October 08, 2019
Rep. Adam Schiff is one of Donald Trump's fiercest, most relentless critics. He still insists there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and is a primary mover behind the current efforts to impeach the president.
But Schiff has his own connections to Ukraine that may raise troubling questions about a conflict of interest.
Schiff's ties to a wealthy Russian-American businessman doing business in Ukraine have recently come to light. Igor Pasternak is CEO of Worldwide Aeros Corp., a company that makes blimps for the military and commercial sectors. The company also makes a modified version of the M4 and M16 rifles that are manufactured in Ukraine. His connection to Pasternak, who is doing business with the Ukrainian government, could be construed as being a conflict of interest in his committee's investigation..
In 2013, Pasternak hosted a fundraiser in Washington for Schiff, who later came to embrace a strong stance in support of the United States sending military aid to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.
"Before this time, Schiff rarely, if ever, mentioned Ukraine,” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said on her show Thursday night, after detailing Schiff’s connection to Pasternak."But after the fundraiser, he used multiple television appearances to basically demand that we send money and arms to them.”
Schiff's abrupt shift on supplying arms to the nation where his benefactor owns a large company might raise a few eyebrows. Pasternak's efforts to win military contracts from the Ukrainian government makes one wonder what else Schiff might have done to help his supporter.
Yes indeed. Sauce for the goose, etc. Please go here https://pjmedia.com/trending/schiffs-own-ties-to-ukraine-raise-questions/ to read the rest.[...]
Inevitably, people are going to start pointing to a double standard:She also claimed Democrats were concerned about the optics of a double standard when Schiff became one of the standard-bearers for impeachment.
"The liberals weren’t all that wild about the idea of this Schiff character pushing the Trump narrative, because they thought, he’s kind of a pro-military expenditure, ra-ra, get more money over to these other governments. They weren’t thrilled about that," Ingraham said.
Trump is already on this angle, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats can keep ignoring it after Republicans begin asking whether Schiff should recuse himself from the investigations.
If Diversity were such a strength then the Balkans would be the world's greatest power. Ditto India, and all of Subsaharan Africa. In point of fact, the most diverse places are generally culturally and economically the weakest.
Peer Reviewed Academic Study Finds Diversity is Not a Strength
October 07, 2019
The answer here is simple. At $500 an hour, how much justice can you afford? The middle class cannot afford justice so the IRS picks on them, instead of the wealthy who can afford high powered tax lawyers.
Sorry, but it's just easier and cheaper to audit the poor
Here is a devastating attack on the impeachment inquiry and especially the "smoking gun" text messages.
From the article by Steve Hilton:
Some commentators called that statement "devastating for the president,"pointing to the fact that Volker debunks claims by Rudy Giuliani and the president about Ukraine's role in 2016 and Joe Biden's role in Ukraine. That isperfectly true.
Kurt Volker has been involved in every aspect of this story, dealing face to face with all the key players, all along: President Trump, President Zelensky, Zelensky's adviser Andriy Yermak, and Giuliani. Volker's been described by Trump critics as an "honest broker.'"
Listen to his actual evidence. On page three of his statement, Volker says:"At no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you will see from the extensive text messages, I am providing, which convey a sense of real-time dialogue with several different actors, Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion."
On page six, talking about President rump delaying a meeting with Zelensky -- a delay that, based on the texts alone,the media cite as evidence of Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden -- Volker says:
"But Ibelieved that the president’s long-held negative view toward Ukraine was causing hesitation in actually scheduling the meeting."
Nothing to do with investigating Biden. Just President Trump's concerns over Ukraine corruption, exactly as he's been saying.
Read the entire article; it's eye-opening!
A Clinton appointed judge has ordered Donald Trump to turn over eight years of tax returns to Cyrus Vance Jr. (You may remember the name; his father was Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State) Manhattan District Attorney.
According to the Washington Times:
Mr. Vance asked the 2nd Circuit to speed the case, saying he wanted briefings and oral argument this week.
He says his investigation is looking into whether the president broke the law by paying hush money to porn stars during the presidential campaign.The President appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who granted a temporary stay to the ruling by Democratic Judge Victor Marrero.
