“Screaming Into The Void”: Why Gun Control Is So Hard To Enact

Washington appears to be settling around background checks as the response to the latest massacres in Texas and Ohio despite the fact that such background checks would not have stopped most of the past mass shootings. What politicians will not admit to the public is that there is a very limited range of actions that Congress can take in curtailing an individual constitutional right.

Here is the column:

At a vigil for the latest victims of a mass shooting, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican and a supporter of gun rights, was offering his condolences when the crowd began to chant, “Do something!” It is a desperate mantra being repeated across the country. Do something, anything, to end our continual cycle of boom and bust. Mass shootings are followed by scenes of sorrowful politicians, which are then followed by minimal actions. Worse yet, politicians routinely propose reforms they know will not pass constitutional review, creating the appearance of “doing something” when, in reality, they do little beyond giving cover.

This latest bloodshed has politicians once again pledging action. Many of these politicians opposed the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008 in District of Columbia versus Dick Anthony Heller, establishing that the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed that landmark decision. In 2010, the court ruled that this constitutional right applied to the states as it does to the federal government since it is one of those “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Just two years ago, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that this right is not confined to firearms “in existence at the time of the founding” but to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” including, in that specific case, stun guns.

Despite these and other rulings by the federal courts, politicians still act as if they are still operating before Heller in which any rational gun control is presumptively constitutional. The legal results are predictable. New York City mayor and Democratic candidate Bill De Blasio complained in the aftermath of the recent shootings, “It feels like we are screaming into a void.” It feels that way because we are, and that void is a space that no longer exists for many measures after Heller. As an individual right, there is a higher showing required from both state and federal governments, a standard that is unlikely to be met in many proposed gun regulations.

For example, many politicians are pledging again to remove all “assault style weapons” such as the AR-15. However, such limits must meet a standard that requires a narrowly tailored law advancing a compelling state interest. While a ban on AR-15s sounds compelling, it breaks down under closer review. The AR-15 and other weapons in its class use an intermediate cartridge that actually is less powerful than that used in a rifle. These weapons are often twice as powerful as a handgun but not nearly as powerful as a rifle. Moreover, guns like the AR-15 are popular because they are modular and allow for different grips and barrels.

A law cannot ban the look of a rifle. It must focus on the inherent power of the weapon, which may prove less compelling for some justices. Such a ban would have to pass muster with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the newest members of the Supreme Court. Both justices are viewed as supporting gun rights under Heller, and Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a 2011 case saying that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.

The road ahead may therefore prove more difficult for gun control. A federal judge in San Diego shot down the California law banning high capacity ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds. While the ruling could now be reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision repeatedly hit on what the court felt was an arbitrary ban given the common use of such magazines. The court noted that the Glock pistol “is designed for, and typically sold with, a 17 round magazine,” as is true of a wide assortment of other such popular weapons. Moreover, banning high capacity magazines will not likely have a transformative effect. It is relatively easy and fast to swap out magazines on a weapon. This and other such cases are currently working their way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is already poised to rule in a critical gun rights case, a decision that will come a decade after its last major decision in the area, with New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus City of New York. This will once again test the mettle of the Second Amendment right and could result in a substantial blow to an array of laws passed across the country in the wake of Heller. Gun control advocates have adopted a strategy long used by pro-life advocates. Rather than seeking a direct challenge to the right to bear arms, they advocate laws limiting the right on the edges, chipping away at the scope of the Second Amendment.

The New York case is an example of this “death by a thousand paper cuts” approach. Not to be outdone by the already restrictive gun laws in the state legislature, the New York City Council passed a law that not only required most owners to keep their guns unloaded and locked away at home but curtailed their ability to take their guns outside of their homes. It banned gun owners from transporting guns except to one of the seven city shooting ranges, preventing owners from taking their guns outside of city limits, even to second homes. The law is simple harassment, but two lower courts upheld it. It is scheduled to go before the Supreme Court.

An appeal from gun manufacturer Remington is also pending before the Supreme Court. The company seeks to overturn a decision that supports the right of families of victims in the Sandy Hook massacre to sue gun manufacturers. However, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2015, giving gun manufacturers immunity from most lawsuits. I opposed this law as unnecessary and unwise. Courts had already ruled against product liability and nuisance challenges to gun manufacturers without giving the industry immunity, yet Congress still passed the law under pressure from the National Rifle Association.

In response, various states have sought to develop exceptions to the blanket immunity. In the case pending before the Supreme Court, the Connecticut high court declared that people could sue the manufacturer of the assault rifle used by the killer under a state law on advertising. The plaintiffs relied on the company slogan, “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single handedly outnumbered.” That would seem a particularly weak claim even without immunity. While it is a bit chilling, the company slogan is not an invitation to mow down children. As a result, this could prove a bad case creating even worse law for gun control advocates.

The latest suggestion is the red flag law to allow the police to remove weapons from individuals who are viewed as unstable or dangerous. These laws could prove more successful. But the challenge to some of these “red flags” may come down not to the Second Amendment but to the due process clause because of the lack of protections for gun owners seeking to challenge such seizures of their property. Moreover, while red flag laws could deter some violence, they would not necessarily have prevented many of the recent massacres by shooters who did not show such red flags. The shooter in Dayton had plenty of flags including “rape lists” for students at his high school. Conversely, the suspect in the El Paso shooting had few red flags and was described as a “loner” during college.

The point is not to abandon efforts to seek reforms. I have long supported gun controls. However, we can either work with legal realities in crafting such reforms or simply “scream into the void” of our constitutional law.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

426 thoughts on ““Screaming Into The Void”: Why Gun Control Is So Hard To Enact”

  1. Phonies like Karen and Allen express their support for women and fetuses and attack PP, which actually provides women’s health support. Meanwhile, their cult leader has produced nothing for anyone’s health concerns, including womens’, while actively seeking to destroy the real efforts of others. Among these was awarding $5 million to “Obria” which claims to be the pro-life version of PP, but offers nothing except counseling and “education” aimed at convincing women to not choose an abortion. They don’t even provide birth control. The cult leader also had us pull out of international efforts to provide birth control in 3rd world countries.

    Olly, I don’t think we’re going to be able to work together on limiting the unplanned pregnancies we discussed with this kind of “leadership”.

    1. Yeah, Anon, Abstinence Only education was such a ‘success’, Trump thought he’d expand on it. What a laugh! Trump, a decades-long playboy, want’s Abstinence Only.



        Immigration officials arrested almost 700 undocumented workers at a Mississippi food processing plant on Wednesday in the largest single-state workplace raid in US history. Hundreds of those workers are still locked up and their kids have been left traumatized and temporarily homeless.

        “Children relied on neighbors and strangers to pick them up outside their homes after school,” Mississippi’s local WJTV reported. “They drove the children to a community center where people tried to keep them calm. But many kids could not stop crying for mom and dad.”

        While kids were sobbing, government officials were celebrating. Tate Reeves, the lieutenant governor, congratulated Donald Trump on the raids, tweeting: “Glad to see that ICE is working hard to enforce our immigration laws. 680 aliens detained in Mississippi today. We must enforce our laws, for the safety of all Americans.”

        It’s a little odd that Reeves is so jubilant about kids being separated from their parents because he’s spent a lot of time positioning himself as a protector of children. Earlier this year Reeves, who is running to be governor, launched a “pro-life” coalition made up of more than 150 pastors and anti-abortion activists across Mississippi. “I believe with great responsibility comes great opportunity,” Reeves said at the launch event. “We have an opportunity in this state to protect unborn children … Every single one of these babies is a gift from God.”

        Strange, isn’t it, how so many of the anti-abortion brigade seem far more concerned with protecting unborn children than actually born children? Really confusing how they seem to think babies are a gift from God, but are happy to rip kids away from their parents and lock them in cages. It’s almost as if they’re not really pro-life at all, they’re just interested in controlling women’s bodies.

        Edited from: “Strange How Some Anti-Abortion Activists Are Happy To Separate Kids From Parents”

        Todays Guardian

        1. Regarding Above:

          When it comes to abortion, Trump and Republicans pretend to care so much about children. But as we’ve seen in Mississippi, Republicans are perfectly content to leave kids waiting in front of schools for parents who’ve been detained.

          1. Had those children waiting in front of schools been aborted, we would not be faced with this issue.
            I think that is consistent with Hill’s reasoning.

          2. Hill – when a parent gets arrested for any crime, their poor children are frightened. It’s very sad. It is also utter nonsense to say that if you apply the law, and John gets arrested for fraud, for example, then you must not care about his children, who are separated from their parent and upset.

            If you oppose the deportation of anyone who has gone through the court system, then why have the court system at all? A deportation is meaningless, and you hate kids if you enact it. So there would literally be no means to deport anyone.

            This whole situation is our fault. We allowed policies to proliferate that gave a clear signal that illegal immigration was allowed, and encouraged. Our country has gone out of its way to make it easier for people to break the law. We have scholarships for illegal alien children. They get free education in our schools. They qualify for many benefits. CA gives them free health care, free drivers licenses, and even allows them to carry less car insurance liability coverage than a legal resident or citizen. It is not the fault of illegal immigrants for taking us up on our offer. I do not blame them one little bit. I blame the open border Democrats, and the Republicans who are so afraid they will be labeled kid haters (as Hill illustrated) if they seal the border and deport those who had their day in court and lost.

            It is self destructive for any country not to control immigration into the country. It is harmful to its citizens and invited guests not to run a background check and health screening on migrants, or to manage the flow to coincide with the jobs and housing markets. Immigration needs to be responsibly managed just like any other aspect of running the country.

            And for pity’s sake, we have got to sever the inducement for parents to either send them unaccompanied with organized crime, infamous for rape and sex trafficking, or to drag little ones along with organized crime through inhospitable desert. We have created a financial incentive for parents to put children in danger. Every single time I read about kids dying in the desert, or showing up so far gone they cannot be saved, drowning in a river, or sold to rapists, I cry. These are kids. We are not protecting them by creating a Hunger Games immigration loophole. We have incentivized their abuse. Enough! Do something to stop this. Open borders will only create more of this.

            The traditional series of events was that a parent legally immigrated here, got settled, got a job, a home, and then sent for their spouse and children. This is the safest way for any child to immigrate, unless there was an arrangement in advance for a stable home and job ahead of time, and they can all travel safely together. I have known so many people who did this, who longed for their families for years while they wound through the system. They did it the right way, legally. This is a slap in the face to everyone who respects our laws.

