MLB Supports the Black Racist Industry! WAKE UP AMERICA!

It Sure Looks Like the MLB Made a Big Mistake By Getting Political

By Bonchie  at Red State:

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

One of the dumbest things a company can do in the corporate world is alienate a large portion of their consumer base. Appealing to the widest swath of people is just good business because it maximizes the pool from which you can draw profit. That fact is also true for sports teams, which are still businesses at the end of the day. You especially don’t spit in the face of one of your strongest demographics.

That’s exactly what Major League Baseball did, though, and they are learning that lesson the hard way as new data shows just how dumb their decision to get political was. For background, the MLB pulled their all-star game out of Georgia as a protest against a recent election reform bill. In actuality, the reasons for the move were based on lies told by figures like Stacey Abrams.

And while Republicans once made up one of the strongest consumer bases for the MLB, things are cratering.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1382677586975756293&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fbonchie%2F2021%2F04%2F15%2Fit-sure-looks-like-the-mlb-made-a-big-mistake-by-getting-political-n362088&sessionId=61085b45f20c0dbc61453b353f52a156dc2885b6&siteScreenName=RedState&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

Those that say this won’t make a difference didn’t pay attention to the NFL ratings drop during the anthem controversy. Republicans are much more apt to follow through on boycott threats these days than they once were. Anecdotally, I’ve heard from many people in my life who say they are done with the MLB until they stop shoving politics down people’s throats. The derision started with Black Lives Matter being plastered everywhere last year. It’s continued this year with false claims of voter suppression and boycotting the state of Georgia for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

Further, the MLB was already suffering before this due to decreasing interest in their sport. Who on earth thought now was a good time to become overtly political and get fully woke via the commands of divisive figures like Abrams? Whoever made that decision should be fired because it was incredibly stupid from a business standpoint.

Look, you can push people, but only so far. People want to be able to go watch a baseball game without Democrat politics punching them in the face. If the MLB can’t provide that kind of non-partisan environment, their ratings and attendance are going to continue to suffer. It doesn’t have to be that way, but they seem to fear the left more than like making money these days.

Today’s Dems ARE FAR GREATER FRAUDS THAN “ALWAYS A FRAUD” JOE. THEY’RE MORE OF THEM!

Joe Biden — once a fraud, always a fraud

by Hugo Gurdon, Editor-in-Chief  at Washington Examiner:

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Joe Biden isn’t the president he promised to be. He has been a faker, exposed again and again, throughout his seemingly interminable career.

His chameleon lack of principle was glaring during the election, in which he won the primary in the guise of a centrist to defeat his extremist rivals, then executed a violent handbrake turn and hurtled back leftward. There, he allied himself with Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the socialist wing — it’s actually less a wing, now, and more the main body — of the blue party.

So, which is it, Joe, centrist or lefty? At his inauguration, he told America he’d be a uniter, but it’s been bye-bye bipartisan Biden ever since. He is proving massively divisive.

His gargantuan spending proposals, more than $4 trillion already and rising beyond $6 trillion, dwarf former President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal largesse even after adjusting for inflation. The cipher politician who wafted for decades through Washington, untroubled by any idea or a principle other than his own importance, now basks in his courtiers’ flattery that he can be more consequential than his old boss, Barack Obama.

It isn’t just in the fact of his spending plans, but in their presentation that Biden is proving himself false. Much less than half of his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was actually related to the pandemic. There’s no truth in its advertising. Hundreds of billions of dollars will bail out arrogant Democratic city and state governments that can’t budget themselves out of a paper bag.

Biden’s $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” bill is an even bigger fraud. As former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pointed out to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the legislation includes $400 billion to pay for forced unionization. That’s not infrastructure. It’s just another item on the left-wing shopping list. More than half the money is, as AOC boasts and a Wall Street Journal analysis confirms, a disguised version of the Green New Deal.

Capturing the absurd fakery, an online meme depicts the world’s most interesting man saying, “I don’t always drink beer, but when I do, I call it infrastructure.”

Then there are Biden’s nonmonetary falsehoods. In one of his many Friday surprises, he dumped the big news of an executive order creating a commission to study the case for packing the Supreme Court. He’s already packed the commission with advocates of liberal judicial activism. These sages will ponder the question of whether Democrats should swamp the narrow 5-4 conservative majority — it’s not 6-3 now that Chief Justice John Roberts has flipped — which some of them have already answered in the affirmative.

Should it shock us that this move comes from a man who, before being elected president, said he didn’t favor tampering with the court and didn’t want it to become a “political football?” The answer is no because Biden has always abandoned positions whenever convenient, floating to success on an unending stream of falsehoods and flip-flops.