I am not sure what the law says here, but I do know it is merely a custom for the President to release his tax returns and, frankly, I wouldn't release them either were I Trump; the wolves are waiting to comb over every inch of his returns to find anything they can use against him.
No doubt, if they do get the returns they will find something. That is because it is impossible to be in compliance with the tax code; it was designed so overly complicated for just this reason. Eventually they will find SOMETHING. That is why it is important for the Courts to respect Trump's reticence here. But they won't if it moves s through liberal courts.
Watch for more fireworks with this.
Another "non-partisan" left wing group, sponsoring the "whistleblowers
Is anyone shocked?https://freebeacon.com/issues/nonpartisan-group-offering-help-to-d-c-whistleblowers-connected-to-progressives/?fbclid=IwAR1l8uLK__ThJgYw9HZPTid81m5nAiNoQjfE_12JUUDHDNr34jFWpqRp97g
This from Tim:
Here is an older article about the Soros/Graveyard Whisltler connection. From the article:
Footnote #9 reads: "In May, Attorney General Barr announced that he was initiating a probe into the ‘origins’ of the Russia investigation. According to the above-referenced OCCRP report (22 July), two associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian officials to uncover information that would become part of this inquiry.”
Footnote #10 reads: "See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22 July).” This footnote relates to the claim in the report that "Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani.”
Footnote #11 reads: "I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.”
And who is OCCRP?
OCCRP describes itself as a "non-profit media organization providing an investigative reporting platform” which links "45 non-profit investigative centers in 34 countries, scores of journalists and several major regional news organizations across Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.”
"We work to turn the tables on corruption and build greater accountability through exposing the abuse of power at the expense of the people,” OCCRP states. "We serve all people whose lives are affected by organized crime and corruption.”
Besides Soros-linked funding, OCCRP also receives support from the U.S. government, which has made sizeable contributions to the organization via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), providing over $2 million in revenue in 2017, according to a financial report (pdf).
Private institutions in the same year contributed just over $2.3 million combined.Pardon me, but why are taxpayers funding this outfit?
October 06, 2019
Much has been made of Nancy Pelosi's about face on impeachment. Why, everyone asks, did she switch now? I don't think it's really that complicated; Pelosi wants to bloody Trump as much as possible and at the same time appease the rabid bats in her base. But there may be another reason.
Apparently Pelosi's son Paul Jr. sits on the board of an Ukrainian oil company.
It may be that Trump working with the Ukrainians to clean up corruption may have directly threatened the San Francisco Bleat and her kin. Where she was content to stay her palsied hand prior she now has to take an active role to bring this poking around to an end.
BOOM: Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE!
And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!https://t.co/wlndLhPqLe
— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) October 3, 2019
Is there anyone in Washington NOT in bed with the Ukrainians?
Now, there is no allegation that Pelosi did anything illegal (although he certainly was profiteering off his much face-lifted mommy) but he may have, too. Did he offer favor with Nan in return for goodies? Shoot, the only reason the guy had the job was because he ostensibly offered favors.
And isn't it funny that Ukraine was the source for Christopher Steele's information that was used to get the FISA warrant to spy on Trump.
This thing looks dirtier and dirtier.
October 05, 2019
On Facebook Judson Phillips reposted this:
Post stolen from Melody H
A commenter shot back at Judson:
He didn't like that and responded:
And here is my answer:
The "favor" was in no way a thing of material value to him. He had no assurances, and asked none, of a conviction or of planting evidence or whatnot. He only suggested they resume the investigation that Biden strongarmed them out of. Biden is the one who should be investigated over this.
The Democrats know that; they've read the transcript. This is not just their way of viewing it,. If it were so why did Pelosi give this to Intel Chair Adam Schiff rather than to the House Judiciary Committee? To keep the proceedings secret, to maintain a star chamber atmosphere. Why did Adam Schiff lie about details in the transcript? It's clear that this is a coup attempt. I repeat; there is no underlying crime.
