Pete Buttigieg lacks logic on abortion issue

Democratic 2020 hopeful Pete Buttigieg [pronounced "Butter Judge"] has made the cowardly and illogical statement that if you lack a uterus, you ought not to have an opinion on abortion. In his thinking and taking it to the next logical conclusion, if a mother wants to kill a man's son on his thirteenth birthday, it isn't up to the father to go against it because he didn't give birth to the child.

And here, all along, I thought Butter Judge was an intelligent guy. All he seems to be is a cowardly Democrat, but I repeat myself.

The South Bend, Indiana mayor spoke in Greenville, South Carolina, mentioning freedom in the context of killing babies under the clinical term known as abortion.

"You’re not free if your reproductive choices are being dictated by male politicians in Washington," he stated, substituting the term 'reproductive choices' for the murdering of a human life.

The young politician's remark comes with the territory of being a progressive. His immoral position on abortion is totally in line with the other Democrats running for the 2020 nomination.

Although Butter Judge hasn’t spoken in detail about his beliefs surrounding abortion, during a mid-February appearance on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" with host Joe Scarborough, the mayor replied to a question about abortion law with a remark that mirrored his South Carolina speech:

SCARBOROUGH: Do you support the late-term abortion legislation that was passed in the New York state legislature, as well as in Virginia?

BUTTIGIEG: I don’t think we need more restrictions right now. And, you know, what I’ve learned in Indiana, being in a place where a lot of my friends, a lot of my supporters even, come from a different place than I do, being pro-choice, I just believe that when a woman is in that situation, and when we’re talking about some of those situations covered by that law – extremely difficult, painful, often medically serious situations where life or health of the mother is at stake – the involvement of a male government official like me is not helpful.

[It's referred to as 'restrictions' when leftists want to condemn something, and 'a woman's right to choose' when they want to avoid anyone else having the right to choose for a baby that cannot defend its life.]

This is a garbage argument frequently made by pro-choice politicians and activists. In short – no uterus, no opinion. Unfortunately for Buttigieg, and other idiots who continue to use this argument, "no uterus, no opinion" is logically flawed, and it opens up a massive can of worms as it pertains to other laws.

A law cannot be experiential, written only by those who have or can experience the situations which the law is made to address. In addition, there are myriad laws written by men that deal primarily with women, like laws pertaining to rape and its punishment.

The idea of experiential law undermines all law. If one has not committed murder, been close to a victim of murder, or been involved in a murder case, how can one be suited to draft a law criminalizing murder? No murder experience, no opinion. 

If you don't have the capacity to become pregnant or have an abortion, you should not be allowed to create legislation dealing with abortion [unless you're talking about Roe v. Wade which expands abortion and was decided by nine Supreme Court justices, all of whom were men].

You don't have to have cancer in order to cure it and you don't have to have a uterus to have a sense of what is moral and correct in terms of the baby growing inside. But to make matters worse, Democrats are increasingly accepting the idea that a woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy after the baby is born. Of course, that isn't terminating the pregnancy, the pregnancy is complete. That is terminating an infant, plain and simple.

To suggest that men shouldn't have a say in abortion is ridiculous and stupid, but the ridiculously stupid progressives use that argument because it sounds compassionate while it's merely immoral.

I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

AOC: Like people maybe kinda shouldn't reproduce onnaconna the climate and stuff

Socialist for the Democratic Party Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Communist (D-NY) while cooking veggies on Instagram suggested that due to the global climate crisis in the world, [in which she declared herself the boss in handling it], should maybe not, like, have children "onnaconna because there is, like, a 'scientific consensus' that life will be too hard for kids if they go outside to play."

The low-information millennial pontificated and bloviated while cutting up a head of some sort of veggie with a knife that looked like it came from the movie
"Psycho," and said:

"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"

This coming from a person whose college degree was in economics and still doesn't understand how a tax deferment works, among other things. And let's remember, she's willing to kill babies right before they're born, maybe even after.