            In neglect cases, there are court appointed special advocates for children (CASA), which is a great organization for volunteers for children who need a voice. I do not know if CASA also helps children whose parents are going through the immigration courts.

            1. Translation:

              Karen is in for punishing children in a show version of immigration control – ICE will never come close to arresting the approx 12 million undocumented immigrants here – and in so doing squandering our limited resources which would be better used on pursuing criminal immigrants. She surrenders any pretense of concern for children, mothers, and families. I encourage her – as i did Cindy – to show the local TV video of crying kids to her kids, grandkids, nephews or nieces, and explain to them why it was good thing.

              1. Anon1 – I think the pictures of those crying children should be played by Telemundo and Univision 24/7. Maybe we will get some movement in the other direction.

                1. I think we need to start running PSAs that compare and contrast what happens to families and kids who immigrate her legally vs illegally. Illegal = Rape. Murder. Sex Trafficking. Separations. Tears. Lower incomes. This is because they are paying exorbitant amounts of money to organized crime to come here, and then they cannot qualify for good jobs because they are illegal. Legal = safe passage, family stays together, more chances at a better life.

                  Do people need a flow chart? I mean, it is beyond me why anyone would support illegal immigration, and the terrible crimes and tragedies that happen to people along the way.

              2. No, Anon. That was not a translation. That was your wishful thinking and a completely false statement.

                Are you saying that no one who goes through the court system and gets a deportation order should be deported if they have children? Then why are we wasting millions of dollars on the court system, lawyers, ICE, BP? If we cannot deport anyone with kids or else we hate children, then it’s open borders.

                To be fair, such reasoning should be used for anyone else with kids, too. No parent should ever get arrested or sent to jail, or else you hate kids.

                Do you hate kids because you promote the illegal immigration system that leads to their rape or murder?

                Democrats and spineless Republicans afraid of their ad hominem caused kids to cry when they created a financial inducement for parents to risk their lives, paying organized crime to drag them across the desert, get separated while their relationship is questioned by BP, and then eventually get deportation orders and get separated again.

                This would not have happened if they went through the legal immigration system. They would be our invited guests, the kids would be safe, they would not be raped on the illegal immigrant trail. and the family would all be together.

                It’s insane to keep enabling the system that puts kids in danger, and leads to the separation of families. Make illegal immigration harder, and then parents won’t do this to their kids in the first place. Make the legal immigration system run smoother.


        3. NO, and Allan and Candy specifically laughed off the kids left without parents after the ICE raids. Obama made the smart choice to use limited resources – there are approx 12 million undocumented illegals in the US – to focus on those with criminal records.

          1. “NO, and Allan and Candy specifically laughed off the kids left without parents after the ICE raids.”

            Anon believes foreign mothers are good mothers by giving their children to drug and human traffickers so they get across the border illegally while running a very high chance of being raped or even dying.

            A simple change in the law not permitting them in at all would stop that type of behavior and no child would have to be separated from its parents.

            Of course legal American citizens can be separated from their parents. Anon cares only about illegals and not about American citizens. Anon doesn’t give a sh-t about children or morality. He is the typical arrogant and stupid individual that permits the Mao’s, Stalin’s and Hitlers to exist.

          2. it was a rational choice by Obama and probably worth a try. i totally understand why a policy like that would be experimented with.

            however, there is a deterrent effect on foreigners who are contemplating an illegal dash across the border, that these raids will have.

            obama’s policy had its merits, but over time it seems to have backfired. unfortunately. Would be border jumpers decided it would all be cool if they just laid low once they made the sneak.

            and if they think that, they will come in much higher numbers.

            if the effect is a little scary, guess what, that’s actually where the effectuality comes into play. let it be a little scary, that’s ok in my book. I know you bleeding hearts and handwringers think that is JUST AWFUL. boo hoo. for now its a good thing if it makes some people stay in their place of origin, nonetheless

            1. kurtz overlooks the fact that immigrants can do the level; of math necessary to realize that 600 out of 12 million are good odds (.00005%) and that the end result of this action will probably be tied up in court and negative publicity forever.

    2. “Phonies like Karen and Allen express their support for women and fetuses and attack PP, which actually provides women’s health support.”

      I won’t speak for Karen. I attack PP because they should not be given federal funds. They are predominantly an abortion mill. You don’t have the slightest idea of the cirucumstances believing that your arrogance trumps sincere discussion of the facts and needs.

      Your ideas lead by arrogance are leading to the death of thousands of children in the ghettos and further deterioration of the appropriate standards men should live by. I am not setting those standards as anti abortion or pro life. They are open to debate something your arrogance doesn’t permit.

    3. Anon1 says, @ 11:52 AM: “Phonies like Karen and Allen express their support for women and fetuses and attack PP…”

      Fortunately, these two Turley-blog Twits (Karen and Allen) are just “screaming into the void.”

      1. “Turley-blog Twits (Karen and Allen)”

        Brainless Wonder, you have done nothing for women except possibly to hurt them. If PP doesn’t get federal funding it will still exist and still do abortions. Breast cancer hits about one in eight women. Does PP do mammograms? No. BRCA testing? No. They do a lot of testing for those coming to them thinking they are pregnant and then saying all that testing and service proves they are providing women’s healthcare when they are really providing abortions.

          1. It is obvious Brainless thinks supporting criminal activity is something to stand behind. What can one expect from the Brainless Wonder.

            1. The bully — Allan — makes more specious claims.

              (Keep ‘screaming into the void’, Allan. It’s what you and your pals do best.)

      2. Still not hearing what clinics Allan or Karen support and we know their leader is actively trying to defund women’s health care services, while the GOP has been a long time opponent of federal efforts to extend health care for those lacking resources.

        1. I support the law and permitting PP to do what is legal but without federal funds. I do not have to like it as I follow the law.

          Anon, you support illegal aliens breaking our laws, helping drug smugglers carry drugs accross the border, having illegal aliens diluting the benefits Americans are supposed to get, etc. You are not a nice person.

        2. Anon – PP is on the manure pile for me because of the scandal with sex ed, which they turned into an instructional soft porn class for kids, as well as for selling fetal body parts. I’ve been pretty clear about my criticism of them. I also said that there needs to be access to birth control and STD tests (and mammograms, which PP doesn’t provide) to people in under served rural areas. I live in a rural area myself, and drive to my favorite doctor. I get my mammogram about 45 minutes away. There is not enough of a customer base for a lot of services in rural areas, as people live too far apart. That’s why we don’t have trick or treaters – too much walking for too little profit (candy). I don’t necessarily believe that there should be clinics built in every rural area, not if there’s not enough funding, government or private, to stay open and offer quality care. I don’t find it useful to provide substandard service, which can happen in under funded establishments. In some scenarios, it might actually be better to provide transportation to people to get to a quality clinic for their cancer screenings, etc.

          I will say that there is a Planned Parenthood around 25 minutes away. I know because it advertises a lot in the town next to us. They advertise family planning and STD testing. I have not seen them advertise pap smears. I would say that, based on the ads, their business model is abortion, birth control, and STD tests, sometimes all done in one visit.

          I suspect that one thing that PP offers is a specialty in STD tests and abortions, which means that people would be more comfortable anonymously dropping by a PP after a hookup than going to their regular doctor’s office. You can get Plan B One Step over the counter now, without a prescription, so PP has lost that business. Plus, they know they are not going to be judged by the others in the waiting room. This is relevant, because today’s culture emphasizes casual hookups and the birth control pill over condoms. I recall a documentary about how the youngest generation has absolutely no idea how to go on a regular date, let alone courting. No one knows how to get in a monogamous relationship, let alone marriage. They are at an utter loss. It’s swipe left or right. People communicate via text, and then cannot hold a conversation in person. The result is that STDs are skyrocketing again. It’s like Rome during the decay.

          I find abortion tragic. The most common reasons cited in studies are non medical. You are supposed to die to protect your child. I also do not know what good abortion legislation would look like. So there are two issues – whether Planned Parenthood should receive federal tax dollars, and whether it should remain open. As long as abortion remains legal, it can remain open. After what happened with their sex ed debacle, the access the Left leaning education system gave them to our children, and the fetal body parts ghoulish side trade, I do not want to financially support them, nor do I want to pay for the abortion trade. It reminds me too strongly of Nazi death camps. Their entire business model is the killing of unborn children. Their political involvement is in the abortion debate. I believe that if Planned Parenthood was one day prohibited from performing abortions, they would close. They would not stay open to provide STD tests or proscribe birth control pills. As illustrated in the earlier link I posted, there are many ways that taxpayers end up funding abortion. However, that’s just my personal view. The funding of PP needs to be debated.

          What follows is an excerpt from an article that described declining Planned Parenthood non abortive services, in both red and blue states. Women with insurance, not looking for abortion, choose more reputable clinics than Planned Parenthood, whose reputation is as Big Business Abortion. That may be one of the few benefits of expanding insurance, although the poor still don’t have access to quality health care.


          “An analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute of national data drawn from Planned Parenthood’s annual reports for the past decade shows a steady contraction of Planned Parenthood’s client base, services, and community presence. Between 2004 and 2016, total cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, including Pap smears, breast exams, and colposcopies (the organization does not perform mammograms), declined from more than 2 million per year to just under 634,000, a reduction of more than 70 percent. This change was influenced by changing screening protocols (for example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended in 2012 that Pap smears for cervical cancer be conducted less frequently), but contraceptive provision was not subject to such influence. There, Planned Parenthood experienced a decline of more than 400,000 women seeking reversible contraception over the same time.

          The newly-released 2015–2016 Planned Parenthood Federation of America annual report shows that in terms of pregnancy outcomes, Planned Parenthood’s nearly exclusive focus on abortion continues. In 2015–16 the group carried out more than 328,000 abortions, an increase over the previous year and a figure that is one of the few “services” not to show decline. Meanwhile the provision of prenatal care sagged below 10,000 women, a reduction of more than 75 percent from 2009. Adoption referrals rose, but reported numbers are below 2,900. Unborn children identified at PPFA affiliate clinics still have a lower than 4 percent chance of emerging alive…

          All of this is occurring as total Planned Parenthood revenue from federal and state sources has been rising, not falling. The mixed explanations from Planned Parenthood officials (and other explanations critics might supply, like the notoriety Planned Parenthood continues to receive for its role in gruesome fetal-organ collection, as recent videos have exposed) may mask a straightforward truth: Inexpensive family planning is nearly ubiquitous, from drugstores, to free clinics, to community health centers, to doctors’ offices, and beyond. Planned Parenthood’s model belongs to a fading era of embattled radicalism, tied to other political agendas, including elective abortion all the way to term.

