While I Was Occupied (March for Life, Women’s March, Abortion, Kamala Harris, Alexandria, Howard) Part Two

While I Was Occupied

(March for Life, Women’s March, Abortion, Kamala Harris, AOC, Howard Schultz)

Part Two

This three-part article is continued from While I Was Occupied (Fast Food, Karen Pence, Government Shutdown, SOTU, Venezuela, and Buzzfeed) Part One. Note that this is now a “three-part” article, as so much happened while I was occupied, with more happening as I write this article, it will take that much space to cover it all.

The March for Life and Terminology

The annual “March for Life” occurred on January 18, 2019. But if it had not been for an event that will be discussed in Part Three, you probably did not even hear this March was occurring. That is because the MSM barely covered it, until that event happened. Until then, if it was mentioned at all, the MSM always referred to it as “the anti-abortion March for Life.”

The MSM cannot resist trying to disparage those who believe life begins at conception. Rather than using their own self-preferred moniker of “pro-life,” they always refer to pro-lifers as “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice” or being “against a woman’s right to choose” or some such negative label.

Think about that. For every other group, we are supposed to change how we refer to them based on their currently preferred name, even if it keeps changing. And if you use an old term, you are disparaged.

Thus, at one time, it was perfectly acceptable to use the term, “negro.” That term appears in many older writings, such as Huckleberry Finn. Then “colored” became the acceptable term. My mom to her dying day would use that term (she died in 2017, at the age of 81). I can remember my niece looking at her rather strangely when my mom (her grandmother) used that term. Then by my generation (I’m in my late 50s), “black” because the acceptable term, and that is still the term I use. Then by my niece’s generation (in her early 30s), the PC term became the wordy “African-American.”

That last one I find objectionable, as anyone born in the United States or who becomes a naturalized citizen is an “American.” The use of the hyphen only serves to separate us. Thus, though I am of Italian heritage, I have never referred to myself as an “Italian-American.” I am an American. That’s it. Just an American. But the left wants us to use all these differing terms to be sure we stay separate, not united as Americans. This point will be important later.

But here, the negative “anti-abortion” is used by the MSM rather than the positive “pro-life” as a negative terms sound more, well, negative than a positive term. It is a subtle way of disparaging the pro-life movement.

But be that as it may, as always, there were hundreds of thousands of people at this year’s pro-life rally, though I did not hear an exact estimate. Vice-President Mike Pence spoke to the rally live, while President Trump spoke via video. It was peaceful and respectful as always, unlike many other Washington D.C. rallies, until that one event happened.

Probably one reason the MSM did not show the March for Life was it was filled with many women and young people. The left likes to make it sound like all women are “pro-choice,” so showing a pro-life rally filled with women would break that narrative.

Meanwhile, thanks to technology, the upcoming generation is becoming more pro-life, much to the MSM’s dismay and despite their best efforts. That is because this newest generation is being raised on sonograms which show clearly that a child in the womb is a human being, distinct and separate from the mother. When arms and legs, hands and feet, and even fingers and toes can be clearly seen on a sonogram, it is hard to deny that is a human life.

For much more on abortion, see my two-volume set God‘s Sex Plan. It demonstrates that a preborn baby is in fact a person, separate and distinct from the mother, both Biblically and scientifically.

The Women’s March and Anti-Semitism

In complete contradiction to the March for Life was the Women’s March on the next day, January 19, 2019. I say in contradiction, as while the March for Life is a conservative movement, the Women’s March is a far-left movement. It arose in objection to the election of Donald Trump. Their first rally, the day after Trump’s inauguration, was filled with profanity-laced speeches. I’m not sure if this year’s March was as well or not, as to be honest, I did not hear much reporting on it, as it occurred while I was absorbed in setting up my new PC, so I was not watching the news much that day. That is also why I did not hear about the controversial event at the March for Life until later as well.

But here, I did hear there was much controversy over this year’s Women’s March due to supposed anti-Semitism. That idea seemed to stem mainly from a leader refusing to denounce Louis Farrakhan during an appearance on The View.