Except on the part of Mr. Biden, and of the intelligence people who leaked this (they are not "whistleblowers").
No doubt he will respond, and probably be rather cheesed about this.
I suspect I'm arguing with a lawyer here, and of course I am not one. But the law is obviously murky where "value" is concerned in the statute. I stick with my original statement; nothing of value is being offered or asked for here. As such there is no underlying crime.
Paul Mirengoff worries about polling data from Quinnipiac that suggests that 52% of voters think Trump should be removed from office if he tried to use Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Why worry? Mirengoff says:
Note that the question here wasn’t about a quid pro quo; it was about asking for help in defeating a political opponent. Even if the president simply asked for this as a favor, a majority of voters see this as grounds for impeachment, at least according to the Quinnipiac survey.
I suspect the Democrats’ own polling yielded a similar result. This might well have been what convinced Nancy Pelosi to give the green light for an "impeachment inquiry.” It signaled that the Democrats can make substantial headway with a simple narrative that doesn’t rely on the existence of a quid pro quo (though the Dems will certainly press hard to find evidence of one).First, bear in mind that on October 19, 2016 Quinnipiac had Hillary Clinton winning by over 7%, and that was at the end when the polls usually tighten up. (They showed her up by over ten percent in August.) We are now over a year out from the election and Q is giving a bare majority to impeachment, not of likely voters, I might add. The reality is this is probably ten percent above where it should be or more. It's a fake news poll. Not sure how Mirengoff is falling for this.
Second, no, Nancy Pelosi doesn't have any internal polling showing her anything. She is under intense pressure to do this, and at the same time it is increasingly obvious the Democrats are in trouble with the electorate. She is throwing a Hail Mary pass here, launching an INVESTIGATION to try to turn something, anything up to use to destroy Trump. She knows she isn't going to succeed in removing him from office, but she hopes to bloody him up and at the same time maybe turn something up. Again, Mirengoff ought to know that.
Pelosi can no longer restrain her base, and she must gin up enthusiasm from them to gain any momentum.
Also, what was the context? In theory most people would agree asking for help from a foreign government to hurt a political enemy is wrong, but do they necessarily think it wrong of Trump, who is fighting against a brutal Deep State assault? And what if in the same poll the question was asked about Democratic ties to Ukraine in regards to the "Russian Collusion" story?
I think that many in the public realize what Trump has had to endure. I remember when they said Bill Clinton was the "first Black President' because he "was being pursued by The Man". How much more can that be said of Mr. Trump? What was the racial breakdown of this poll? Did blacks stand with Trump or turn against him?
These types of polls serve to drive opinion, not reflect it. Mirenghoff should know better.
Quinnipiac has been full of all sorts of anti-Trump polling that I do not believe reflects reality. Trump is losing women. He's losing the suburbs. Americans hate his trade policies, etc. Yet every time new polls come out showing Trump is gaining ground. How is that? Clearly Quinnipiac is manipulating the data - or just polling in so lazy a fashion as to get these results.
Look, According to Rasmussen 48% of likely voters approve of Trump's performance. And it's not just Rasmussen; most polling shows Trump well ahead of where Obama was at this point in his Presidency.
Rasmussen also found that :
And only 23% of voters think we should worry more about impeaching Trump than about fixing illegal immigration.
And nearly everyone is angry at the media.
This from Warner Todd Houston:
Disney CEO Bob Iger: Firing Roseanne Barr was ‘Easy Decision’
Funny; he didn't worry about Jimmy Kimmel, who mocked Melania Trump's accent then attacked Sean Hannity with this:
— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) April 6, 2018
So it's o.k. to call Hannity a sodomite engaged in homosexual relations with the President? Iger's double standard is astonishing - but typical of left wing idiots.
I had a disagreement on Facebook about immigration. Here is the thread:
We're a country of people from many nations, people who all spoke their native languages when they arrived. I had to translate my instructions to my lawn men who spoke very rudimentary English. Before you blow a gasket, they came in on temp visas every year to work for the company and then went back. Until this years when the number of temp visas dropped except for Trump's vineyards, where more were granted.
