A: Because Bloomberg will suffer no penalty for this

Posted: February 13, 2015 by datechguy in Uncategorized

Q:  How do we know that Michael Bloomberg is not considered a “Republican” by the media?

Imagine if any conservative suggested this:

Bloomberg Suggests Banning Young Minority Males from Gun Ownership

Speaking to the Aspen Institute on February 6, Michael Bloomberg said cities should ban young minority males from owning guns, both as an effort to reduce crime and to keep those minority males “alive.”

According to The Aspen Times, Bloomberg addressed a variety of topics, and after commenting on poverty and education, he discussed guns. The Times reported that he said, “Cities need to get guns out of [the] … hands” of persons who are “male, minority, and between the ages of 15 and 25.”

via powerline who notes 

As many southern blacks from the civil rights era will tell you, it was their ownership of guns that kept the violence against blacks (from Democrats, let us remember—Bull Connor was a member of the Democratic National Committee) from being even worse than it was.  Sure we have gang-bangers today who take a fearsome toll.  But how many law abiding minorities in bad neighborhoods want to place their safety in the hands of the response times of Mayor DeBlasio’s NYPD right now?

Picture if Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney or Bill O’Reilly said something like this, would there be any other story in the media anywhere?

Mike Bloomberg is not a Mitt Romney, O’Reilly or Ted Cruz (the latter as a 2nd amendment friend would never even think this) He is an ally of the left and a potential source of hundreds of millions of dollars for their causes and themselves and no amount of statements that would make any contender for the white house an “unperson” will cause the left to throw away a potential gravy train.

Common Thread of the Left: We’re killing babies So What…

Posted: January 25, 2015 by datechguy in abortion, culture

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

George Orwell: Animal Farm 1945

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861

One of the first arguments that generally come out of the mouth of a person who supports abortion when confronted by the argument on innocent life is that you aren’t killing baby in abortion.

Not anymore. Mary Elizabeth Williams has decided to go the other way here is the title or her Salon Piece

So what if abortion ends life?
I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice

Mary Katherine Ham notes the thinking process:

This was the exact thought process that led me to the exact opposite position. I, too, noticed a distinction between how women approached an in-utero child when they wanted the child and how they felt about it when the pregnancy was unexpected and unwanted. Logically, it made no sense to me that the mother’s disposition should change the biological disposition of the baby. Therefore, it made no sense that it should change the ethics of the situation. But Mary Elizabeth Williams goes a whole different direction

Mary Elizabeth Williams doesn’t just go in a different direction she goes all Comrade Napoleon on us

All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss

Katrina Trinko calls asks the obvious:

By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics?

Elizabeth Scalia, meanwhile is horrified:

When terrorists flew jets into tall buildings, they believed that those 3,000 lives were “worth sacrificing” for the furtherance of their situation. When Nazis led people with disabilities into gas chambers, those lives were “worth sacrificing” for society. When Herod had all the male children killed Bethlehem, those lives were “worth sacrificing” for his ease of mind.

The utilitarian mindset is a crystalline brutality of efficiency. If human beings of unknown or dubious worth cannot contribute to the comfort of a society, or the success of an endeavor or the happiness of one’s life, they are swept aside and away.

I’m shocked none of these ladies mentioned slavery, the ultimate utilitarian argument, consider these words from Williams…

She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families.

..and remember the arguments in the past concerning the black man, and the red man and how their subordination allowed the superior the more important to advance and achieve, to give them roads to go down and possibilities for them and their families.

And it also ignores something else, the costs of abortion:

A recent study published by Great Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (H/T Alveda King Blog) includes data collected from 22 studies, conducted over 14 years, involving over 887,000 women, of which at least 166,831 had abortions.  The results? Eighty-one percent of women (81%) who have had abortions suffer an increased risk of severe mental health problems.

All these reactions have merit but they miss the real story of the Salon piece although Elizabeth comes closest…

Were I a cartographer, I would hasten to warn Ms. Williams against this route; I would mark the map, “Here be Monsters.”

Elizabeth Elizabeth Elizabeth you are so close, being kind-hearted you conclude that Ms Williams is taking herself on a monstrous route unknowingly, but observe her argument carefully. This is a place she has been forever, in fact an honest reading of her piece admits the pro-abortion side has been there all along. The only reason she is making this statement in public is she believes it will advance her cause.

In short Ms. Williams is not taking the route toward the monsters, she is the MONSTER and the monster has decided it is strong enough to show true colors. By it being printed in a national magazine publicly it informs others that they can openly discuss this topic without fear.

That begs the question why now? Well that’s a piece is for tomorrow.

8 Opportunities to earn a Plenary Indulgence Nov 1-8

Posted: November 1, 2014 by datechguy in catholic, Church doctrine
Tags: , ,

This post will be bumped annually during the All Saint day octave details below.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Fisherman

Posted: October 28, 2014 by julietteochieng in politics, Uncomfortable Truths
Tags: , , , , , ,

by baldilocks

No, not that Fisherman. The other one.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

–Daniel Webster, et al.

The 36th president of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, is infamous for many things.

Most domestically notable are two programs: the Great Society and Medicare. Both programs can arguably be viewed as bait to Americans. Bait for what? Luring the poor into government dependence, luring the elderly into the same, and luring the descendants of all into catastrophic debt. This debt applies both individually and nationally.

However, I was fascinated to discover that these programs were not LBJ’s first forays into hooking groups into government control. At The Federalist, Leslie Loftis notes that his first target was the church.

When the federal tax code was written, that the government couldn’t tax churches was assumed. For one, at the beginning of the union, only the federal government was prohibited from establishing a religion. The state governments could and did establish churches. They didn’t tax churches, but collected taxes for the church. This stopped after the Civil War and the ratification and subsequent case law of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the federal proscription against an established religion to the individual states.

[snip]

Essentially, churches have complied with the exemption requirements of the tax code rather than asserting the right to be free from taxation.

[snip]

To punish and prevent political opponents [including churches] from speaking out against him, [in 1954] then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, who was in a contentious re-election campaign, pushed through an amendment to the tax code which prohibits “political activity” by 501(c)(3) entities. It is called the Johnson Amendment. Since the prohibition passed, it has only been lightly—and selectively—enforced.

Loftis points to bi-partisan examples of this selective enforcement, but notes that

[m]ost churches, however, tend to err on the side of caution lest the IRS decide to prosecute, either on a whim or as part of a larger political intimidation program much like the one they have run in the past few years against conservative secular organizations.

In other words, due to LBJ’s little trap, most churches yield to fear and/or love of money.

Oh and Loftis also notes that the IRS is the process of composing new guidelines for political activity by tax-exempt religious organizations and churches at the the legal behest of the Freedom From Religion Foundation(!) Aren’t all we Jesus freaks, Bible-thumpers and bitter-clingers looking forward to the passage of such regulations so that we can find out what’s in them?

Back to LBJ. We have had several problematic presidents and the current one seems like the biggest one. But he and his ideological siblings who sit in political office at all levels of government–like Houston Mayor Annise Parker–can look to the politicians of the past and thank them for laying the foundations of tyranny by luring an intentionally under-educated populace into assenting to it.

Politicians like LBJ: Dixiecrat, Reenslaver of black Americans, and Persecutor of the Church.

Quite a legacy, don’t you think?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on Facebook, Twitter, MeWe, Patreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

Older Entries
Newer Entries