New York Times Characterizes Baby's Heartbeat As "Embryonic Pulsing"

                 The New York Times (“The Truth Is Worth It”) recently reported on Louisiana’s new law restricting abortion. The Gray Lady’s Atlanta Bureau correspondent, Alan Blinder, wrote: “The measure would require an ultrasound test for any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and forbid abortion if the test detects embryonic pulsing—which can occur before many women know they are pregnant.”

                Embryonic pulsing?! Even the Devil must be laughing at these preposterous attempts to mask the truth…and aid and abet evil.

                If a baby’s heartbeat can be described as an undeveloped pulsing, it is possible to obscure the reality of virtually any word or phrase. Rape? Perish the thought. We say, “coerced comingling” or “persuasive physicality,” which can occur before many men know they are engaged in the activity. And why not use “unauthorized redistribution” in place of burglary? Bestiality? “Interspecies romance” is less offensive to those in that community. Necrophilia naturally becomes “corporeal coupling.”

                Euphemism? “Underplayed characterization.”

                New York Times reporting? No. “Moronic expounding.”

Berkeley Students Demand Sanctuary Dormitory

                Students and other radicals are hoping to establish the world’s first “sanctuary dormitory” for illegal aliens on the University of California-Berkeley campus.

                This is odd, given that Berkeley itself is a sanctuary city. The nation’s very first, in fact. It is doubly redundant given the fact that the school also already refuses to enforce immigration laws and acts as a “sanctuary campus.” What’s more, the entire University of California educational system released a statement in 2017 proclaiming “vigorous support for all our undocumented students and staff” and pledged to provide them with counseling, financial aid, housing assistance, mental health resources, and research funding.

                A somewhat baffled Dan Mogulof, UC-Berkeley spokesman, told Campus Reform that he wasn’t sure what the activists wanted in the dorm, given that Berkeley has repeatedly and consistently made clear its intent to create a safe space for illegal immigrant students and that campus police are already instructed not to cooperate with ICE or other federal agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

                Yet, on April 10^th, members of the Berkeley chapter of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) called on the school’s student government to convert Eshelman Hall to a sanctuary for illegal alien students and community members, thereby sending “a political message to Donald trump,” according to Campus Reform. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary is, apparently, known as BAMN, not CDAAIIRFEBAMN, for reasons unstated.

   I guess “by any means necessary” is the most important part of any progressive manifesto.

   A sanctuary dorm inside of a sanctuary campus inside of a sanctuary city. No other group in the nation—or anywhere else—has this kind of layered protection. Certainly not conservatives. Or straight white Christian males. They are demonized and chased off campus.

  By why stop there? What’s next? I’d like to see a “sanctuary floor” in the “sanctuary dorm.” Perhaps even a “sanctuary bathroom” within a “Sanctuary dorm room” within a “sanctuary wing” of a “sanctuary floor” of a “sanctuary dorm” on a “sanctuary campus” in a “sanctuary city.” Would that be an adequately protected safe space for our illegal aliens?

  Apparently, Democrats believe that no legal citizen—let alone one with traditional values—should ever be allowed to interact with the undocumented heroes without express, written consent from the undocumented heroes themselves, BAMN, the University of California-Berkeley, and the Democratic National Committee. 

Drag Queen Story Time Strikes Again

                It was cold outside the Lansdale Public Library in Pennsylvania recently. But it was hot inside, honey! Miss Annie, drag queen extraordinaire, was reading books about tolerance and diversity to young children while dressed in “her” full regalia. It was Drag Queen Story Time, baby. Now that’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout!

                When performing for adults, Miss Annie goes by “Annie Christ.” Get it? Like Anti-Christ? How adorable! (Wonder if she ever goes by “Mo Hammad” or “Ho’ Hammad?” Probably not). And Annie was pissed at a couple of people that were protesting her appearance in front of the kids. But she shouldn’t have felt bad, as more people were protesting the protesters. The counter-protesters held up signs that read, “Love is Love is Love” and “God Thinks Drag Queens Are Fabulous.” I’m not sure why the former was deemed appropriate or applicable in this instance. And I’m not sure I want to know. As for the latter, well, that is yet to be determined, as they say. Some folks chanted “Love thy neighbor!” for some reason. (Unless, of course, your neighbor voted for Donald Trump and/or wears a “MAGA” hat. Tolerance can only go so far). Two children chanted, “Stop your hate! Drag is great!” to those opposed to the Annie Christ. That these youngsters felt compelled to spout inane, politically-correct banalities in support of a much older man in provocative women’s clothing reading to their peers in a public space is proof positive that our education system is doing its job admirably. Dilly, Dilly!