That is true, Gail , but we have so very many people here now. One in five people in this country are first generation immigrants. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/ now - a staggering number, as high as the very peak of immigration at the dawn of the twentieth century.
America's response then was to stop almost ALL immigration to the U.S. until 1965. And Harry Truman kicked out three million illegal aliens during his Presidency. Eisenhower kicked out two million. Five million illegal aliens were deported back then.
One fifth of the population does not speak English at home. https://cis.org/One-Five-US-Residents-Speaks-Foreign-Language-Home-Record-618-million That is 61.8 MILLION people. We shut down immigration in the twentieth century to assimilate the vast numbers of people we were getting into the country then. But we no longer are doing that. In fact, right now there are 38.4 Million people who speak Spanish as their primary language, and of those 27.2 MILLION WERE BORN in the U.S. That suggests they are not enculturating.
Now , the population of Guatemala is only 17.66 million, so we have more American born people speaking a foreign language than all of Guatemala. Think about that.
This will do us no favors, as it will splinter the country into multiple nations, much like the Balkans, which have been in a state of warfare for a thousand years. And in fact the Hispanic youth group MECha and LaRaza (the Race) both call for the creation of Aztlan, an Hispanic nation independent of the U.S., in what is now the Southwest - New Mexico, Arizona, California, etc. There is a separatist movement. We may well find ourselves in the same position as the Austro-Hungarian Empire at some point.
But even if we don't our culture - which has given us the highest standard of living on Earth - will change immensely. Latin America has a number of problems that we have been fortunate to avoid; political corruption, civil war, rampant organized crime, no middle class, etc. It will all be ours if we continue on this path.
I'm not saying we have to stop all immigration, but I am saying we need to slow it down quite a bit and educate the people who are here. We are not a nation if we do not control our borders, plain and simple. This argument is so often nonsensical; would any person just let someone walk into their home and start eating their food and sleeping in their beds? But we are doing exactly that as a nation.
Bear in mind, too, that we had heavy immigration when we had a large frontier and lots of open spaces - and needed people to do the work. Times change. A motel would long ago have put out the No Vacancy sign. There comes a time when the value of immigration is less than the problems and costs.
BTW, I rather suspect your gardeners are not on H1B visas as they are telling you, but rather are here illegally. It's easier for them that way.
Thanks for a pleasant discussion.
October 04, 2019
The media has been claiming Antarctic ice is down. Nope.
The southern oceans are running well below normal temperature.
Anyone remember Swedish Professor Magnus Soderlund? He called for cannibalism to "save the Planet" first.
Well, someone showed up at a rally held by America's dumbest dimwit, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wearing a shirt saying "eat the babies".
One of Ocasio-Cortez's constituents loses her mind over climate change during AOC's townhall, claims we only have a few months left: "We got to start eating babies! We don't have enough time! ... We have to get rid of the babies! ... We need to eat the babies!" pic.twitter.com/uVmOnboluI
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 3, 2019AOC is trying to distance herself by claiming this is a "mentally ill" person:
This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse. Be a decent human being and knock it off.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 4, 2019But isn't this logical, if indeed we are going to starve to death because of Global Warming? Soylent Green is People!
How is this woman any less sane than, say, the aforementioned prophessor (misspelling intended; he is prophesying after all.)
How is this any worse than AOC's Green New Deal?
People are blaming this on Lyndon LaRouche:
— Lyndon LaRouche PAC (@larouchepac)
Maybe so, but so what? They were able to successfully punk AOC, and why? Because some of the Deep Environmentalism types have ALREADY SUGGESTED IT.
This is how leftists think. They have murdered millions of people in the past to advance their political beliefs. Why not eat people? Better than wasting their bodies after you liquidate them, after all.
This is how these people think.
Everyone seems to have forgotten this guy.
From the article by Roger Simon:
We're supposed to believe he was a Russian agent who, in 2016, told a then very minor Trump aide named George Papadopoulos thatthe Kremlin was in possession of thousands of emails revealing "dirt” about Hillary Clinton that could help Trump’s campaign.