I mention Farrakhan in my book Tearing the USA Apart. He is without a doubt an anti-Semite, and proud of it. But despite that, many liberals and leftists have been associated with him, as I document in that book.

In this case, from what I heard of that interview on The View, it sounded to me like the Women’s March representative did distance herself from Farrakhan, she just did not use the specific word “denounce.” And that is how the anti-Semitic label began. As much as I’d like to label this March as “anti-Semitic” just to give it a negative label like the MSM gives pro-life rallies, that is not sufficient proof. In fact, I find it rather discouraging how, if you do not use the exact words the PC-police want you to use, you are negatively labeled.

That said; there are other instances of “proof” for the anti-Semitism of those involved in the Women’s March, such as the Women’s March condemning a pro-Israel bill in in the US House condemning the boycotting of Israel. But I have not heard much details on this or other such issues, so I cannot comment.

However, I discuss anti-Semitism at length in my Tearing Apart book. Claims about such in regard to President Trump were at the heart of controversy over the President’s visit to Pittsburgh the week after “The of Life” synagogue shooting that I discuss at length in the book, as I live near Pittsburgh.

But there have been incidences of anti-Semitism among the newly elected Dems on the US House, most notably with the two new female Islamic members, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Both voted against the bill condemning the boycotting of Israel, while Omar is trying to walk back a 2012 tweet, which stated, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

Meanwhile, Tlaib is rather foul-mouthed, using a terribly offensive term to refer to the President. Making matters worse is, she says she first made that comment in front of her young child. Nancy Pelosi refused to condemn the use of the term. But President Trump rightly called her comment “disgraceful” and “disrespectful.” Such incivility among Dems toward Trump and Republicans in general is detailed in my book.

Abortion Laws and Rulings

New York state passed a law declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” and which effectively legalizes abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. This was a preemptive move, in case the Supreme Court, with the newly seated Justice Kavanaugh, were to overturn Roe v. Wade. In my Tearing Apart book, I explain carefully that if that were to happen, it would not make abortion illegal across all fifty states. It would just return the regulation of abortion to where it should always have been—to the states. Thus, in a way, I agree with New York in taking the step of preparing for that possibility. But I despair heavily about the direction that step took.

Again, I discuss abortion at length in my Sex Plan books, demonstrating a preborn baby is fully human, a person, known by God and that God has a plan for his or her life. But by this move, New York has effectively declared the exact opposite, that a child in the womb has no rights whatsoever. The law does not specifically say abortion is legal until the day of birth, but in allowing abortion to protect “the life and health of the mother” up until birth, that is the effect. As I explain in my Sex Plan set, the “health” can include mental health, and that is a wide-open term that include a woman just feeling depressed about being pregnant, allowing her to get an abortion.

I also discuss in that set the incongruity seen in our society over the murder of a pregnant woman. Is that one homicide or two? This New York law clarifies that it is just one, with the taking of the life of a preborn baby having no legal consequences.

But even worse is this law has a provision that if a baby survives an abortion, the attending medical personal do not have to takes steps to save the baby’s life. The baby can just be left on the table to die. In fact, the law specifies that non-physician medical personal can now perform abortions, so there might not be someone available skilled to save the baby’s life anyhow. That also means that if the woman has complications from the abortion, there might be no one available to treat her.

After the law was signed into law, there was a standing ovation in the gallery. That was because New York Governor Cuomo was careful to have only pro-burinists in the gallery.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the New York Diocese was on FNC’s Fox & Friends on Monday, January 28. He called this law and the reaction to it, “ghoulish, grisly, gruesome.” I would add “grotesque” and “ghastly.” It is just incompressible that people would cheer infanticide, which is clearly what this law is legalizing.

The Cardinal was asked if Cuomo, who signed the bill into law, could be excommunicated. The Cardinal was surprisingly congenial towards him, saying that such used to be suggested for such occasions, but it no longer is standard practice. He would want to meet personally with Cuomo before taking such a step. But it is clear Cuomo has moved far from taking a Catholic or Biblical position on the sanctity of human life. That is why many Catholics are still calling for him to be excommunicated.

