Robert Stacy McCain as a man with six children and five grandchildren is very good at reproductive math and yesterday he shared some with the public.
from the day a girl reaches menarche, she has a fixed number of potential reproductive opportunities — in a healthy female, 12 cycles a year for about 25 years from ages 15 to 40, or roughly 300 lifetime chances to become pregnant. If she does not become a mother as a teenager (and middle-class America adamantly believes that teenage motherhood is the worst of all possible fates), this means her reproductive opportunities are reduced to about 240 — 12 menstrual cycles per year for about 20 years. Thus, every year that she delays motherhood represents a reduction in her total fertility.
This biology and math and biology and math don’t give a damn if you are work or want to blame the patriarchy or anything else. The simple truth is that the longer you wait to have children the less likely you will have them.
Now given that the people least likely to have children seem to be those who have embraced the world of the woke this is likely very good news for society and also explains the great need for the left to begin stealing elections in earnest because it’s hard to vote the dead when they haven’t been born and the future belongs to those who show up.
There was a time before the sixties when if a man had a solid job and worked hard it was almost impossible for him to fail to get a wife if he wanted one, my advice to young ladies is this. If you don’t want to be old and alone in your forties find a young man who works hard and has a decent job and pursue him, I’d also suggest a man of faith as he is believes there are eternal consequences if he decides to betray a wife.
In these days of insanity the good hard working God fearing men are a premium product and if you choose to listen to society rather than this advice then if you end up alone and lonely or forced to pick from the dregs in the end you will have only yourself to blame.
Last year former president Barack Obama called partisan gerrymandering “a sneaky way for politicians to consolidate as much power as they can. In the end, gerrymandering means that citizens’ voices are being diminished.”
A year earlier the governor of Obama’s home state of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, had this to say after the US Supreme Court decided not to get involved in partistan remaps. “As I’ve said since I was a candidate, I will veto any map that is unfair,” Pritzker said. “It’s the right thing to do. We’re going to have to make sure that here in Illinois we’re not gerrymandering, that we’re drawing maps that are fair and competitive. That’s what’s best for the voters of the state, that they have choices when they go to the ballot.”
Obama and Pritzker are of course both Democrats. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, state Senate minority leader Dan McConchie (R-Hawthorn Woods), pointed out that Obama, while at Illinois’ state capital late in his presidential term, denounced gerrymandering and called for reform. “And this needs to be done across the nation,” the 44th president said, “not just in a select few states. It should be done everywhere.”
Apparently not in Illinois becauses Obama has been silent about stacking the decks in favor of Democrats. The 2010 remap of Illinois congressional and state legislative districts was a travesty of democracy, as was the one after the 2000 Census, both of which were the work of longtime Illinois House speaker and Democratic party chairman Boss Michael Madigan, who was forced into retirement this year as scandals engulfed his inner circle. The state legislature, as mandated by the Illinois constitution, draws new General Assembly and US congressional district maps.
The most blatant gerrymandering from the most recent remap is Illinois’ 4th congressional district, nicknamed “the earmuffs,” which is pictured above.
But a quick look at maps won’t tell the whole story. Illinois three largest cities outside of Chicago, Rockford, Peoria, and Springfield, the aforementioned state capital, are each split between two congressional districts. This is not a case of these cities being too large for one district, the average size of a US congressional district is over 700,000, the largest of these municipalities is Rockford, with just under 150,000 residents.
The current Illinois congressional delegation consists of thirteen Democrats and five Republicans. Mission accomplished, Democrats. That number will change because Illinois, again, will lose a congressional seat. As I’ve remarked before, Illinoisans are voting with their feet by moving out. They are fed up with rampant corruption, high taxes, and an unfunded public worker pension debt crisis that can be solved only by default or hyperinflation. Between the 2010 and 2020 Census counts Illinois lost population–the first time that has ever happened to the Prairie State.
The electoral results are predictable when politicians choose their constituents. Last year 52 of the 118 races for seats in the Illinois House had only one candidate. In the state Senate it was worse–10 of the 20 races had only one person running. The Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.
Twice in the prior decade Republicans led efforts to allow voters to decide to amend the state constitution by having a non-partisan committee draw maps instead of the legislature. Both times what was called the Fair Map Amendment was ruled unconstitutional in a party-line state Supreme Court decision. The lead attorney in the lawsuit to block the amendment had ties to Boss Madigan.
Back to the US Congress. Illinois’ Democratic delegation is lockstep behind House Bill 1, which if made into law, in the process of nationalizing local elections, will mandate independent committees, not state legislators, to take charge of the decennial remaps in all 50 states. But why aren’t Illinois 13 Democratic members of Congress decrying the current remap process here? Because they are phonies, that’s why. Just like Pritzker and Obama.
The current remapping in Illinois is being performed behind closed doors by Democratic members of the General Assembly using preliminary Census data. Hey Pritzker! Are you aware of this news?
Yeah, I know, in 1990 Republicans drew gerrymandered districts. It was wrong then too.
On Fox Chicago’s Flannery Fired Up this weekend, state Rep. Tom Demmer (R-Dixon) told the host, “We should draw fair, straightforward maps that use official [Census] data and give the people of Illinois a real choice in their elections so people are picking their elected officials and not the other way around.”
Tellingly, because Flannery strives to be fair, he had two Republicans on the gerrymandering segment of his program, but no Dems. I’m very confident that Flannery invited a Democrat to appear but they are either too ashamed to defend their non-transparent remapping–or they know it’s indefensible.