In his early career, he repeatedly embellished his weak academic record, and during a checkered stint at law school, he tried to pass off an article that he’d lifted from a law journal as his own. Perhaps Biden’s most comically clumsy falsehood came during his 1988 White House run when he borrowed a family anecdote from Neil Kinnock, the leader of Britain’s Labor Party, and used it almost verbatim as though it were plucked from his own family history. The irony — his effort to sound sincere was itself a falsehood.

The stronger comparison with Kinnock is that, similar to Biden, he sported a comb-over. Both men were concealing the lack of substance underneath. (They are not the only pols, of course, to parade such a cover-up; Donald Trump’s was spectacular.) The larger point about Biden, however, is that in small matters and big ones, he’s never real. If there’s no there there, a politician needs to make something up.

It may be successful when a candidate tacks one way during the presidential primary and then back for the general election. But it’s dishonest. The first guy to come up with the tactic was former President Richard “Tricky Dicky” Nixon. As Karl Rove noted to me last year, former President Ronald Reagan took the opposite route, saying, “I’m going to be who I am, win the nomination, and run in the general election as myself.”

To do that, a politician must know what he thinks and believe what he says. Biden is not that kind of leader. He’s a shape-shifter. Malarky is his métier and his modus operandi. With left-wing connivance, he has used it to pull off a fraud against voters and the nation.

AMERICAN Dan Bongino Faces a Mouth of No Man’s Land….

Giggles Harris Comes Out of the Woodwork?

Kamala Harris comes out of the woodwork with plan to solve all those ‘root causes’ of migrant surge

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

After appearing on milk carton memes from Republicans mocking her as AWOL in being Joe Biden’s border crisis czar, Kamala Harris has dropped her crocheting, snacking, and home decor battles to bring herself out of the woodwork.

Wednesday, she held a press conference and Zoom-like roundtable on just what she plans to do about the migrant surge at the border, looking for all those “root causes.”

Here are some choice bits from the White House transcript.  The first reporter’s question got right to the point:

Q    Madam Vice President, will you visit the southern border.  Do you have a trip planned?  Will you plan one in the future if the situation with migration doesn’t resolve itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  So, as I mentioned to the experts, the President has asked Secretary Mayorkas to address what is going on at the border.  And he has been working very hard at that, and it’s showing some progress because of his hard work.  I have been asked to lead the issue of dealing with root causes in the Northern Triangle, similar to what then-Vice President did many years ago

.

But I will tell you that these are issues that are not going to be addressed overnight, in terms of the root causes issue.  A large part of our focus is diplomatic, in terms of what we can do, in a way that is about working with these countries.

So, for example: I have talked with the President of Mexico, the President of Guatemala.  We have — well, I’m probably saying too much — we have plans in the work to go to Guatemala as soon as possible, given all of the restrictions in terms of COVID and things of that nature.  

But these are areas of focus for a very important and good reason.  We must address the symptoms, and that is what is happening with the team of folks who are working on the border, led by Ali Mayorkas.  But we also have to deal with the root causes, otherwise we are just in a perpetual system of only dealing with the symptoms. 

So, our focus is to deal with the root causes, and I’m looking forward to traveling, hopefully, as my first trip, to the Northern Triangle — stopping in Mexico and then going to Guatemala sometime soon. 

No border visit — too politically hazardous to be associated with it, for sure.  Let Mayorkas do that unpopular job exposing the administration’s incompetence.

But Harris’s claim that there’s nothing to learn at the border about the “root causes” of illegal migration is nonsense.  On the contrary, there’s a hell of a lot to learn firsthand at the border from the actual participants about the root causes of why, exactly, they are entering the U.S. illegally in surges.  In a report published yesterday, a Politico correspondent went to Tijuana; interviewed actual wannabe illegal aliens; and, sure enough, found out a lot.

Here’s Politico correspondent Jack Herrera’s nut graf and what immediately followed:

Critics on the right blame the president’s welcoming rhetoric, saying that after Donald Trump’s hard-line tack toward the border, it’s no wonder migrants are rushing in under supposedly softer leadership. But migrants themselves have a very different view: The issue isn’t Biden extending a hand; it’s that he hasn’t figured out what he wants to do — and has kept the legal pathway closed in the meantime.

Despite promising a new approach, Biden has left the effective asylum ban in place, with few exceptions. Realizing they have no prospect for legal entry into the U.S. anytime soon, many migrants like the ones here, stuck in Tijuana without a safe home to return to, are making the painful decision to try to cross the border outside the proper channels.

“We want to do this the right way,” insists Rosemeri.

Or else.

Freelance Politico correspondent Jack Herrera is no right-winger; he’s a leftist, publishing some of his other items at The Nation and the even loonier TruthOut, according to his personal website.  His analysis is a stretch, but his reporting is very good.  He interviewed would-be illegal border crossers and from it argued that Joe Biden didn’t invite them in; he just failed to give them the convenient want-it-now entry to the U.S. they expected.  Therefore, they were crossing illegally, whether we like it or not, because, well, they are entitled. 