Unable to take any level of criticism, Obviously-Communist then took a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over an incident that happened in Feinstein's office on Friday when a far-left fringe group tried to pressure Feinstein into supporting the Green New Deal. Actually, many people who saw those kids may have thought that she was amongst them, or was the teacher who was using them as props.

"You know what’s interesting about this group?" Feinstein told the group on Friday, in response to the group storming into her office. "I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing."

"You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don’t respond to that," Feinstein continued. "I’ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I’m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit."

Obviously-Communist said Feinstein's response was "like not good enough" because the legislation that the Democrats support is "frankly going to kill us," she said nonchalantly as she like butchered a head of something.

"This idea that 'I've been working on this for x-amount of years,' um, it's like not good enough," the idiot in lipstick said. "Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us. A lack of urgency is going to kill us."

"The issue has gotten worse," the rich, power-hungry socialist blubbered. "So I don't think that working on an issue for 30 years alone is what qualifies as, as what someone qualified to solve an issue."

But being a 29-year-old former bartender, with no other real life experience other than living with her mother for the previous two years or so, and who obviously has a bad relationship with facts, numbers and morality, knows what's best for us: her being the boss and having the power to save the world from a climate that will kill us all in twelve years.


I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.





Tweet

Dem. Senator blocks bill banning the killing of babies after being born

First they came for the first trimester humans. Then they came for those with birth abnormalities. Next they came for the second trimester babies and pretended they are not human yet. Now they've shown their blood-stained hands and are coming for any baby up to birth and even beyond if the mother doesn't want it to live.

It's hard to accept the evil that is coming from the Democratic Party with their lies about how it's a "woman's right to choose." It isn't anyone's right to choose to end the life of an innocent.

Senator Patty Scumwafer Murray (D-WA), blocked a Senate bill that would require doctors to provide aid to full-term babies who thankfully survived botched abortions. The un-aborted Senator objected to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and her one vote was enough to prevent the Senate from passing the bill in a unanimous consent vote, LifeSiteNews reports.

This should make anyone with a conscience sick to their stomach.

On Thursday, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NB) requested the unanimous consent vote after Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph "KKK" Northam, a satanic former pediatric neurologist, made comments indicating he did not object to letting an infant die after its birth, unlike his parents. The scumwafer explained that a born-alive “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” 

Sasse had already called for a unanimous consent vote to pass a resolution defending the Knights of Columbus in mid-January. That resolution was passed unanimously.

Sasse appealed to the conscience of the entire Senate, saying, “Just a few years ago, the abortion lobby was really clear in its talk about hoping abortion would be…safe, legal, and rare. Now we’re talking about keeping the baby comfortable while the doctors have a debate about infanticide. You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide…please, don’t let Governor Northam define you.”

Murray objected to the unanimous consent vote, stating, “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and, therefore, I object.”

Except Murray was wrong or she lied.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) responded to Murray’s objection by asserting:

There is nothing great, there is nothing moral, or even humane about the discussion that we have before us today. Over the past week, we have witnessed the absolutely ugly truth about the far-reaching grasp of the abortion industry and its increasingly radicalized political agenda. Politicians have not only defended aborting a child while a woman is in labor, but have gone so far as to support the termination of a child after his or her birth. A child. A baby. Rationality, decency, and basic human compassion have fallen by the wayside.”

Regarding Murray, Ernst's words fell on deaf ears.

Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), who will have to gauge whether to call later for a roll-call vote, said the Act was “legislation that ought to be the very definition of something that receives unanimous consent in this body. It’s harrowing that this legislation is even necessary. It was even more disturbing when last week, a Democrat Governor was unable to simply state that of course – of course – these newborn babies have human rights that must be respected.”

