REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Democrats Will Abandon Poor, Let Them Fend For Themselves, If Trump Elected

But even some zealous Clinton defenders have grown frustrated with their candidate, marveling at the prospect of her snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, for which some say they would never forgive her. The campaign’s decision last week not to acknowledge Mrs. Clinton’s pneumonia until two days after a diagnosis, once video surfaced of her stumbling out of a Sept. 11 memorial service on Sunday, has especially rankled.

“They kept it from us,” said Sonia Ascher, 74, a former campaign volunteer, sitting with her husband and son at a coffee shop in Portsmouth, N.H. “It was just another thing again, another mistake, which she really can’t afford right now.”

The gloom seems to be spreading. Maurice Doucet, 55, a software engineer from Portland, Ore., wondered aloud on Wednesday how the race had gotten this close, lamenting Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.
...
“I still believe in humanity,” said [Hillary supporter] Nadia Johnson, 22, a Brooklyn resident lunching at a Whole Foods this week. She quickly added a request: Ask her again in November.
...
Beside the olive display at Zabar’s, that iconic hub of lox and neurosis on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, Linda Donohue was trying to talk herself down.

Surely the polls she tracked anxiously were not to be trusted, she said. Surely Donald J. Trump, the man with the garish golden tower across town, would not be allowed to reach the White House.

“We have to have more faith in the American public,” said Ms. Donohue, 61, a longtime New Yorker now living in Seattle.

A man behind her could not suppress a loud snort.
...
In liberal enclaves, some modest contingency planning has begun. Threats of relocation are a bipartisan ritual every four years, expanding the audience for Canadian home listings. But this time, voters seem to be taking their research a bit more seriously.
...
Just in case her faith in the American electorate was misplaced, Ms. Donohue said, she had retained her Irish citizenship.
...
Ramona Gant, 28, a graduate student in Chicago, said she had just renewed her passport with the election in mind.
Ms. Donohue’s friend at Zabar’s, Ms. Anderson, also of Seattle, mused that Vancouver was not too far up the road.
Mike Brennan, 67, from Ventura County, Calif., is keeping an eye on the stock market. “If it looks like it’s going to be close,” said Mr. Brennan, a Republican supporting Mrs. Clinton, “I’ll pull my money out.”

~ from the oh-so-bleeding-heart-liberal New York Times.

Oh, BooHooHoo.

And what if the majority of the American public doesn't have more faith in you Upper-West-Siders and Whole-Foods-lunchers and Ventura Countyites? What if the new majority of us don't believe in your version of "humanity"?

Could you be any bigger snobs? Talk yourselves down, indeed. What do you think the new majority of us have had to do this past 8 years?

"Pull your money out" and save yourselves! And to hell with the underprivileged and discrminated-against that your candidate and your party always say you want to do so much good for! That's it! Just abandon all the poor you profess to care so much about! Let them fend for themselves!

Don't look now, but your (and your party's) true colors are showing.

And by the way, we who will never vote for Hillary don't have the wealth or dual citizenships to just uproot and move to Canada or renew passports and live abroad for the next 8 years and fly in our New York lox, like you do.

Get over yourselves, for God's sake.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

It's Hillary Who Has The Birtherism Problem Still

I hadn't read this McClatchy article before posting my own yesterday, but it's also worth a read as they quoted the same part of Mark Penn's memo to Hillary that I did:
“Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America in the middle class in the middle of the last century.”
That article relates this further detail:
"[Former] McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had 'told me in person' that Obama was born in Kenya.

“'During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,' Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.

“'During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.'

“'At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.'”

Do you really think any news reporting entity would pay the cost to send a reporter all the way to Kenya to dig up if a story was true or not, if that conversation hadn't taken place as reported above?


"Does Clinton have a Blumenthal birther problem?", by Jeremy Lott, 9/16/16.

And today it gets even more interesting. It's just the story that keeps on giving:

WATCH: [Jake] Tapper won't let Kaine dodge Blumenthal birther charges, by Gabby Morrongiello (@gabriellahope_), 9/18/16

"'If it's true, if there is evidence that Sidney Blumenthal did push the birther lie, should Hillary Clinton disassociate herself from Blumenthal and should she pledge he will not work in her administration?' Tapper asked Kaine, who tried repeatedly during the interview to shift the focus to Donald Trump."
Twice in that clip, Kaine labels Trump as "extremely gullible." Guess the pots know how to call the kettle black, don't they?

This is why Hillary has stablefuls of surrogates do the representing and talking for her. She can claim she had "nothing to do with it", whatever the prevailing "it" problem is at the moment. Yet they're taken all the time as her spokespeople. So if they represent her beliefs, her views, her positions all the rest of the time, why the free-pass when her flunkies spew the things that are wrong to spew, that should place the blame, like they place the credit, squarely. with. her? That's their plan. Dodge and weave. Weave and dodge. Lie no matter the truth, no matter that you and I are not as stupid as Hillary thinks we are. Lather, rinse, repeat.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"Voting For An Entire Administration"

"...Catholics should consider that when they vote for a candidate they are essentially voting for an entire administration.

“'You are also putting someone in the office of the Secretary of State, the Surgeon General, the Attorney General, the Secretary of [Health and Human Services], and in fact thousands of positions in the federal administration — not to mention that you’re also putting a certain type of person on the Supreme Court, and on all the other federal courts that decide so many issues of public policy,'” [Fr. Frank Pavone] said. 'Who are the people the president brings with him into office?'”

Good advice for any voter, really.

"Catholics shouldn’t vote for candidate who supports intrinsic evil, says Baltimore Archbishop"

“'This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation,' said Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore in an interview with National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Knights of Columbus’ 130th Convention [in 2012]."

"For Catholics taking to the polls in November, the prelate said, 'The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances?'

"'If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person,' he added.

