Decoding Progressivism (14)

COVID-19 Hysteria Edition


Gov. Pritzker’s “plan” to reopen Illinois.  Not dissimilar to “Our Vision for Health, Safety, Virtue, and Eternal Peace

Governor Pritzker of Illinois is only one of a cadre of Progressive governors whose apparently irrational and destructive policies are driving their states into wreck and ruin.  We on the receiving end of these policies can be forgiven for wondering just what could motivate these leaders to behave in this manner.  Particularly when their public explanations for what are without doubt their selected policy choices make no sense.


The Janus Award for Projection and Hypocrisy (2)


Winner: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

On February 13, 2020 Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer went to the floor of the Senate to denounce President Trump for this tweet.

Screen Shot 2020-03-09 at 7.51.40 AM

Although President Trump was clearly being critical of the judge in question, there is not the slightest hint of a threat.  However, on March 4, 2020 this same Senator Schumer explicitly and directly threatened two Supreme Court justices while standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

While Chief Justice Roberts rightly ignored Senator Schumer’s bogus request to “speak up” regarding President Trump’s tweet, he “spoke up” to Senator Schumer’s threat with a stern rebuke.

This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

This thuggish, two-faced behavior by the Senate Minority Leader (the second highest ranking Democrat national politician) warrants issuance of the second Janus Award.



The Mainstream Media’s Bias Exposed (2)


Investors Business Daily: The mainstream media’s open hostility to President Trump may be starting to backfire, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll.

Yet the mainstream media remains a potent force, for they still control the primary channels through which information flows.  Thus there are many people in the nation who, though not hardcore Progressives themselves, receive only the perspective of that cohort when they watch CBS, NBC or ABC or read the New York Times, the Washington Post or the LA times.

This dynamic creates an information discontinuity.  For while consumers of more conservative news sources are well aware of both sides of the debate (because conservative media is built on responding to the Progressive position), mainstream media consumers don’t know the conservative (or libertarian, etc.) positions because they are ignored.  By this means the opinions of millions of otherwise reasonable people can be manipulated to the clear benefit of the elite Progressives.

In spite of this powerful advantage there remains a large segment of the population who ultimately will not support the Progressive positions on climate change, gun control and abortion, among others.  This fact is infuriating to an industry that is built on the ability to influence, if not direct, public opinion.

Much of the depraved psychodrama that we see and read in the mainstream media can be traced back to this fact.  What we are witnessing is the public face of a private crisis of confidence.  The fact that Donald Trump (or any Republican) could have been elected President in spite of the full force determination by the mainstream media to drag Hillary Clinton across the finish line is a shattering blow to their perceived position and prestige.

maddow-squirrel2Unfortunately for them, the more that they expose their hateful bias and deranged behavior the less they are respected by millions of citizens.  It’s even likely that many people who believed the absurd lie of Russian collusion for the three years prior to issuance of the Mueller Report have lost confidence in the mainstream press.  And finally, even the Progressive true believers likely now have less respect for the press given their failure (to date at least) to destroy and remove President Trump from office.

We can hope and pray that the mainstream media comes to their senses and reforms their industry.  We should encourage them towards this end by rejecting their deceitful narratives and convincing more Americans to do the same.  For this soulless cadre apparently knows only the motivations of power and prestige.  As they hurtle towards the absence of both perhaps a miracle will occur.

If the Tables were Turned…


Response if Conservatives behaved towards Progressives like Progressives do towards Conservatives

Yes, Different in Kind

In a recent series (The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty, 5 posts) I documented the extreme nature of cruelty by Progressives.   I’m certain that many Progressives take great offense at my claim that their cruelty is “different in kind” to that of Conservatives.  It’s certainly true that there are no ideological bounds on who deploys cruelty in support of their political beliefs.  And it thus is certainly true that Conservatives are guilty of this same sin.

However, I contend that at some point of intensity a difference in degree becomes a clear difference in kind.  For example, were one man in a political debate to call another a moron that would be cruel.  However, were a man to incite hateful violence against an opponent that’s a difference in degree that creates a difference in kind.  The former can hurt someone’s feelings, the other can lead to bodily harm or even death.