          Women deserve better, and as community health centers continue to grow and more and more women have health insurance, they can find a wider range of care for themselves and for their families just down the road. Congress can and should accelerate this welcome transition in the coming budget battles.”

          1. What kind of woman would go to the company most famous for killing unborn children for prenatal care? I mean, really, I’m surprised that there would be anywhere close to 10,000 women who would trust a wanted child to those who specialize in killing them. Are they counting women who ask for an ultrasound, and then decide not to get an abortion?

            On the PP website, they only offer prenatal care at some locations. I do not know if creepy organ music is included.

            It has been put forth that Planned Parenthood is a vital health care provider for women, providing essential services besides abortion.


            “Ask the President of Planned Parenthood what her organization does and Cecile Richards will tell you she runs a women’s health organization first, and an abortion provider second. The line is critical to their image, essential to their federal funding, and demonstrably false.

            Republicans will soon move to defund the abortion giant. Normally, Planned Parenthood would offer its reliable rebuttal that they’re more than an abortion provider, for instance, that they provide prenatal care to desperate women in need. But Live Action just exploded that excuse.

            Going undercover as pregnant women looking for prenatal care, the group contacted 97 Planned Parenthood clinics. They were turned down in 92 different clinics from Arizona to New York.

            Politicians might be confused about the mission of the organization. But the clinic employees surveyed by Live Action were clear on the concept, like the receptionist at the Tempe center who explained that “Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care.” Put another way, they take babies out of this world. They don’t bring them into it.

            But the confusion is understandable.

            The group has been recasting its image again and again for years on television and before Congressional committees. Still the scheduler at the Merrillville, Indiana, clinic saw through the branding. “No, we don’t do prenatal services,” she told Live Action. “I mean, it’s called Planned Parenthood, I know it’s kind of deceiving.”

            All of this makes a convenient anti-abortion soundbite but what about the pregnant woman who actually needs care? She’s the one that Planned Parenthood preaches about. You know, the young mother whose scared, alone, and in need of help. What’s she to do?

            If she walks into one of Planned Parenthood 650 abortion clinics and asks for something besides an abortion, she’s out of luck. Live Action just showed that more than 14 percent of those clinics don’t offer anything except abortion. That’s a damning fact.”


            After working in a prominent position at Planned Parenthood facility in Central Texas for over eight years, I can say that women deserve better than Planned Parenthood and that their funding should be reallocated to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC)…

            If Planned Parenthood were defunded, the $528 million in taxpayer dollars they receive — more than half a billion dollars — would be re-allocated to FQHCs — facilities that can actually care for all of the needs of women.

            Women are better off going to other facilities like FQHCs in the first place.

            Planned Parenthood claims to offer a wide-variety of services, but they actually fall short in many areas. For instance, not a single Planned Parenthood facility provides mammograms, and Planned Parenthood employees say that they do not provide prenatal care.

            If a woman goes to Planned Parenthood for birth control and discovers in the course of her visit that she has high blood pressure, Planned Parenthood can’t help her, she has to be referred to a FQHC for treatment.

            Planned Parenthood bills itself as serving low income women. Low-income women often have limited resources including limited access to childcare and transportation.

            But Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide all of the services these women need and often end up wasting more of their time and resources because they end up referred elsewhere. If we truly care about women, we should desire they be seen by comprehensive centers that are able to focus on whole women’s health…

            Planned Parenthood is so abortion-centric that they have begun cutting “health care” services at some clinics, making them “abortion-only” facilities, including one in Madison, Wis.”

          2. Karen quotes a right wing organization’s posting of another right wing organizations supposed research.

            On fetal tissue:

            “Responding to the videos and to CMP’s claims, three different Congressional committees, and officials in a number of states, launched investigations into Planned Parenthood’s tissue collection activities.[29][30] One Congressional committee asked to interview the filmed representatives to see whether the statements made in the videos are consistent with existing federal law.[31][32]

            On July 30, 2015, former Indiana Governor Mike Pence announced that the state’s investigation did not find any evidence of wrongdoing in Planned Parenthood’s handling of fetal tissue.[33…

            Altogether, the videos prompted investigations in fifteen states,…..

            Officials in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota, and Kansas investigated and failed to find any evidence of Planned Parenthood clinics breaking any state laws concerning the collection of fetal tissues.[39] The state of Pennsylvania cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.[40] In September, the Missouri Attorney General found no evidence that the state’s only clinic that provides abortion services mishandled fetal tissues. The report stated, “As a result of our investigation, the Office of the Missouri Attorney General has found no evidence that (Planned Parenthood) has engaged in unlawful disposal of fetal organs and tissue.”[41]

            On October 8, 2015, Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz (Utah), chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, stated that the GOP investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.[42]….”


            1. PS Karen obviously relies on sources intended for true believers which is why she is so regularly misinformed, and no where provides any plan by Trump, the GOP, or anyone on the right for replacing services to poor rural women and families.

            2. I think the Wikipedia article was focused on the financial aspects of selling body parts. “The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers” Since dead babies are considered trash by PP no thought was entertained to get the signature of the mother to permit the researchers to take out the “trash”. They have to follow the laws in the disposal of medical waste which is not hard to do so I doubt those transactions on their part represent illegal waste disposal.

              However, other issues exist that may not conform to the law. They certainly don’t conform to morality.

              One has to wonder what Anon was trying to prove.

              1. The investigations cited in the wiki artcile are of PP selling fetal tissue, not the filming. Other legal proceedings around those events were a different matter.

                1. “The investigations cited in the wiki artcile are of PP selling fetal tissue, not the filming.”

                  Yes, but your focus was, “Altogether, the videos prompted investigations in fifteen states,…”….. You pointed out that many people said nothing was done that was illegal by PP. That is why my response was:
                  I think the Wikipedia article was focused on the financial aspects of selling body parts. “The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers” Since dead babies are considered trash by PP no thought was entertained to get the signature of the mother to permit the researchers to take out the “trash”. They have to follow the laws in the disposal of medical waste which is not hard to do so I doubt those transactions on their part represent illegal waste disposal.

                  I still don’t understand what you were trying to prove.

                  1. The state investigations of PP, as well as congressional by GOP controlled committees showed no illegal or improper use of fetal tissue by PP

                    1. “The state investigations of PP, as well as congressional by GOP controlled committees showed no illegal or improper use of fetal tissue by PP”

                      That was already explained to you. Taking out the trash appropriately only means following the laws of the state and if appropriate using medical waste companies or other approved businesses to dispose of what you consider “fetal garbage”. Selling baby parts is not illegal and those that pick up the parts are licensed to do so.

                      Again I ask, what were you trying to prove? Let me make it simple for you. Medical waste goes into a red bag and then a box and a waste removal service removes the box. There is nothing difficult or illegal in that as long as the law is followed. What is being questioned is your morality.

    4. Planned Parenthood is a grotesque criminal organization. If we didn’t live in clown world, it’s trustees and it’s salaried staff would long since have been jailed.

    5. This has been percolating in my mind for a while now. It’s hard for me to say, I feel moral repugnance at the institution of legalized abortion.

      However, even though it’s sinful, I am more interested in the fate of the good people on earth who survive to birth itself, and what happens to us after. More interested in we the living than the innocent fetuses that mostly the Democrats are terminating and flushing away. Why? Arguably, if we are in quasi social-civil war already, and in some ways it is now a war of attrition, for example, where the native born population is being deliberately or even negligently replaced by foreigners, then perhaps we should question the normal calculations of justice in what is legal or not. Perhaps these traditional concepts of right and wrong where legality is concerned, do not apply under these particular political conditions, in our place and time.

      hence, I feel increasingly in favor of abortion rights now and even want to see federal funding. Most of all, I want these clinics with subsidized abortion providers located right there in the middle of the heavily Democrat voting districts. Now, this won’t help stunt the growth of further stupidity very fast, but in the long run the differential fertility effect may be worth it.

      Yes, it’s sad when women murder the unborn, but abortion has been a “thing” among women since time immemorial, and now due to technology its nearly impossible to prevent anyhow. So, let it let the denizens of the “Blue States” abort away.

      Of course this was always possible under federalism, that is to say, when states could decide,. before the federal judicial tyrants of SCOTUS decided it was time they draft a new national law according to their specific ideas. Anyhow, maybe that was no good 45 years ago, but maybe now it’s just as well.

      Every war, is a war of attrition, in the long run

      1. Kurtz:

        “Arguably, if we are in quasi social-civil war already, and in some ways it is now a war of attrition, for example, where the native born population is being deliberately or even negligently replaced by foreigners, then perhaps we should question the normal calculations of justice in what is legal or not.

        He must then be happy about El Paso based on the same reasoning.

        If that’s not ignorant racism, it’s hard to think of a better example. He could have written the same thing – others did – in 1850, 1890, and 1910 and perhaps we’d have been spared whatever group of immigrants spawned his ancestors. Estovir the Catholic is another one ignorant of our anti-Catholic immigrant past, only really mended by JFKs election 170 years after our founding. In whatever civil war kurtz occasionally wishes for here, he may find his best comrade might be a black, latin, or mixed race neighbor in the house next door, not some Irish or German descendant he imagines is his true kinsman.

  2. Peter I am still waiting to hear you tell us of the Planned Parenthood licensed mammogram facilities that have been around for a few years. To my understanding, unless they finally created some none existed yet you say they are performing women’s healthcare. They are essentially an abortion clinic but you are virtue signalling..

    1. Allan,
      The article I posted from National Review identified approximately 13,000 women’s health facilities in the U.S. PP operates approximately 600 of those facilities. That means PP is roughly 5% of all facilities and they account for approximately 320k abortions per year. That’s about 530 per facility a year; 10 a week and nearly 2 per day. And Hill wants everyone to ignore those figures because they are testing for STD’s and supposedly looking for cancer.

      He’s a special kind of stupid.

      1. That’s great Olly! Are you going to write Trump, your senator, and congressman to increase funding for these FQHCs?

        1. Whoops Olly. The cult leader is pushing changes that will cut services to poor and rural women, according to this Kaiser Family Foundation article:

          “If implemented, the changes to Title X will shrink the network of participating providers and could reduce the scope of services offered to low-income and uninsured people that rely on Title X-funded clinics for their family planning care.”


