News Weakly - 6/1/19

"Not on my watch"
While several states have moved to protect life in the face of popular demand to murder if they want, Illinois has come forth boldly to declare a woman's right to murder her unborn. To those who sought to defend the most vulnerable humans, Representative Kelly Cassidy, author of the bill, declared, "Not on my watch!" But, wait! The legislation goes farther. Illinois boldly declares that a "fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent rights." Clear enough. This is not human. They will, necessarily, violate federal law that declares that the murder of an unborn child is a homicide. But it's not just about human worth. It's ultimately, according to Kelly Cassidy, about "bodily autonomy and self-determination." "I will be allowed to do what I want up to and including killing my unborn child and no one will have any right to say otherwise."

Johnny One Note
That title is me, not the news, because I seem to be seeing a lot in the news about one topic.

This week the Supreme Court refused to hear the suit brought by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky in their attempt to get them to rule on an Indiana law that prohibits abortions on the basis of race, sex, or disability. Interesting. Justice Clarence Thomas believes that abortion is the breeding ground for eugenics.

Disney used to be viewed as the "family" place. If you wanted to talk about "child friendly," you'd think Disney. You understand, of course, that has changed. Disney CEO Bob Iger said that if the new law that protects the youngest children in Georgia continues, it will make it "very difficult" to film in Georgia. Disney, once "child friendly," won't be happy to be connected in any way with "child friendly" laws like the ones that defend the youngest of them. Actually, the Babylon Bee seems to have hit the nail on the head. "Disney CEO: 'To Avoid Filming Among Depraved, Immoral People, We Are Moving All Our Georgia Operations Back To Hollywood'." Enough said.

Then there's the surprise out of Louisiana. Governor John Bel Edwards signed one of the toughest laws to save lives in that state once a fetal heartbeat is detected. It's a big surprise because Edwards has gone against his own anti-life party. Edwards is a Democrat, a Democrat I applaud.

And then there's Missouri Governor Mike Parson who signed new legislation that protects any baby with a heartbeat. Good for you, governor.

Of course, the other side is that on the same day Governor Parson was signing legislation to protect children, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves issued an order blocking Mississippi's new "heartbeat" law. "This is America," he appears to be saying, "and we don't protect children here."

You can rest assured the rest of the states who currently have signed fetal heartbeat rules will face a similar situation as soon as the "bleeding heart" (pun intended) ACLU and Planned Parenthood folk get their complaints to the federal government. "Children? We don't need no stinkin' children." We pray for God to bless America. I wonder how He can since we are killing 3,000 children a day with the full weight of the federal government behind it. The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the judiciary, the official Democratic Party, and the women's rights folks are not pro-life. You may pray that God bless America; I pray that He forgives us.

Woke = "White = Racism" ... Right?
This week the headline read, "RAGING WHITE WOMAN WITH A GUN TELLS BLACK COUPLE TO LEAVE MISSISSIPPI CAMPGROUND: 'RACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL'." (All caps was in the story; not my doing.) Stop. Given just that headline, who said, "Racism is alive and well"? Well, that raging white woman, of course! Except she didn't. The story is that a couple came into a private RV park without reservations and the woman (who apparently worked there) told them they had to leave. The couple that came in was black and the woman was white, so the only possible conclusion is that she was a dirty rotten racist. As it turns out, however, it was the black couple who posted the video of the event that said, "Racism is alive and well." Now, look, I am not suggesting that she was not a racist. And I'm not suggesting that she was in any way in the right. I'm only saying that our media will certainly burn her to the ground without ever hearing any other option.

Why would I say that? This week CNN ran a story of a white woman in Minnesota who was the manager of a Chipotle. She was filmed refusing to serve a group of black men and she was in deep trouble. Chipotle fired her. She received abuse and threats and scorn and hate. Why? Because, quite obviously, she was a racist. Except, according to CNN, that wasn't the case. It turned out that the group of black guys who made the video were known for this stunt. They went in, ordered, then refused to pay and while the white person on the other side of the counter refused to give them their food without paying, they carefully crafted the video to make it look like a racial thing. CNN's headline: "How an internet mob falsely painted a Chipotle employee as racist." It happens.

Unless, of course, you're "woke." Then you know that any and all white people are racist by virtue of being white and any accusation that they are racist is accurate regardless of any actual racism going on. Welcome to today's world.

Small Issue with Big Ramifications
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is considering a proposal to grant statehood to Washington, D.C. ... again. (It has been done before. The last attempt was in 1993.) The bill, H.R. 51, is almost exclusively the product of the Democrats. The concern is that Washingtonians of the D.C. variety are without representation. Here's the problem: the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) requires that the District of Columbia not be a state. Now, mind you, I have no dog in this hunt, no horse in this race -- whatever metaphor you wish to employ. However, the complete willingness to disregard the Constitution is, to me, indicative of a bigger problem, one that will come back to bite us ... if it hasn't already. (If they were arguing to amend the Constitution, I'd have no response whatsoever.)