It also matters who is the source and what is the scope of cruelty.  It’s morally wrong for a blowhard in a neighborhood bar to call someone evil and stupid.  It’s quite another for an elected official to publicly do so, or for a prestigious national newspaper to publish such commentary.

There’s another way to think about this issue.  Were a Conservative public official or publication to provide the “mirror image” of the examples I’ve previously discussed what would it look like?  Try these on for size (inserted word changes in [bolded brackets]).

  • Woman to Man hatred: … screaming at my [wife] as if [she] represented every clueless [female] on the planet (and I every angry [man] of 2018), I announced that I hate all [women] and wish all [women] were dead.
  • Pro Choice to Pro Life hatred: I give you [name], the State Representative ([R]) who publicly assaults young girls and an old woman as they peacefully [demonstrate for Pro-Choice in front of] abortion clinics.
  • From capital punishment for unwanted children to for abortionists: So you kill them now or you kill them later. You [abort] the unwanted, unloved, you send [the abortionist] to the electric chair.
  • Right to abort vs. right to life as obvious evil (Note that this quote works in either direction without modification, so imagine it being said by a Pro-Life Presidential candidate): “Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
  • Sex starved to sexual predators: Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many [sexual predator] males on this floor talk about a woman’s right to [abortion].

Yes, it’s possible to find outrageous, even cruel statements by Conservatives.  However, I’m not aware of statements and/or behavior by elected public officials or reputable national publications that are the equivalent in viciousness to these Progressive examples.

South Bend Indiana Abortion Horror


The “pro-choice” community will ignore any horror rather than reassess their death-ideology.  But it’s getting to the point of pathetic absurdity.

Thousands of preserved fetal remains found on property of deceased Will County doctor

SOUTH BEND, Ind.– Thousands of fetal remains were found at the home of a former South Bend abortion doctor, WSBT reports.

The remains were discovered while family members were searching through the home of Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, who passed away on Sept. 3. His home is in Will County, Illinois.

By the way, did you notice the city in which this vile abortionist worked, why yes, Mayor Pete’s South Bend Indiana!  And this abortionist and Mayor Pete were not strangers.

… Klopfer’s clinic was located in South Bend, Indiana. And while he was there, good ol’ Godly Mayor Pete (or Alcalde Pete, if you were watching the Spanish portion of the Democrat debate) intervened to help him out.

This is the kind of man Buttigieg is. He defended Klopfer when his license was under attack. He provided the administrative firepower necessary to overturn a zoning decision that would have put a pro-life pregnancy center next door to Klopfer. And he thinks a child still attached to the umbilical cord can be legally killed because it isn’t yet breathing.

The above article calls Mayor Buttigieg “Godly Mayor Pete” because he is currently the most prominent “Christian” advocate for abortion in the United States.

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 5.36.05 AM

Godly Mayor Pete shares his deep thoughts on the Bible and abortion.

As with so many Progressive Christian theological innovations, Godly Mayor Pete doesn’t know or care what the Bible actually has to say about human life, but rather has Gnostic knowledge about what the Bible should say.  Here’s Godly Mayor Pete’s exegesis of the Bible.

[Pro-life people] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath.

To anyone who considers this post to be an extreme reaction, I point out that so unavoidable has this horror become that it has even penetrated the New York Times’ progressive force field (excerpt from “The Abortion Mysticism of Pete Buttigieg,”
by Ross Douthat).

The version of pro-choice politics that has been generally successful in this country allows Americans to support abortion rights within limits, while still regarding figures like Dr. Klopfer as murderous or monstrous.

But the more maximalist and mystical your claims about when personhood begins (or doesn’t), the more strained that distinction gets. The unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer, or a Kermit Gosnell before him, haunts a Buttigiegian abortion politics more than it does a “safe, legal, rare” triangulation, because it establishes the most visceral of contrasts — between the mysticism required to believe that the right to life begins at birth and the cold and obvious reality that what our laws call a nonperson can still become a corpse.

In a previous post I asked of the pro-choice community “Have You No Shame, No Conscience?”  Unless I start to hear something soon my conclusion will have to be “No, no you don’t.