Where does that sense of entitlement to live in the U.S. come from in these surging illegal migrants?  Who gives it to them?  Maybe it comes from radicals in Joe’s own party?  It would explain why Kamala doesn’t want to find out what she should find out of the root causes of the border surge straight from the illegals themselves.  She wouldn’t be publicly comfortable with the answer.  Because yes, that’s a root cause — an amazing sense of entitlement to live in the U.S. without waiting in line, let alone contributing, a “right” to partake in the life of the U.S. and all proffered benefits. 

No, the border is dirty and dusty and full of political hazards with cameras as migrant surgers come in at the unguarded border under some of the most inhuman conditions.  Remember the slave ships?  Here’s a migrant smuggling operation posted yesterday by the Border Patrol that looks just like one.  Don’t expect Kamala to get involved with learning about the root causes of why that happened.  Or the child-dumping over the fence in New Mexico.  Or the abandoned Nicaraguan kid left crying in the Texas desert.  Or the big migrant car crashes…

Nope, she’s claiming to be Miss Diplomacy now, in something of a shift.

First, she mangles her geography, which is never a good sign in a wannabe diplomat: she declares that she’s visiting the northern triangle and specifies that as Mexico and Guatemala.  Mexico isn’t a part of the northern triangle, not at all.  Guatemala, meanwhile, is just one member, one of three.  The other two weren’t mentioned, so no, it wasn’t the triangle.

And how’s that going to go?  Well, just yesterday, Guatemala’s president joined Mexico’s in laying the blame for the surge at the feet of Joe Biden.  That’s some pair of meetings she’s got ahead of her.

Here’s the other thing: the president of El Salvador, another northern triangle member, isn’t taking White House phone calls, having been insultingly snubbed in February on his trip to Washington by these same Bidenites.  Good luck with that one, Kams.

Meanwhile, the leader of the third northern triangle member, the president of Honduras, is hopelessly compromised with drug entanglements, though he has his hand out.  As I wrote here a couple of days ago:

Or how’s Kamala handling this bunch, from Honduras, which already has its hand out for U.S. aid to eliminate all those the “root causes” of why Hondurans can’t stand living in Honduras? They’re claiming that showering the Honduran government, (whose president has been accused by prosecutors in New York of taking big bucks from a drug dealer), will end all the “root causes” of why Hondurans want to get the hell out of Honduras. Will giving these particular foreign bureaucrats cash end all the root causes? Don’t count on Kamala to figure out any of the potential problems with showering likely corrupt governments with big U.S. bucks. Notice that nobody from Honduras, based on the reporting seen, has bothered with contacting Kamala in any case. They go where they might actually get some money, correctly reading that she’s AWOL.

So Mexico and Guatemala it is, though only one is a member of the three-nation northern triangle, but both states are on record as blaming Biden for the crisis.

Let’s go one step farther: who’s advising her, who are these experts she cites?  The New York Post did some digging and provided some names — and they are doozies:

In addition to Harris and her national security advisor, Ambassador Nancy McEldowney, the White House said attendees included Dan Restrepo, a senior fellow at the Neera Tanden-run Center for American Progress; Vicki Gass, a top policy adviser for Central America at Oxfam; Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a liberal think tank; Lisa Haugaard, co-director of the Latin America Working Group; Geoff Thale, president of the Washington Office on Latin America; Carolina Herrera, a Natural Resources Defense Council manager; and Jason Marczak, director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

Who’s Selee?  Why, a leftist recently featured in Politico.  What are his thoughts?  Basically, that the U.S. needs to legally admit more indigent, uneducated Central American migrants:

But there’s no way you can “enforce” your way out of a recurring migration crisis.

We should have learned this by now: Every time we beef up enforcement, or do something slightly more draconian, it works for a while, and then, sooner or later, people find a way around it. Enforcement works if it pushes people into real legal [immigration] channels. But if there are no legal channels, then people will just keep finding their way around enforcement.

Who is Restrepo?  The architect of one Latin American failure after another in past Democratic administrations.  Here is what I wrote as an editorial writer several years ago at Investor’s Business Daily about the guy:

Restrepo is a political operative whose interests are more domestic than Latin American. As a result, he’s botched every Latin American operation he’s had his hand in, appeasing enemies and blaming the U.S.:

• Honduras: In 2009, Restrepo was behind a U.S. bid to swiftly declare Honduras’ constitutional ouster of its president “a coup” and sanctioned the country, playing into the hands of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who had attempted to make Honduras a colony.

• Cuba: Restrepo was behind loosening sanctions on Castro’s Cuba, which has emboldened the regime to act against Americans. While Castro imprisoned Alan Gross, a U.S. contractor who was distributing satellite phones to dissidents, the Obama administration said nothing.

