs Clinton, do black lives really matter to you and Progressives?

Secondly, Mrs Clinton, Senator Barbara Boxer once said that, basically, a baby doesn't become a person and have human, civil, and constitutional rights until it leaves the hospital.

So, when do YOU believe life begins?

It shouldn't really be that hard, Mrs Clinton, since you claim to 'follow the science'.

Then again, when even The Sex Pistols are repulsed by you and your fellow pro-aborts' position on a woman's right to 'choose (to kill a separate being with distinct DNA)', I guess 'no mas' really is the last refuge of a Progressive.  I imagine a future where Planned Butcherhood's Margaret Sanger Award is the 21st century's equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan's Chief Justice Roger Taney Award.

By the way, how many hankies did you use while crying over the 'murder' of Cecil?

Related Reading: 'Safe, Legal, and Rare'

Bodies by The Sex Pistols 

She was a girl from Birmingham 
She just had an abortion 
She was case of insanity 
Her name was Pauline, she lived in a tree 

She was a no one who killed her baby 
She sent her letters from the country 
She was an animal 
She was a bloody disgrace 

Body! I'm not an animal 
Body! I'm not an animal 

Dragged on a table in factory Illegitimate place to be 
In a packet in a lavatory 
Die little baby screaming 
Body screaming fucking bloody mess 
Not an animal 
It's an abortion 

Body! I'm not animal 
Mummy! I'm not an abortion 

Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess 
I'm not a discharge 
I'm not a loss in protein 
I'm not a throbbing squirm

Fuck this and fuck that 
Fuck it all and fuck a fucking brat 
She don't wanna baby that looks like that 
'I don't wanna baby that looks like that' 

Body, I'm not an animal 
Body, an abortion 
Body! I'm not an animal 
Body! I'm not an animal 
An animal
I'm not an animal.....
I'm not an abortion..... 


03 August 2015

Hillary Clinton And The 'Searing Truth'

'Wow fellow citizen Aldo1887, I think you were actually able to list all the fake right wing "controversies" in one succinct list. That was amazing! Oh my goodness fellow citizen geezee, politicians getting money from lobbyists and then coincidentally doing things they want? That's shocking. I've never heard of such a thing before. Surely Ms. Clinton is the first politician to ever do such a thing, we're going to have to ... oh wait ... never mind. This is a perfect example of why people giggle at the endless list of right wing "conspiracy" theories. They've gone beyond silly.'

SearingTruth, 3 August 2015

The Espionage Act of 1917, now 18 U.S.C. ch. 37, says: 'It is a crime to knowingly remove such documents without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.' See: 18 U.S. Code § 1924.

The Obama administration has prosecuted more people under the 1917 Act than all of his predecessors combined. This, of course, includes General David Petraeus. He kept some classified documents in an unlocked desk drawer in the study of his Virginia home. He also shared some 'classified' information with his mistress. What was that 'classified information'? His schedule.

Hillary Clinton used an unsecured and unauthorised homebrew server in her home in Chappaqua exclusively throughout her four years at State. She claims that it was secure because Secret Service agents were at the house. It's weird how all of our national security agents couldn't prevent the Chinese hacking into the Office of Personnel Management and obtaining the highly-delicate, detailed, and intrusive records and security clearance reviews of 24 million current and former Federal employees and contractors, but Hillary Clinton continues to assert her 55,000+ pages of emails were secure because some agents were on the premises. Doesn't she know that actual, physical presence is unnecessary in cyberwarfare? If not, she is uniquely unqualified to serve as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief.

She further claims that none of her emails contained classified or sensitive information. Well, first of all, how can we ever know when she deleted many of them even though she was under a subpoena? Secondly, her assertion has been flatly contradicted by the Inspectors General at State. Of a sample of just 40 of her emails, 10% contained national security secrets or otherwise highly sensitive information. The State Department, itself, has warned that her emails likely contained hundreds of items that were classified. Moreover, Reuters, relying on multiple, high-level sources within the Administration and security agencies, reported that the emails that she did turn over contained classified information from FIVE national security agencies.