          1. PS Did I mention that funding for the FQHCs was dramatically increased under Obamacare?

                1. Anon, of course you don’t understand. You believe arrogance and constant repetition of facts you don’t understand make you right. You are mostly wrong and when proven wrong you run away. You did that as Jan F. and now you do that as Anon.

                  “Insurance is not healthcare.”

                  You don’t understand that because don’t have the ability to think below the surface. It’s good that you know how to use a hammer.

          2. The cult leader is pushing changes that will cut services to poor and rural women, according to this Kaiser Family Foundation article.

            Of course he is. Because that seems so logical. What are you, like just hitting puberty? Come on, do better. I wouldn’t buy that BS if a Republican said that about a Democrat.

            1. Olly, I quoted and linked the source which is the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation..

      2. Olly, long ago I saw the actual numbers of procedures PP did and it was a farce to call them anything but a major abortion center. If they were dealing with women’s issues they would have mammography and be heavily advertising for cervical screening at their centers. They would also have consellors available to provide both sides of the abortion issue and not be pressuring the abortion side.

        PP has been lying to the public and has acted as a left wing political organization. The major debate on PP is not to stop abortions rather to stop federal funding to PP. PP will survive without federal funding.

        1. Allan,
          There is no question that abortion is their primary directive. Some of these idiots are still carrying the reproductive health services water. The rest of their apologists are stuck in the world of trying to deny the hideous things being done to a pre-born human body are somehow humane.


        The services provided by PPFA affiliates vary by location, with just over half of all Planned Parenthood affiliates in the U.S. performing abortions.[50] Services provided by PPFA include birth control and long-acting reversible contraception;[51] emergency contraception; clinical breast examinations; cervical cancer screening; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; prenatal care; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections; sex education; vasectomies; LGBT services; and abortion. Contrary to the assumption of some, Planned Parenthood conducts cancer screenings but does not provide mammograms.

        In 2013, PPFA reported seeing 2.7 million patients in 4.6 million clinical visits.[10] Roughly 16% of its clients are teenagers. According to PPFA, in 2014 the organization provided 3.6 million contraceptive services, 4.5 million sexually transmitted infection services, about 1 million cancer related services, over 1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services, over 324,000 abortion services,[56] and over 100,000 other services, for a total of 9.5 million discrete services.[10] PPFA is well known for providing services to minorities and the poor; according to PPFA, approximately four out of five of their clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Services for men’s health include STD testing and treatment, vasectomy procedures, and erectile dysfunction services. Education is available regarding male birth control and lowering the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

        Edited from: “Planned Parenthood”, Wikipedia

        1. Take note of what you write: “Planned Parenthood conducts cancer screenings but does not provide mammograms.” Your own source proves you wrong. Yet you have been hollering at everyone that PP does do mammograms. This is typical of you.

          To say one is a woman’s health provider when the budget is so high and no mammograms are offered means that what is being offered is a half as$ed excuse for being something completely different.

          When a doctor sees a patient he might take the blood pressure but that doesn’t make him an internist or one that treats hypertension even when the number of blood pressures taken on patients is very substantially higher than any of the individual diseases he is treating. You probably won’t be able to understand this because its minimal complexity is above your capability.

          1. Wikipedia says P.P. saw 2.7 million patients which included about 320,000 abortions. That means the overwhelming number of visits didn’t concern abortion.

            1. Peter, as I said these things go over your head. A woman comes in for an abortion. When that happens she is interviewed and interviewed again, blood tests are taken, she is checked for an STD, she is provided specific information on abortion, her breasts are examined but no mammogram is provided, a pregnancy test is done, the abortion takes place, she is provided instructions, she might have a follow up. There may be more things done but abortion is only a small percentage of what takes place in a person just going for an abortion. PP creates their statistics by figuring out what looks better for them and then makes the calculation.


          Of course they do. Hill, I don’t care if you changed your user ID again. You will never post an objective thought on this blog. You will never contribute anything remotely resembling an objective thought because you do not have that brain capacity. If Natacha had a 7 year old brother sequestered with her in Anytown, USA, it would be you and you could only hope to be as useless on a public blog as she is.

    2. Alan, show me a link to a mainstream article that describes what you’re talking about.

      1. Peter, if PP was licensed to provide mammograms you could demonstrate that fact easily but you can’t for exactly the reasons I mention. Call up your local PP and ask if they have a license to provide a mammogram for your wife. If they do ask how long they have had it though I doubt the second question will be necessary.

        Why don’t you provide a list of what you consider mainstream media that is legitimate along with what you consider makes something legitimate and mainstream. That is a necessity for you since you are always asking for proof based on those criteria.

      2. Perhaps Allan can show us all that Trump and his preferred organizations are doing to help with anyone’s health care, and especially poorer and rural women. His dedication to this subject I’m sure is backed up with a solid commitment to action.

        1. The discussion is not about Trump. It is about PP receiving government funds and about what PP primary occupation is.

    3. Allan – you will not hear from Peter, because he has no answer. He will, however, likely keep repeating the claim that you’ve disproven. I wish we could get through to him, but he’s too busy labeling and jumping to false conclusions to listen.

      While Planned Parenthood bills itself as serving poor women for essential health care services, all they end up doing for many of those services is refer them out. That means that they waste poor women’s time and money. These are people who are limited in time, money, transportation, and child care. Need prenatal services? Not offered in most locations. Need a mammogram? Referred out. There are now PP locations that offer only pregnancy tests and abortions. In the locations that actually do pap smears, any abnormality needs to get referred out.

      It is not an all inclusive women’s health clinic. It’s an abortion provider that sometimes offers other services.

        1. Allan,
          I don’t think Hill is anymore dishonest than a run-of-the-mill middle school kid. His brain function is woefully underdeveloped for what I assume is a middle-aged adult. He strongly desires to participate in these discussions and has no idea how to process information. This is why we get the headline news from him without any of his own analysis. He might as well be posting in a foreign language he cannot interpret. He is beyond useless for critical-thinking and useless in an adult forum expecting logical thinking.

          1. Olly, school kids are teenagers and to quote Judge Judy “How do you know when teenagers are lying? Their lips are moving.” Peter is a lot older and my guess is he is in his 60’s which is well past the time of teenage lying so your statement about an undeveloped brain is likely true. Having little intellectual ability he is mostly the cut and paste type who provides headlines that frequently are of his own creation and don’t match the content of the story that follows. When he does debate he tries to prove his preferred side of the argument instead of searching for truth so his arguments could be improved.

            1. I’m sure you and DSS have his physical age nailed. He’s long past the age where his brain should be fully wired and yet it clearly is not.

    1. You betcha!! Damn straight, polls show Kentucky is just stocked full of bunch of Scots/Irish that just can’t wait to murder the babies on Saturday & BBQ them for Sunday Dinner after Church.

      At least that’s what Left the Clown of Clown world tells us is the Facts of the situation there.

      1. Oops Typo:

        You betcha!! Damn straight, polls show Kentucky is just stocked full of bunch of Scots/Irish that just can’t wait to murder the babies on Saturday & BBQ them for Sunday Dinner after Church.

        At least that’s what Left’O the Clown of Clown world tells us is the Facts of the situation there.

  3. The sidebar, with a few entries deleted:

    OLLY on “Screaming Into The Void…

    Karen S on “Screaming Into The Void…
    Karen S on “Screaming Into The Void…

    Hill on “Screaming Into The Void…
    Hill on “Screaming Into The Void…

    Independent Bob on “Screaming Into The Void…

    Love it.

  4. Estovir, you postings are just plain and to the point common sense. Keep up the good work.

    1. Thanks Bob

      I decided to go to Confession today because I needed it. Time to prune!


  5. Thanks for your link, Olly. The enclosed article, an opinion piece, I think, begins with this sentence: “The results are in: Planned Parenthood remains America’s biggest abortion provider. And it’s not even close”.

    This sentence suggests the writer is going to cite a new report. Some major study by a think tank or researcher. But I don’t see any specific study cited anywhere in this article.

    Now maybe it’s in their ‘somewhere’. But it should have been cited in the opening paragraphs. So we don’t honestly know what report the author is even referring to.

    And this surprises me because Rich Lowry is one of my favorite pundits. I would have expected more from The National Review.

    With regards to Planned Parenthood, the concept is to put Women’s Health under one big tent as specialists in the field. So just because a woman is making abortion inquiries doesn’t mean she doesn’t need a cancer or STD screening.

    Many low-income women one seeking abortion are carrying STD’s. These are things that should be known. P.P. is the specialist in assisting low income women with common health needs. That’s how the organization was envisioned by Margaret Sanger.

      1. Prove it. The article cites PP’s financial report data as well as other soures. Claiming it misrepresents anything is your burden to prove. If you don’t, then that is clear evidence “misrepresents” is Hill code for “I cannot access the Left half of my brain.”

        Try again. Phone a friend. Grab any random person off the street. Go upstairs and ask your mom. Do something different than embarrassing yourself.

    1. Hill,
      I’m not surprised you once again failed to provide a source for your comment. Right brain thinkers don’t rely on quantifiable data. They’ve no idea what it means. So it is deemed gibberish.

      1. Olly, I spend hours a day analyzing news stories. If a story reports the findings of a major new study, that study is cited in the opening paragraph. It’s often in the headline. Like “Pew Research Reveals.. “Kaiser Foundation Finds.. “Cato Institute Claims..

        But if you have to search around for the ‘study cited’, that’s a red flag. You shouldn’t have to probe! Something’s wrong if that is necessary. It means the article’s defective.

        1. But if I have to search around for the ‘study cited’, that’s a red flag. I shouldn’t have to probe! Something’s wrong if that is necessary. It means the article’s defective.

          There, I fixed it for you. Apparently you need to be spoon fed information in your high chair or else you throw a temper tantrum. This explains why you haven’t developed access to your left brain. Face it, the articles are just fine; you’re what is defective.

    2. Actually, how the organization was envisioned by Margaret Sanger was as a means to prevent undesirables from overpopulating, i.e. the poor, promiscuous, uneducated, and African Americans.

      It is curious how selective activsts are in judging prominent figures of the past by today’s standards, divesting them of contemporaneous values and mores. The statues of Margaret Sanger, a racist and Eugenecist, still stand. Eugenics was a popular scientific field of study in her day, and racism was the norm. Her views on race improvement were not considered shocking for her day, but they sure are today. Funny, how you never hear about that.


      “As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit”, admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

      Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

      But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future–nay of the generations of today–our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.”