                One counter-protester sported a sign saying, “God loves Annie Christ.” Stupefying.

                The library doesn’t host Bible story times or readings. Hell, it’s a public place. It can’t be pushing any kind of an agenda. And, it has to maintain its dignity, right? Sshh!

Trump Balloon Deflated In London

                Protesters in London, England, sent up a 20-foot-tall inflatable balloon in the image of President Donald Trump as a baby…during the president’s visit to The Big Smoke. The deliberately offensive blimp, replete with diaper and safety-pin, was the brainchild of the Trump Baby Group and was guided and “guarded” by the “babysitters,” protesters who volunteered for the job.

                Apparently, the “babysitters” weren’t up to the task at hand, as a woman stabbed the blimp with a sharp object behind the House of Commons. The woman, a fan of the president, was promptly arrested for being in the possession of a pointed or bladed article. Reports say the woman stated her support for Trump immediately after puncturing the balloon and then chided the protesters, saying “Shame on you.” She added: “I think Donald Trump’s balloon is not very well. I think it’s going down rapidly for a reason.”

                A “spokesman” for the Trump Baby Group verified that a woman punctured the Trump baby replica balloon “with a sharp object,” before stating: “It’s not surprising that the far right would want to meet freedom of expression with violence,” a remark so preposterous and steeped in hypocrisy one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Those on the “far” left brand anyone to the starboard side of Karl Marx as being on the “far right.” And it is they who prevent conservatives from speaking on campuses, shout down those with whom they disagree, routinely snatch “MAGA” hats from their owners, and generally act like entitled thugs. Progressives demand the “right” to kill real babies, but are upset at balloon “violence?” It is illustrative that yet another conservative or Trump supporter was hit with a milkshake as he interacted with anti-Trump protesters during the protest. This form of assault on conservative politicians and/or Trump backers has become common, a “thing” as the youth say.

                In a rare pushback to student punks and leftist agitators, this woman was literally there when the balloon went up…ready to deflate it, and the mood of the maddening crowd of demented demonstrators. So be it.

                I don’t mean to burst their bubble, but what kind of a society tolerates abortion on demand, but arrests people for possession of a “pointed or bladed” article? Does this include a pencil? A box-fan?

                How about a pointed remark? Is that okay? From the left, probably. From the right, not so much.

Students Schooled On Socialism

                Campus Reform, a website dedicated to college idiocy, went to Florida International University to find out if students with higher GPAs would be okay if they were forced to “spread the wealth” and give some of their GPA points to students with lower GPAs. As the site’s report read, “despite the overwhelming number of students who initially said they’d support socialist policies, few agreed to go along with such a plan.”

                Odd.

                One student said, “I’m all for helping, but I wouldn’t give some of my points…I’ve lost a lot of sleep so I don’t know if that would be fair.” It wouldn’t be fair to that student to have to share? What about the students in need of a better GPA? Is that attitude fair to them? Another student remarked, “I like, study all day for my grades.” And the people who pay taxes, like, work all day for their money, moron.

                Let’s make everything socialist and see how society functions. Or doesn’t. Oh wait, I guess we can see that now in Venezuela. And throughout all of recorded history. But maybe all of recorded history is just a fluke. Surely AOC and company know how to make Marxism magic, make socialism soar! I’m betting the 183^rd time is the charm.

                So, let’s Make Socialism Fun Again! Let’s flood the country with MSFA hats! We can use the red stock left over from unmade MAGA hats (due to decreased demand from those who are afraid to wear them in public, lest they be beaten to a bloody, red pulp). No waste!

   How about socialist Bingo? Wouldn’t it be awesome to see someone who is close to winning themselves give a B-4 or an O-69 to someone else in need? Isn’t it time for a really hot guy or gal to hand off one of their dates to a plain Jane or a nerdy Ned? Could there be a better feeling than when your favorite football team is driving down the field for a go-ahead touchdown, and it deliberately turns the ball over to the other squad to spare its players from feeling unworthy?