Indeed, James Comey told us Mifsud was a "Russian agent" and Robert Mueller assured us in his report that Mifsud had "connections to Russia." But this is the same Mueller who avowed under oath he had never heard of the constantly discussed (for over two years ad infinitum on cable news) Fusion GPS,the same Mueller who informed us that Russians were working to get Trump elected when the Russians were the ones who were the putative source for the Steele dossier that did nothing but smear Trump. Try to reconcile that one.
Well, you can't... unless you think Mueller's completely senile -- or a liar. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, as some prescient ancient Romans said.
So Barr, in the company of John Durham, his lead investigator on these matters, was in Rome talking with several people high up in Italian intelligence. They are supposed to have played for him a tape recording Mifsud left before he disappeared. If it turns out the professor was a U.S. agent or one allied to the U.S., planted to suck in the naive Papadopoulos, to make him run back to the mothership and blabber about something that wasn't true in order to hang Trump, it is one of the greatest and most evil stories of our times. If it can be proven that what we have experienced for the entire Trump era is a put-up job linked to the previous administration, to the Brennans and Clappers of the world, Professor Mifsud is the nerdy Helen of Troy who launched the thousand ships of the Mueller investigation, resulting in impeachment currently being shrieked on every corner and, frankly, mass U.S. hysteria and hatred across our land. It is... he is... to use mystery language again, the MacGuffin of all time -- or at least of American history. Whether you call it treason or sedition, it is unlike anything that has happened in our country before. It is more like the workings of the NKVD.No wonder the Deep State is throwing everything against the wall now; they are in mortal peril of being completely exposed.
Read the whole piece; it is well worth your time.
Warner Todd Houston pens an article about singer Selena Gomez, a child of illegal aliens who frets about the treatment of other trespassing thieves.
Pop Star Selena Gomez: ‘I Feel Afraid for My Country’
Gomez brings the Book of Matthew to mind. Jesus said:
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other"
Gomez and the other illegal aliens serve two masters, and through nostalgia they love the one they left and hate their current benefactor. If Gomez really worried about this country she would worry about a situation that entices these poor, suffering aliens to come here in the first place, and makes no effort to stop them. She should cry for both of her counties being immigrationally
Of course, Gomez is rich and successful and can treat herself to the luxury of self-righteous indignation.
And let us not forget the words of Jesus:
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."
Gomez is the child of thieves and robbers. And she demands the right of other thieves and robbers to steal and take.
If she really does love THIS country she would support enforcing our border laws.
Cheerleaders get a bad rap. Here's one who debunks the stereotype:
Texas cheerleader, 17, jumps off her homecoming parade float to save a choking toddler in the crowd
From the article:
Tyra Winters, a 17-year-old student from Rockwall High School, near Dallas, explained how she was on the school's float with her cheerleading squad and the football team when she heard murmurs that a child was choking in the crowd.
She scanned the spectators and manage to pick out a little boy whose face was turning'super, super red', she told ABC News.
Within an instant, Tyra jumped off the float and ran towards the boy, who was with his mother, and performed the Heimlich maneuver.
'At this point, he's kind of turning purple,' Tyra said.
'I picked him up and then I tilted him downwards and gave him two or three back thrusts. He then was spitting everything up,' she recalled.
The little boy's mom, Nicole Hornback, said that she had already tried to perform the Heimlich on her son, two-year-old Clarke, but wasn't successful.The modern Progressive era has tried very hard to destroy the attributes of America, and the concept of a wholesome cheerleader or football player has always been in their crosshairs; they prefer to promote the radical chic over the all-American boy or girl. This same hatred of Americana holds true with fraternities and sororities in college as well. It's part of their war on our cultural identity.
Well, this girl is truly an all-American, and a heroine to boot. She should be celebrated for her quick and decisive thinking, and her willingness to think beyond her own situation.
Tim McNabb makes the following point:
OK - Time Out...
Beat cops have no business setting policy. If the Boss says to leave ICE out of it, you can resign, or do what you are told.