      1. Oh, if you squint yours eyes real tight, you can almost see them removing an STD. AKA unwanted pregnancy.

      2. Karen, Margaret Sanger was a volunteer social worker in New York’s worst slums in the World War I era. She saw levels of depravity that would shock the most hardened of contemporary social workers. You have to realize that tenements then were ghastly by today’s standards. Women had very few options then.

        1. Many people have seen many horrible things throughout history. That is no excuse to advocate for the extermination of a certain segment of society…EVER. Acting as an apologist for Sanger and Eugenics is no different than acting as an apologist for Hitler and his Final Solution. You really are a defective individual. Ironically you’d be on Sanger’s hit list.

          1. Olly, you have argued for clear thinking, but are purposely avoiding it here, not to mention automatically losing the argument under the rule that the 1st to claim your opponent is as bad as the Nazis forfeits. Hill is not defending eugenics He is defending PP.

            1. Anon1 – anyone who tries to defend PP, proponent of Eugenics under Margaret Sanger, et al. is on the losing moral side.

              1. Well gee Paul, I guess you ended that thread. How can anyone argue with that? Is it because Sanger opposed abortion and the large number of immigrants?

                1. There is something admirable about people who reject America’s leaders and leave the country as a solution. Hint hint


                  “Frightened by shootings, appalled at Trump, Americans are voting with their feet — to leave”

                  Eleanor Pelta has secured Polish passports for herself and her two sons. Stephanie Schwab is planning an escape route via Spain. Elie Jacobs has begun to keep enough cash on hand to buy last-minute plane tickets to Israel for his family. Alex and Aussa Lorens are applying for work visas in Australia, while Josh Lewin is aiming for New Zealand.

                  And Kami Lewis Levin already has her bags packed and tickets purchased. She leaves next week, with her husband, three children and a dog, for a new home in Costa Rica.

                  Americans are not flocking to the exits, but some of them are thinking about it, and some are talking about it, and at least a few are acting on the idea. Google searches for terms like “how to move out of America” spiked this past weekend to levels not seen since November 2016, right after the presidential election, and last seen a decade ago during the Great Recession. And in dozens of interviews after the massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, people who were born here spoke of their crystallizing desire to leave.

                  1. Why are they all legally immigrating or traveling to foreign countries. After all, the Democratic politicians, their media, and so many activists have been telling us that choosing the country where you want to live is a human right, and it is evil of a country to have immigration laws, border security, detention centers, or even deportation orders. Why bother with a passport? You don’t even need ID to get in here.

                    I think these ex-pats should try illegally immigrating to other countries. They could even form caravans and show up en masse, without ID, visas, background checks, demanding entry and throwing rocks if there is any delay. They probably have a better chance of getting in if they bring along a young child, and it doesn’t have to be their own. Plus, as so many do on our own border, they can either abandon the child or sell them. If they are separated and their relationship questioned, activists will howl inhumane.

                  2. There is something admirable about people who reject America’s leaders and leave the country as a solution.

                    Fight or Flight. I would expect the civically illiterate and apathetic to look for the easy way out.

            2. What happens when a person goes from A to Z but is unable to see all the letters in between? You get Anon.

            3. Hill is not defending eugenics He is defending PP.

              Hill will not see the logical connection of Sanger, eugenics and PP because he has shown no signs that the left half of his brain works.

              It’s awfully kind of you to throw him that BS rule lifeline. It wouldn’t work here though as it was not arbitrarily used. Their is direct evidence linking eugenics to them.

              1. Sanger has been dead for 50+ years and was an abortion and immigration foe. So what? PP does not support eugenics.

                1. PP does not support eugenics.

                  LOL! Did you expect that to be on their marketing handout? We love you and the world would be better without you and your children in it.

                  If it walks like a du… I expect you would know what that means. You may need to spend some private time with Hill to get him a clue. Like about forever.

        2. Hill, you said depravity, not poverty. So Margaret Sanger thought the poor people in the slums were so wicked that she must ensure a limit on their breeding. If you read her statements that I quoted above, she wanted to reduce their reproduction because she found them unfit, and deleterious to the gene pool.

          I do not believe in destroying statues or paintings because the subject’s beliefs no longer fit in. Otherwise, we would destroy a lot of art every 25 years, leaving us no history. The Louvre and Smithsonian would be empty. There would be no more Shakespeare because he wrote the distinctly anti feminist play, The Taming of the Shrew. What would we learn from the past? Absolutely nothing.

          However, I also find the double standard unjust that is applied to statues of confederate soldiers, or murals depicting early life in America, and the remarkable excuses made for Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Few seem to notice that the killing of Down Syndrome fetuses continues her work in eugenics, as they are deemed unworthy of life and resources. People should at least be consistent.

          1. Karen S – The Taming of the Shrew is a great psychological drama. It should be required reading in all schools of psychology.

            1. Paul S.
              Yes! And not just schools of psychology.

              An argument could be had, too, about the distinctions that might be made between a feminist and a shrew. What is their Venn diagram?

                1. Allan,
                  Too funny! Um, guess I am rather geeky with some nerdish overtones. Lol

            2. What did you think of Elizabeth Taylor’s version on screen? I thought she did well. Although, I thought Lawrence Fishburne did the most fantastic Othello. There is something to be said about seeing Shakespeare over reading it, be it a play or onscreen.

              1. I have done more reading than watching. I shall have to remedy that. Awaiting Paul’s response for the best versions. I have enjoyed both the Mel Gibson Hamlet and the Kenneth Branaugh version, in particular.

                1. Prairie Rose – I like the Folger Library’s publications of Shakespeare, for the notes on the left pages.

                  1. Karen S and Prairie Rose – I have 3 annotated editions of Shakespeare, however I like A.L. Rowse’s best. He spent his life in the field.

              2. Karen S – my two favorite versions of Shrew are John Cleese (BBC Production) and Kiss Me Kate. I did not see Fishburne, but did see the movie O which is a modernized Othello. Very good. Saw an superb RSC production of Othello, but did not know any of the actors.

          2. Karen S – the Nazis started down their slippery slope by eradicating the mental defectives, as they were known. Then the freaks, etc. They were very much into the Eugenic movement. Even setting up breeding farms for future Nazis.

                1. Karen, many people that supported the Nazi’s were too arrogant and therefore too ignorant to recognize the Nazi party for what it was. We see that type of arrogance in Anon.

                  As I said before when the Nuremberg laws were passed by the Nazi’s they looked at the American south and the one drop of blood rule. Some Germans thought that too extreme.

  6. Follow-Up From Below


    In the course of an abortion discussion Karen asserted that the American mainstream is anti-abortion. Karen cited a Marist Poll she’d seen. So I invited her to post it. Graciously Karen complied to I could see the report.

    This passage told me what I expected to find:

    Most Americans want the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade amended or upheld, not overturned. Only 13% of Americans, including just one in three who identify themselves as pro-life (34%), want to overturn Roe v. Wade. 26% of Americans want to keep it but add more restrictions, 14% want to keep it but reduce some of the restrictions, and 21% want to expand Roe v. Wade to establish the right to have an abortion under any circumstance. Only 16%, including 21% of pro-choice Americans, want to uphold Roe v. Wade in its current form.

    Of great note was this particular finding:

    Only 13% of Americans, including just one in three who identify themselves as pro-life (34%), want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    See that..? Only 13% want to overturn Roe v Wade. That’s a low percentage! Way outside the mainstream. Observe that note regarding people identifying as ‘Pro Life’. Only one in three wants to overturn Roe v Wade.

    That means when people call themselves ‘Pro Life’ they might be thinking animals and sea life. They might be thinking Medicare For All. No one ‘owns’ the phrase ‘Pro Life’. So it’s a complicated identity for pollsters to gauge.

    1. “In the course of an abortion discussion Karen asserted that the American mainstream is anti-abortion.“ No, I did not say that. Go back and read what I wrote, what PBS & NPR wrote. I purposely included Leftist sources. I never said that a majority of Americans want to overturn Roe v Wade. Why do you consistently misrepresent what I write?

      I said that support for abortion erodes the longer the gestation. I also posted an article that most Americans are displeased with extreme abortion laws, whether more restrictive or more lax.

      1. The American mainstream most certainly is. Pose the question directly: should abortion be lawful under [list circumstances]. About 70% of the public is willing to say 95% of the abortions in this country should be illegal. Actual public support for the current regime in abortion law (when it’s spelled out in precise terms) is close to nil among ordinary people. It’s base of support is in the legal profession, academe, and the media.

        1. Look at Karen’s poll, Tabby. It doesn’t say that. It says “Only 13% want Roe overturned completely”.

          1. Hill – you are arguing against a point I never made. I never said the poll indicated most of America wanted Roe v Wade overturned. I quoted directly from two articles.

            The poll showed that support for abortion wanes the father along gestation is, and that more people identified as pro life after NY’s ghastly abortion laws.

            If you showed testimony before Congress about what happens in a 2nd trimester abortion, I suspect even more people would be pro-life, or want more restrictions. To some degree, pro abortion sentiment requires a certain degree of ignorance. I suspect that out of sight, out of mind plays a role, as well. If our stomachs were clear, less people would think a fetus was a bundle of cells, or tissue, or not human.

        2. The wording of the poll is critical. Take, for example, the question about abortion to save the mother’s life. An early delivery might be required to save the mother’s life, but the added steps to kill the fetus has no connection. It’s not done to save the mother, that’s the delivery, it’s done to kill the infant. But the poll gives no option to those who logically question whether abortion could save a mother’s life. There is no check A for early delivery or B for abortion to save the mother’s life.

  7. A few years ago I was renewing my license to carry. In my local police station the police officer who was running a back round check on me was looking at a computer monitor, after a few minutes he looked at me and said, you know, you really have led a pritty boring life.

    1. Independent Bob,

      That’s the same thing my lawyers have been telling me for years.

      I think they no doubt need/want clients that go out & raise nine kinds of hell that cause lots of lawsuits.

      And funny to me but that’s exactly what Alex Jones & Infowars seems to be doing.

      Because they were attacked by so many anti-American political operators with lawfare suits against & as those suits have worked through the courts, with infowars winning, it’s starting to appear those bogus lawsuit are becoming a major source of additional revenue for infowars.

  8. Peter Hill provides an excellent example of why you should not allow someone who neither understands, nor likes you, to define you. Do not go to the Democratic Media to learn what Republicans stand for. Do not go to Peter Hill to learn what I stand for.