               In reality, socialism and its close cousins Marxism-Leninism and Communism, are the biggest disincentives to work, wealth, innovation and excellence in human history. Therefore, as Margaret Thatcher said, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

               But, what the hell, the next time you roll a 7 or 11 at the craps table in Vegas, look around for the biggest loser you can find and turn your winnings over to him or her.

               If the likes of Alexandria Occasional-Cortex have their way, it won’t be long until we all crap out, anyway.

Impeachment?

                If progressives and Democratic-Socialists, aided and abetted by their cheerleaders/lapdogs in the Media-Academia-Entertainment Complex, eventually succeed in their obsessive two-year quest to overturn the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the formerly American formerly democratic-republic will have to come up with a new way to decide national elections. One that is less likely to be hi-jacked, voided or reversed by big-government, statist ideologues from the Swampland bent on preserving their control over the dull, yet unruly rubes populating fly-over country.

                Perhaps the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates could play a winner-take-the-office game of Yahtzee. “Full House! That gives me the White House!” When voters and the Electoral College are cast aside like used diapers what difference would it make? They could throw darts, play Chutes ’N’ Ladders, Monopoly, or mud-wrestle (which is essentially what politicians do today anyway, sans the actual mud) to see who becomes Commander-in-Chief.  

                Other viable options may include a version of Monty Python’s “Blackmail” game, in which extremely embarrassing videos from each candidate’s past are posted on social media platforms. The candidate who goes the longest without demanding they be taken down becomes president of the United States, as that person would have demonstrated the ability to handle the slings and arrows of outrageous media coverage!

   Alternately, a “best lie” contest could be conducted, wherein candidates soberly attest to the veracity of obviously preposterous statements, such as former president Obama’s iconic, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” gem of 2009. A three-judge panel consisting of Bill and Hillary Clinton and a rotating third member would decide who told the biggest whopper best and most earnestly, and that person would be anointed the new POTUS and take office the following January. Another way of deciding who resides in “the people’s house” would be a swimsuit competition. Each prospective prez would be placed in a Speedo or bikini, as the case may be, and a three-judge panel consisting of Bill and Hillary Clinton and a rotating third member would pick the president based on their bodily aesthetics…and, of course, their answer to the question: “What does tolerance and inclusivity mean to you?”

  Still another avenue for selecting America’s leader would be a “Guess My Gender” contest. (There are at least 63 to choose from now, experts say). This method would have a Millennial of indeterminate sex/gender/origin parade before the candidates for 60 seconds, after which each candidate would have just ten seconds to correctly identify said Millennial’s chosen gender identity. The candidate who comes the closest becomes the leader of the free world.

  Finally, there is Russian Roulette. Democrats have been telling us the Russians determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election since…the 2016 presidential election. Why not throw them a bone and let Russian Roulette decide who becomes president from here to eternity…or until a Marxist ascends the Bully Pulpit and declares one-party rule in 2025? But first, they’d have to agree to choose their own party’s nominee in the same manner. What could be more fun than watching Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden pass around a Colt .45 revolver in a new version of Russian Roulette in which the chamber of the six-shooter is loaded with five bullets instead of just one. The last man or woman standing advances to take on the Republican nominee.

  Love him or hate him, if Trump is deposed, “Banana Republic” won’t just refer to an American clothing and accessories retailer. It will refer to America.

               

Chestfeeding...Again

             Marie-Claire Springham, a student from London, is receiving kudos for her efforts to allow men to overcome the despicable gender inequality of women-only breastfeeding.

 She appeared on Good Morning Britain to explain her idea for “chestfeeding.” Springham said that when a couple discovers they’re expecting, they would “sign up to basically a pre-natal course” and receive a kit containing a nine-month supply of a drug called progestin, which is meant to “stimulate the production of milk-producing glands” in the males who take it. An additional drug regimen would supposedly then result in lactation. The kit would also include a pump and compression vest.

Said kit doesn’t actually exist yet-- it’s only theoretical for now—and the student hasn’t yet tried out her ideas on any men. However, this didn’t prevent her from winning a Meaning-Centred Design Award for 2018. Julie Jenson Bennett, the award’s jury chair, stated of Springham’s soon-to-be invention: “The chestfeeding kit deserves particular attention because it challenges the fundamental meanings of male and female, father and mother, parent and child. At a time when we increasingly use hormones, medication and technology to change the life options available to us, Marie-Claire’s design concept goes right to the heart of our taboos.”  