It is still "a big moment" and still, good advice for all voters. The above article is dated, but the beliefs of a practicing Catholic--or even just a plain, secular, moral person--don't change in four years--or four hundred, or four-thousand years.
"Lopez notes that while the bishops’ role is not to explicitly state who Catholics ought not vote for, Obama would clearly qualify.

“'Their role is not to explicitly say something like "you can’t vote for Candidate X"; it is to offer moral guidance,' she explains. 'Archbishop Lori points out that if a candidate is supporting an intrinsic evil, and it’s safe to say selling abortion as health care would qualify, I think it is safe to assume that if Candidate X is Barack Obama, a Catholic voter has a problem voting for him,' she writes. 'And that is not making light of any other important issue that intimately affects lives and livelihoods.'”

Replace "Barack Obama" with "Hillary Clinton." The result is the same. Because the moral issue and the moral guidance is the same.

Go check out Ballotpedia. Great website.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Frog-Whistles! Frog-Punked!

As the Internet would say: OMG. Geore Stephanopoulos, CNN, and Hillary Clinton herself/her campaign have been Frog-Punked? Honestly, will "journalists" ever start really being journalists again, ever?

Donald Trump, Jr. tells ol' Georgie he's never heard of Pepe the Frog, and that 90% of viewers probably never have either.

Trump Jr. is right. I never heard of it either.

I'm quite sure that Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj wouldn't have tweeted images of Pepe the Frog if they'd thought it was really a "well-known symbol of the white supremacist movement," as Stephanopoulos said.

Go read "How Two Twitter Pranksters Convinced The World That Pepe The Frog Meme Is Just A Front For White Nationalism:"

The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi wrote a piece in May striving to describe and trace the genesis of Pepe in the alt-right scene, a nascent, illiberal political movement focused on preserving white identity and Western civilization. In the process, Nuzzi just ended up repeating various made-up stories from the only two people she interviewed from “Frog Twitter”: Paul Town (@PaulTown_) and Jared Taylor Swift (@JaredTSwift).

Frog Twitter is an offshoot, alt-right subculture primarily interested in memes, aesthetics and trolling political figures.
...
The troll consisted of Town and Swift feeding an outrageous narrative to Nuzzi in the hopes she would scoop it up and feature as many quotes as possible– a fairly common practice among various alt-right groups to gain in-group status.
...
“I think the most ridiculous thing is that a random guy on the internet who trolled a journalist once is now a ‘prominent white supremacist.’ I mean, the only accurate part of that is the ‘white’ part,” Swift told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “And my Italian ancestry means that even that is disputed!”

And boy, did they troll the jackpot, with it getting on the Clinton campaign website.

The image was created in 2004 and has been used by so many online that in 2015, it "was #6 on Daily News and Analysis' list of the most important memes and was the most used meme on Tumblr." Do you really think they'd have even listed it if it was such a "well-known symbol of the white supremacist movement"?

Quick, go enjoy the Hillary campaign page on this, before they take it down. (Looks like a few others had that same thought: it's already been web-archived in the Wayback Machine 12 times in the last four days alone!) Here's screenshots of parts of the page in a composite image:

So according to Hillary, who after all has to approve every "message": the white supremacists, who didn't supposedly create Pepe in the first place, "decided to take back Pepe by adding swastikas and other symbols of anti-semitism and white supremacy." Umm, Mrs. Clinton, how does one "take back" something that one didn't create or own in the first place?

She and her people will say and do A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G. to get what she wants. And more dangerously, if she and her people can be fooled by a couple of Internet trolls, the possibilities ... are just endless.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"Alt-Left" Came Before "Alt-Right"

Here's a good explanation of "alt-right" without our having to go visit the basest of base websites written by the fringe elements putting forth hate, violence, racism, all the truly Deplorables. It's entitled, "Racist creeps reject the pro-life message. Yay!", on the blog, Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, and if you're sensitive to such things, it has some mild profanity, though nothing I've never said if whacking my pinky toe on the door jamb when getting up at 3am to go to the bathroom.

The post's bottom line:

"The universal reaction from pro-lifers sharing this [gross Alt-right] article has been "Great! We don't want you!" We wear the alt Right's rejection as a badge of pride."
Having posted on this blog, our primary blog AfterAbortion, and other sites since 2004, I've long withstood my share of the vitriol coming from the Alt-Left blogosphere.

I find it bizarre that Hillary, the left and even some on the establishment-right lump Breitbart.com in as the premier "Alt-Right" site, though I understand why, given its recent personnel changes. Really, just because you can't stand Milo Yiannopoulos? I'm appalled by much of what he does and says too. BUT I JUST DON'T READ OR WATCH HIM. Honestly, folks, whatever happened to "Just Ignore The Trolls"? His schtick is horrendous many times but it is in direct response to the hate-filled trolling begun some 13 to 23 years ago by Alt-Left SJWs. That first blogger in the above paragraph, "The Raving Atheist" at the time, wrote this in response to my being ripped to shreds in the comments on his blog:

Many people equate tolerance with the attitude that every belief is equally true, and that we should all simply accept this fact and go our separate ways. But I view tolerance as the willingness to come together, to face one another in the same room and hack at each other with claw hammers until the truth finally trickles out from the blood and the tears.
And hack, he did, long before Milo. In those days, TRA was even more merciless to those he disagreed with than anyone you know or follow today. The postscipt? He later found out that real truth was something altogether different than what he had vehemently espoused. He became a Roman Catholic convert. You can look up the story for yourselves as to why.

The point is, if the Alt-Left liberal SJWs, Bill Maher, and a Raving Atheist, started the Alt-Left inflammatory vitriol in 1993, or even 2003, and Milo responds in kind since 2015, why is it ok for the Alt-Left SJWs to spew for 13 to 23 years and not Milo, who doesn't consider himself a white supremacist and doesn't approve of them? He gives the Alt-Left whopping slop-bucketfuls of their own medicine and they whine and go BooHoo. I'd like to see everyone stop spewing and everyone regain civility. But I can just dream on, I know. That horse is out of the barn, and running amok in real-life as more and more people think it is ok to be incivil and hate-filled, on both sides of the aisle, to any stranger's face, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

HINT: it is not ok.