    “You’re not only anti-abortion, you don’t even want poor women obtaining any kind of birth control.” I find abortion tragic, but I’ve said before I do not know what good abortion legislation would look like. I have also said that pregnancy can be a risk to the mother’s health if she has cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy, or develops preeclampsia. The recommended treatment would often be early delivery. If that happens before viability, then the child would die.

    I don’t have any idea what you are talking about. Why wouldn’t I want poor women to be able to plan their family size? Perhaps you were referring to my comments over the years about how 26 forms of birth control without a copay just jacked up the premiums and deductibles for all Obamacare policies? Having a range of birth control available, with a reasonable copay for those of means, without all 26, would lower the cost of health care.

    I have also remarked that 26 forms of birth control without a copay leads to a reduction in condom use, and a corresponding increase in STDs. There is now an antibiotic resistant, nearly untreatable, gonorrhea.

    Condoms are a form of birth control that also prevents the spread of STDs. Anyone in a non monogamous relationship, rich or poor, should use condoms, unless they want to start collecting STDs. Birth control pills or IUD are for people in monogamous relationships, rich or poor. It has come out that there are some increased cancer risks associated with hormonal birth control pills. I think there is room for improvement. On my mammogram questionnaire, I was asked if I ever took birth control pills.


    “The bacterium that causes the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea is resistant to multiple standard antibiotics and now threatens to develop resistance against ceftriaxone, which is on the World Health Organization List of Essential Medicines and is the last effective antibiotic against the organism. UNC School of Medicine researchers have identified mutations to the bacterium Neisseria gonnorrhoeae that enable resistance to ceftriaxone that could lead to the global spread of ceftriaxone-resistant “superbug” strains.”

    Unfortunately, the bacterium that causes gonorrhea rapidly adapts. When condom use is not employed globally, then such super bugs spread.

    1. Karen, you totally support a president who wants to defund Planned Parenthood. In most areas of the country, there are no providers to take their place. The defunding of P.P. is just a mindless attempt to sabotage healthcare (and family planning) to low-income women.

      But it’s interesting that your demonization of Welfare and Single Mothers dissipates completely when the discussion turns to the services Planned Parenthood provides. It’s like your mind is suddenly operating on a different track.

      Keep in mind this thread was about guns. But you wanted to elaborate on Welfare and Single Mothers; citing them as factors in Chicago’s gun violence. But when I point out that Planned Parenthood is a crucial lifeline to single mothers, your sentiments split into an incoherent narrative.

      1. At that point Palin quite literally babbled gibberish. It was totally incoherent!

        But when I point out that Planned Parenthood is a crucial lifeline to single mothers, your sentiments split into an incoherent narrative.

        If you had one recurring theme in nearly every discussion you participate, it would be you do not recognize your inability to comprehend even the most basic reasoning. You are hardwired and without the necessary cognitive skills to question what you believe to be true. Any ideas entering your head that do not conform to your programming simply do not compute. That information is therefore babbled gibberish and incoherent.

        At this point, you could donate the left half of your brain to science and no one, including yourself would notice it was gone.

        1. Olly, Planned Parenthoods two main services are Cancer Screenings and Testing For STD’s. In the normal world those are considered vital services to low income women; especially in cities.

          But Olly would have me think my brain isn’t wired right for understanding that. Like we should let low-income women die needlessly of cancer because we have to show toughness on abortion. Like we should let poor women carry STD’s as a mark of shame. That way men will stay true to Godly ways.

          Olly I guess my brain isn’t wired right if your 19th Century mind seems Victorian to me. I think only women and American’s Medical Establishment should decide reproductive issues.

          1. Hill – exactly what Cancer Screenings does PP do at its facilities?

            1. Paul, that is of P.P.’s main functions. And if you didn’t know that, it’s very interesting. It shows you’ve been demonizing a vital healthcare provider.

              Those cancer screenings largely concern Breast and Cervix cancers.

              1. Peter – name me 10 PP center that do mammary exams or pap smears on site.

          2. Planned Parenthoods two main services are Cancer Screenings and Testing For STD’s. In the normal world those are considered vital services to low income women; especially in cities.

            If you are confident in your source, then provide it. In the meantime, here is an article for review. I haven’t cited everything in the article, but I have provided a link to it. This number 1 provider of abortion services in this country relies on folks that have no ability to think with the left half of their brain. Do not be surprised to see the likes of Hill going into vapor lock over the source, which is his firewall from critical thinking. He’ll be blinded to the data coming from the PP’s own financial report.

            Here are the top myths Planned Parenthood peddles that are debunked by information from its own annual report.

            1.) Abortion is just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s business.

            This statistic has been rated false by left-leaning outlets, including Slate and the Washington Post. The claim rests on a deceptive tactic: calculating abortion procedures as a fraction of its “services” — defined by the group as “discrete clinical interactions” — rather than as a fraction of its clients.

            Take an example. A woman walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic. She takes a pregnancy test, meets with a counselor, and chooses to have an abortion procedure. While she’s there, she also receives an STI test and a breast exam and is handed birth control on her way out the door. Planned Parenthood would count each of these “discrete interaction

            2.) Millions of women wouldn’t have health care if Planned Parenthood didn’t exist.

            The report indicates that Planned Parenthood saw 2.4 million clients in the last fiscal year. But, as has been shown by the group’s own figures, it doesn’t provide those clients with very many actual health-care services. According to the report, the only significant services offered, besides abortion, are STI and HIV tests, contraception, and pregnancy tests.

            Last year, it provided only 235,000 well-woman exams and 32,000 “family practice services,” despite executives’ repeated claims that the group is an average health-care provider offering a vast selection of regular health-care services.

            3.) Planned Parenthood both needs and deserves government funding.

            1. Olly I accidentally answered you on the Main Reply. So my comment is at the top. Said article is strangely deceptive.

              1. Peter where are Planned Parenthood licensed mammogram facilities and if there are any today what date did they become licensed? Only a few years ago Planned Parenthood had no licensed mammogram facilities.

          3. Olly, Planned Parenthoods two main services are Cancer Screenings and Testing For STD’s.

            If you have a mix that’s 9 parts vanilla ice cream and 1 part horsesh!t, it’s going to taste more like one than the other.

            1. Well Tabby you’re the wonk. Show us statistics proving that false. But don’t bother with that source you used regarding the alleged Warren Tweet about Ferguson. I looked at Warren’s site and didn’t see it there.

      2. The notion that PP will cease to provide abortions if they lose federal funding is pure nonsense. Futhermore, they are allegedly a nonprofit. So its not like they can complain about the loss of revenue. Why don’t you self righteous pro abortion folks dig into your deep pockets and make up the difference if you’re so concerned about the poor?
        Not only is your argument remarkably weak logically, you’re advancing it purely to feel self righteous and you don’t care about the poor one bit.

      3. Hill – I asked you to illustrate where I demonized Single Mother’s. You have not complied because you cannot. Pointing out scientific facts is not demonization, any more than pointing out high stress jobs leads to high blood pressure demonizes people in those jobs.

        Once again, you have misrepresented what I wrote. Is this because you cannot argue with my position, so you have to make something up that you can argue against?

      4. Hill:

        “Keep in mind this thread was about guns. But you wanted to elaborate on Welfare and Single Mothers; citing them as factors in Chicago’s gun violence. But when I point out that Planned Parenthood is a crucial lifeline to single mothers, your sentiments split into an incoherent narrative.” Yes, the thread is about guns and gun control. I remarked about gang gun violence, and how single motherhood is one of the drivers behind gangs and gun violence. You asked why do Republicans criticize single motherhood but are pro-life. I have explained this to you. That is how we got on this topic.

        I did not descend into an incoherent narrative. You repeatedly made false statements about what I think, which I corrected. If you found this confusing, then let me know where you went astray.

        I have read in Vox that there are 105 counties in the country where Planned Parenthood is the only source of birth control. That might be true of the pill, but you can get free condoms mailed anywhere in the US. In addition, the Vox article discussed publicly funded clinics that had all forms of birth control. If a provider did not carry all 26 forms, it did not count. Free condoms did not count, either. Mammograms cannot be conducted at a Planned Parenthood, and are referred out, so they are not a full service women’s healthcare provider. The article also stated that a safety net clinic provides publicly funded family planning. But it was not clear if that referred to the taxpayer funding of abortions, for which I refer you to my earlier article about how taxpayer funding can skirt the rules. However, I do agree that women need access to clinics to get birth control, STD tests, and mammograms, the latter of which are their own imaging centers.

        Why does anyone need all 26? Why not 20? As I’ve stated earlier, only condoms fight the spread of STDs, and are therefore more appropriate for anyone of any socioeconomic status who is sexually acive and not monogamous.

        The reason why there is sentiment against PP is because they are the main providers of abortion, they were caught on video admitting they sell fetal body parts, they promote no limit policies on abortion, and they created graphic and inappropriate sex ed lessons for schools. They even employ techniques to protect the salability of those body parts. This tends to upset pro life people specifically and conservatives in general.

        I don’t know if you followed the PP sex ed scandal, but a lot of parents were outraged.


        There were complaints from all over about how PP classes taught children how to engage in anal sex, and they said everyone should try it. They explained how to give fellatio. The article above explained how the PP educators used stuffed animals to illustrate sexual positions.

        Sex Ed is supposed to be a biology class. Planned Parenthood turned it into a how to class, or a soft porn movie, complete with anatomically correct mannequins to explain techniques.

        This fueled a backlash against Planned Parenthood, as parents demanded they get out of schools and no longer receive our tax dollars.

        1. Karen,
          “You asked why do Republicans criticize single motherhood but are pro-life.”

          As if single motherhood and the fallout thereof is best solved by abortion.

          What other solutions could be considered?

          What of the mothers and children whose marriages/families are broken by divorce?

          The ramifications of single parenthood seem to be the same, regardless of how they got there.

  9. POLLS:


    A solid majority of Americans say they are in favor of stricter gun laws in the United States — 61% said so in a May Quinnipiac poll. But the breakdown by party is illuminating – 91% of Democrats think gun laws should be stricter, as do 59% of independents, but just 32% of Republicans.

    Almost three-quarters (73%) in the poll also said more needs to be done to address gun violence.

    A February NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, found less support for stricter laws covering gun sales, but still a majority (51%) were in favor. Another 36% said the laws should be kept as they are.

    But, like Quinnipiac, when people were asked if they thought it was more important to control gun violence or protect gun rights, 58% said control gun violence, the highest in at least six years. Just 37% responded that it was more important to protect gun rights.