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 5.44.59 AM

Sir, you don’t understand.  To Godly Mayor Pete, Jesus Christ isn’t the eternal Second Person of the Trinitarian Christian God, but rather an avatar who confirms his every Progressive belief.

Christ Hospital?


The culture of death advances into infanticide

Have You No Shame, No Conscience?

Here’s an excerpt from the testimony of Jill Stanek, R.N. at the recent Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Regarding H.R. 962, “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” on September 10, 2019 (emphasis added).

When I heard Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, describe during an interview the process by which doctors determine to shelve unwanted newborns to die, it hit painfully home to me.

He said, quoting, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.”
Governor Northam was right. That is exactly what happens. I know because I cared for a dying baby who was on the other side of that decision.

My experience was 20 years ago, but as Governor Northam made clear, it could have happened yesterday. I was a Registered Nurse at Christ Hospital in Illinois, when I learned it committed abortions into the second and third trimesters. The procedure, called induced labor abortion, sometimes resulted in babies being aborted alive.
In the event a baby was aborted alive, he or she received no medical assessments or care but was only given what my hospital called “comfort care”- made comfortable, as Governor Northam indicated.

One night, a nursing co-worker was transporting a baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome to our Soiled Utility Room to die – because that’s where survivors were taken.

I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending all his energy attempting to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall.

After he was pronounced dead, I folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where we took all our dead patients.

Christ Hospital readily admitted babies there survived abortions. A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times (article submitted with testimony) “between 10 percent and 20 percent” of aborted babies “survive for short periods.”

From what I observed, it was not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One abortion survivor I was aware of lived for almost eight hours.

Of 16 babies Christ Hospital aborted during the year 2000, four that I knew of were aborted alive. Each of those babies – two boys and two girls – lived between 1-1/2 and 3 hours. One baby was 28 weeks’ gestation – 7 months old – and weighed two pounds, seven ounces.

This happens at a place called “Christ” Hospital in Illinois.

Is there a single pro-choice Christian out there who will stand up and admit that infanticide is a terrible sin?  Will they admit that their pro-choice belief has led to a place of undeniable vile evil?  Have these developments in the slightest shaken their Christian conscience?  So far I’ve only heard crickets.

“Christ” Hospital?  No, “Satan” Hospital is what this foul institution should be called.

For any pro-choice people who wonder how they have arrived at this point, … this article provides a Christian perspective on the situation and the way home.

Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 5.47.36 AM

The New York Times’ 1619 Project (4)


The United States’ Founding

The ultimate target for the Times’ propaganda is this nation’s founding.  The Progressive Left visibly hates the documents and associated institutions that define our founding.  I mean the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Electoral College and the Senate at the very least.  And they mean to utterly destroy these ideas and institutions if they are able, through any means necessary.

Their argument is that since slavery existed at the time of our nation’s founding and therefore had to be dealt with as a present reality, the United States is a republic founded upon evil.  Therefore our nation must be destroyed root and branch.

Our Founding

The economist and historian Thomas Sowell provides some perspective on the institution of slavery at the time of our nation’s founding.

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Mr. Sowell then applies this perspective to the issue of slavery at our nation’s founding.

Everyone hated the idea of being a slave but few had any qualms about enslaving others. Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century – and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there. But who is singled out for scathing criticism today? American leaders of the 18th century.

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.

In 1862, a ship carrying slaves from Africa to Cuba, in violation of a ban on the international slave trade, was captured on the high seas by the U.S. Navy. The crew was imprisoned and the captain was hanged in the United States – despite the fact that slavery itself was still legal at the time in Africa, Cuba, and in the United States. What does this tell us? That enslaving people was considered an abomination. But what to do with millions of people who were already enslaved was not equally clear.

That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost [620,000 Civil War casualties] for every six people freed [3.9 million]. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer – or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains when most leaders and most people around the world saw nothing wrong with slavery.