If Breitbart.com has lurched into the lurid with Milo since Breitbart's passing and since Ben Shapiro left, that, imho, is a shame and I don't trust them as a news source. Breitbart.com was a better forum before he passed. You wouldn't see Republicans Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich praising Milo Yiannopoulos after his death, I'd wager.

But who's outing the Alt-Left sites so the Hillaryites can get educated? Not Milo:

Have you ever noticed how some people accuse others of doing what they themselves do? That’s what’s going on here.

Whatever the “Alt Right” might be, it’s politically irrelevant compared with what we’ll call the “Alt Left.”

What is the “Alt Left”? It’s a movement of phony self-righteousness and “compassion” that it uses to gain power. It will do anything and say anything [my note: sound familiar to you Milo-bashers?] to achieve its goal of hammerlock control not only of government, but every significant cultural institution – from schools, universities and the press to churches, foundations, Hollywood and unions.

It has created a self-funding mechanism that includes a club of guilt-ridden billionaires who insulate themselves from attack by donating to the “Alt Left” causes. It also uses shakedown tactics to intimidate cowering corporations into doing its political and cultural bidding.

And here’s the kicker: It’s racist to the core!

The “Alt Left” supports population control, eugenics and repression of minorities. It does this in several ways:

  1. Stands silent amid the greatest population control campaign in global history as fascist China limits births to one or two children, enforcing the restrictions with state terror.
  2. Supports abortion on demand, taxpayer support for the largest abortion provider in America that maintains nearly all of its abortion facilities in minority communities in the cities controlled by Democrats. That same abortion provider was founded by a leading eugenics advocate, Margaret Sanger, who remains a heroine to Hillary Clinton.
  3. The “Alt Left” is 100 percent Democrat – a party birthed in the support of slavery, a party whose military arm was the Ku Klux Klan, a party that fought civil rights and integration through the middle of the 1960s.
  4. Since the mid-1960s, the “Alt Left” Democrats have kept their collective foot on the neck of minority communities in different ways. As the architect of the plan, the late President Lyndon B. Johnson explained his “Great Society” program strategy to two Democrat governors aboard Air Force One this way: “I’ll have those n—–rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” (This is documented in Ronald Kessler’s 1996 book, “Inside the White House.”)
  5. Today, the “Alt Left” Democrats ferociously fight any attempts to woo minorities from their political plantation. Those efforts consistently include smearing their opponents as the racists.
While the “Alt Left” Democrats smear Republicans for what they themselves do, they insulate themselves from guilt by real associations with groups like the Communist Party USA, which has supported them without reservation for election cycle after election cycle. When a lifelong, avowed socialist ran a viable campaign for the presidency in 2016, it barely created a ripple of indignation or concern from the same media that bought – hook, line and sinker – the charges of racism and extremism against the Republican nominee.

And that, in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, is the way the Democrats avoid any accountability for their own record of racism and extremism while hurling epithets against their opponents.
...
It became apparent to me the Big Media were determined to set the stage for Hillary’s latest conspiracy theory about a realignment of the right that incorporated nationalism and racism. The Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis figured prominently into this new, emerging coalition, according to the reporters who called me.

“How many Nazis and Klan members do you know?” I asked. “I don’t know any. I don’t know any racists. If I did, I wouldn’t invite them to my daughter’s wedding. I wouldn’t attend their weddings or accept money from them as Hillary Clinton did. I would have blown the dog whistle on them years ago, decades ago, rather than wait until these people I considered racist were running for president against me. Do you see why this allegation has no credibility coming from Hillary Clinton?”

Silence on the other end of the phone.


Secretary of State Clinton’s decision to play the racism card against Donald Trump strikes us as lacking in credibility — given the source. There is no doubt that the Republican nominee has stirred up the xenophobes with his harsh rhetoric in respect of immigration and is being cheered on by the racist David Duke and his ilk. The New York Sun wants no part of them and neither does the GOP. But the Democratic Party has its own fringe for which to answer before Mrs. Clinton has any standing to make a megillah of the “alt-right.” What about the alt-left?

This goes back to Sister Souljah. She was the activist who, in 1992, was asked by Los Angeles Times about violence against whites by blacks in the riots that year in the City of Angels. Was such violence a “wise reasoned action,” she was asked. “Yeah, it was wise,” she answered. “I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Bill Clinton, then campaigning for president, famously responded by saying that if one “took the words ‘white’ and ‘black,’ and you reversed them,” one might think that David Duke was speaking.

That became known as the “Sister Souljah moment” and helped convince Americans that Mr. Clinton was fit for the presidency. Hillary Clinton isn’t there yet, nor can she get there by blaming Donald Trump for failing to confront the alt-right when she is failing to confront the alt-left...The Democratic Party alt-left agitators protesting against Mr. Trump’s rallies in this campaign have illuminated nothing so much as the fact that the alt-right has no quarter on violence, bigotry, and thuggery.



The Alt-left is a group of people who have nothing to offer. They have no facts to support their opinion and their factual assessments are grossly out of context and disingenuous. This group will blame minority communities’ problems on the rest of the country. They will use shocking statistics pointing to the harsh realities these minorities face. But, when a candidate like Trump begins to share those same numbers and offer different solutions, they attack what was previously their own language as racist and dark.

Clinton is the queen of the kingdom of Alt-Left. Spanning four decades, a single year hasn’t known the absence of a Hillary Clinton scandal. She wants us to forget that.