• Colombia: Its troops captured drug “kingpin of kingpins” Walid Makled, who had extensive knowledge of Venezuelan official involvement in trafficking. U.S. attorneys wanted him extradited, but Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos said President Obama never asked. When IBD asked Restrepo whether he advised Obama to ask, Restrepo defensively said he did. But that’s at odds with what Santos said.

• Venezuela: Treasury Department officials complained Restrepo kept names of high-ranking Venezuelan officials with ties to drug dealers off its “Kingpin List,” in a naive effort to keep pressure off Chavez.

• Now Restrepo tries to pin Mexico’s drug war not on Hugo Chavez’s trafficker allies, but on gun dealers from the U.S.

It underlines that the Bidenites with Harris at the helm are not about results.

Kamala herself emphasizes as if to weasel out of this that there are no short-term answers, with the subtext that we shouldn’t expect results.

Look at her babble here about that toward the end of her no-public-video transcript:

Q    Madam Vice President, how do you evaluate success?  How do you evaluate success?  This has been an intractable problem for years.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  There are many metrics, and I’m happy to follow up with you as we — after I talk to the experts also.  But I agree with you: We have to figure out how we’re going to assess our impact.  

But let me be clear — and everyone who’s been working on this, you know, for decades will tell you: It will not be obvious overnight.  The work we have to do is going to require a commitment that is continuous, that we institutionalize with our partners.  

And — and that’s the work that I’m prepared to do, which is to begin that process of meaningful work, knowing that we’re going to have to have a long-term strategy.  And it will take some time to see the benefits of that work, but it will be worth it. 

She noted earlier that she was given the job same as Joe Biden got from President Obama earlier.  A Los Angeles Times reporter noted here that Joe was ineffective at that task Kamala now has — basically a miserable failure.  Kamala notes that she has the job and same approach as Old Joe, and guess what: I’ll wager she’s going to fail, too, given that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is lunacy.  It likely doesn’t matter to her; she was just put into the job to take pressure off Old Joe and, as Newt Gingrich noted on Twitter, mainly because Biden knows she’ll do nothing.  She likely just hopes to bore the reporters long enough to ensure that when she does fail at it same as Joe, the cameras are going to be off.

What Are The Dem FASCISTS Up To…WITH BIG, BIG BUSINESS IN THEIR POCKETS?

Republicans are in a messy divorce with big business. Democrats could benefit

Andrew Gawthorpe at the Guardian:

As corporations flee the Republican Party, liberals should welcome them into the Democratic coalition – with conditions

The tail of a retired Delta jet outside Truist Park in Atlanta. The MLB players’ union said it is open to relocating the All-Star Game in protest of restrictive new voting legislation recently passed in Georgia. Photograph: Erik S Lesser/EPA

2. One of the central facts of modern American politics has been the strong bond between the Republican party and the country’s business elite. Even Donald Trump, who briefly campaigned as an economic populist in 2016, governed like the plutocrat he was. Businesses could rely on Republicans for the regressive tax cuts and supply-side economics that helped their bottom lines – and the personal bank accounts of their executives. Democrats, meanwhile, have drifted to the left economically, embracing much higher taxes and a new era of trust-busting. If Republicans are the capitalists, then Democrats are the socialists.

That, at least, is the conventional narrative. And it gets some things right. But it struggles to explain what happened in the past few weeks, as large companies such as Delta and Coca-Cola spoke out against Georgia’s new voter-suppression legislation. Republicans were blistering in response, with the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, accusing the private sector of behaving like a “woke parallel government” and warning of “serious consequences” if they didn’t stop. This threat isn’t idle – efforts are under way to hit companies on their bottom line, with Georgia Republicans voting to strip Delta of a lucrative tax break and Trump calling for boycotts of companies like Coca-Cola. (Freedom Pepsi, anyone?)

It’s easy to dismiss all of this as a public-relations stunt. Many of the companies coming out against the Georgia law did so only belatedly and under pressure, and many of the Republican politicians decrying “woke capitalism” are just hoping to score points with their base. But the very fact that these things are happening at all is due to important shifts in the American political landscape – ones which may eventually become seismic.

It’s not difficult to see why tensions have risen as Republicans have increasingly embraced an angry, racist nationalism and an anti-democratic ethos. Doing so has put them at odds with the young and value-conscious Americans who fuel sales of America’s biggest brands. Companies that want to attract younger consumers and employees have flexed their power in response. When North Carolina passed a law in 2016 banning trans people from using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, boycotts and cancelled business expansions were set to cost the state about $4bn over 12 years. The state’s Republican governor subsequently lost to a Democratic challenger and the law was repealed.

For their part, Republicans have turned away from their traditional pro-business stances on trade, immigration and globalization. This shift has been accompanied by a rearranging of intellectual priorities. While a previous generation of Republicans prioritized the economy above all else, the loudest voices on the right today agree with Senator Tom Cotton when he says that “we are not an economy with a country. We are a country with an economy.” Companies that speak out against the new nationalist agenda can find themselves in the crosshairs of the self-declared tribunes of the country, as Keurig did when it decided to stop advertising on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.

