We are the drain the swamp people

David Harsanyi at The Federalist has an excellent commentary about journalism and how:

The State Of American ‘Fact-Checking’ Is Completely Useless
With a veneer of impartiality, fact-checkers engage in a uniquely dishonest style of partisanship.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Democrat women claim suffrage movement – that’s rich

Many of the comments posted to the article are rich, even if a bit tangential, as was this one by realconservative referring to the silly girl-power-wear-white-look-at-us-stunt by Democrat women at Trump’s SOTU speech:

I havent seen that many democrats wear white since they marched with the KKK

Which is an appropriate dig which we are happy to illustrate.

We would add that any claim by Democrat women to championing women’s rights, currently does not apply to girl babies in utero, girl babies or any baby surviving abortion, nor Christian women, or conservative women who are often discriminated against and subject to their politically correct inquisitions.

The history of Republicans is far more supportive of all women.  The Democrat women should have been wearing sackcloth and ashes (blackface??) in repentance for their party for a host of historic and current policy reasons that adversely affect women.

Suffrage

The Republican Party pioneered the right of women to vote and was consistent in its support throughout the long campaign for acceptance. It was the first major party to advocate equal rights for women and the principle of equal pay for equal work. 
The Women’s Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848 marked the beginning of the women’s suffrage movement in the United States. Two years later there was a nationwide meeting in Worcester, Mass. 

By 1870, the Massachusetts Republican State Convention had already seated two suffragettes, Lucy Stone and Mary A. Livermore, as delegates. In addition, the National Republican Convention of 1872 approved a resolution favoring the admission of women to “wider fields of usefulness” and added that “the honest demand of this class of citizens for additional rights … should be treated with respectful consideration.” 

Wyoming, the state that pioneered women’s suffrage, sent two women, Therese A. Jenkins and Cora G. Carleton, to the 1892 Republican Convention in Minneapolis as alternate delegates. This was the first time women were seated at a Republican National Convention.

This convention was also the first to be addressed by a woman, J. Ellen Foster, chairman of the Women’s Republican Association of the United States. A strong believer in organization, Foster said her association had prepared work plans for women’s involvement in national politics. Copies were given to each delegate and alternate. “We are here to help you,” she declared, “and we are here to stay.” 

At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June. 

When the Amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were Democratic. Twelve states, all Republican, had given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was ratified.

On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th and final state needed to ratify the amendment. The U.S. Secretary of State certified the amendment on Aug. 26, 1920.

0

0

But they’d rather be thought of as ‘stupid’ than what they really are

COWARDLY AND NAIVE (Nicest word we could think of to somehow describe bold treachery or abject stupidity); THAT’S GOP LEADERSHIP !

“Many Senate Republicans are concerned about the precedent that declaring a ‘national emergency’ to ‘build the wall’ could set, enabling a future Democratic president to address a liberal priority such as combating climate change.” (WSJ, 2/6/19)

We believe, even though the GOP establishment has surrendered on principled matters supported by American voters on numerous issues in the past, it is not possible that they are this stupid!

We suggest, however, that there are many Republican House and Senate members who prefer to be thought of as stupid rather than what they actually are, sellouts to their own gang of special interest supporters; but do they think that most Americans do not realize how glib and insulting this expressed “concern” is ?!

Do these politicians really believe that by NOT taking the action of declaring a national emergency to address a a proven voter/citizen national priority, today’s Democratic party and its leaders would, at some point in the future, say “Oh my! Though we now control the executive and legislative branches, we cannot declare a national emergency to establish mandatory actions, opposed by most Americans!

“The Republicans refused to do it to advance their priorities when they had the chance…the American people would not like us!!! And look at the precedent it would set!” ?

No informed, serious person believes that for a nano-second. One only need recall the various illegal, unConstitutional, underhanded actions of the ‘modern’ Democrat party leadership in the recent past:

– The “nuclear option”; Some Republicans wanted to abolish the Senate filibuster used most aggressively by Democrats to block presidential appointments of judges. But “cooler heads prevailed”… the notion was rejected because of the “precedent it would set, to be abused by some future Democrat-controlled Senate”. If you need to be told how that worked out, you are among the gravely uninformed who vote for Democrats.