Hillary Represented the New Left Before Obama and Pelosi

A decade prior to the complete Alt-Left takeover of the party through the rise of the online insurgency spurred by Moveon.org, and the subsequent ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, there was Hillary Clinton. While Americans were teased with a glimpse of the Alt-Left during the campaign of George McGovern in 1972, they long forgot about the dangers of such radicalism during the Reagan years in the ‘80s. Hillary’s ascendancy to national prominence as a left-wing culture warrior and champion of socialism kicked off a new generation of the far Left. It was the public perception of Hillary as Bill’s radical co-president that, to a large degree, led to the backlash that flipped Congress to the Republicans.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s dreams of an Alt-left party were put on ice as Bill triangulated and Republicans actually stood for something worthy for a few years. Then, the failures of the Bush years led to the complete empowerment of the Alt-Left and the completion of their takeover, actualizing the vision pioneered by Hillary in the early ‘90s. The rest is history. Now, so many forget that many prominent Democrats weren’t always fringe lunatics. We now have a woman on the cusp of becoming president who will have a chief of staff that edited a Muslim Brotherhood publication that championed Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of women. Is nobody concerned about the end game of the Alt-Left ideology?

And since I am a peon who has to work a lot of hours at a real job just to survive these days and don't have the time to leave the combox here free and unmoderated, will someone please email us if Milo or his counterparts on the Alt-Left SJW side ever twitter-bomb-trash us? I'd be very surprised and amused to know that we even landed on the radar. Not that it would matter.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Where'd The Other 94% Go, Hillary?

"The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015." (from The Federalist article on September 16, 2016 by Sean Davis)
That's $86 million "missing." Also:
"According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment."
...
"The Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor.
...
"The Clinton Foundation’s three largest charitable 'program service accomplishments,' according to its tax reports, are the Clinton Global Initiative ($23.2 million), the Clinton Presidential Library ($12.3 million), and the Clinton Climate Initiative ($8.3 million). The Clinton Global Initiative, which exists to organize and produce a lavish annual meeting headlined by former president Bill Clinton, was characterized by the New York Times as a 'glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities,' hardly a portrait of the kind of charitable work that directly impacts the lives of the needy.

"Ira Magaziner, a top former Clinton Foundation executive, also explicitly rejected that the group’s climate change activities were charitable in nature. 'This is not charity,' Magaziner told The Atlantic in 2007. 'The whole thing is bankable. It’s a commercial proposition.'

"In fact, the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization."

Who's the greedy, out-of-touch, filthy rich one, again? And when Trump's tax returns come out, will anyone in the media compare them to all this?
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Video of Hillary on Fallon - Taped Last Night

That will probably get taken down soon, but I imagined she was both prepared for it and fuming privately. But of course, she has to laugh, to look like she has a sense of humor about herself too. (The show airs a week before the debate, on September 19.

Others, including Dilbert comic creator Scott Adams, weigh in. Somehow I doubt that this, or anything, is ever going to be Hillary's "Arsenio Moment."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Bacterial Pneumonia Is "Contagious From 1-2 Days To Weeks"

"In hugging a child after lying about her illness, Hillary Clinton alienated voters she looked to satiate. Even the photo-ops say something about her character...Hillary Clinton didn’t need to cover this up. Everyone has been sick. Why couldn’t she just come clean at some point and say, 'I’m under the weather'?"
To be fair, it wasn't a full-blown hug, it was an arm around her shoulder, then her hands on the girl's shoulders.

Still, Hillary's doctor said she had "bacterial pneumonia." You shouldn't be touching anyone, going near anyone, breathing near anyone if you have pneumonia.

Is pneumonia contagious?

Many contagious pneumonias have names, such as bacterial pneumonia, viral pneumonia, Mycoplasma pneumonia, and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) pneumonia, that indicate the type of pathogen infecting the lung. Some pneumonias have names that are not as clear (for example, "walking pneumonia," which indicates a milder form of Mycoplasma pneumonia). There are many other descriptive terms, such as community-acquired pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and aspiration pneumonia (examples that suggest the source of the organism[s] causing the pneumonia). They are all potentially contagious but not as easily contagious as the flu, for example.

When is pneumonia contagious?

Pneumonia is contagious when the causative pathogens (usually bacteria or viruses) are expelled by an infected person by coughing out infected droplets. These expelled droplets contain the bacteria or virus that causes the pneumonia. These droplets contaminate the mouth or breathing tract of another individual to eventually infect their lungs.

The approximate time when pneumonia becomes contagious varies with the type of infecting agent and may range from one to two days to weeks. In addition, some pneumonias are more highly contagious than others. For example, Mycobacterium and Mycoplasma organisms are highly contagious, but other types, including pneumococcal pneumonia, require optimal conditions to spread to another person and are weakly contagious.

Still, even if it's the "weakly contagious pneumococcal pneumonia, "Pneumococcus is spread through contact with people who are ill or who carry the bacteria in their throat. You can get pneumococcal pneumonia from respiratory droplets from the nose or mouth of an infected person."

Hillary coughs into her hands whenever she coughs. Her hands touched the little girl several times. She wanted the photo op to show how "healthy" she was. That little girl's parents are Hillary supporters, no doubt, who wouldn't change their minds even if their little girl caught the bug from Hillary. They'd surely never let a living soul know if that happened because it would ruin their idol.

Just another lie from Hillary: "non-contagious bacterial pneumonia."

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Clinton Didn't Fire Up The Birther Movement--Clinton's Staffer Did

Powerlineblog, known for outing the mainstream media ever since Rathergate, just keeps on doing what they do best:
[Trump] is visiting African-American precincts and asking for votes with lines like this one: It used to be they made cars in Flint, and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint. That scares the daylights out of the Democrats, so what did they do? Suddenly, reporters on the campaign trail are desperate to talk about birtherism.

Why? Has something happened to make President Obama’s birthplace a campaign issue? No. They just want to change the subject. I wrote earlier today about how Trump snookered the campaign press corps into giving him free television time for endorsements by former military officers, when they hoped he would give a press conference on President Obama’s birthplace.

But that didn’t stop the press: the story was all about birtherism.
...
Actually, the first person to claim that Barack Obama was born overseas was Barack Obama. His own literary biography said, for, as I recall, 19 years, that he was born in Kenya.

