If Republicans really are the monsters that leftists claim, we sure are lousy at it. For instance, if President Trump is a “Nazi” and “literally Hitler,” his strong backing of Israel shows he’s doing it all wrong. Likewise, if he’s a “Putin puppet,” then you’d think he’d be less tough on Russia than the last Administration, not far more.
And then there’s the constant Democratic complaint that Republicans engage in “voter suppression,” most recently exemplified by Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who seems determined to break Hillary Clinton’s Guinness World Record for World’s Biggest Sore Loser. She’s suing her own state over her claim that when he was Secretary of State, the winner, Brian Kemp, purged the voter rolls and unfairly blocked thousands of Georgians from voting. In fact, the purge was a necessity to keep the voter rolls accurate, meant to identify people who had moved out or died (I can see why Democrats would be upset at removing dead people from the voter rolls, but I digress.)
Now, the Washington Examiner has analyzed the vote and found that since Kemp took office as Secretary of State in 2010, voter participation has actually skyrocketed. This year’s election saw 55% turnout, which is 14% higher than the 2014 midterms and nearly as high as the 2016 Presidential election. Abrams got 1.9 million votes, more than Hillary Clinton got in Georgia in 2016. That’s some really incompetent voter suppression on the part of Georgia Republicans.
The inevitable conclusion is that Ms Abrams’ real complaint isn’t that Georgians weren't allowed to vote. It’s that not quite enough of them voted for her. Cry me a river.
Don’t have a cow, dude
If you read “The Drudge Report,” you’ve probably noticed that lately, it’s been stuffed with scare headlines that seem designed to make readers think the world is coming to an end: “Mueller Nightmare! Climate Change!! Suicides Reach 50-Year Peak!!! Diseases Surge!!!! Stocks Plunge!!!!! Housing Sales Plummet!!!!! Mass Hysteria!!!!!!!!!”
But I think today, we might have reached Peak Pointless Paranoid Panic with this headline:
“Fears ‘World’s Biggest Cow’ Will NEVER Stop Growing.”
With all good intentions, I feel I must say this to Matt Drudge: Don’t have a cow, dude.
Reader response to "Trump loaded for bear..."
From reader Adrian, in response to “Trump loaded for bear...”:
I don't understand why you said if President Trump has evidence against Hillary he should present it. She has committed 33,000+ felonies using her private server for secret government documents. Trump shouldn't need to do anything. The FBI should have arrested her years ago. That in itself is proof of collusion, Hillary with the FBI, not Trump with Russia. When our primary police force is corrupt, how does anyone stomp it? This is a semi-dictatorship, but it isn't a dictatorship by the president.
You are absolutely right --- we know that if the justice system were working as intended, Hillary would have been charged with thousands of counts of destroying subpoenaed evidence, obstruction of justice and mishandling classified material, just for starters. But you’ll notice she WASN’T hauled away in handcuffs, so something more has to happen if we want to keep this from becoming just another cold case.
For one thing, we need a new attorney general (the permanent kind) who will appoint a special counsel to look into the FBI/DOJ’s handling of the Hillary case, as well as pay-for-play concerns regarding the Clinton Global Initiative. This really must happen; it’s the only way justice is ever going to be done in the matter of HRC. If the task of the current special counsel were really to investigate collusion with Russia, he would have been looking into THAT. (We still haven’t heard anything from Judge Huber in Salt Lake City, who was supposed to be looking into that stuff.) So the President needs to get on it, and time’s a-wastin’.
Perhaps he’s waiting for the new Senate to convene, thinking it will be a little better than the current one for getting through his nominee of choice. (For one thing, Jeff Flake won’t be there!)
The new AG will quickly need to get a handle on the special counsel, if that travesty is still going on in January. An AG doesn’t get to micromanage the day-to-day work but will at least have general oversight. It’s past time to wrap this thing up.
Perhaps Trump has already determined his strategy for declassifying the material he has in reserve. He’s probably focused on slapping-down House Democrats itching to investigate “all things Trump.” He may also be waiting for the release of Mueller’s no-doubt scathing report (offering no evidence of “collusion” on his part but lots of partisan criticism), so he can counter it with what he has.
But, again, unless there’s something about this situation we don’t know, it seems that he could accomplish much the same thing by just declassifying everything NOW. Besides, we deserve to know just how bad it it.
Thanks so much for writing!
Liberals talking down
Ever feel as if white liberals are talking down to you? That’s because they are. And not just because they’re usually on a high horse.
Abortion in America
Tuesday night, I was on “The Story” with Martha MacCallum on Fox News (you can watch that segment here if you missed it: https://youtu.be/ZWs7dnxz0Ns?t=1450 )
The topic was a push by pro-life groups for the Supreme Court to review a ruling by a federal court that an Indiana law signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence was unconstitutional. It requires abortion doctors to inform patients that abortions were not permitted if the reason for ending the pregnancy was the unborn baby’s race, color or potential for having a disability such as Down syndrome. Supporters hope that under the current SCOTUS line-up, the High Court will uphold the law.
There have been a number of state laws seeking to limit abortion in incremental ways. Courts have allowed some and struck down others, sometimes in ways that make you think protecting abortion was more important than even protecting the life of the mother. But the ruling striking down this law was especially appalling. We have many laws designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, gender or disability; but this court effectively ruled that the only people who can be legally discriminated against for those reasons, and in a way that is literally lethal, are children in the womb.
Pro-abortion forces (I will call them “pro-choice” when they start promoting the choice of not killing the baby as strongly as they do the choice of killing it) don’t want the SCOTUS to hear this because they’re afraid it will lead to more updates and restrictions on Roe v. Wade. Frankly, it should. Roe v. Wade dates back to 1973, and was based on judges with no medical training trying to grasp the state of prenatal science as it existed 45 years ago. Would you go to a doctor who hadn’t updated his medical knowledge in 45 years?
There have been rulings since that updated Roe v. Wade, but the courts still lag far behind the scientific advances made in understanding the processes of conception and gestation. I don’t see how it’s possible for anyone to continue to deny that life begins at conception and still claim to be a member of the “party of science.” But then, the left hardly demonstrates consistent logic when they argue that we need millions of immigrants because we don’t have enough workers, while defending a barbaric practice that’s slaughtered 60 million children over the past half-century who would have joined the work force.
As for the pro-abortion side’s fear and the pro-life side’s hope that the next case might lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned, I think both misunderstand what that would mean. It wouldn’t automatically ban abortion in the US. It would simply return the issue to the states, where it belongs, and where it resided before the SCOTUS found a hitherto-unnoticed right to kill unborn babies hidden in the Constitution. Some states likely would ban abortion, but others such as New York and California might remove all restrictions and see even more abortions.
Ultimately, the scourge of abortion is never going to be ended by a law or a court ruling. What that will take is for hearts and minds to change so that we all recognize the personhood of a child in the womb. When we get over the ridiculous self-delusion that an unborn baby is just a “mass of tissue” until the moment it’s born and miraculously turns into a person, then that child will be protected by the Fifth and 14th Amendments that say you can’t deprive a person of life or liberty without due process.
In the meantime, we should continue to pass and defend laws such as the one in Indiana. It may not be the ultimate solution, but anytime we can put a new hindrance on the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn children, it's a step for a more civilized culture and society.