    According to the polls, there are few issues with as broad support as universal background checks — 89% overall said they supported background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales, in a July NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

    Even 84% of Republicans are in favor of them, according to the poll. Another example: that May Quinnipiac poll had support for requiring background checks for all gun buyers at 94% overall (98% for Democrats, 94% independents, 92% Republicans).

    It’s been a similar story with most polling for years about universal background checks. The National Rifle Association, however, has been against them. Nothing has passed federally yet, but the president has said he would take the organization on.

    But with the NRA facing internal financial problems and pro-gun-restrictions groups outspending it for the first time in the 2018 midterm elections, there’s a question of whether Republicans are feeling the same kind of pressure from the group as it has in years past.

    Edited from: “Americans Largely Support Gun Restrictions To Do Something About Gun Violence”

    Today’s NPR

    1. Tabby, what is that source your using?? I looked at Warren’s Twitter feed. I couldn’t find that one. Very suspicious!

  10. Anyone using a criminal act to justify a new law is duty bound to show how the new law would have had an impact on the incident being used. Instead, we are constantly told not to think, just to act emotionally and “do something”.
    How has emotional legislation worked for us in the past?

    1. Banning assault rifles would have mitigated the casualties in El Paso and Dayton.

      1. Anon1 – you are wrong about assault rifles.

        Assault Rifle. By U.S. Army definiTion, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect. Assault Weapon. Any weapon used in an assault.

        1. Paul what distinguishes the AR15 is it’s ability to fire high velocity (with low recoil) rounds. The definition of assault rifle needs to specifically note this characteristic. The damage done by a bullet – by it’s kinetic energy – is squared by it’s velocity and these bullets travel at 3 times that of standard and the damage is on another level as noted by multiple experts , i.e., trauma docs. See my other posts in this thread.

          1. How much kinetic energy does a round sitting in the chamber of an AR-15 exert? What does it take to release that kinetic energy?

          2. Anon1 – what you are asking for is a change in the definition. I do not think you will get it.

            1. The problem is specific.and the definition for the law needs to be specific. Fair minded people should agree, whether they favor the law or not.

              1. Anon1 – cheap shot argument. Fair minded people will always disagree fairly. Right now the law on what constitutes an assault rifle is very clear and the AK-15 does not fit that definition.

                1. I gave you the correct definition. If you are fair minded you will recognize it as specific and pointed at the problem.

        2. Like the way it mitigated the murder of Stephanie Kuhen?

          Like the way it mitigated the Columbine murders?

          Like the way it mitigated the murder of Joseph Arthur Swift?

          1. No sane person thinks a law solves all problems. The mayhem in El Paso, Dayton, The Pulse, and the Pittsburgh Synagogue were partly due to the lethality of high velocity, low recoil, semi-automatic weapons.

      2. The “deep deep state” is banning arms. It has nullified and voided the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is adding the final touch of banning the right to keep and bear arms which “…shall not be infringed.” The “deep deep state” will not allow armed rebellion against its tyranny and oppression. The “deep deep state” is global hybrid communism/capitalism under the Chinese model which brutally imposes communism while retaining the “Goose That Laid The Golden Egg,” Hong Kong.

        “Crazy Abe” Lincoln banned the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama banned Article 1, Section 8, which provides Congress the power to tax only for “…general Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for “…individual Welfare…,” and limits regulation to only trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States.” These presidents also banned the absolute constitutional right to private property “…in exclusion of every other individual.”

        The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Dept.’s of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

        Banning Habeas Corpus allowed “Crazy Abe” Lincoln to become an insane, brutal and despotic tyrannical dictator who ordered his “Abestapo” to destroy publishers’ commercial buildings and printing presses and throw the publishers and anyone who disagreed with “Crazy Abe” in prison. His Highness, King and Dictator “Crazy Abe,” denied citizens their constitutional rights and freedoms and forced men into his army to conduct his unconstitutional war agaisnt a sovereign foreign nation. “Crazy Abe” denied Americans their right to private property as he unconstitutionally confiscated the legal, deeded and recorded private property of citizens through his unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation (proclamations may have only been issued under martial law or insurrection and the CSA had legally and constitutionally engaged in secession, distinctly not rebellion or insurrection).

      3. Yes. Because obviously, no one contemplating mass murder would ever violate gun laws. Don’t start with any BS arguments like the one you just made without addressing more fundamental arguments. Like how a gun control law will stop someone willing to commit murder. Or how the idea of gun free zones are not totally insane given how high a percentage of mass shootings which occur happen at such locations.

        1. James, if guns like the AR15 – high velocity low recoil high capacity semi-automatics – are made illegal, they will become difficult to obtain.

          1. ” if guns like the AR15 – high velocity low recoil high capacity semi-automatics – are made illegal, they will become difficult to obtain.” for law abiding citizens but the one that kills isn’t too worried about buying illegal weapons.

    2. how has emotional legislation worked for us in the past?

      More predictable and flawlessly than a Swiss clock. The lies that liberals say to stoke populist support is not new. The TDS RESIST / Antifa / anarchists are feeding their own Reichstag fire in our country because they reject the US Constitution, and the results of the 2016 election

      Keith Ellison Compares 9/11 To The Reichstag Fire

    3. Instead, we are constantly told not to think, just to act emotionally and “do something”.

      Exactly. The essence of ignorance.

      Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me.

  11. We’ve been passing more and more gun control legislation ever since John Kennedy was murdered. How’s it worked out since 1963?

    1. It has kept members of US Congress employed.

      We would profit greatly if the US Congress were in session for 3 months per year, and then sent them home to earn their pay doing real jobs. We don’t need these free loading, race baiting, cringe worthy theater actors employed throughout the year

      1. No, being a member of Congress is a full time job. The trouble is their wretched inefficiency derived from both process and organization. Some aspects of that could be repaired with changes to parliamentary rules, if they had any object but protecting their personal prerogatives. Others would require a constitutional amendment.

        One thing we might do is to limit opportunities to manufacture a lifetime in politics a la Bill Clinton. In some dreamworld, an Article V convention would send an amendment to state conventions with the following provisions:

        Any candidate for elective office (or appointive office subject to retention-in-office referenda) must:

        1. Be a citizen of the United States, exclusively. Should one have a claim on the citizenship of a foreign country, one must renounce it in a formal sworn statement to be mailed to that country’s consulate.

        2. Be currently domiciled in the electoral constituency in which he is running. Proof of that would be your voter registration and your most recent tax returns.

        3. Have for a minimum of eight years in the course of his life met all the following criteria simultaneously: been present in the country lawfully; not been incarcerated, on probation, on parole, carrying undischarged fines or carrying undischarged penal services; not been under an order of civil commitment or adult guardianship; been a palpable resident of one or another electoral province from among those touching on the constituency in question, and been so while not maintaining any formal or palpable residence outside the electoral province. An ‘electoral province’ shall be understood as the state or territory in which the constituency be nestled, unless the legislature thereof elects to subdivide the territory into multiple provinces; the state legislature may do so at its discretion so long as it draws territorial boundaries only within two years of a federal census and so long as any given electoral province envelopes at least one dense settlement of at least 50,000 persons.

        4. Have, on the day of the election passed his 39th birthday, but not yet his 72d birthday, unless dispensations are provided for for the office in question. Dispensations would be as follows. (1) for a seat on a conciliar body for a jurisdiction with fewer than 1,000,000 residents, one would have to have reached the age determined by the following formula: 25 + (14 x [(p / 1,000,000)^.3333]), but not yet that determined by this other formula: 86 – (14 x [(p / 1,000,000)^.3333]). (2) for a specialized executive position not requiring admission to the bar, one would have to have reach the age specified by this formula: (14 x [(p / 100,000)^.22]), but not yet that by this formula, 86 – (14 x [(p / 100,000)^.22]). (3) for a general executive position, one would have to have reached the age specified by this formula, (14 x [(p / 50,000)^.22]), but not yet this formula, 86 – (14 x [(p / 50,000)^.22]. (4) to stand for a municipal court not open to laymen or for miscellaneous positions in local government requiring a law license, one would have to have logged a minimum 8 years in sum as an active member of the bar, but not yet reached one’s 72d birthday. In the formulae above, ‘p’ refers to the resident population of the jurisdiction.

        5. Be in compliance with principles of rotation-in-office, which are as follows. (1) all offices unless otherwise specified are elected for four year terms. And (2) unless dispensed, no one may be a candidate for a given office in a competitive election or a retention referendum who has on the day of the election held that office for more than 7.5 of the last 10 years. Positions in the judiciary could be elected or retained for four years or for whole-number multiples of four years, and judges could stand for election without regard to the duration of their tenure in office. However, all judges would be subject to mandatory retirement the calendar year they turn 76 and all judges could be subjected to a recall referendum once during their term should their term be more than four years in duration.

        6. Be in compliance with rules which limit the quantum of candidates from particular occupations among candidates for conciliar bodies. To wit: any aspirant from a tainted occupation who seeks floor votes at a caucus or convention or whose sponsors circulate a petition on his behalf must be paired with an understudy who is not of a tainted occupation. At such time as the issue of all caucuses, conventions, petition campaigns, and primaries have been deemed to have met the conditions to be placed on the ballot for the general election, the board of elections would have to count the number of candidates running under a given party banner for a given conciliar body and count the number among them who are of a tainted occupation. Should the number exceed 20%, the board would have to draw lots from among the pool of tainted candidates to replace a sufficient number of them with their understudies to reduce the share to 20% or less. Tainted occupations would be: (1) member of the bar and (2) public employee. Should one have departed the tainted occupation, one would still retain the taint for a time equal to one month for every four months during one’s natural life one occupied tainted occupations.

        1. Being a Legislator should be predicated on a vocation to help Americans, i.e. service, with limits. 40 out of 50 states have legislatures that are part-time or hybrid jobs with low to modest incomes, necessitating another job, a good thing.

          See: Full- and Part-Time Legislatures

          What measurable and observable rationale is there to require a full-time Federal Legislator?

          What percentage of Americans truly need the assistance of a Federal Legislator?

          At the Federal level working as a Legislator has morphed into an enabler, messiah-like role portraying Americans as helpless victims of x, y and z. This is what Democrats stoke each and every day.