But it appears to be true that later claims about Obama being ineligible for the presidency began with the Clinton campaign, contrary to the AP’s assertion. Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Patti Doyle, admitted today what has been long reported: that a “rogue” Clinton staffer spread the rumor during the 2008 primary campaign. The AP’s claim that there is “no evidence” of involvement by the Clinton campaign is simply false. [UPDATE: The appalling Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary’s closest confidantes, was spreading the Kenya rumor too.]

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle tweeted Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush’s former spokesman:
“@AriFleischer I fired the rouge [sic] [who sent the birther email] & I called [Mr. Obama’s campaign manager] @davidplouffe to apologize 4 said rouge.”

Ms. Doyle appeared about an hour later on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to address the issue once again. She denied that Hillary Clinton had started the birther theory — then admitted that someone in the Clinton campaign had, in fact, been involved.

“There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy,” Ms. Doyle said.

And we all know how emails live forever (even Hillary's deleted ones) and get sent 'round the world, true or not, right?

Jason Miller, a senior [Trump] communications adviser, said in a statement: “Not only was a Clinton campaign worker blamed and fired over the activity, we have now been informed that Secretary Clinton was aware of what was going on, with Clinton’s campaign manager even apologizing to Obama’s campaign manager.”

Mr. Miller noted this still doesn’t explain why Mrs. Clinton didn’t fire her chief strategist Mark Penn, who wrote a memo in March 2007 to paint Mr. Obama as fundamentally foreign.

"Alt-left" website Politico states arrogantly that only "some Clinton supporters circulated rumors about Obama’s citizenship, [that] the campaign and Clinton herself never trafficked in it." Funny: Sid Blumenthal, one of Hillary's closest friends and confidantes, and Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist at the time, were just "some supporters"?

Penn's memo includes these lines:

[Obama's] roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited...How could we give some life to this contrast [between Obama and Hillary] without turning negative: Every speech should contain the line that you [Hillary] were born in the middle of America...Let's explicitly 'own' American in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't."
See how stupid the Alt-Left media and Hillary think you are? They think you can't find and read the truth they want to cover up, for yourself.

Trump was very wrong in promoting the birther conspiracy. Waaayyy wrong. "Huuuge" negative for him. But he backed down from it, awhile ago actually, and publicly just disavowed it. Hillary doesn't usually get quoted because she holds the press at 4-football-fields-length and has lately had her surrogates do most of her talking for her.

Yes, they fired that coordinator in Iowa in 2008. But the damage had been done.

Some are claiming that "every fact-checker" has found all this untrue. Guess they don't read Powerline or believe Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Patti Doyle. Alt-left Politico's crowing it was actually some unknown guy in Illinois who started it all, in 2004, before any of us even knew who Obama was. That got so much traction (NOT). We never heard about it or that guy, till now. I mean, really? Think how long and how far Politico had to dig to find this guy as their alt-scapegoat. They had to, to defend Hillary, because when an email comes out from a campaign coordinator, no matter how low on the ladder, the world wonders, "They must really know something. They're inside the campaign. They must have been told something from up high."

Even if it might not be true, and in this case wasn't true, that is what people will think. And that is what Hillary did nothing at the time to stop people from thinking.

If you have even the slightest mistrust of Hillary, do you doubt for a second that she would allow such false dirt to be spread about her 2008 opponent, the first anyone to dare to not only stand up and in her way of winning her coveted prize but to actually snatch it away from her when she was about to be crowned? You can google the routine temper tantrums and tirades of Hillary and read all about that for yourselves. She had to have been spitting nails for months, and would have crucified Obama if she could have, the way she said she'd crucify Gennifer Flowers.

Hillary holds no quarter for anyone standing in her way, and Obama was the only one ever to succeed at that. Think about that a moment. The only reason she's promising to uphold his "policies" is because she'll lose the black American vote without his stumping fake-enthusastically for her. And do you actually believe for a nanosecond that Obama believes that she will be a better President than himself? I got swampland in Florida for you to buy.

It's a devil's bargain they've made:

HRC: You help me win the election and I won't erase your "legacy" from the face of the earth.
BHO: I'll help you win the black vote, the all-minorities vote, and you and Bill will call off your "dogs" against me forever and keep in place everything I've done.
Does it matter who initiated that conversation? But you know it happened. They abhor each other. They both cottoned to the old adage, something I've never been able to do: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

Don't let the optics fool you. They're still enemies.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

I Know I'm Supposed To Write About This

Trump Steps Up Anti-Abortion Stance, Taps Dannenfelser

Trump plans to name a Pro-Life Coalition on Friday, RealClearPolitics has learned, with Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser as its national chairwoman. The GOP nominee will also adopt a new pledge to protect the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits Medicaid funding for most abortions — a law Democrat Hillary Clinton opposes.

“Not only has Mr. Trump doubled down on his three existing commitments to the pro-life movement, he has gone a step further in pledging to protect the Hyde Amendment and the conscience rights of millions of pro-life taxpayers,” a statement from Dannenfelser will read. “For a candidate to make additional commitments during a general election is almost unheard of.”

I'm not kidding myself. I know why he's doing this. It's a smart campaign move. And it may be nothing more than that. But I can give him credit for a smart campaign move and still be ready to hold him accountable. I know Trump isn't 100% pro-life. I know what he's said in the past, even the recent past. As a practicing Catholic, I know a vote for him seems out of the question unless we're sure we're supporting a truly pro-life candidate.

The trouble is, we haven't really had one of those, perhaps not since Reagan. And given the current leftward pitch of the country, I'm afraid it isn't likely we will ever see that type of candidate again.

I have to make a choice. I have to vote. You don't vote, you don't have a right to complain.

I can't choose Hillary. I won't choose Johnson, who "has expressed support for abortion rights and called Texas House Bill 2 'an affront to women's rights.'"

We need our own "Brexit" from the monolithic, self-protecting political-class that ignores us little folk.