LifeSite News noted:

It is not likely that the House version of the bill would pass in the Democrat-controlled House, if even allowed to be voted on. This is despite the fact that the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines infant survivors of abortion as “human beings” entitled to all the rights in the U.S. Constitution, was passed by both Democrats and Republicans in 2002 and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush … In 2015, only five House Democrats supported the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which then-President Barack Obama said would have a “chilling effect” on “access to care.”

Perhaps this needs to be brought before the Supreme Court to decide if it's okay to kill a fully developed person. 

I am disgusted with my country . . . this is basic morality and the Democrats can't even get that right. 

I hope you'll follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

WH aide reportedly said of McCain: 'He's dying anyway'

Photo: Getty Image

On Thursday the Creepy News Network (CNN) may have gotten the story correct for a change. They reported that a "White House official" Kelly Sadler [no relation to Barry Sadler of "Green Beret" song fame], joked about Senator John McCain (R-AZ) over his refusal to support President Trump's CIA nominee, Gina Haspel. "He's dying anyway," she allegedly said.

Sadler later called Meghan McCain to apologize, so it seems pretty clear that she actually said those mean-spirited, stupid and thoughtless words.

The White House responded: "We respect Senator McCain's service to our nation, and he and his family are in our prayers during this difficult time."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) a friend of Sen. McCain, slashed Sadler: "Ms. Sadler, may I remind you that John McCain has a lot of friends in the United States Senate on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is laughing in the Senate.

Such a cruel comment by Sadler isn't too surprising when you consider that even President Trump has said his share of cruel things about McCain publicly, like when he said in the 2016 campaign that McCain wasn't a war hero because he likes soldiers who don't get captured.

And while Trump's policies are very popular among the GOP, and he is clearly making good policy choices, in my humble opinion, there appears to be a serious problem of morality starting at the top and filtering down to the staff. 

It isn't surprising that Sadler felt okay with her words when she said them. And it's even less surprising that someone leaked to the one cable network that openly hates this president. If Trump cured cancer, CNN would lament over how he put oncologists out of work. 

But people of good character would not tolerate jokes about a senator who is suffering from a terminal illness.

Kelly Sadler has since apologized and if Trump fires her, it would only blow back in his face when the media makes the case over his behavior and his comments being no better than hers.



Tweet

Illegal immigrant teen wants U.S. to kill her unborn baby and taxpayers to pay for it

Women's right to kill group

An immigrant teen, who was denied an abortion by a U.S. government official, has threatened to harm herself if we don't kill her baby, according to a government memo.

She believes that because the baby was conceived by rape, and that she doesn't want it, that killing him or her is acceptable and that the American taxpayers should pay for it.

The memo is addressed to Scott Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency that shelters thousands of illegal, unaccompanied minors. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted the memo as part of its ongoing lawsuit over the rights for illegal minors who are in custody to have their babies killed and do so at the taxpayers' expense.

The document describes the rape taking place in the teen's home country [which may or may not be true] and believed she became pregnant as a result. 

The memo was written by the Office of Refugee Resettlement's deputy director describing that she told the doctor that she wanted to kill the baby in her womb. (She called it an abortion, but it's the same thing.)

The teen "disclosed to the medical doctor that she preferred to harm herself rather than to continue with her pregnancy."

In later visits, the teen told of how her mother and a potential sponsor wanted her to not kill the baby. At one point, she reported facing "physical harm" if she killed him or her.

"She felt pressured by her mother and potential sponsor to continue the pregnancy, but she wants to terminate the pregnancy," the memo said. The term 'terminate the pregnancy' means to kill the baby, usually before it travels through the birth canal, but some liberals believe it doesn't matter how late in the pregnancy that it's killed. Just as long as Planned Parenthood gets paid.

The recommendation of the deputy director is redacted, but Lloyd circled the word "disapproved" at the bottom of the memo with his signature. But unfortunately for the baby, the teen eventually received the okay to have the baby killed after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in the favor of killing the baby. 

Judge Chutkan has already been born so was able to make that decision.