            We certainly are intent on challenging the fundamental meaning of everything, lately. And we are clearly exploring the heart of our taboos.

I’m sure some women would like to get a man pregnant in the future, too. We are striving to have men become women and women become men. Maybe a family’s children can become the parents and vice-versa. Wouldn’t that be cool? We already have had a father “become” the mother and the mother “become” the father.

What was God thinking, anyway, making us so binary and giving us such limited life options? 

The only thing we haven’t questioned is where the road down which we are so rapidly travelling may lead us.

We’ve unquestionably led ourselves into temptation.

Perhaps we can still be delivered from evil.

But probably not from insanity.

                          ***********************************
(Also see my post of 8/14/18: "Chestfeeding")
   

Buttigieg And Husband May Be Heterosexuals, Professor Says

                I honestly thought perhaps I’d seen it all. I doubted anything could be dumber, more preposterous and more inane than what has transpired lately in our crazy cultural wars. (A war that is largely being fought by one side—the left).

                I stand corrected.

                Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and his husband Chasten were recently featured on the cover of TIME magazine. If one is of a progressive bent, one might well be expected to approve of the picture, even take…PRIDE!... in it. There could be two “first gentlemen” in the White House for the first time ever! YAY!! Right?

                Apparently not.

                Greta LaFleur, a Yale University assistant professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies recently made the following comments on the Los Angeles Review of Books website, as reported by The College Fix: “At first glance, one sees the anonymity of Norman Rockwell’s mid-century America: the house-unparticular porch, the timelessness of the couple form. Take another look and the pillars supporting the unseen roof of the porch start to resemble the Ionic columns of the White House, the background becoming a gesture or a promise of possibility. You begin to see the image in the aggregate, and the couple, girded by a backdrop literally overwhelmed by the household, becomes the timelessness of the entire image. This photo also tells a profound story about whiteness, above and beyond the fact that almost everything in this photo is, itself, white. It’s such an all-consuming aesthetic, here, that it practically resists interpretation; like the generically familiar (to me, a white person) porch, the cover photo claims that there’s nothing to see, because we already know what it is. We have seen this image, we know this couple, ‘we’ should be comfortable.”

   That is one hell of an interpretative statement by someone who claims the image of which she speaks…and speaks…and speaks, “practically resists interpretation.”

   Ms. LaFleur (the flower!) then averred that “whiteness can be—and regularly is—weaponized by white people.” How? Am I “weaponizing my whiteness” by going to Olive Garden for a “Never Ending Pasta Bowl?” If so, aren’t black folks “weaponizing their blackness” by going to IHOP for All-You-Can-Eat pancakes?

                  But, happily, she still wasn’t done. She went on to say: “If certain forms of structural power such as whiteness have become detachable from white people, perhaps this is true of other forms of structural power as well. This is not to make a ‘like race’ argument (although this is of course such a problematic staple of so much theorizing in sexuality studies) so much as it is to make a ‘like power’ argument; and the argument I am making, of course, is that this photo is about a lot of things, but one of its defining features is its heterosexuality. It’s offering us the promise that our first gay first family might actually be a straight one. Queer theorists and queer communities have coined terms like homonormativity to describe this effect, but this recent Time cover left me wondering: is this homonormativity? Or just heterosexuality? If straight people can be queer — as so many of them seem so impatient to explain to me — can’t gay people also be straight?”

  Wait a minute, if whiteness is detachable from white people, is it possible for a person of color to be whiter than a white person? And she thinks one of the “defining features” of the photo of two openly gay men is its heterosexuality? “Our first gay first family might actually be a straight one?” This is all so confusing. Has it come to this: two gay men, fully clothed, standing outside a garden variety home in the Heartland aren’t sufficiently queer? A few short years ago gay marriage was universally illegal, and now its blasé? Not nearly outré enough for the times?

 Buttigieg is a name that fairly begs for some good natured pun-play, butt but I almost feel too sorry for him to engage in the exercise. At the rate things are progressing, he may not stand a chance to be elected if, say, a bisexual, mulatto pans-gendered communist joins the fray.

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

 (President Trump even said he’s fine with Buttigieg’s sexuality. In fact, he said: “it’s great!” If the media and Democrats reacted the same way to this as they have to everything else Trump has ever said, thought, or believed, they would now be denouncing homosexuality in over-the-top terms).