The people in a jurisdiction set policy through their elected officials, and elected officials are accountable at the ballot box. Not beat cops.
I disagree with his reasoning here.
Police take an oath to uphold the law, and Federal law has supremacy in cases like this. This cop was being forced to break his oath by the local authorities.
Does this mean a cop cannot cooperate with an FBI probe of a lynching if local authorities decide he shouldn't? That used to happen in the old South, but the issue has been long settled. You can't do it.
The Constitution grants authority over immigration issues to the Federal government, not state or local governments, and the Obama Administration sued Arizona for enforcing Federal law inside the state. That was wrong, because the state law was a mirror image of the Federal, but it happened nonetheless.
In this instance the local authorities are openly defying the lawful authority here. The cop has a sworn duty to uphold the law.
And if the people forcing him to disobey the law are then forced to renege because of public pressure, so be it. After all, the Left has used such pressure to force our side to toe their line. Remember when Mike Pence was going to sign a bill in Indiana protecting Christians from being forced to perform acts in violation of their consciences (such as baking cakes for gay weddings)? The Left started a blitzkrieg of media and internet fury and Pence backed down. If they can do it, so can we.
My news feed on Facebook provided an article about Saturn's moon Enceladus, claiming NASA has found the building blocks of life under the moon's icy crust.
Of course, there has been no actual physical sampling, so this ultimately is speculation. We don't have any way of knowing what is happening below the thick icy crust.
Be that as it may, the point is the comments were interesting, and I particularly liked this one:
This dovetailed with a reply I left on another comment where the writer claimed it was a short step between having the building blocks of life and life itself. I said:
At any rate, the comment about abortion led to a few snarky replies, naturally, from our liberal friends.
One reply stated:
No doubt I'm going to catch eight shades of Hades over that one, but it is worth it.
The fact is, you cannot discuss extraterrestrial life and NOT touch on religion. Abiogenesis , the creation of life from non-life, is at it's root a religious question, and we have never, ever seen it happen - not here on Earth, despite the best efforts of scientists to make it happen in laboratories. Without a resolution to this question we are operating on Faith, on both sides of the debate. Evolutionary theory cannot be proven or disproven without this question being answered, and it cannot be answered unless we either see life form from nonlife or find a life form that has evolved from a completely independent molecule than ours. It is a terrible embarassment to the Darwinist crowd, as they KNOW they can't close the deal without this.
So they brazen it out with stuff like this, claiming "proof" with mere conjecture.
But ironically so many of those who have hitched their ideological wagons to the Darwin train will at the same time promote abortion. Why? Because abortion gives Man power equal to Gods', or so they think. See, if there is no God then Man is the decider of all things, and we may not have the power of life but we sure do have the power of death. The ultimate assertion of atheism is to assert the right to control life and death.
Of course, in the end, they know that an unborn baby is still a baby, and an assailant can be charged with murder of an unborn child if he beats a pregnant woman.
Doctors know it too; my mother used to work in the maternity ward at a St. Louis hospital and the doctors used to call abortion duty (at the climics, where it was required of Residents) "baby killing day". The fact is, physically you have a baby. You have the DNA. You have the developmental arc. You have the organs forming. You have everything that makes a child, perhaps a little underdone, but dont we consider a disabled person a person? If you are born without legs we still consider you a person.
Person is the operative word. The argument among serious people is over personhood; the foetus is "not a person" because it lacks sentiency. But if we use that criteria, we can in fact eliminate the personhood of all manner of people; those in comas, the elederly, children under age ten, Democrats, Bernie Sanders supporters, etc.
Now, that would be fine with many on the Left, provided THEY are the ones defining who is a person. Make no mistake; they would declare many of US nonpersons! Which is why the standard of personhood should be quite low.
An unborn baby moves, it feels pain (watch it try to get away from an abortionists probe in an ultrasound!), it clearly senses the moods of its mother. Does it think? Not in the way we do, but it certainly does share cognitive abilities with us. And it will become sentient in time, unlike an animal which will never do so.