Lloyd said that an abortion would not "cure the reality" of the teen's rape. Both killing the unborn and rape are forms of abortion, the letter said, but not in those exact words.

"Implicit here are the dubious notions that it is possible to cure violence with further violence," Lloyd said, obviously aware that killing the unborn is a form of violence and clearly immoral.

The ACLU accused Lloyd of implementing a "cruel and heartless policy," which is exactly what the ACLU wants to do to the unborn. 

Is it more heartless to not allow the teen to kill the baby and thus allow it to be adopted if she doesn't want it? Or is it more heartless to kill the baby that has no rights as far as the ACLU is concerned?



Tweet

Al Franken reluctantly resigns, attacks POTUS

Al Franken will be resigning his Senate seat but he will not give up his activism, or his annoying voice, he said.

So ladies, be careful if you see him. He is going to remain the same old active mopey groper if he lives up to his word.

It took eight women for the Democrats to finally throw in the towel with Franken. Unfortunately, Republicans are still standing behind Roy Moore and I don't think it's a good idea--it will come back to bite them on our collective butts.

If you heard Franken's speech, he couldn't help attacking President Trump, which is a clear indication that his remorse level is at zero. The only remorse he has is the fact that he got caught. It sounded as if he was trying to say that Trump was worse than he was, and that's no way to show remorse.

Our country has given up morality for political gain. It's sad for both sides of the aisle, but mostly for the country. Obviously, this has been going on for a very long time--power has a way of trashing morality.

Sad!


Tweet

Two more women accuse Franken of inappropriate touching

Oy, not again

Two more women, not familiar with each other, have come forward and told the Huffington Post that Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) touched their buttocks in separate buttock touching incidents. This brings the sexual misconduct incident allegations against Al Franken to four, so far.

Radio host Leeann Tweeden wrote last week that Franken kissed and groped her without her consent during a 2006 USO tour.

On Monday, Lindsay Menz said Franken groped her butt at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010, after being elected as a senator.

The two women had remarkably similar stories and both spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of repercussions. Both had also been telling their stories over the years, which lends credibility to them.

In a sweat-stained statement to HuffPost, Franken said, "It's difficult to respond to anonymous accusers, and I don't remember those campaign events."

The first woman, a 38-year-old book editor who lived in Minneapolis at the time said Franken groped her when they posed for a photo after a June 2007 event hosted by the Minnesota Women's Political Caucus in Minneapolis. She wanted a photo with Franken because her mother "loves him" and wanted to give her the photo.

Two women close to the first woman corroborated her story.

"My story is eerily similar to Lindsay Menz's story," she said. "He grabbed my buttocks during a photo op."

The second woman said that weird Al cupped her butt with his hand at a 2008 Democratic fundraiser in Minneapolis. He also suggest they visit the bathroom together.

"My immediate reaction was disgust," the second woman said. "But my secondary reaction was disappointment. I was excited to be there and to meet him. And so to have that happen really deflated me. It felt like: 'Is this really the person who is going to be in a position of power to represent our community'"

Franken  told HuffPost, "I can categorically say that I did not proposition anyone to join me in any bathroom." 

Okay, so he calls it a 'washroom.'

The first woman said that Franken is a "serial groper" and that's why she wanted to tell her story. "Only two people have come forward and people are saying that this is a right-wing conspiracy," she said. "It's not. I'm not a liberal person. ... I voted for him after this happened."

The second woman, who said she was groped at a fundraiser, said it took place in the fall of 2008 at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis. She was excited about attending the event. She was looking forward to looking to meeting someone she wanted to support.

"I had never attended anything like that," she said. 

She and her friends found Franken and introduced themselves to him.

"I shook his hand, and he put his arm around my waist and held it there," the second woman said. "Then he moved it lower and cupped my butt. I was completely mortified."

Franken is such a classy guy.

The woman had to escape Franken's clutches by excusing herself to go to the bathroom. It was then that he leaned in and suggested that he go with her. She grabbed a friend and ran to the bathroom leaving Franken behind, all sweaty and disgusting.