A Contemporary Thought Experiment

Let’s assume that in 2025, for whatever reason, it is decided that the United States must rewrite its Constitution from scratch. So a Constitutional Convention is called at which representatives from throughout the nation gather to perform this task.  Let’s also assume that within this group is a minority that believes abortion to be an abomination that should be eradicated.  What would they propose and what constraints would they face?

The most obvious constraint would be that there is perhaps a quarter of the adult population who believe that a fetus is not human and is the property of the mother.  The mother therefore has the absolute right to dispose if the fetus in any manner that she deems fit, including abortion up to the moment of delivery.  There is another half of the population who support abortion with limitations.  Thus only a quarter of the population supports what could be called an abolitionist position on abortion.

Should the Constitutional Convention’s abolitionist representatives attempt to enshrine their belief in the new Constitution?  Even if they wanted to how in the face of super-majority opposition could they possibly succeed?  And, if they did somehow succeed how could the new Constitution possibly be ratified?

The above doesn’t include the likelihood of bloody civil unrest by the pro-abortion camp’s most radical supporters.  Should a nation that is in already in dire straits rip itself apart over an issue that simply cannot currently achieve majority support?

What the abortion abolitionists might attempt is insertion of language that doesn’t directly attack the institution of abortion but that, as an ideal, undermines its justification.  Perhaps something along the lines of:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


iBooks Publish Announcement: A Denomination’s Debacle

I have published my fourth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 5.59.24 AM

A Denomination’s Debacle

This book is an indictment of the leadership elite who have driven the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PCUSA, into an utter debacle.

The most visible aspect of this debacle is the unprecedented loss of membership and churches that occurred between 2011 and 2017. Over that time span the PCUSA experienced a net loss of 601,000 members and 1146 churches, which is almost 30% of its membership and almost 12% of its churches. But these numbers don’t capture the human cost in broken trust, lost faith and shattered relationships that has occurred behind the scenes.

What remains is a denomination dominated by a post-Christian elite who use their power to advance a social gospel that is virtually indistinguishable from the secular Progressive political project. To some readers this charge against the PCUSA leadership will seem to be not just extraordinary, but also unbelievable. This book contains the extraordinary evidence that justifies the charge.

Preface Excerpt

The reader may well ask why I feel compelled to tell this story. I do so for three reasons.

First, the elite denominational leadership has obtained this end under the cloak of purposeful deception. This deception is not found in their policy and theological positions. No, they have aggressively advanced their cause with general honesty. The deception is that they claim to have been doing so as a legitimate expression of orthodox Reformed Christianity. By so doing they have preyed with premeditation and malice upon the trust of the denomination’s parishioners. We will never recover from this spell unless the truth is exposed.

Second, there are still many faithful members and churches in the PCUSA. However, unless they fully understand the forces arrayed against them they will likely eventually succumb. Only if they understand that their presence in the denomination is as a light shining in the darkness can they be protected from the apostasy and heresy that surrounds them. That understanding is what sustained the Apostles and early Christians as they proclaimed the Gospel as isolated individuals and churches in the pagan Roman Empire. The challenge we face is far less extreme. Yet, if we prioritize the comfort and peace of our lives over our responsibilities as followers of Christ even the small courage required will elude us.

Finally, the forces that have corrupted the PCUSA act upon our general culture and thus are not unique to this denomination. Therefore, we can expect that other churches and denominations are struggling under the same theological onslaught as has laid the PCUSA low. Thus this book attempts to explain these forces and how a corrupt leadership can by deception and seduction smuggle false theology into an otherwise orthodox Christian fellowship.

Table of Contents


Page 1 of 3



Page 2 of 3



Page 3 of 3


A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (1)

Screen Shot 2019-06-18 at 5.12.43 AM

A Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, carefully planed and then conducted an attempted mass murder of Congressional Republicans.  He came within a hair’s breadth of achieving the greatest political mass murder in American history.  After Steve Scalise survived near death from the shooting a Progressive PAC proposes a billboard with the message “Take out Scalise.”