Cardinal Dolan was also asked if a woman who had an abortion would be welcome in the Catholic Church. He leaned forward towards the camera, and speaking in a very tender tone, said that any such woman would be welcomed with open arms. She probably would be suffering from anguish and possibly regret over her decision to have an abortion, and the Church would be there to comfort her and to provide forgiveness. That was a surprising but refreshing answer.

Sadly, Vermont and Virginia are considering similar legislation. In the latter, Virginia Republican House Majority leader Todd Gilbert asked Democratic Rep Kathy Tran if a woman was showing physical signs she was ready to give birth (i.e. she was dilating), if the woman could still get an abortion under her proposed bill. Kathy answered, “My bill would allow that, yes” (FNC). That is just inconceivable. Thank God, the bill was defeated, with only 20 Democrats voting for it. But that such would even be proposed is quite disturbing. Even more disturbing is several other states have also passed or proposed expanded abortion “rights” laws, in preparation for Roe v. Wade being overturned. I am sure many more liberal states will follow suit. Just as sad:

Iowa’s “fetal heartbeat” law – the most restrictive abortion limit in the country – violates the Iowa Constitution and may not be enforced, a state judge ruled Tuesday.

In his decision striking down the abortion law, Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert cited the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling last year in a challenge to a different abortion-restriction law. The high court held that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution” in that ruling. (USA Today).

Thus, the god of “choice” overrides any consideration of the sanctify of the life of the preborn baby. But then the Alabama Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite:

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a woman who claims her doctor caused her to have a miscarriage by administering an abortion-inducing drug can proceed….

The court’s decision to allow Stinnett’s case to proceed has significant implications for the pro-life movement since they based their decision on the belief that Kennedy had possibly contributed to a homicide--meaning that Stinnett’s unborn baby was a person and not simply a fetus (CBN News).

There is thus much incongruity in how a child in the womb is viewed between the various states. But that is better than the federal government exceeding its Constitutional authority and mandating legalized abortion for all of the states, as was done with Roe v. Wade. Moreover, for those of us who look to the Bible for our ethics, there is no incongruity. That is because the Bible is clear on the personhood of the preborn baby and on the sanctify of all human life, as detailed in my Sex Plan books.

Kamala Harris

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris announced her candidacy for President on January 21, 2019, MLK day. Thus, right from the start, it can be seen that her campaign will be about identity politics. “I’m black and a woman, so vote for me.” She later reinforced that idea, “Harris also said that racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and transphobia are real in the United States. 'They are age-old forms of hate with new fuel. And we need to speak that truth so we can deal with it,' she said“ (Trib Live).

Ironically, she also said, “Harris cast herself as the kind of leader who can unify the country and would fight for the needs of all Americans” (Trib Live). I say “ironically” as she would do more to divide this nation than to unite it. That can be known from her actions during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. In my Tearing Apart book, I do not mention Kamala by name, but she was one of the dozen Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee (SJC).

I detail the despicable actions of the Dems on that committee in my book, and how all of them rushed to judgment, condemning Kavanaugh without any evidence supporting the allegations against him. It will be seen in Part Three how divisive that attitude can be. But here; in my opinion, her actions as part of the SJC forever disqualifies her from seeking higher office, as it does the rest of the Democratic member of that committee. That includes Cory “Spartacus” Booker, who is also planning a presidential run.

That said; Kamala also declared she would be pushing for “Medicare for all” and free four-year college for all. She even referred to both as “fundamental rights.” Add that to the left saying having an abortion is a “fundamental right,” and the left keeps finding “rights” that are not articulated in the US Declaration of Independence nor in the US Constitution. All the while, they are trying to push back the right to freedom of religion and of speech, as we will see later.

But I will predict that due to Kamala being a black woman and due to her charismatic personality, she will be a frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nominee and could very well end up being the nominee.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the new darling of the Democratic Party and especially of the MSM. Due to the many syllables in her hyphenated name, many are now referring to her as AOC. That moniker is convenient, but the honor of being referred to by one’s initials is usually reserved to people of note, like JFK and MLK. Cortez has not done anything of note yet, except to make many outrages comments that I will address in a moment. But given that AOC is becoming the standard way to refer to her, I will grudgingly use it.