Since the incident, the woman told several people about what happened but didn't want to report it at the time.

I felt like I didn't have a voice," she began. "This man had all of the power, all of the authority. In addition, he is a white man and I am a woman of color. I was 21 years old. And I was afraid that he would use all of those privileges to discredit me, to make me feel even smaller than I already felt."

Now she's more confident thanks in large part to the many women who have come forward to share stories of sexual harassment by men in power.

What Franken is alleged to have done is not as bad as what Roy Moore is alleged to have done, but in both cases a power dynamic is clear. Also, in both cases the allegations of both men's behavior seem true based on corroborative accounts by the alleged victims.

Should Franken and Moore resign?

I believe they should and I also believe the names of others who have been protected with secrecy need to be made public. We pay their salaries; they work for us, it's time to take our government back from the politicians, even if we have to 'clean house' and Senate. 



Tweet

Trump: "The deal's off Paris-I work for Pittsburgh"

President Trump said he would be making an announcement about his decision regarding the Paris climate agreement at 3:00 p.m. ET today and, true to his fans, he did. The drama is over--Mr. Trump abided by his campaign promise and said emphatically that we're going to exit the deal.

The Paris climate change agreement is a pact between almost 200 nations with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a way to fight climate change. The U.S. is the planet's second largest carbon emitter, only exceeded by China. India is also high on the list.

The agreement requires the U.S. to reduce fossil fuel emissions by nearly 30 percent by 2025.

"So we're getting out," Mr. Trump said. "The Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States." (Translation: "The Accord de Paris is very, very unfair.")

Although Trump's decision pleases the base and many Republicans opposed to the global climate deal, it isolates us and the world leaders involved with the agreement, and some climate scientists will likely condemn us for dropping out. 

And leaving the deal aligns us with Nicaragua and Syria.

Some say it will hurt the economy but Trump and his supporters of the deal say it is going to create jobs in the future. But while the deal was pushed through by Obama via executive order (because that would've been the only way to get it through Capitol Hill), it will alienate our country and diminish our standing as a global leader, say some.

So with Obama pushing the deal through without a vote in the legislature, President Trump can cancel it without a vote in the legislature as well . . . kind of like what Harry Reid did with the nuclear option--they screwed the pooch.

It would have been better if Obama had tried to get it approved lawfully--that is, with Congressional approval. But he had his pen and he had his phone and he had little else to brag about.

President Trump made his announcement from the White House Rose Garden.

Candidate Trump promised to "cancel" the Paris climate deal during his first major policy speech on energy in March 2016. He attacked "draconian climate rules" and vowed to cut any funding for UN programs related to combatting any climate change programs. He even refused to acknowledge the human contribution to climate change and called it a "hoax." But when pressed on that comment he later said that he was "kidding."

Don't you just love a POTUS who's a kidder?

According to Politico, Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, have pushed for an exit of the deal while Trump's daughter Ivanka and business leaders along with other allies, have pushed a pro-Paris agenda.

Apple's Tim Cook and Tesla's Elon Musk have tried to convince Trump to stay in the agreement. 

Tom Steyer, a Democratic mega-donor, tweeted: "Generations of Americans will suffer the destructive effects of Trump's greedy, selfish, and immoral decision."

Except that it wasn't. The decision was based on a campaign promise to his base that he would undo a lot of what Obama did without legislative approval. Not everything Trump has done this early in his time in office has fulfilled campaign promises, but this one has and it isn't immoral.

It's immoral to say that it's immoral.

Everyone on the left blames Trump for anything they can that negatively impacts on his presidency. Nancy Pelosi even commented that he should have gone in alphabetical order to countries on his first trip abroad as president. 

You cannot make this insanity up!

Insofar as the Paris climate agreement goes, I'm not certain what we should do as a nation. But a campaign promise kept cannot be immoral.




Tweet