The fact is that the bar for condemnation of non-Progressive speech and behavior is an order of magnitude (at least) lower than for the opposite.  For example:

  • mask-head

    It’s unforgivable to wear an Obama mask; it’s easily forgivable to hold a mock decapitated head of Trump

    Disrespect (or much worse) towards the President

  • Freedom of the Press
    • President Obama’s Record
      • “This is an administration that prosecutes people for leaking information to the press that would hold it accountable, and which continually obfuscates journalists’ and citizens’ efforts to extract any information from it at all.
      • “This is an administration that has used the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers at least seven times. By contrast, before Obama’s presidency, the act, in place since the first world war, was used to prosecute government officials who leaked to the media just three times.”
      • “This

        President Obama uses government power to suppress the press while President Trump says critical things about the press.  Not a peep of press criticism about Obama, a press firestorm against Trump.

        is an administration that has gone after journalists who report on information obtained from leakers by secretly obtaining months’ worth of phone records. That spent seven years trying to compel the New York Times’ James Risen to reveal his sources. That snooped through Fox News’ James Rosen’s private emails and accused the reporter of possibly being a “co-conspirator” in order to get a warrant to do so, and to then keep that warrant secret.”

    • President Trump’s Record
      • President Donald Trump’s “war on the media” has journalists wailing that freedom of the press is under attack. The hand-wringing is happening on both sides of the aisle, as politicians and pundits alike claim that Trump’s partisan war on the press and dissemination of misinformation and propaganda is “unprecedented” and the “absolute worst” in American history.”
      • “Trump has made no bones about his approach to the press. He’s said, “As you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on the earth.”
  • Political Rhetoric
    • Pelosi attacks Senate McConnell’s “One term president” statement
      • Pelosi appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday where she brought up McConnell’s old quote from an inter­view that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010.”Let me re­mind you that when the Re­pub­lic­ans took pow­er when President Obama was president of the United States, what Mitch McConnell said is, ‘The most im­port­ant thing we can do is to make sure he does not suc­ceed.’ If that wasn’t a rac­ist state­ment. That is un­think­a­ble,”

        It’s “racist” to oppose reelection of an opposing President; it’s not “Fascist” to threaten an opposing president with prison.

        Pelosi said.

      • Note: It’s “racist” and “unthinkable” for a leader of the Conservative opposition party to seek election defeat of a President who happens to be black!
    • Crickets over House Speaker’s President Trump “in prison” statement
      • “Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump “in prison” as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings.”
      • Note: It’s perfectly fine for a leader of the Progressive opposition party to threaten the sitting president with prison.

(CNN)  “James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders’ progressive politics — and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump.”

So, yes, the Progressive behavior is generally different in kind to that of Conservatives.  They can get away with it due to their dominance in the media and government bureaucracy, among other powerful institutions.  They also benefit from the silence of Progressives who know better but are intimidated by the radical lunatic fringe of their movement.  Behind this wall of institutional power and tribal loyalty a truly vile and vicious culture of cruelty has grown.  If the near massacre of Congressional Republicans by a hate filled Progressive supporter of Bernie Sanders hasn’t sobered them up then nothing likely will.

What’s changed is that millions of U.S. citizens now see this situation clearly and are willing to oppose it in the privacy of the voting booth if not in public.

The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (3)

Screen Shot 2019-05-13 at 5.41.28 AM

Loud and proud!  A state representative in Pennsylvania accosts young girls and old women with vile accusations and intimidation as they peacefully pray in front of an abortion clinic.

The Totalitarian Face of Abortion Revealed

We have entered a new and shocking phase of Progressive abortion support.  Long gone are the days of “safe, legal and rare.”  In its place we now find the claim that abortion support is a pinnacle of virtue.  Even more appalling, it’s no longer abortion under constrained circumstances, but rather up to the moment of birth and even after birth (i.e., infanticide).  It is this murderous position that Progressives now consider to justify absolutely vile public conduct.

Hateful Harasser of Young Girls and Old Women

For Exhibit A I give you Brian Sims, the Pennsylvania State Representative (D) who publicly assaults young girls and an old woman as they peacefully pray and demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.  His actions are well summarized by Rep. Jerry Knowles (R) and his memo seeking Sims’ censure.