"Progressives" Traditionally, Conventionally Pushing The Radical Envelope

                The left lives to “push the envelope.” To Hollywood, the media and Big Academia, there are apparently at least five main envelopes in need of pushing. LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, disdain for the rubes in fly-over country, attacking free-market capitalism and hatred of Christianity.

                Surely there must be many more envelopes out there to be pushed. Why cling to this conservative, traditional, hum-drum, ho-hum, narrow-minded, envelope-pushing? Why get bogged down in the status quo? Why push the same envelopes all your peers are pushing? Why push the very same tired envelopes your parents did? Why not be original, cutting-edge, even outré? Dare I say courageous?

                If people truly wanted to be bold, progressive and counter-cultural they could stand up and testify that climate change is a hoax at worst and unproven at best. So what if they were deemed a “Denier” or threatened with prison time. If they wished to take a stand that matters, they could say that radical Islam is a world-wide problem. If they wanted to “stick it to the man,” they could state that men who identify as women…aren’t necessarily women. If they wanted to “keep it real” they would aver that abortion isn’t “women’s health care,” but simply infanticide aided by a slick public-relations campaign. Dilly, dilly!

                If they wished to be seen as genuine, they could admit that, though Trump has veracity and character issues, he is a saint compared to either Bill or Hillary Clinton. And many others on the left. If they wanted to appear learned and open-minded, they could declare—unequivocally—that, on balance, the Founders were the Greatest Generation…and built the world anew, setting it on a course of previously unknown prosperity and liberation. They could refute the notion that The Church of Satan and Judeo-Christianity have equal claim to the public square.

                They could admit the obvious and say that capitalism has historically been more beneficial to society than Socialism. The cheekiest among them could even say that the West has nothing to apologize for and in fact is responsible for most of the advances from which this world has benefitted.

                To which I’d add: “Hey, hey, ho, ho…Western culture doesn’t blow.” (If you’re honest, this you’d know).

Ocasio-Cortez...Again

            There is irrational…and then there is clinically insane. And then there is bat-shit crazy. And then there is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). AOC, who is demonstrably not A-OK, recently tweeted: “To the GOP extremists trying to invoke the unborn’ to jail people for abortion: Where are you on climate change? OH right, you want to burn fossil fuels til there’s hell on Earth. If they were truthful about their motives, they’d be consistent in their principles. They’re not.”

 She added: “What angers me about the GOP’s attempts to turn the United States into a far-right Christian theocracy is how dishonest they are about it. At least be forthright about your desire to subvert and dismantle our democracy into a creepy theological order led by a mad king.”

Still not satisfied with the preposterousness of her statements, she blathered: “The GOP doesn’t care about babies at all - especially brown, black, or poor ones. If they did, they’d: - cosponsor the Green New Deal or at LEAST have a real climate plan - guarantee healthcare so ALL can get prenatal care - not stand for the death+caging of babies on our border.”

AOC thinks it is “extreme” to protect the life of babies still in the womb? (Or maybe those outside the womb for a relatively short period of time). And she is convinced Republicans are fervently hoping to create a “hell on Earth?” Is she unaware that Republicans dwell here, too? She’s a big fan of abortion on demand but is worried about the health of babies coming across our border? Her idea of “prenatal care” is to guarantee the “right” of the mother to extinguish the life of her baby, yet she is aghast that Republicans won’t back a bill that would necessarily impoverish countless millions and condemn untold numbers of children to needless hardship? What was that about being consistent in one’s principles, Rep. Occasional-Cortex?

If the GOP is attempting to turn the U.S. into a “far-right Christian theocracy” headed by a “creepy theological order led by a mad king,” it has failed miserably. A lower percentage of Americans than ever before identify as Christians. Gay marriage is nearly universally accepted. The transgendered are winning legal battles and claiming bathroom rights around the fruited plain. Christian churches are being shuttered as Mosques are being built. Etc., etc.

AOC’s staggering ignorance and/or hypocrisy shines brightest in her remark that “The GOP doesn’t care about babies at all - especially brown, black, or poor ones.” Yes, that is clear from its attempts to keep them from being exterminated. The vast majority of babies aborted are “persons of color,” from poor parents, females, or some combination of these.

It is the Democratic Party that doesn’t care about babies at all—especially the brown, black or poor ones. If they did, they’d cosponsor anti-abortion legislation or at least have a real abortion plan.