Break It Up; Nothing to See Here
The story is out. Biden daughter Ashley reportedly wrote in her diary about "probably not appropriate" showers with dad. She suggested they served to create her sex addiction. But, not to worry. "Believe the woman" is a variable that only applies to "those guys," not "our side." Soon to be moved to "misinformation."
You Always Act on What You Truly Believe
The EU is dedicated to fighting global climate change -- to make the necessary changes and take the necessary losses. Fight this problem at all costs. Well ... sort of. Because of a shortage of natural gas in Germany, they're firing up coal power. I mean, they can't afford an electricity shortage, right? What's next ... nuclear? Heaven forbid! Apparently "at all costs" isn't actually a comprehensive statement. "At all costs ... unless it gets too expensive."
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means
A Japanese court "ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriages does not violate the constitution." The story says, "Japan's constitution defines marriage as one between 'both sexes'." Do you see the problem? If marriage is defined as "between both sexes," then it cannot be a "ban on same-sex marriages" since "same-sex" does not meet the definition of "marriage." Which is what I've said all along. It's not that Japan is not allowing people of the same sex to marry. It is that marriage has a definition and "same-sex" isn't part of that.
Vive la Différence
The First Amendment says that the government cannot make laws "respecting an establishment of religion." That is, the government cannot determine a federal or state religion. So they outlawed prayer in school in the '60's and, more recently, tried to prevent Maine from using taxpayer funds to pay for attendance at religious schools. Here's the difference between establishing a state religion and using taxpayer funds for religious schools: "establishment." The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a government that pays taxpayer money to private schools for public education can also pay taxpayer money to private religious schools for the same purpose. That is not "establishment." That is a refusal to discriminate against a school because it is religious. That is equal treatment. That's the difference.
I'd Get Fired for Doing This at Work
Attorney General Merrick Garland went to Ukraine this week to discuss Russian war crimes with his Ukraine counterpart. Odd. He did not pursue any prosecution of the thousands of rioters of 2020. He did not begin investigations to the crowds of illegal protesters outside of the homes of SCOTUS justices trying to coerce a ruling from them. He did not launch an inquiry into Jane's Revenge, the domestic terrorist group that has attacked more than 50 targets last month whose offense was simply standing for pregnant women and their unborn children and who has recently amped up their threats. In fact, there appears to be a long list of things he is not doing instead of offering help to Ukraine for Russian war crimes. I guess his priorities are clear.
Overreact Much?
In Belfast, Ireland, someone who attended a comedy show was so offended by a joke that they called the police ... and the police investigated. I have heard bad jokes before -- indeed, I've told enough myself -- but asking the police to investigate it as a crime? And they did? We are now pushing "the right not to be offended" way out of proportion.
It Warms Your Heart
Out of his deep and abiding compassion for the American people, President Biden has called on Congress to create a 3-month "federal tax holiday" on gas. Mind you, the current federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon. The current average price of gas is $5.19 per gallon (and Californians could only wish it was that cheap), so I'm not really sure how far that will go to ease our pain at the pumps, but I'm sure his concern is sincere. Surely he's not just trying to buy better approval ratings by offering inconsequential assistance and hoping no one will notice.
Unrelated
British health officials will be offering vaccines to gay or bisexual men for monkeypox ... not because it's primarily a problem among that category ... or anything at all related to homosexual sex. Trust me. It's just random.
You Keep Using That Word
The Biden administration is proposing a "dramatic overhaul" of Title IX protections. Title IX was written 50 years ago before anyone thought of "sex" as either "sexual orientation" or anything different than "gender." We've come a long way, baby. "No discrimination on the basis of sex" has been expanded to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." But we can't expect reason from any of this. The AP story, for instance, gave a graphic for the 19 states that have banned transgender students from playing sports. That, of course, is a lie. None have banned transgender students. Some have banned specifically biological men who identify as the female gender from women's sports because there is an actual, biological, physical difference, but "I identify" has overruled reality in too many minds. Especially now with examples like North Carolina, where the court has ruled that anyone can "correct" their birth certificate to match their gender identity without surgery. That is, full biological males will compete with full biological females because they "identify" as female, and that is neither reasonable nor safe. As the AP article rightly notes, "Nothing in the 1972 law explicitly addresses the topic," so "dramatic overhaul" is an accurate description. "A right, reasonable, and good thing" is not.