Thomas Aquinas argued that a thing had an inherent quality which defined it. A chair had a "chairness" about it; it had a seat, legs, a back, etc. which gave it a definitive quality of a chair. (We really should be talking to Daren Jonescu about this; he would explain it far better, being a philosophy professor.) If we are to use a Thomistic view of things (rather than the modern reductivism) then clearly a foetus is a baby in progress.
And clearly a bunch of chemicals floating around in an ocean underneath a crust of ice on a moon of Saturn is not.
Science is reaching the point that Nietzche predicted, where it collapsed by dismantling it's own underlying assumptions. Now science is either over speculative or actively hostile to the notion of human reason. Both are symptoms of the same disease. In the end our science will become superstition (if it is not already, and I tend to think it IS in the minds of most people these days.) Superstition will inevitably lead to our collapse as a society, and others who haven't lost their perspective, haven't adopted materialism over spiritual belief, will prosper.
Warner Todd Houston brings this to our attention.
Turns out the "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat.
Whoda thunk it?
October 03, 2019
He doesn't say it, but let's greatly hope we don't fall asleep again in 2020 and Trump doesn't get beat at the polls. Meanwhile, please go here https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victor-davis-hanson-china-woke-america to read VDH -- always an exhilarating experience.
In these times of near civil war, Americans agree on almost nothing. Yet sometime in 2019, almost all of America finally got "woke” on China.
For years, our leaders had yawned about Silk Road neo-imperialism in Africa and Asia, and gross abuses of human rights against Chinese religious minorities and political dissidents.
Almost every assumption Washington made, both by Democratic and Republican administrations, was logically flawed at best. And at worst, these calculations were a weird mix of conservative commercial greed, liberal political correctness and shared screwball naiveté.
American trade and political appeasement were never interpreted by Beijing as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but always as weakness to be exploited. It was always ludicrous to think that the more concessions on trade and human rights the United States gave, the more China would Westernize and begin to resemble America or a European Union nation.
Even sillier was the old shibboleth that China’s embrace of capitalist reforms — as if by some unwritten, determinist economic law — would lead to constitutional government. But the ability to buy a new cellphone never ensures the right to vote for a candidate of one’s choice.
Instead, all China did was auction off large sections of its new and more efficient economy to crony communist pseudo-capitalists and corrupt provincial officials in order to modernize the country, beef up the military, warp the international trading system — and make itself very rich.
Why did America act in such a suicidal way on China?
Cheap Chinese labor and lax American laws motivated hundreds of U.S. corporations to shut down their domestic assembly plants and relocate to China. At least at first, they were free to pay substandard wages and were mostly unregulated.
Once American businesses got hooked on mega-profits, the Chinese government slowly started stealing their technology, infringing on copyrights and patents, dumping their own merchandise on the world market at prices below production costs, running up huge trade surpluses and manipulating their currency.
But by then, American corporations were so addicted to laissez-faire profitmaking that they turned a blind eye and paid their hush money.
Universities cashed in too, both by setting up lucrative satellite campuses in China and admitting tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. These Chinese students paid full tuition (and sometimes premiums and surcharges), turning once cash-strapped campuses into profitable degree mills.[...]
What finally woke America up were two unforeseen developments.
First, the Chinese overreached and systematically began militarizing neutral islands in the South China Sea. They derided international commercial treaties.
In racist fashion, they treated Asian and African countries as if they were 19th-centurycolonies. And they unapologetically lifted technology from America’s biggest and most powerful corporations to turn China into something akin to George Orwell’s "1984.”
Meanwhile, Beijing began rounding up dissidents, cracking down in Hong Kong and "re-educating” millions of Muslims in detention camps. All that brazenness finally drove the left to drop its multicultural blinders and accept the truth of renegade Chinese oppression.
Second, Donald Trump got elected president, all the while screaming that the Chinese emperor had no clothes. The cheerleaders finally listened and admitted that China had been buck naked after all.
Now we will learn whether America woke up just in time or too late. Either way, no one will credit the loud Trump for warning that China was threatening not just the U.S. but the world as we have known it.
42 queries taking 0.3128 seconds, 158 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.