That said; AOC has been making the rounds on the TV news, with no one ever challenging her on her views. In fact, she has said she would not engage in a debate. The reason for that is clear—her views are indefensible. She seems to know that when she declared, “I’d rather be morally correct than factually correct.” That is of course a nonsensical statement. But be that as it may, let’s outline a few facts in regard to her proposals.

Like Kamala, AOC has proposed a “Medicare for all” plan. That would cost an estimated $30 Trillion over ten years. Also like Kamala, Alexandria has also proposed free four-year college for all. That would cost another estimated $30 Trillion over ten years. Then the biggie: she has proposed a “New Green Deal” to convert the USA from fossil fuels to 100% “green energy” in twelve years. That would cost an estimated $49 Trillion.

Let’s add these numbers up. $30 Trillion + $30 Trillion + $49 Trillion = $109 Trillion. To be clear, that is $109,000,000,000,000. That’s a lot of zeros! To put that in perspective, the entire US economy is $20 Trillion. That means, she wants to spend 5-1/2 times the entire economic output of the USA.

But to be fair, those numbers are for ten years for the first two proposals and for 12 years for the third. Thus, doing the math, her three proposals together would cost $10 Trillion per year. The current federal budget is $4.4 Trillion or less than half of what she has proposed.

In whatever way you look at it, that is an outrageous amount of money. How does AOC plan on paying for it? Well, first, she shrugs off that question as being of little importance. In regard to her “New Green Deal,” she has said, “The world is going to end in 12 years, and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?”

But when she has cited numbers, she has called for a 70% tax on the superrich, with “superrich” defined as those making more than $100 million. She has also said, “An economic system that allows billionaires to exist is immoral.”

What effect would her three spending proposals and her tax proposals have on the US economy? In a word, it would devastate it. The economy would crash. Tens of millions would be put out of work. The USA would become a second-world country or even be thrust back into the Dark Ages, with its widespread poverty, disease, and famine.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., “Green New Deal” is the most radical and destructive policy proposal offered by a member of Congress in decades. Not only would it destroy roughly 3.4 million jobs related to the fossil fuel industry by eliminating nearly all fossil fuel use by 2030, it would also require “upgrades” to every home and business building in the country and the creation of single-payer health care, a “basic income” program, and a federal jobs guarantee, among many other left-wing policies (Fox News).

To put her plan into effect would require a totalitarian government, confiscating and destroying all energy production plants that use fossil fuels, gas-using vehicles, and even household appliances. Anyone refusing to give up their gas-powered generators and natural gas fireplaces would be harassed and even jailed. For that matter, wood fireplaces would probably be outlawed, with your house being stormed if the authorities saw smoke coming from your chimney.

Think I am exaggerating? It was promises of free stuff for all that swept tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini into power.

You can also forget about any more technological advances. There would be no reason for brilliant and innovative men like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to keep innovating after their net worth reached a dollar short of $1 Billion, as any more than that would make them “immoral” billionaires, and their net worth confiscated. For that matter, once someone began earning a dollar short of $100 million/ year, it would make no sense for them to work any harder, as anything they make more than that would not be theirs.

Remember, the federal government is not the only entirety that taxes. To that 70% federal tax rate, you need to add state income tax, state sales tax, local taxes, real estate taxes, inheritance taxes, fuel taxes (which would be outrageous with AOC’s ideas), school taxes, and the like. All of that that would easily add up to 100%, so why work?

To contradict this, AOC and others have stated that the US used to have a 70% top federal tax rate. That is true. But at that time, there were numerous deductions, so that the effective tax rate was only 21%. But Alexandria wants a true 70% top tax rate.

Then there is the following:

She [Kamala Harris] agreed that Medicare-for-all also means private insurance for none. “Let’s eliminate all of that,” Harris said, referring to private health insurance. “Let’s move on.”