It is premature to predict a wholesale collapse of the Republican party’s alliance with big business. But the events of recent years present an enormous opportunity for Democrats to make political inroads. In 2020, the counties won by Joe Biden produced a whopping 71% of US GDP, compared with only 29% in the counties which voted for Donald Trump – a gap which is 14 points higher than in 2016. Democrats also increasingly represent the more educated voters who corporate America covets as consumers and employees, and who have fled the Trumpified Republican party.

Progressive Democrats are right to be wary of calls for the party to identify itself as pro-business

Democrats also represent the values and competence which American businesses – and the workers who depend on them – need to thrive. Trump’s plutocratic tax cuts and shamelessness in gutting the regulatory state might have provided a sugar rush to many businesses, but his woeful handling of the pandemic and impulsive trade wars harmed them. The paranoid, reality-denying, cultish Republican party of today cannot be trusted to elevate competent figures into key political and policymaking positions. As Trump demonstrated, the costs of having a clown in charge can generally be tolerated while the economy is thundering along in normal times – but they become catastrophic when a serious challenge arises.

Democrats, on the other hand, don’t just represent a steady hand in a crisis. They are also advancing plans for infrastructure, increased R&D spending and a green energy transition which are all necessary to the future competitiveness of the American economy. Such plans involve winners and losers, but overall they represent an enormous investment in the economy which can solidify the party’s appeal to corporations, employees and voters.

Progressive Democrats are right to be wary of calls for the party to identify itself as pro-business. And it’s absolutely right that Democrats seek to reform capitalism at the same time that they embrace it. But Republican tensions with big business give Democrats exactly what they need to accomplish that – leverage. Faced with the alternative, groups like the Chamber of Commerce have proven more open to Democratic proposals like raising the minimum wage than under previous administrations. Their support makes such policies easier to pass and more likely to be enduring.

Something even more important is at stake. For decades, corporate America has been a key pillar in the Republican coalition. That pillar is starting to crack, providing an opportunity for Democrats to weaken a dangerously extremist party which poses an existential threat to American democracy. As big business flees the wreckage of the Republican party, the best thing to do for the future of the country is welcome it into the Democratic coalition – with conditions.

• Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University, and the host of the podcast America Explained

Big Dem CEOs NOT BOTHERED BY CROOKED VOTING….Are they at the CENTER OF THE CRIME?

BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:

VOTERS SAY: ELECTION FRAUD IS A PROBLEM

America’s CEOs may believe that election integrity is unimportant, but voters across the political spectrum disagree. Rasmussen finds that 51% of voters believe that voter fraud impacted the 2020 presidential election:

A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

The question asked was: “How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?”

Voters want election integrity and don’t buy the Democrats’ claim that it is somehow too hard to vote:

Asked which is more important, making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections, 60% of Likely Voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating, while 37% said it’s more important to make it easier to vote.

Only 22% of voters say it is currently too hard to vote, while 34% said it’s too easy to vote, and 41% say the level of difficulty in voting is about right.

Majorities of all racial groups – 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters – say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.

Likewise, majorities of all racial groups – 64% of whites, 59% of Blacks and 58% of other minority voters – reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.

Here in Minnesota, my organization found that 69% of registered voters want voter ID laws. America’s left-wing CEOs are badly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Think of All The INNOCENT Deaths Besides Roe v. Wade This Generation of RACIST Dems Have Caused Our Urban Black Communities!

Overturning Roe v. Wade

By Jim Hollingsworth at American Thinker:

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, praying Christians hoped that at last their many prayers had been answered; that at long last the taking of little lives in abortion would end with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court 1973 decision, over 61 million defenseless infants have lost their lives in abortion.

But there is already some indication that Roe v. Wade may not be overturned.  The fact that the high court was unwilling to intervene in any of the election cases gives us a foretaste of what may come.  And, don’t forget that in Roe v. Wade, which was decided in a vote of 7:2, six of those justices were appointed by conservative Republicans.   

Roe v. Wade began in 1970 when Norma McCorvey (Roe) found she was pregnant and wanted  an abortion.  Because abortions were illegal in Texas and since she could not afford to go to some place like New York she took the State of Texas to court.  By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, it was December 13, 1971.

The lawyer for Roe was Sarah R. Weddington, and the attorney for Wade was Jay Floyd, Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County, Texas.  At that time there were only seven justices on the Court, since two had retired.  Because of the lack of two justices, the case was heard again on October 11, 1972 before nine justices. Mrs. Weddington argued the second case against Texas attorney Robert C. Flowers, Assistant Attorney General for Texas. The case was decided on January 22, 1973.  The decision of the Court was 7:2 against the State of Texas and in favor of almost unlimited abortion.