– The DACA diktat; after acknowledging he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so, President Obama did so…”precedent and legality be damned”!

– Obamacare? Using various underhanded, questionably illegal tactics, this first step to imposing socialized medicine was put into law, by Democrats exclusively! Did you ever hear a Democrat say anything like Senator John Thune (R., SD) was quoted as muttering Tuesday: “…the precedent it creates for a future president to find lots of reasons to declare an emergency, the questions about separation of power and checks and balances, and everything else…”.

THIS IS WHAT PASSES FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP ON CAPITOL HILL???!!! DLH

0

0

His is a great record. Trump’s speech defended life, the nations interests, the economy and welcomed legal immigrants.

Trump took it to the Dems  —  made them squirm and smirk and showed them for who they are as they disgracefully sat on their hands through much of the story of America’s resurgence.

He had an appropriate suite of guests to “flesh out” many of his points, including two with regards to prison reform.

Two “visuals” we would have loved to add to the speech as show and tell  expose:

A quick slide or picture held up to show the Dems standing ovation for Bill Clinton’s stop illegal immigration segments in some of his SOTU addresses.

Having Souix City Iowa’s Melissa Ohden in the guest box, or  Gianna Jessen or Jill Stanek  or better all three of them and introducing them as he addressed the matter of late-term abortion and New York’s 4th trimester abortion infanticide law (and the Democrat Virginia governor’s support for same).       R Mall

0

0

Well, that’s easily corrected! (Stand back. You don’t want to GSR on your shirt). DLH

Man wants to sue his parents for giving birth to him ‘without his consent’ as part of ‘anti-natalist’ movement that says having children is morally wrong

Raphael Samuel, 27, has compared having children to ‘kidnapping and slavery’
On his Facebook page he sends anti-natalist posts to hundreds of followers
He intends to sue his parents despite having a ‘great relationship’ with them

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

News about RBG’s fav twosome, one now a tenured professor  —  and its  allegedly not his first rodeo!! (you won’t likely see this talked about by liberal media)

A-list gay couple ‘married’ by Justice Ginsburg arrested for rape of male student  

0

0

• Is the fight of Biblical proportions? 
• The “wall” is not merely symbolic
• A Biblical analogy better than open borders nonsense and leftist Biblical corruption

Article by Bryan Fischer at American Family Association:  (graphic not in original)

What the President Could Learn from Nehemiah About Building Walls

Donald Trump would like to be known for building a wall. But his adversaries keep frustrating his plans. Well, Nehemiah is a guy who is known for building a wall and had to overcome a lot of resistance to do it. Perhaps he has something to teach our president about how to get it done.

Now if the president were to get the border wall built, it would be the most significant accomplishment of his presidency and put him next to Herbert Hoover as a president whose name is connected with a huge civil engineering accomplishment. He would be remembered for decades as the president who protected our national security along the southern border.

It’s worth noting that God devoted an entire book of the Bible to recording the history of a construction project, the building of a physical barrier around the ancient city of Jerusalem. One implication here is that our view of what counts as ministry is much too narrow. Nehemiah’s job was as sacred and as much a form of ministry as the work of the high priest. Who’s to say that President Trump’s effort to protect our southern border with a wall is not as much a form of ministry as Robert Jeffress’ preaching in the pulpit?

If the president is doing what God has called him to do – and I believe he is – then he needs to follow the same path that Nehemiah did. First, he needs to pray. When Nehemiah heard about how unprotected the city was, he “wept and mourned for days, and continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven” (Nehemiah 1:4).

Nehemiah’s prayer included what I call “identificational repentance.” He repented on behalf of his people, saying “we (not “they”) have acted very corruptly against you and not kept the commandments…you commanded through your servant Moses” (Nehemiah 1:7). He – as we must also do – identified himself with the people of his land and joined them in repenting for its sins. We do not pray from a position of moral or spiritual superiority but from a position of humility.

Nehemiah, as a political leader, acknowledged his need for ordinary people to join him in both repentance and supplication. “O Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of your servant, and to the prayer of your servants who delight to fear your name…” (Nehemiah 1:11[emphasis mine]). Who are the “servants who delight to fear your name?” Well, that’s us. Ordinary Americans who love our country, want to see God protect it, and are willing to join our prayers to those of our president and fellow-citizens to see that it happens.