I hold my nose. But I choose. For the sake of the Supreme Court and the future preservation of this country.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, September 16, 2016

Fallon, Trump, and The Audience

Jimmy Fallon interviewed Trump last night. Trump let him mess up his hair in the second video below, but what do you make of the audience reactions in this first clip? Surprised the heck out of me:

Heard on the radio this afternoon that the Left is EXCORIATING Fallon for having had so much fun with an affable Trump. And that Hillary has now inserted herself onto Fallon's show tonight.

Have to admit, Trump made a brilliant move, both in getting on this show and letting Fallon do that to his hair. Made himself human to a boatload of people. With a sense of humor. And in beating Hillary to it (the real sense of humor), now she has to play catch-up, second-fiddle and what could she possibly do that would top Trump letting Fallon muss up his infamous hair? Not a single thing. She doesn't know how to relate to "ordinary people," and her idea of amusement? I really don't think she has ever had a real sense of humor, certainly not a truly self-deprecating one as Trump displayed last night.

I never watched "The Apprentice." Abhorred it and all reality shows (I guess I don't think of "Dancing With The Stars" or "The Biggest Loser" as "reality shows" but rather contest shows). It's interesting that in that first Fallon clip, Trump admits that, had he known he'd really end up running for President, he wouldn't have done all his television shows. He knows--finally--what is and isn't Presidential. Too bad he spent a lot of the campaign acting too much like he was still on "The Apprentice" (which Fallon brilliantly riffs on in his multiple impressions of Trump's changing speaking voice) instead of speaking like he did in his earliest (see below), and now later (aka Trump 2.0), days.

I found the following video awhile ago. Didn't comment on it, as I'd really hoped someone else besides Trump would win the nomination. And I'm still expecting to hold my nose to make a vote for A.B.H. (Anyone But Hillary). But this video is worth watching, now, no matter what you think of the man. Trump's understanding of the economy, of business, of the standing of our country financially and, I think, his real love and concern for our country, come through, particularly in the respect given to him by some heavy-hitters in the financial world. There isn't an American politician out there who understands these things as Trump surely seems to. I was shocked the first time I viewed this; still am, I suspect. The soft-spoken, intelligent discussions in the first half of this video really say something. It's worth the half-hour, but especially the first 15 or so minutes. And forget the stamp INFOWARS on this and the title. I promise: you won't have to endure a single image or sound of Alex Jones:


Still think he's just a stupid, racist, filthy-rich guy who just inherited all his money? Check out another brilliant use of the pressmediaentertainment class. Finally, someone who can really use the mainstream media's bias against them. He played them like the David Bromberg Band can play a fiddle...or three...and the guitar...and the mandolin...and the Irish penny whistle (watch this to the end to see the three fiddles in unison, just spectacular):


0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Am I a "Deplorable"? Hillary Thinks So. Are You? Here's How To Tell

I am none of the "ists" or "phobes" that spewed from the lips of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And if anyone is one or more of those, what I deplore, what should be deplored by anyone, is their belief, their attitude, their behavior. Not them personally. As a Catholic Christian, I am not supposed to deplore (judge, condemn) the person. (That is what I am always being told, too, by secular society, which doesn't [want to] know the very real difference between the meaning of the words "righteousness" and "self-righteousness.") Even though I deplore the belief and actions of Nazis, for example, it is not my job to condemn them, because that is God's job. We are only to judge a person's actions and beliefs as not morally right. We personally cannot make them change or punish or condemn the person, just as they cannot make us change or punish or condemn us for our differing beliefs. A legitimate court of law can judge their behaviors, or ours, if necessary, and mete appropriate punishment according to that law.

Hillary is supposedly a Christian. She should know, then, that it isn't her place to stand in judgment of any person any more than it is mine or yours. And yet the secular media excoriates Mike Pence and Trump for not condemning David Duke. Don't they understand that Christians are actually forbidden from condemning, from judging and saying that any single person is "irredeemable" in life? I would vomit if I ever found myself stuck in the same room with Duke, but it is only God's place to judge and condemn him, to judge his inner motives and his "eternal destination."

Hillary can argue till she's as blue in the face as her seizure-preventing cobalt-blue sunglasses, that she didn't label people deplorable, but she did. She clearly said "Trump's supporters"; she clearly did not say "the beliefs and actions of Trump's supporters." She put the people in The Basket of Deplorables. She condemned them, not their beliefs and behaviors, and that is not her right nor anyone's on this Earth.

As for all the left-leaning media and pundits twisting themselves into knots saying "she's right and she's smart and lay off her", then why did she then walk it back, saying she regrets it, uh, sort of? Only because it's her very own "47% Moment" and it's costing her more and more votes.

Now do you see why she won't let the press within four football fields of her all summer and why she won't release the transcripts of her speeches to the Wall Street and other UltraRich people who paid big bucks to hear her talk? Just imagine how many laughs they all shared over the low-lifes she despises, meaning everyone who won't ever vote for her over-reaching ambition?

And despite being female, let me add I am also not a "Feminist", at least not in the modern-day sense of the word but in its original sense.

The arrogance of Hillary astounds:

The Daily Caller posted Jill Stein's tweet, probably her most memorable contribution to this campaign:

Daniel Henninger writes in The Wall Street Journal, that "les déplorables [are] our own writhing mass of unheard Americans."

The Boston Herald has a bitingly true list of ways to tell if you're a "Deplorable." The writer, Howie Carr, observes astutely:

"Didn’t Barack Obama say a few months back that a candidate couldn’t insult his way to the presidency? I guess he was referring to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, apparently, can."
I think I fit about 22 of his ways to tell if I'm a deplorable.

More seriously, the WSJ's Henninger continues:

There is a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative class” of Google and Facebook employees, no few of whom are smug progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans. Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary. But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. Which Mrs. Clinton isn’t and never will be. ...
To repeat: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.” Those are all potent words. Or once were. The racism of the Jim Crow era was ugly, physically cruel and murderous. Today, progressives output these words as reflexively as a burp. What’s more, the left enjoys calling people Islamophobic or homophobic. It’s bullying without personal risk.

Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. Nativists exist, and the sky is still blue. But the overwhelming majority of these people aren’t phobic about a modernizing America. They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists.

Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr. Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him.

The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism...It is a mistake, though, to blame Hillary alone for that derisive remark. It’s not just her. Hillary Clinton is the logical result of the Democratic Party’s new, progressive algorithm—a set of strict social rules that drives politics and the culture to one point of view. A Clinton victory would enable and entrench the forces her comment represents.

Her supporters say it’s Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is “divisive.” Just so. But it’s rich to hear them claim that their words and politics are “inclusive.” So is the town dump. They have chopped American society into so many offendable identities that only a Yale freshman can name them all. [emphasis mine]

If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because America’s les déplorables decided enough of this is enough.

Just so, indeed. Fight back against the bullies, and the Bully-In-Chief-Wannabe. Or in other words:

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Gary Johnson: Can You Be Proud Of This Vote?

First, I would like to see Gary Johnson in the Presidential debates.

I'd like to see him respond to a question about this:

When asked "Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a Nazi wedding cake?", Johnson replied, "That would be my contention, yes."

I know Trump didn't disavow David Duke fast enough for some people, myself included. My guess is Trump, not being a career politician or a career Republican, didn't really know who Duke was--much like he didn't know what Brexit was--and was smart enough to not state an opinion till he knew. And if turnabout is fairplay, Johnson's "What-is-Aleppo?" moment is in a similar category of ignorance. But at least Trump didn't make modern-day Nazis a protected-identity class like Johnson did.

[On a side note, I do know how it feels to be wrongly lumped-in with hateful, bigoted, violent fringe groups, as left-leaning people are doing to Trump. You are just doing your own thing, but then these hate-groups come alongside and attach themselves to your peaceful group, and you can't defend yourself in the public eye because of the "optics" of the situation which were completely out of your control. You disavow those violent hate-groups, but a large chunk of the misinformed public never believes you and never understands how wrong they are.]

On the basis of Johnson's answer to that question alone, is this a candidate to be proud of voting for?

If I were Jewish, I would rather die than be forced to bake a cake for a self-proclaimed Nazi. Heck, I'm Catholic and I would rather die than be forced for bake a cake for a Nazi.

If anyone needs help answering my question, may I suggest this, this, this, this, this, this, these and this? (one of the tamer videos but still with horrific images- viewer discretion advised)

There are some enlightening discussions of what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its 21 different state versions really represent, at The Weekly Standard:

[Johnson] says [Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike] Pence "took a divisive approach by introducing religious freedom bills that were clearly aimed at LGBT individuals."

This is a mischaracterization of what Indiana attempted to do, which was pass a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the state level. The federal RFRA passed in the 1990s under Bill Clinton with overwhelming bipartisan support. Twenty-one states already have state-level RFRAs.

John McCormack has an in-depth explanation of RFRAs and what they do, but in short, the legal term of art for legislation such as RFRAs is that they are a "balancing test." RFRA provide that the state must have a compelling interest for restricting religious freedom and that requires they use the least restrictive means possible. If someone charges that their religious freedom is impeded, they make their case in court, and there's no guarantee they will win. To date, there hasn't been a single RFRA case over compelled participation in gay marriage. And the statute has been used for many broader religious freedom purposes, such as authorities trying to seize ceremonial eagle feathers from Native Americans under the guise of the Endangered Species Act.

Far from RFRAs being "clearly aimed at LGBT individuals," it's exactly the vehicle for achieving the balance between religious liberty and freedom from discrimination that Johnson claims he wants.

Johnson is a sharp guy, so what's the problem with his understanding this? One likely possibility is that the pendulum has swung so far and so fast on social issues in this country that Johnson doesn't get that religious believers have a pretty credible claim to statist oppression. If being conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues seemed like a good, quick definition of libertarianism once upon a time, well, attacking religious freedom has scrambled that definition quite a bit.
...
For months, Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson has been pooh-poohing the idea of religious liberty, saying that he has no problem with private business owners being forced by the government to participate in gay nuptials that run counter to their religious beliefs. How a "libertarian" would be in favor of the government telling cake bakers, florists, and wedding photographers that they must participate in religious ceremonies they don't believe in is simply baffling.

What I don't understand is that not only does Johnson fail to understand America's religious liberty debates, but over time his articulation of his position has become even worse. Last week, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney asked Johnson about religious liberty again, and Johnson said this:

"I mean under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything. Back to Mormonism. Why shouldn't somebody be able to shoot somebody else because their freedom of religion says that God has spoken to them and that they can shoot somebody dead."

This is a foolish argument, not only substantively but as a matter of practical politics. As blogger Ace of Spades put it, "Apparently the right to have someone bake a cake endorsing your sexual choices lies on the same plane as the right to be free of unwanted religiously-motivated murder, and both situations compel the same analysis and conclusion."

...from the article, "Once Again, Gary Johnson Completely Misunderstands Religious Freedom: Is it too much to ask that the Libertarian espouse the libertarian position?", Aug 03, 2016, by Mark Hemingway

Conservative Review and The Federalist agree that Johnson isn't getting this right.

How about you?


Further information to consider:

Thursday, September 15

Race/Topic------------------------------------------Poll------------------------------Results-------------------------------------------Spread
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein----CBS News/NY Times-------Clinton 42, Trump 42, Johnson 8, Stein 4----Tie
Trump vs. Clinton---------------------------------CBS News/NY Times-------Clinton 46, Trump 44---------------------------Clinton +2
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein----Rasmussen Reports-----Clinton 40, Trump 42, Johnson 7, Stein 2----Trump +2


Will Johnson's 7 or 8% of the polling votes tip Hillary into the White House? Or will it help Trump? At this point, I don't really know anymore.

I realize that Millennials believe they're not included well in those polls ("Millennials are missed because they don't have land lines, which are the numbers that get polled.")

[FWIW, I don't have a landline either, haven't since 2008, and it's my son who's the Millennial.]