In the first trial the issue was whether the Texas statute was too vague.  The second trial dealt more with the question of “what is a person.”  The Constitution says both at Amendment V, and Amendment 14, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

The Court also said that a woman had the right to privacy based on the Fourth Amendment which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons… shall not be violated…”  But, does this guarantee a right to privacy? 

And, even if the woman had a right to privacy, that would not give her the right to destroy the life growing within her.  We have privacy in our homes, but we have no right to commit a crime in our home.  It is the same in the womb.  The woman is to nurture that life within her, not destroy it. 

The justices also seemed to have a question about the statement in the Fourteenth Amendment which says in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, … are citizens of the United States…”

The question, then, was did a child become a person only after being born?  However, the Constitution said that by being born in the United State he was a citizen of the United States, not whether or not he was a person.   

The Texas statute against abortion was passed in 1854.  Before that time there was no law concerning abortion.  Since there were no laws against abortion before the middle of the 19th century, the Court concluded that abortion was legal before that time.  But that does not necessarily follow.  The Christian churches traditionally held that abortion was wrong and it was not until the influence of the church began to wane that abortion laws were passed to protect the unborn. 

Anyone who argues the case against Roe v. Wade needs to study the Court proceedings of both trials, and then have a clear understanding of what, exactly, is a person.  An abortion doctor once told me that he likes to get done as quickly as possible because the longer he waits the more the unborn looks like a human, a person.

Another issue that came up was a Texas statute which made it a crime if the life of a child was taken during the time he was being born, something like Partial Birth Abortion.  The Court seemed to feel that this would be wrong as this was not an abortion.  So, an attorney needs a clear understanding of what exactly is an abortion and when does it take place, as well as when is a person considered to have been “born.”  Must the whole body be delivered to be counted as born?

What changes at birth?  The case is pretty clear that a child born after 24 weeks of gestation has a good chance for survival.  So, if born, he is a person, but if his life is taken in abortion, he is not a person. 

Birth is the only clear dividing line between conception and birth, and birth is just a condition of location.  Even after 24 weeks each additional week sees improvement in size, but no change in the essential character of the unborn.

Developmentally a fetus gains function very quickly and even before the woman may realize she is pregnant, the little heart is beating.    

Although the Court made a distinction between the first, second, and third trimesters, these are very subjective measurements. The concept of “trimester” has no medical standing. There are no dividing lines between trimesters as they gradually merge one into another. A trimester is a legal, not a medical construct.

Birth, then, is the only change in development that can easily be measured.  If a child is a person at birth, then it is evident that he is a person five minutes before birth, and if a person five minutes before birth, then he must be considered a person at conception.  There is no other dividing line.

The prolife movement has grown year by year since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  If a prolife case is actually heard by the Court, it is evident that many will be upset, no matter how it is decided.  As the Court indicated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, many women have grown up since 1973 believing that if they became pregnant, they could end the pregnancy in abortion and not have the pregnancy affect their careers.

Whoever sets out to argue a pro-life case before the Supreme Court with the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade must keep in mind some very basic things: First, the Court is very reluctant to overturn any previous decision, and in fact has rarely done so.  Second, he must recognize that Roe was decided on very shaky ground.  There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.  The Court knew that but based its decision on the woman’s so-called right to privacy.  Finally, the attorney must have a clear understanding as to when life begins, and the meaning of the term “person” as used in the U.S. Constitution.

The big need today is for the church to tell the biblical truth to the rest of the world that abortion is wrong.  Millions of infants will continue to perish unless we can carefully present the case for the need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.

Image: Steve Rhodes

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

Pelosi: America’s SICK Madame DeFarge!

Pelosi Hijacks Everything for Her Agenda — Even the Holocaust

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero at American Thinker:

One would expect the commemoration of something as tragic and sacred as the Holocaust be done in a respectful manner and not be manipulated for political goals. Such was not the case this week with Nancy Pelosi’s statement sent out on Holocaust Remembrance Day; known in Israel as Yom Ha’Shoah. Instead, she exploited the murder of six million Jews by Hitler and his regime into a manifesto of Democrat false talking points and the demonization of millions of Americans associated with conservatism and who voted for President Trump. It was sacrilege and shameful.

The first principle regarding the Holocaust is as follows: It was a unique, once-in-history genocidal plan to exterminate an entire race of people, Jews, across the globe simply because of who they were at birth. Unlike conventional warfare where antagonists may wish to eliminate those they are fighting, Hitler planned the systematic murder of those not only at war with him but those beyond the confines of the battle lines, searching for Jews worldwide even though they were not in the way of his territorial ambitions. They were murdered not for what they did or their conduct, but for simply being born into a people. While he did kill others during the war, the grand plan of Final Solution was specific to eradicating the Jewish people, no other group, from the face of the earth, leaving no trace of their ever having existed.