If one is unwilling to say that Secretary Clinton put her own ambitions and paranoia over the nation's security, then s/he must, at least, if being intellectually honest, admit that her behaviour was grossly negligent, which is the test under the Espionage Act, by the way. She knowingly acted and her intentions are under the law, frankly, irrelevant.

Under 18 U.S.C. ch. 37, each violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 is punishable up to 10 years in a maximum security prison. That means each document (email) 'knowingly remove(d) ...without authority...and retain(ed) without authority' is a separate charge. Now, I don't expect her to be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to dozens or hundreds of years in Leavenworth. Petraeus was forced to plead guilty to a Federal felony, pay a substantial fine, and be on probation for two (2) years. As a convicted felon, he also forfeited his right to vote, including in the 2016 Presidential election where the Democratic nominee acted more egregiously than he ever did.

Let me ask you this: Which method of obtaining American national security secrets would be harder and more perilous for Putin or the Chinese to obtain? Retrieving classified information from the unlocked desk drawer in the home of the Director of Central Intelligence Agency or hacking into the unsecured 'homebrew' server in Hillary Clinton's basement? Whose actions were more egregious? Who exponentially exposed more sensitive national security information and secrets?

My answer: The woman for whom General David Petraeus could not vote even if he wanted to.

And, yet, you will crawl over broken glass to put the Clintons back in the position of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom.

Now, THAT, my luv, is some seriously serious 'searing truth'.


Sandy Berger, a Democrat, removed, without authorisation, COPIES of five classified documents from the National Archives concerning Bill Clinton's handling of Al Qaeda's Millennial Plot prior to testifying before the 09.11 Commission. He did not destroy them. He was forced to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of removing and retaining COPIES of classified information without authorisation. For this, he was sentenced to two years of probation, ordered to pay a fine of $50,000, required to perform 100 hours of community service, and was stripped of his security clearance for 3 years. To avoid being cross-examined on the matter by Bar Counsel, he permanently relinquished his licence to practise law. 

Secretary of Defence (1994-95) and Director of the CIA (95-96), John Deutsch, a Democrat, kept a small amount of classified information on his home computer for 'convenience' (Gee, where have I heard that excuse before?). For years the Clinton administration tried to cover this crime up and postpone any investigation. When Congress was finally informed, DOJ had no choice but to take a cursory look. AG Janet Reno declined to prosecute, but did refer the matter of his national security clearance to authorities to review. Since the statute of limitations had not run on this flagrant violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1924 and a Republican was about to be in the White House, President Clinton pardoned Deutsch on his last day in office. This event was lost in the uproar over Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, the largest tax cheat in American history, following the latter's wife, Denise, making a very large donation to the DNC.

Gen Petraeus, party affiliation unknown for certain, kept some classified documents in a drawer in the desk located in the study of his home in Virginia. He also shared the 'classified information' of his schedule with his mistress. Both the CIA and FBI referred this matter to the DOJ felony prosecution. For this violation of the law, Petraeus was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, which was actually double the government's recommendation.

What makes Hillary Rodham Clinton so special, entitled and different from Mssrs. Deutsch, Berger, and Petraeus?

For those that believe she is honest, ethical, and speaks for the ‘common man and woman’…

She closed off part of Bergdorf-Goodman in order to get a $600 haircut. I wonder if it looks like the same 'do' she was sporting when under sniper fire in Bosnia with Sinbad the Comedian. Let's hear it for the 1% of the 1%!!!

On a serious note, she did do something: She told the nation for weeks that Benghazi was the result of a 'spontaneous protest' when she knew - at the time it was happening - that it was a terrorist attack. Emails and other documents have been produced as a result of a court order that proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Hillary Clinton has always been unethical and a lying. Sh/t, she was even fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by its Chief of Staff and Counsel, Jeffrey Zeifman. In 2006, Zeifman, a DEMOCRAT, published a book, Hillary's Pursuit of Power. In the book, he wrote:

'(Hillary Clinton) engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.'