In a single flourish, Harris, D-Calif., drew attention to the fact that the Medicare-for-all plans backed by 16 senators — including five candidates or potential candidates for the Democratic nomination — would in effect remove private health insurance from the estimated 251 million Americans who use it, broadly disrupting the industry and the way Americans experience the medical system (Trib Live. Democratic).

Finally, the number of new millionaires in the USA is growing and becoming increasingly younger. But Alexandria’s proposals would end all of that. They would be a disincentive to young people to work hard and to achieve anything in life, as the government would just confiscate it all anyway.

Howard Schultz

With the Democratic Party leaning so far left, billionaire Howard Schultz, ex-CEO of Starbucks, has declared he is considering a presidential run in 2020 as an Independent. He says he would be a more moderate candidate than the likes of Kamala. He also said Alexandria’s ideas are “a bit misinformed.” In saying “a bit,” he was being kind. In regard to Kamala’s comments on eliminating private health insurance, he said, “That’s not American… What’s next? What industry are we going to abolish next? The coffee industry?” (Trib Live).

Dems are in a panic by this possibly, as Howard would probably siphon far more votes from the Democratic nominee than from Donald Trump, ensuring a Trump victory. They have even started a #BoycottStarbucks campaign. However, Howard is the EX-CEO of Starbucks, so boycotting Starbucks will not hurt him. But it would hurt the many people who work for Starbucks who have nothing to do with Howard’s possible presidential run. I guess this is another case of being “morally correct rather than factually correct.” Which is to say, acting with emotions that have no basis in fact.

But still, Howard probably would take more votes from the Dem nominee than Trump, so I say, run Howard run!

While I Was Occupied
(Various Updates, Roger Stone, Ralph Northam, Sarah Sanders)
Part Three

References:

Standard References, plus:

March for Life:

March for Life website.

Women’s March:

CNN. New House Democrat Rashida Tlaib: 'We're gonna impeach the ______'.

Daily Caller. Rep Omar ‘Unknowingly’ Using ‘Anti-Semitic Trope’ in 2012.

Daily Caller. Republican Reps. Introduce Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism, Anti-Israel Sentiment.

Daily Caller. Women’s March Condemns Pro-Israel Bill in Newly Released Agenda.

Women’s March website.

Abortion Laws and Rulings:

Breitbart. One World Trade Center Lit Up in Pink to Celebrate NY Abortion Law.

Christian Headlines. Alabama Supreme Court Rules Unborn Baby is a Person.

CBN News. A Sad and Evil Day: New York Legalizes Abortion Up to Baby’s Birth Day on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

FNC. American’s Newsroom, 1/30/19 and Fox & Friends, 1/28/19 and 1/31/19.

USA Today. Iowa ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion restriction declared unconstitutional.

Kamala Harris:

Trib Live. Sen. Kamala Harris says the powerful seek to divide America.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

Fox News. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is actually an old socialist plan from Canada.

Trib Live. Democratic candidates face political risks when pressed on health care specifics.

Trib Live. Super-rich Americans getting younger and multiplying.

Washington Free Beacon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Is ‘Pretty Much All Fantasy-land.’

Howard Schultz:

Atlantic, The. Ex–Starbucks CEO Could Get Trump Reelected.

Trib Live. Democratic candidates face political risks when pressed on health care specifics.

While I Was Occupied
(Various Updates, Roger Stone, Ralph Northam, Sarah Sanders)
Part Three

Tearing the USA Apart
From Kavanaugh, to Incivility, to Caravans, to Violence, to the 2018 Midterm Elections, and Beyond

The United States of American is being torn about by political differences more than any time since the 1960s and maybe since the Civil War of the 1860s. This division was amplified by political events in the summer to fall of 2018. This time period could prove to be seminal in the history of the United States. This tearing apart came to the forefront and was amplified during the confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. This book overviews the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings in detail. It then overviews these additional major events that occurred up to the end of November 2018.

The above article was posted on this website January 31, 2019.

Articles 2019 Articles

Alphabetical List of Pages Contact Information

Text Search Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director