Holocaust Memorial Day was never established as a general memorial day for all those harmed during World War II, but as something specific to the once-in-history systematic implementation of that Final Solution plan to eradicate the Jewish people from existence and human history. The remedy for what happened is for the world to make sure, this time, that Never Again shall we stand by while adversaries, such as Iran, go about with plans to once again exterminate the Jewish people by destroying Israel, as is their announced plan, or by murdering all Jews worldwide who are Zionists, something every Jew is commanded to be.

In her statement, Pelosi writes: ”Seventy-six years after the Holocaust, shadows of dark forces of hate are again emerging in our nation with disturbing displays… even inside the United States Capitol on January 6.” How dare she!  Invoking the Holocaust and the hate of Jews by Hitler when describing the Jan.6 protest in D.C. is blatantly dishonest, disrespectful of those murdered by Hitler, and propaganda at its worst. This is low even for Nancy Pelosi, the godmother of today’s political viciousness, a Deep State game plan of lies which politicizes everything, crushing the soul of those things noble for political gain, slashing and burning so as to achieve One Party rule. Those that gathered in D.C on Jan .6, and virtually all who slowly walked through the Capitol, were engaged not in an act of hate against Jews. In fact, most Trump voters are supporters of Israel, and Jews, in contrast to the growing numbers of 24/7 severe critics of Israel, and even Jews, among today’s “woke” Democrat constituencies.

Pelosi talks of “Charlottesville,” the oft used Democrat talking point condemning President Trump for “siding with Nazi protestors.” This is one of the great lies in American history, reminiscent of Goebbels, who taught: “If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes a fact.” President Trump immediately condemned the neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, but he rightfully argued that in the streets that day were other groups, not neo-Nazis, with valid concern over the toppling of statues of heroes to many in the South. President Trump was correct, and courageous and honest, in differentiating between neo-Nazis (white supremacists) and those feeling warmth and devotion to their history below the Mason-Dixon Line. Loving your native history does not automatically make one a “white supremacist”.

Pelosi, like so many of today’s universalizers, points to attacks on black churches as part of the Holocaust phenomenon. Truth is, attacks on black churches are today, thank God, very rare. There are certainly no widespread, across-the-nation attacks on black churches as there was against synagogues in prewar Germany and during Kristallnacht. Nor has an attack on any black or Jew or white ever been government policy, whereas in Holocaust Germany attacks against Jews and synagogues were exactly government policy. One should never, in campaign-like style, exploit the Holocaust to advance theories about so-called “systemic racism” against blacks nor equate crime as something Holocaust-like. Though “progressives” refuse to admit this, the truth is that in America today, it is synagogues and Orthodox-looking Jews who are, statistics prove, the highest victims of hate crimes, hate crimes committed mostly by blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics, core constituencies of Pelosi’s party.

Pelosi boasts of having led a delegation to visit Auschwitz. Normally that would be admirable, if done for pure reasons rather as a springboard for Democrat talking points blaming conservatives and Republicans for “again creating the shadows of the same dark forces and hate.” However, let it be known, when we urged Pelosi to ostracize or censure Ilhan Omar for Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks, Pelosi refused. We held a rally in D.C. asking that, as Speaker of the House, she pass a stand-alone resolution condemning anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitism swelling loudly among some of her caucuses. Pelosi refused. She may be good on symbolism, but she is AWOL in denouncing anti-Semitism by itself. Her Holocaust statement, likewise, condemns anti-Semitism only if tied to Democrat talking points. It sounds good but is often a verbal a cover for acting oppositely. I have the same objection to President Biden’s use of Holocaust Memorial Day to push for the LTGB political agenda.

The most obvious hypocrisy in all of their Holocaust P.R., is Pelosi’s and Biden’s renewal of funds to the PLO, an organization committed to Israel’s destruction, and which uses these funds to support terrorism and murder against Jewish citizens in Israel. So too, Biden’s jump start of talks and future funding for Iran, a state that proudly declares its intentions to wipe all Jews living in Israel off the face of the earth. Mr. Biden: Iran and the P.L.O. would love a genocidal Final Solution against Jews, similar to how their Grand Mufti was part of the planning with Hitler for the original one back in the ’40s.

Under Pelosi’s control of D.C., we now have troops throughout D.C. reminding us not to be too active in our public assembly; we have a loss of freedom of speech and religion, an attempt to remove the ability for self-defense, constant propaganda, the big-lie routine perfected by Goebbels, and remarks from Pelosi describing her opponents as “enemies of the State.”  If anything, one of the true lessons of the Holocaust is to be wary of such conditions. We know where it can lead!

Rabbi Spero is president of Caucus for America, caucusforamerica.com, and author of Push Back: The Battle to Save America’s Judeo-Christian Heritage.

Privileged Obama Learned His Devotion to His Fascist-Communism While at College

A childhood of privilege, not hardship

by Mark Tapscott     at the Washington Examiner:

First lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention that “Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions.”