On the first occasion, Representative Sims recorded himself berating, harassing, and violating the First Amendment rights of an individual, whom he labeled, an “old, white lady” for peacefully protesting and praying in public.

On the second occasion, Representative Sims again recorded himself berating, harassing others. He went a step further the second time, though, calling for the “doxing” of three minor children and one adult female. By soliciting strangers on the internet for their personal identifying information (i.e. names and addresses), Sims placed these citizens in reasonable fear for their own safety, merely because they were exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest.

It should be noted that Representative Sims also used his elected position to intimidate the individuals with whom he was interacting, clearly stating on the videos that he was a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Bloody Minded Madness

Screen Shot 2019-06-12 at 5.20.33 AM

Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D)

Exhibit B is another state representative, this one being Alabama State Rep. John Rogers (D) during a hearing on a proposed abortion bill.  Apparently this statement was intended to change the hearts and minds of those supporting the bill (emphasis added).

“All I’m saying to you is it ought to be the woman’s choice,” Rogers said. “I’m not about to be the male telling a woman what to do with her body. She has a right to make that decision herself. Through rape or incest. Some kids are unwanted. So you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later. But the bottom line is just that I think we shouldn’t be making that decision.”

Since 1983 sixty-six people have been executed in the state of Alabama.  The last execution by electric chair occurred in 2002 (all have been by lethal injection since then).  In other words, less than two people per year have been executed since 1983.  Between 2006 and 2015 an average of 9,641 abortions per year have been preformed in Alabama.  So, by the logic of this bloody minded monster were abortion eliminated:

  • Un-aborted babies would grow up by the thousands to commit capital crimes;
  • The number of executions would rise from less than two per year to thousands;
  • Alabama would reinstitute the electric chair to execute these thousands of new capital criminals per year.

This is the generous but implausible interpretation.  He most likely means that mothers should have the right to condemn their unwanted children to death after birth.

But this vile man wasn’t done (emphasis added).

This [above statement] set off a firestorm, with the president’s son tweeting, “This is stomach curling and makes Ralph Northam look like a moderate on abortion.”

Rogers fired back Thursday, defending his remarks on abortion and personally attacking Trump saying, “That’s an honor. Thank God. Right on … Him being born is the very good defense that I have for abortion. His mother should’ve aborted him when he was born, and then he wouldn’t have made that stupid statement.

Note that this second quote supports the less generous interpretation of this man’s beliefs.

So where were the supposedly morally superior Democrats on this man’s evil rantings, virtually nowhere (emphasis added).

On Wednesday, Republicans denounced comments by State Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, suggesting that children killed in abortions would have to be killed in the electric chair later if they had lived.

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 6.29.07 AMMorally Vacuous Presidential Candidate

Lest you leave with the misapprehension that this moral idiocy is limited to low level state politicians I give you the vacuous musings of a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D., New York).

“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenets of our faith is free will. One of the tenets of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort.”

I challenge anyone to discover the logical progression of ideas within they statement.

But Senator Gillibrand wasn’t done.  Later on she compared pro-life beliefs to racism, anti-semitism and homophobia.  Here’s what she said while discussing appointments to the judiciary.

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable,” she said.

“Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”

In what moral universe does a presidential candidate denigrate roughly half the population as the equivalent to racists, ant-semites and haters of homosexuals for being pro-life?  In the Progressive moral universe exposed by the 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.


Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 6.27.51 AM

U.S. Representative Norma Torres (D., CA)

Just when I was finishing composition of this post the following pathetic example rolled-in (emphasis added).

A routine House debate nearly exploded Wednesday when California Democrat Norma J. Torres implied her Republican colleagues were “sex-starved males” for opposing abortion.

Mr. Speaker, it is tiring to hear from so many sex-starved males on this floor talk about a woman’s right to choose,” Torres said as lawmakers debated a rule setting up amendment consideration for a four-bill spending package that includes funding for public health programs.

Torres, one of the newest members of the House Rules Committee, clearly broke House Rules — members cannot personally impugn their colleagues on the floor.

Note that this item nicely ties together the feminist misandry of the previous post with the abortion totalitarianism of this one.

No further comment is necessary.