I realize that some say "it’s been proven time and again that libertarians take evenly from both sides in most circumstances. In fact, there’s also evidence that some Libertarian candidates take more support from Democrats than Republicans."

I realize that one or a handful of polls don't (always) make a true fact.

I know that in the 18-24-year-old "Millennial" demographic, one poll also shows Johnson ahead of both Hillary and Trump. And that, as of July 1, 2015, there were about 31.2 million in that demographic or about 9.7% of the population aged 12 and up.

Here's the rest of us by age bracket:
25-34: 44.1 million (13.7%)
35-44: 40.6 million (12.6%)
45-54: 43.2 million (13.4%)
55-64: 40.9 million (12.7%)
65-74: 27.6 million (8.6%)
75+: 20.2 million (6.3%)

If you instead count 18-34 as the Millennial age group, the total is 75.4 million people (23.4%). And yes, that group surpassed the Baby-Boomers, my generation, this year, but only by 500,000 people, which might be considered still within any "margin of error." Boomers are still about one-quarter of the total population. And Pew Research finds that "immigration [is] adding more numbers to [the Millennials] group than any other," which might indicate a continued, more Democrat-leaning slant.

Do all Boomers vote Republican? Hardly. All Democrat? Probably not in fly-over country.

Gallup Polls "aggregated data from 14 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2014, including interviews with more than 16,000 U.S. adults", finding that "44% [of Baby-Boomers] identified as conservative, [33% as moderate] and 21% as liberal." 48% of "Traditionalists" (those born between 1900 and 1945) were conservative, 33% were moderate and 17% were liberal.

Gallup's aggregate data also showed that 18-34 Millennials identified 28% conservative, 40% moderate and 30% liberal.

Millennials: 75.4 million x 28% = 21.11 million conservative.
Millennials: 75.4 million x 40% = 30.16 million moderate.
Millennials: 75.4 million x 30% = 22.62 million liberal.

BabyBoomers: 74.9 million x 44% = 32.96 million conservative.
BabyBoomers: 74.9 million x 33% = 24.72 million moderate.
BabyBoomers: 74.9 million x 21% = 15.73 million liberal.

If you unscientifically split the moderates down the middle, one-half voting liberal, one-half voting conservative, what would be that result?

Millennial "mods+conservatives" = 36.19 million
Millennial "mods+liberals" = 37.7 million

BabyBoomer "mods+conservatives" = 45.32 million
BabyBoomer "mods+liberals" = 28.09 million

ALL "mods+conservatives" in both groups = 81.51 million
ALL "mods+liberals" in both groups = 65.79 million

Would the "moderates" split evenly like that? Would they even vote at all? Would the true conservatives all vote for Trump, even secretly, in the end, to stop Hillary? Who knows? It's just one way to consider what might happen. It's possible then that, even without "divvying up" those moderates, the true conservatives among the Boomers would still outnumber the true liberals among the Millennials--33 million to 23 million--even if the latter group outnumbers the former in total population.

And who is Trump speaking to mostly? Not the Millennials. They aren't the ones who've lost livelihoods to bad trade deals, outsourcing of their jobs, closing down of American manufacturing, imposition of too much government regulation and taxation making staying in business untenable.

More statistics for those who really want to go spelunking are here at Pew Reseach and Governing.com.

Will Johnson's 7 or 8% in national polls actually turn out to be 15%, or even 35%? Will they hurt Hillary more than Trump? If the above Johnson stand against religious liberty is an indication, perhaps that last answer is yes, but I know at least a few young conservatives' votes he might be stealing from the Republican candidate, thinking that they in fact are voting more conservatively than I will be. I wonder if they're really following all of Gary Johnson's statements?

The radio ad Johnson is running in my state is about as demeaning to me as Hillary's recent "Deplorables basket" statement is. I've searched the Internet and can't find a transcript or audio link, so I will have to paraphrase from memory, but he himself is speaking in the spot and says this:

"If Americans are wise, we won't stand for the corrupt two-party system of rigged government, we will vote to break their power and vote Gary Johnson for President."
I guess Gary Johnson thinks that I am "not wise"? I guess he thinks I really want a corrupt two-party system of rigged government? Really, he could have been less condescending.

I wish I had a better alternative who would succeed in keeping Hillary out of the White House. I'm not corrupt, not jaded. I just think maybe I can see reality a bit better now that I'm older and have seen and experienced more. I've seen Nader, Perot, Buchanan and Paul, try and fail. I've worked with my family as a teenager on the 1976 campaign of third party Conservative Party candidate, James Buckley, the brother of William F. Buckley, the Father of American Conservatism. Buckley had earlier won a U.S. Senate seat with 39% of the vote only because the GOP and Democrat candidates were both left-leaning and split that demographic's votes. In 1976, he lost resoundingly to popular Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and later in Connecticut, to Chris Dodd, to our state's everlasting misfortune.

We are too big, too miseducated, too misinformed, to break up the two party political system using mere politics, I'm afraid. I don't want to hazard a guess at what would do the trick. It would probably be a major, externally-imposed trauma to our nation that would bring it about, something I do not wish for.

For now, just bring on the debate, put Johnson on the stage, and then all three can duke it out.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice



-------------------------------------------------
COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom
-------------------------------------------------

PREGNANT? UPSET? SCARED?
4,800 confidential groups helping now.
-------------------------------------------------

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 , www.samaritans.org.uk

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or
1-800-5WE-CARE

...more help below...

AbortionChangesYou.com

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

MORE HELP:
Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Ramah
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
NOPARH
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **


Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
---------------------------------------------
LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by
Google

ARCHIVES:

Why NOT Hillary?


  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"
---------------------------------------------------

The sidebar continues...

** ENTIRE REST OF OUR SIDEBAR -
CLICK HERE for 2015 UPDATES
**
(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)

*************************************

*************************************


------------------------------------------------
Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)



--------------------------------

RSS
Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2016 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2016. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."


Since 6/13/2005