          The majority of our problems, mostly self-imposed, can and should be solved by ourselves, with possible and at times warranted, assistance from family, friends and neighbors, all locally. See Fergusson, MO

          I know of nobody who has needed such an assist, except a US Veteran here and there requesting VA medical benefits for an alleged service related injury. I assisted one such Vet for VA Benefits, and it was not warranted (e.g. Agent Orange) though I signed the medical papers to bring closure to his petition knowing it would be rejected

          the present job of Federal Legislator serves as an enticement and squashes any fleeting vocation to serve if it ever existed.

          See: Life in Congress: The Member Perspective

          Members focus most of their time on legislative/policy work and on constituent services—not political activities.
          When in Washington, D.C., Members reported spending their time as follows:
          35% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
          17% on “Constituent Services Work”
          17% on “Political/Campaign Work”
          9% on “Press/Media Relations”
          9% with “Family/Friends”
          7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”
          6% on “Personal Time”
          When in their congressional districts, Members reported spending their time as follows:
          32% on “Constituent Services Work”
          18% on “Political/Campaign Work”
          14% on “Press/Media Relations”
          12% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
          9% with “Family/Friends”
          8% on “Personal Time”
          7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”


          1. Estovir, this is that Libertarian fantasy where a superpower nation of 320 million people can run on a Calvin Coolidge-size government. You might as well believe in Scientology.

      2. Estovir, that’s shockingly stupid even for ‘you’. Like Congressmen are supposed to have day jobs outside government? Like they should work as ‘lobbyists’, perhaps? Or for oil companies??

        Even by Trump era standards, you stand out as aggressively stupid. And it’s like you want to be validated for your stupidity. Like “Hey, look at me, I’m as stupid as they come!!”

        Estovir, you embody that wave of stupidity that began with Sarah Palin. She was the one who made stupidity fashionable. That’s when morons like you came out of the shadows and thought, “This lady’s stupid like me. So it’s okay to be stupid”.

        Then along came Trump to say, “Stupid people everywhere, we can all be stupid together. Let us form a mass of stupidity and turn back the clock”.

        So now stupid people like Estovir feel emboldened to celebrate their stupidity. That’s where MAGA hats come in. They’re flags for stupid people to advertise their stupidity. How liberating that must be; proudly telling everyone how stupid you really are!

        1. Estovir, you embody that wave of stupidity that began with Sarah Palin. She was the one who made stupidity fashionable.

          She isn’t the least bit stupid and you cannot point to a notable example of stupidity in her record as a public official. Palin detractors were bereft of actual criticisms so reduced to complaints about cost-overruns on a public construction project, the dismissal of the town librarian, and her efforts to get her unstable quondam brother-in-law ejected from the state police force.

          The problem with Palin is that, culturally, she is vernacular. She and her husband like hunting and fishing and DIY projects, have limited their tertiary schooling to vocational programs, attend evangelical congregations, and speak with decidedly non-U accents. Democrats tend to be shallow and unreflective bubble-dwellers, so equate these things with a lack of ability and expertise.

          1. Tabby, did you ever see that tape of Katie Courac’s interview with Palin?

            There was a moment where Palin asserted that she was knowledgeable of Russia because it’s so close to Alaska. Courac then gave Palin the opportunity to demonstrate what she knew about Russia. At that point Palin quite literally babbled gibberish. It was totally incoherent! And it wasn’t a got’cha question as Palin defenders claimed. It was just a basic interview like those any politician is subjected to.

            I think Palin is an attractive woman. And I can appreciate the active outdoor lifestyle she and her husband enjoy. But Palin embodied an anti-intellectual attitude that has hardened like cement among Republicans. Even Fox News felt that Palin was not even up to their ‘standards’.

            1. There was a moment where Palin asserted that she was knowledgeable of Russia because it’s so close to Alaska.

              This is the exchange, Peter. It’s actually quite unremarkable, but people like you have lied for 11 years and pretended it had a significance it did not.

              “Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

              Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

              Couric: Mocked?

              Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

              Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

              Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

              Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

              Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”

              Now, someone more perpicacious than the lot of you can see the problem in your complaint.

              There are two presidential candidates and two VP candidates.

              1. One has 11 years under her belt as a public executive. One has worked in a military chain of command, but never had that many people working under him. The executive experience of the other two is nil. Prorating part time and seasonal work, one of them was employed in law offices for about four years, the other for less than that.

              2. Neither Biden nor Obama had any time in the Foreign Service, the intelligence services, or the military. Neither is conversant in a foreign language. Neither has a research degree which would accord them some insight into some foreign area or issue). Both men had marked time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate’s least consequential. That’s their familiarity with ‘foreign policy’. NB, Obama had been on the committee for just two years.

              3. Obama’s a ticket puncher, never reaching any professional milestones beyond getting hired. Biden’s intellectual mediocrity is well known (see various academic embarrassments), as well as his hollowness as a human being (see the Neil Kinnock clown show).

              4. But somehow Palin, the Republican VP nominee, is the problem.

              1. Tabby, does ‘this’ make much sense to you?

                Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”

                I’d like to see a video link encompassing this part.

                You will never convince me that Palin was ready for Prime Time. She was Mayer of a Truck Stop and Governor of a state that is largely administered by the Federal Government. And she was governor not much longer than 2 years. That doesn’t sound like much.

          2. Sarah Palin’s 2008 speech at the RNC showed how much she loved the Americans that Hillary called deplorable. Palin is a woman who loves America while Hillary and all Democrats truly hate Americans

            Palin delivered, Hillary and the Democrats pander.

            Transcript: Gov. Sarah Palin At The RNC

            …..Our family has the same ups and downs as any other — the same challenges and the same joys.

            Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

            And children with special needs inspire a special love.

            To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

            I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

            He’s a lifelong commercial fisherman … a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska’s North Slope … a proud member of the United Steel Workers Union … and world champion snow machine racer.

            Throw in his Yup’ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

            We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he’s still my guy. My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

            And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

            My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

            A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

            I grew up with those people.

            They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.

            They love their country, in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

            I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better.

            When I ran for City Council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

            Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

            And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

            But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

            And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

            I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

            While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for.

            That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

            I also drive myself to work.

            And I thought we could muddle through without the governor’s personal chef — although I’ve got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending — by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

            Sen. McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest — and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

            Our state budget is under control.

            We have a surplus.

            And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

            I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

            I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere.

            If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

            And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

            As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.


  12. The AR-15 rifle was developed back in the 1960″s by Armalite. Now that the patent rights are long gone there are no less than 29 vcompanies through out the world making these rifles. I’ve reads that there are north of 20 million of these guns in private hands in the US. Confiscating over 20 million of these guns would be like repatriating 20 million illegal aliens back to the countries they came from.

    1. Perhaps we should do an Oprah and repatriate them with an AR-15 as a going away gift. you get an AR and you get an AR! 🤣

    2. Ind. Bob,
      One thing that usually happens in the wake of renewed talk of stricter gun control is that sales of firearms (that might be regulated or banned) increase, before any new laws come into effect.
      I mentioned Biden’s promise at a campaign event that he’d solve these mass shootings.
      Even if he eventually gives specifics on how he’s going to “fix things”, the history of gun control legislation suggests that it’s not very effective at actually curbing the kind of incidents we’ve seen in the past week or two.

      1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/20/joe-biden-buy-a-shotgun
        I remember one of Biden’s suggestions years ago in the aftermath of some mass shootings.
        Shotguns can be effective for “home security”, but I wouldn’t count on just randomly firing off a couple of rounds if there was a real threat.
        (There was a farm hand years ago who did just that…..he had a pretty good idea who was stealing fuel and supplies, and one night he saw the suspected thief hanging around one of the shops.
        In this particular case, a couple of blasts from his shotgun turned the thief into an Olympic- class sprinter, and the thefts stopped. But he I knew who he was dealing with, and what would “discourage” the guy from returning).

    3. I just heard a radio talk show guest discuss Armalite, and I thought oh…how interesting…it stands for Armalite…not what I was told.

  13. After a gun commits a crime, what did the gun reveal to the police interrogators?

  14. Funny that you spoke of gun control advocates using some of the tactics of anti abortion supporters. It struck a chord with me because I think that Planned Parenthood is the NRA of the abortion debate and vice versa.

  15. “Nine dead in O HI O.
    Gotta get down to it!
    Bigots are cutting us down!
    How can you run when you know??

    1. Just for clarification; what country are you suggesting needs gun control this hour? And what form of law do you currently live under? What is your opinion regarding natural and unalienable rights? What do you believe is the purpose for any government?

      Let’s start there astro. If you don’t mind.

      1. You might try common sense but you are too much the student of foolishness.

        1. For the umpteenth time, you using this blog as your personal diary reflects a poor lack of judgment.

          1. olly,
            I’ve been arguing with the gun grabbers for the last few days. They’ve argued that guns are not an inalienable right regardless of what I present them. They even tell me that the constitution doesn’t contain inalienable rights and that the only ones are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

            1. Did you ask them to define inalienable right?

              One of the methods I’ve seen used to emphasize natural rights is to have them list all the things they currently have (property), do (liberty) and the want to have or do. What’s on their bucket list? Then, what on this list do they believe the government should have the power to take from them or prevent them from doing at any time? And why?

              1. Thanks I will try this. I will be honest and tell you that while arguing with them, you popped in my head more than once. You have a way of presenting the natural rights argument.

                1. Jim, I sincerely appreciate that. It will now seem disingenuous, but I’m not surprised you were engaged in those discussions. 😎

                  1. Another bromance over guns, so manly. Is that an inalienable right? To love who you wish?

                    1. Still no answer from the “natural rights guru”. Swabbed decks his whole navy career yet leaves a trail of BS wherever he sails.

          2. Give him a break, Olly. YNOT is working up to the maximum level if his capacity.
            You need to make some allowances for the mentally challenged ones like YNOT, who strain to put a sentence or two together at irregular intervals.

            1. Well he does spell his name backwards, so I should consider your suggestion and be a bit more compassionate as he struggles to make his regular diary entries.

    2. Hi Tokyo Rose, you Fascist American hating piece of Trash.

      Get your gun grabbing arse somewhere else then the USA if you hate it here.

      Only a Retard would give up one of the main Rights as a US Citizen and get nothing for it other then become a Mark as an easy targeted Victim, just at the same time this country is being over ran by Foreign & Domestic Enemies like your Gun grabbing azz.

      Your type’s same ole Commie/Fascist Hate Crap still isn’t selling in the US to the sons/daughters of Patrick Henry & his friends.

    3. Your not going to get the guns from the mental unstable and the haters, so the best thing to do is train and have people pass tests to carry concealed weapons, this will stop most mass shootings

Comments are closed.