One more time for emphasis.
Six days before his election as governor a St. Louis NPR reporter, Jason Rosenbaum, asked Pritzker, “If you’re governor and they send you a map that is obvioulsy gerrymandered against Republicans would you veto it and why?”
Candidate Pritzker’s response? “I will not sign a bill that is gerrymandered,” adding, “I have been for independent maps for a long time.”
John Ruberry regularly blogs from Illinois at Marathon Pundit.
The Brave Men of Canada 1944 vs 2021 (slide to view full image)
I’m old enough to remember the days when the men of Canada were renowned for how they fought Nazi’s instead of imitating them by going after Christian Pastors.
The real irony is that the Gospel reading for the Saturday Morning Mass read throughout the world was this speech Christ gave to his disciples:
If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me.
Military sexual assault has been in the news for an awful long time. This focus has lead to increasing calls for changes to how the military handles sexual assault. The culmination of these efforts is Senate Bill 1789, called the Military Justice Improvement Act. What the bill does is remove the call about whether to prosecute sexual assault from the chain of command to a team of experts that have “significant experience with court martials.”
The bill is lauded by everyone from Kristen Gillibrand to the Secretary of Defense, who magically dropped all opposition. Let’s be totally honest here, for any member of the military, if the President says “You’re going to drop opposition,” that person will find a way to drop opposition to whatever the President wants, or resign. That holds true for both parties, so I don’t think that any flag or general officer suddenly dropping opposition is surprising.
The sad part is that this bill won’t do anything to solve sexual assault in the military. It pretends that the reason sexual assault isn’t prosecuted is because of an unwillingness to bring it to trial. That’s partially true, as most sexual assault cases are handled with Non-Judicial Punishment (sometimes called Captains Mast or Article 15). The reason for that is simple: NJP requires a “preponderance of evidence” to prove guilt, while a court martial requires “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And the military uses NJP to essentially punish someone that they think committed the crime, despite this lack of evidence. Keep in mind too that many sexual assaults aren’t reported, and its impossible to prosecute a crime that doesn’t make it to court. This is true in military and civilian courts.
The second part of this is that sexual assault cases are notoriously low on evidence. Many of these cases are two individuals consuming alcohol or recreational drugs, not thinking actions through and then committing crimes. But try proving consent when you have nothing but statements from each individual. In civilian courts, most sexual assault cases get thrown out for exactly this reason: no evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. In this regard, because the military can use NJP, it achieves a better punishment rate than the civilian world.
This is easily shown in the 2010 Military Sexual Assault report.
Could not be prosecuted – In FY10, there were 450 final dispositions for subjects accused of sexual assault. Sixty-one percent (274) of these cases could NOT be prosecuted for the following reasons: lack of jurisdiction (13), the offender was unknown (16), the allegation was unfounded meaning it was false or the allegation did not meet the elements of a sexual assault offense (44), probable cause existed only for a non-sexual assault offense (18), the subject died (0), evidence was insufficient (70) or the victim declined to cooperate with investigation and / or prosecution (113).
Initial civilian jurisdiction – In 21 of the remaining cases, civilian authorities initially assumed jurisdiction. Of these cases, 8 were either pending or the disposition was unknown at the time this report was written. NCIS files indicate that the victim declined to cooperate in 1 case. Of the remaining 12 cases in which dispositions were known, charges were filed in 8 cases or 67% of cases. Further analysis is not possible due to lack of information regarding these cases.
Presented for disposition – As a result of the foregoing, 155 of the remaining subjects were presented to commands for a disposition decision. Commanders declined action in 30 cases pursuant to RCM 306(c)(1). Of the remaining 125 subject cases, courts martial charges were preferred (initiated) against 70 subjects, non-judicial punishment was imposed on 36 subjects, 5 subjects were administratively discharged and other administrative actions were taken against 14 subjects. In other words, courts-martial charges were preferred in 46% of the cases in which any type of action was possible.
So out of the 450 cases that made it to disposition, 274 go away because they simply CAN’T be prosecuted. After that, Commander’s declined action on 30 cases. That’s a massive disparity. I don’t know why commanders decline to prosecute the 30 cases, but its a far cry from the vast majority that lacked evidence. Out of 450 cases, only 70 make it to court martial. The win rate at court martial varies, but its sitting high, around 80-90%. You can actually see those results on the Results of Trial website. These cases had enough evidence that expert trial counsels thought they could win in court and went ahead to press charges.
So, here’s my prediction: this bill will pass and will do nothing to change sexual assault. It’ll actually make it harder to prosecute because anyone accused of sexual assault MUST go to a court martial. There will be some high profile cases that will get put in the news, but if there was evidence, most commanders would have sent a case to court martial anyway.
The other thing it will do is raise the personnel cost of accusation. Since everything must flow to a court martial, any member accused will have to sit around while the cases proceeds, which averages 9-18 months. During that time the person can’t promote, change jobs, or deploy, so accusing someone of sexual assault will become misused by at least a few people to tank careers. Given that the military already ditched its pension and continues to focus on the ghosts of white supremacy instead of fighting China, this will continue to influence high-performing members to seek employment elsewhere.
We don’t want sexual assault in our Armed Services, but when we don’t step back and ask how it is people go un-punished, it leads to taking the wrong actions.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 