To put it bluntly, the wall cannot be built apart from the intercessory prayer of the saints. The question for us right now as Christ-followers is not “Where is the money for the wall?” but “Where is the intercessory prayer for the wall?” The battle over the wall is a matter of straight-up spiritual warfare. It will not be resolved by what happens politically but by what happens spiritually. If we pray as we should, the president will get his wall. If we don’t, he won’t.

This is because the second thing that President Trump can learn from Nehemiah is that anybody who sets out to build a wall for God will encounter intense, vitriolic, and hateful opposition. We are told that it “displeased them (Nehemiah’s adversaries) greatly that someone had come to seek the welfare of the people” (Nehemiah 2:10). The phrase translated “displeased them greatly” is literally “it was very evil in their eyes,” in the original Hebrew.

And so, too, the president’s adversaries think what the president is seeking to do is something evil. Speaker Nancy Pelosi frequently refers to the wall as something “immoral.” While the president seeks the welfare of our country, his opponents do not. While we and the president want a wall to protect our national security and to protect the safety and security of our cities and neighborhoods, the president’s enemies want open borders so they can get more voters (Democrats) or get more cheap labor (the GOP establishment).

The opposition will resort to insults, name-calling, and threats. Nehemiah said his enemies, “jeered at us and despised us” (Nehemiah 2:19). The word translated “jeered” means “to mock, to deride.” The word translated “despised” literally means “to hold in contempt, to raise the head loftily and disdainfully.”

The president and we who support him have been subjected to this from the day he won the election. We are ridiculed and mocked and regarded as “rubes,” as one Democrat put it. We are regarded as inferior in every respect to our cultural betters who sneer at us and our MAGA hats in utter contempt.

The opposition in Nehemiah’s day was so intense that it created a shutdown over the wall (sound familiar?). Nehemiah’s leftist opponents threatened them with death and dispirited them. “The strength of those who bear the burdens is failing. There is too much rubble. By ourselves, we will not be able to rebuild the wall” (Nehemiah 4:10).

The political “moderates” of Nehemiah’s day also interfered by criticizing the pro-wall folks as extremists and begging them to return to the establishment fold. “The Jews…came from all directions and said to us ten times, ‘You must return to us’” (Nehemiah 4:12).

The third lesson that the president can learn from Nehemiah is that perseverance is the key to ultimate success. During the mid-wall shutdown, Nehemiah rallied his citizens. He gave a pep talk “to the nobles and to the officials, and to the rest of the people” (Nehemiah 4:14), urging them not to fear their opponents but instead to “remember the Lord, who is great and awesome” (Nehemiah 4:14). As a result, “they all returned to the wall, each to his own work” (Nehemiah 4:15). It wasn’t long before the wall was finished, and everyone who saw it knew that “this work had been accomplished with the help of our God” (Nehemiah 6:16).

Here was Nehemiah’s rallying cry: “Fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives and your homes” (Nehemiah 4:14). My wife and I are at a stage in life where virtually no matter what happens we’re going to be okay. But what motivates me to stay engaged in the culture war – which right now centers on the border wall – is that I am deeply concerned about the culture we are leaving behind to our children and to their children after them. I am determined to fight for them.

The action we can take right now in the culture war is to pray for our president and the wall project, to support him against his adversaries, and to persevere until the wall is built.

A real border is definitively not the priority of the pharisees shouting “immoral” — but protecting western culture, which is enhanced by an orderly border, is definitively not either — witness the sames tolerance, indeed promotion of child murder, transsexualism, etc.

Borders are  more in keeping with sound Biblical precepts, Old and New Testament, and human nature, than no border and no nation states — what the modern-day pharisees are after.

The American Church grew with enforced immigration laws and strictures, responsible believers coming here legally, a wall was not necessary.  Now it is a facet of protecting sovereignty and culture, while absorbing and assimilating law-abiding immigrants in an orderly fashion.     R Mall

0

0

Did anybody expect to hear any comment from the pulpit Sunday about the grisly, unconscionable pro-abortion campaign being waged in state legislatures like New York, Virginia, etc ?