It is a claim the president has repeated in his books, on the speech-making circuit and in countless media interviews. By his account, he grew up in a broken home with a single mom, struggled for years as a child in an impoverished Third World country and then was raised by his grandparents in difficult circumstances.

The facts aren’t nearly so clear-cut.

Ann Dunham was just 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama. She was a freshman at the University of Hawaii. His Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a few years older than Ann. They were married against family wishes.

Obama Sr. does not appear to have been welcoming or compassionate toward his new wife or son. It later turned out that he was secretly married to a Kenyan woman back home at the same time he fathered the young Obama.

He abandoned Obama Jr.’s mother when the boy was 1. In 1964, Dunham filed for a divorce that was not contested. Her parents helped to raise the young Obama.

Obama’s mother met her second husband, an Indonesian named Lolo Soetoro, while working at the East-West Center in Hawaii. They married, and in 1967, the young Obama, then known as Barry Soetoro, traveled to Indonesia with his mother when the Indonesian government recalled his stepfather.

In Indonesia, the family’s circumstances improved dramatically. According to Obama in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father,” Lolo’s brother-in-law was “making millions as a high official in the national oil company.” It was through this brother-in-law that Obama’s stepfather got a coveted job as a government relations officer with the Union Oil Co.

The family then moved to Menteng, then and now the most exclusive neighborhood of Jakarta, where bureaucrats, diplomats and economic elites reside.

A popular Indonesia travel site describes Menteng: “Designed by the Dutch Colonial Government in 1920s, Menteng still retains its graceful existence with its beautiful parks, cozy street cafes and luxurious housing complexes.”

In 1971, his mother sent young Obama back to Hawaii, where his grandmother, Madelyn, known as Toots, would become one of the first female vice presidents of a Honolulu bank. His grandfather was in sales.

Obama’s grandparents moved the same year into Punahou Circle Apartments, a sleek new 10-story apartment building just five blocks from the private Punahou School, which Obama would attend from 1971 to 1979.

Obama explains in “Dreams from My Father” that his admission to Punahou began “the start of something grand, an elevation in the family status that they took great pains to let everyone know.”

To his credit, Obama did not downplay Punahou’s upscale status, noting in his autobiography that it “had grown into a prestigious prep school, an incubator for island elites. Its reputation had helped sway my mother in her decision to send me back to the States.”

Obama also admitted in the book that his grandfather pulled strings to get him into the school. “There was a long waiting list, and I was considered only because of the intervention of Gramps’s boss, who was an alumnus.”

The school still features a lush hillside campus overlooking the Waikiki skyline and the Pacific Ocean. It was one of the most expensive schools on the island, and both Obama and his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng received scholarships.

While the Dunhams were not among the wealthiest families on the island, he nevertheless studied and socialized with the children of the social and financial elite. Obama has said he didn’t fit in at the school. But that’s not how other Hawaiians remember it.

Associated Press writer Sudhin Thanawala reported from Honolulu in 2008 that “classmates and teachers say Obama blended in well. He served on the editorial board of the school’s literary magazine, played varsity basketball and sang in the choir. He went on the occasional date.”

In his recent book “Barack Obama: The Story,” Washington Post reporter David Maraniss said the future chief executive often smoked marijuana with prep school friends, rolling up the car windows to seek “total absorption,” or “TA.” They called themselves the “Choom Gang.”

Edward Shanahan, a retired newspaper journalist who now edits downstreet.net and makes no effort to conceal his admiration for Obama, retraced his Hawaii years shortly after the president was elected.

Shanahan wrote that Obama lived in a “well-off neighborhood near the University of Hawaii where Barry, as he was known, resided in a comfortable home with his mother and her parents before she took him to Indonesia.”

Sanahan said “our tour ended up on the lush, exquisitely maintained and altogether inviting campus of Punahou School, which we can imagine was a place of great comfort for Obama.”

Tellingly, Obama has never lived in a black neighborhood. Maraniss reported in his book that when leftist activist Jerry Kellman interviewed Obama for a community organizing job in Chicago, he asked Obama how he felt about living and working in the black community for the first time in his life.

Obama accepted the job but chose not to live among those he would be organizing. Instead, he commuted 90 minutes each way daily from his apartment in Chicago’s famous Hyde Park to the Altgeld Gardens housing project where he worked.

It was an early instance of Obama presenting himself one way while acting in quite a different way.

Reporting for this special report by Richard Pollock, Examiner staff writer

A BREAK IN TODAY’S AMERICAN ABSENT EDUCATION….

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Das+Rheingold&&view=detail&mid=96D71ABCD986FF1BA4D996D71ABCD986FF1BA4D9&rvsmid=F1F1A262373731FFB597F1F1A262373731FFB597&FORM=VDQVAP