The Guillotine is Set
The Southern Baptist Convention has dropped their report on the sexual abuse in the SBC. Long lists of names of accused abusers, unanswered and unexamined, have been released along with the clear admission that this is a real mess. There will be "potential liabilities" and accusations and charges. Heads will roll. Unfortunately, godly people will suffer with the crud that actually perpetrated the abuse and cover-up. The falsely-accused will not escape any more than the rightly accused, and the SBC reputation will be more than tarnished. Some of that will be deserved, but some is due to our world's hatred for Christians and Christians' inability to keep their heads straight. Consequences are called for, repentance is demanded, transparency is required, and hurt and abused people need care. Will it happen? All in all, it does not bode well for the SBC, Christians, or Christ.
Then, Of Course, There's This ...
Without much comment from me, as you all know, the Supreme Court removed federal protection for killing babies in the womb. Note, first, it is not an abortion ban. Note, second, that it doesn't end abortion. Some states will; others will not. And we don't know just how far Congress will go to 1) take guns to keep kids from getting killed while 2) passing laws to keep your babies getting killed. We'll have to wait and see. (As a sidenote, I listened to Biden's blather on the ruling. So many lies and errors that I don't have the space or time to comment.)
Bee Brief
In honor of the latest news from the Supreme Court, the Bee offered two entries. First, the story of how Roe v. Wade was aborted in its 198th trimester. Then there was the heartfelt story of leaps of joy felt in millions of wombs across the nation. Sometimes the Bee is only partly satire.
15 comments:
Re: "Break It Up; Nothing to See Here," I always hear the Right say, "If the Left sees an accusation against their own, they ignore it, but they rabidly pursue one from our side." I always hear the Left say, "If the RIght sees an accusation against their own, they ignore it, but they rabidly pursue one from our side." Generally speaking, both are lying. Just this week, we have the awful report out of the SBC that was ignored for years and the accusations against Biden (which, by the way, were not the first) which go on being ignored. Why is that?
Re: "Then", it's been strange to watch the reaction of people to the ruling.
1. The number of people who believe that women are going to be forced to be prosecuted, suffer and die because of a miscarriage, a miscarriage that won't expel naturally, an ectopic pregnancy and the like is truly stunning.
2. The number of people who have been advocating for years to remove men from having any say in what happens if a woman gets pregnant, yet who are rabidly advocating for men to assume financial responsibility for the children they're "forced" to bear is also stunning.
3. The number of people who don't understand that women have chosen to make multiple choices long before they choose to kill their child, is astounding. I know, I know, let's exempt the minuscule percentage of women who are pregnant because of rape or incest, because clearly we should allow the exception to prove the rule.
4. The number of people who think that this will turn the tide in the Nov elections, and who think that the best strategy is to demonize those you hope to convert, is stunning.
5. The number of people who simply repeat false narratives isn't stunning, but I always hope for people to be better informed.
6. The people who can, within the span of a week or two, clamor for the removal of one constitutional right, while lamenting the removal of another, is stunning.
7. Y'all who keep demanding free everything as payment for overturning Roe, apparently don;t realize that our government doesn't actually have any money.
8. Anyone who says that this is about "white supremacy" is completely ignorant of the demographics of abortion.
9. Strangely enough, now men can have a voice about abortion, and we all know how to define a woman.
10. When the current abortion advocates are demanding unrestricted abortion up until birth, and some are advocating for abortion post birth, it doesn't seem likely that there's room for compromise at a point that will not include the killing of babies who are viable outside the womb.
11. As someone who's mother absolutely could have aborted me, and who would have been encouraged to do so, I am eternally grateful that she chose the more humane, loving path.