Talks a good game on occasion, bypasses educable moments that could embarrass liberals

I did, but in my Kansas parish, it certainly wasn’t discussed.

But then, one must consider that it is obviously not a top priority with the Leader of the Roman Catholic Church. When “climate change” and “social justice” are the chief concerns, things like abortion, infanticide, and the antics of Latin American dictators must take a “back pew” the things that rub his biggest fan boys  in the media the wrong way.

Or, perhaps Il Papa has concluded that “it is premature to take sides…” on that issue” (late, late term abortion) because “it could cause more damage” as he noted in explaining why he didn’t wish to opine about Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. Or maybe the Pope has not spoken yet, or disciplined anyone, out of his deep commitment to being the good pastor. . . however more pastoral on some issues rather than others.

To our churchgoing readers: Was the “abortion/infanticide” issue a topic of discussion in your Sunday service?        DLH

0

0

Sharyll’s right again!

“Right under our noses, while still under investigation for allegedly orchestrating leaks and undermining candidate Trump in 2016, some in the intel community are orchestrating leaks and undermining President Trump in 2019.” …Sharyll Attkisson

At the Intelligence Officials Tea: “Trump and his MAGA reprobates must be stopped for the good of world order. Whatever it takes — gossiping, leaking, undermining, slow-walking, lying, sandbagging, circumventing. Surely we will be believed . . .

Among all national news reporters and opinion writers, Sharyl Attkisson must be ranked in the top three. So much so that, as a reporter for pro-Obama CBS, her writing was so accurate and non-partisan that the Obama administration had her under surveillance until it became necessary for her to leave the network.

In this piece she summarizes matters that she has been the first to bring to the nation’s attention — something that we too have noticed has been completely missing from media ‘interest” — the “Intelligence Community’s” (IC) obvious and completely unabashed effort to undermine President Trump.

A lot of coverage (and downright “publicity”) was given to the “IC’s” recent “threat assessment” supposedly alerting America to the “real” global threats to our national security.

The real purpose, so transparently obvious, was to contradict virtually every Trump position and strategy .

– “Iran is “in technical compliance” with the “nuclear agreement” from which Trump withdrew, accurately labeling it a “terrible and dangerous” pact.

– “North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons” (so Trump’s diplomatic initiatives are naive and stupid?)

– “Russia and China are the most serious global threats”, but then Trump is criticized for attempting to “reset” relations with Putin which failed so dramatically when Obama and Hillary attempted to and Obama sought to “collude” with Putin, begging him to give him some slack until after he’s reelected).

– “Our allies are being ‘abandoned’ “…apparently by Trump’s successful effort to get them to meet their commitments for their own defense’.

– The “IC” also threw in some gratuitous criticism about Trump’s trade and tariff policies.

In this piece Attkisson becomes one of only a few that suggests how much of a product of the Deep State which still resides within our “Intelligence Community”! Good for her! DLH

Intel operation against Trump still going strong     (more excerpts, visit site for the full article

In the end, President Trump could be right or wrong. And the way he interacts with his intel officials deserves news coverage and scrutiny. But we should refrain from one-sided reporting based on anonymous, orchestrated leaks by people who clearly seek to use the media to sway public and political opinion.

Our intel community — especially today, with its recent conduct under scrutiny — should not be immune from healthy skepticism. These latest press reports are a pretty good indication that, for some intel officials, their operation against the commander-in-chief continues.

0

0

Too funny – from the incomparable Jarlsberg

0

0

However . . . Imprimis article challenges marijuana advocacy  (excerpt)

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/

. . .    Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.
Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong.

They’ve told you marijuana has many different medical uses. In reality marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, have been shown to work only in a few narrow conditions. They are most commonly prescribed for pain relief. But they are rarely tested against other pain relief drugs like ibuprofen—and in July, a large four-year study of patients with chronic pain in Australia showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

. . .

The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia—something even cannabis advocates acknowledge the drug can cause. The risk is so obvious that users joke about it and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to induce paranoia. And for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia on 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes found that most believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.

Yet the link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with preexisting psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault, and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. But studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence have quietly piled up. Many of them weren’t even designed to catch the link, but they did. Dozens of such studies exist, covering everything from bullying by high school students to fighting among vacationers in Spain.