12. How about of we took the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that we use to subsidize abortion providers, and to promote abortion across the globe, and used those dollars to facilitate adoption? How about an adoption tax credit for both the adoptive parent and the mother who gives up her child? How about if businesses gave employees the financial support for mothers who choose adoption as they do paying for abortions?
It's pretty amusing/revolting to see the APL blaming this on Ginsberg for not retiring/dying during a DFL administration. Maybe had the DFL run a candidate better than Trump (not too hard, you'd think) in 2016, they wouldn't have this problem. Or the 2016 election was "stolen". Or maybe if their views weren't so extreme. Or who knows.
On the gas tax, does Biden really expect that to even lower the price by 18 cents? What motivation do gas stations have to drop the price 18 cents when that simply extra money in their pocket, and less money going to our deteriorating roads?
David, he's not expecting the gas company to lower the price. Currently about 18 cents of every gallon sold is federal tax. He is planning to stop charging that tax for 3 months. No change in state tax; no change in how much the gas companies charge.
"The only way to do it (legalize abortion) peacefully and responsibly, is at the ballot box."
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D) MN
I think she's exactly right. The problem with the pro abortion crowd is that they were too reliant on legislating through the courts, and chose to ignore the reality that what the courts give, they can also take away.
It seems like legislating was always the way this should have been handled, and now we'll see how that works.
I think it's going to be hard to convince a lot of pro abortion folks that anything less that 100% abortions at any time up to or past birth, paid for by the government, is acceptable. While I think most pro lifers would accept something like a 24 week limit, exceptions for rape and incest, and the life of the mother as a reasonable compromise. It's not perfect, but it's roughly what the polls say most people can live with. I think it also gives pro life groups an opportunity to focus their efforts on support and persuasion on a more targeted level.
As for the people posting that men should be on the financial hook from the moment of conception, a couple of thoughts.
1. There's already an arrangement that accomplishes exactly what you are advocating for. It's called marriage.
2. I think many, if not most, pro lifers would support something like this as long as it involved significant reasonable limits on abortion.
3. Much like the current child support system, and gun control laws, this is likely to fail because the guys who are going to be the target of this are the guys who aren't responsible enough to go buy a condom in the first place.
Biden's gas tax holiday is too little too late. It's one more attempt to buy votes in November because the DFL has absolutely no accomplishments to run on.
So, he wants to hinder the federal income for 3 months for no public gain. Sounds like good economics to me.
Oh, I think we're all clear that economics is not his strength.
Craig, I'm pretty sure the courts already side with women when requiring child support from unwed fathers. Men are usually held responsible for their children by the courts, since Roe, women have been wanting to be free fro.the responsibility men haven't been free from. Another of the many liberal double standards.
Craig's comment of 6/26/2022 10:06:
I have a hard time hearing the word "compromise" used in determining when abortions can be provided. "Trade off" is a better term. Better yet is, "lesser of two evils". I was told during the last election, the lesser of two evils is still evil. That's most certainly true in this case. But then, we'd have to use the term "compromise" with the wicked, because the other terms reflect back at them the evil inherent in their demands. They're trying not to think about that.
About fathers paying from the point of conception, that would only affect those who are honorable enough to acknowledge their paternity. Otherwise, they'll have to be forced, and that would require the mother standing up to identify the father and then come up with legal costs to force him to own up (after which she should also have her legal costs covered by him, too).
I don't much care about the fathers made to support their kids. I don't care whether the father wore protection or not and if it failed him if he did. The act is designed for procreation. If one procreates, he (and she) is then obligated to the child.
As to the fuel situation, Biden would have to reverse every energy policy he put in place to contrast himself with Trump, despite the contrast having already been starkly apparent to those of us paying attention. But even if he reversed his Keystone decision (there was another pipeline...out of or through Michigan somehow, I think) and drilling and other anti-American-force-them-to-buy-what-they-don't-want policies, it would take some time to make a difference in pricing...BUT WORTH IT!!!
Does he have a strength?
Self satire?
Inadvertent self satire?
Not if I'm being generous. :)
Post a Comment