In most cases, studies find that the risk is at least as significant as with alcohol. . . .

Thanks to RD for forward

Graphics below not in original:

0

0

• How could it be other?
• New research reveals profound concept of microchimerism in pregnancy

An important article appeared in the latest Davenport Catholic Messenger, the local Roman Catholic diocesan paper here.  It is by Dr. Timothy Millea MD, president of the St. Thomas Aquinas Guild of the Quad Cities. We were pleasantly surprised and found it profoundly informative in the commentary and evidence it refers to of the cellular symbiosis of mother and child DURING pregnancy, and beyond, . . . as opposed to  the profoundly ridiculous by way of survival of the species . . . core pro-abortion distortion of unborn child as parasite. 

Excerpt:  Image not in original. See article for religious implications.  Article by Timothy Millae, MD:

The eternal mother-child connection 

The closing verse in the Gospel of Matthew carries a powerful metaphysical message: “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Imagine you were there on that mountain in Galilee as Jesus spoke. We don’t know if his mother, Mary was there, but the words of her son were not only metaphysically true but also literally true. The intermingling of Mary’s and Jesus’ cells was, and still is, an unbreakable bond due to a scientifically proven phenomenon known as microchimerism.

Microchimerism is defined as the presence of two or more genetically distinct cell populations in one individual. During pregnancy, a two-way transfer of cells takes place between the mother and her baby in utero. During the first few weeks after conception, cells from both mother and baby pass back and forth across the placenta. During pregnancy, up to 10 percent of the DNA in the mother’s bloodstream comes from her baby. After the baby is born, the percentage of the baby’s DNA in the mother drops, but some cells remain functional for the rest of the mother’s life. Also, as a result of this wonderful exchange of life, each child will have cells from their mother that will likewise live in them. For both mother and child, the cells from the other are actively involved in their health over their lifetime.

The cells of the child have been found in the mother’s blood and all major organs. This biologic intimacy is even more profound with the recognition that the mother will also have some of her mother’s cells, leading to at least three unique cell lines in her body. Further, if the woman has more than one pregnancy, each new baby will receive cells from the mother as well as cells from their older siblings. More recent research has shown cells that are passed through multiple generations, demonstrating true “family ties” on a microscopic level.

The science of microchimerism is growing and the implications of this cell exchange are profound. There is strong evidence that the baby’s cells that live on in the mother are protective of her health and well-being. These cells are found around healing wounds, helping with more rapid tissue repair. They stimulate the formation of new blood vessels to injured and diseased structures. Researchers at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital found that these cells also improve the outcome of future pregnancies by improving the mother’s tolerance. In essence, the cells of the first child not only help the mother but also help protect their younger siblings. An increased presence of the child’s cells is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, thyroid disorders and many other diseases.

There is evidence that microchimerism improves im­mune system function, especially as the child’s cells seem to detect and attack malignant cells. Microchimeric cells may lead to longer life spans. In a study of nearly 300 elderly Danish women, the presence of these cells reduced the mortality for all causes by 60 percent, largely because of a significantly reduced risk of death from cancer. The study’s authors speculate that longer life was a result of microchimerism, due to better immune function and improved repair of damaged tissue. As another study’s author noted, “It looks like they’re actually coming to the rescue and participating in repair.”

The pertinence of micro­chimerism to the abortion debate is profound. Among abortion proponents, a common refrain is, “It’s MY body!” With the established science regarding microchimerism, that body is not only carrying a new life but that new life’s cells will remain in the mother’s body for the rest of her life. With abortions even during the earliest weeks of a pregnancy, the mother is flooded with her baby’s cells. Studies of such cases have shown that up to a half-million of the baby’s cells are transferred to the mother. This leads to a tragic irony. Although the mother’s transferred cells died with the aborted baby, the baby’s cells will live within the mother for the rest of her life, and will literally fight for her life. Further, with any future pregnancies, that child’s cells will perform the same protective duties for their younger siblings.

There is no more intimate connection than that between a mother and her child. Microchimerism reveals the scientific proof of this powerful relationship and lays bare the lie of abortion, which severs the biologic bonds that unite the mother and child forever.    . . .

0

0