Supreme Court Muffs Abortion Law

The US Supreme Court reversed itself today on the issue of abortion for absolutely no reason by reversing an Idaho State law that should be a model for the other forty-nine states. The law bans abortion except in cases of life of the mother. The Court sided once again this week with the Biden Administration and against liberty. One can’t help but wonder if the Democrats threats to stack the Court have cowed some Justices into moral compromise.

Since Roe v Wade was reversed, both political parties have been weighing the ramifications. Of course, the Republicans have been having the biggest “buyer’s remorse” over this decision. Many were advocating a nationwide fifteen week ban on abortion. Such a law would codify Roe into Federal Law and allow millions of babies to be slaughtered each year. Such a law would codify abortion as a form of birth control.

Sorry, but I thought the Court found no place for abortion in the Constitution. So why are they finding one now and siding with the Biden Administration? Ditto for Republicans. Why say on the one hand that it’s not in the Constitution and on the other that the Federal government has a right to pass a law. This is insanity.

The solution is to find that life begins at the beginning and should be protected from the beginning to the end. Clearly our culture is not willing to reject eugenics as a national policy.

Does Trump Still have “Big Hands”?

Yep, this is one Supreme Court case that holds “big” implications for the 2024 election. So, what’s the big deal?

Well, back in 2017, some lawyer in California (why is it always lawyers and California?) tried to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” with the Patent and Trademark Office. The government agency denied the request—probably because they knew it was not true.

This lawyer, having an inflated view of his self-importance, decided to litigate this crucial issue in hopes that he could enlarge his stature and that of his personal wealth. (Again, typical Democrat, wanting to get rich off the hard work of others.)

This guy is arguing that it’s his First Amendment right to falsely claim “Trump Too Small”. On appeal, a federal court ruled that the government was wrong to deny his trademark application, and this lawyer could print t-shirts that impugned Trump’s manhood. The Patent office has appealed this case to the US Supreme Court.

The Justice Department arguing on behalf of Katherine Vidal, under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, eventually appealed the case up to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Lanham Act, which is a federal statute aimed at protecting intellectual property in trademark designations, gives the PTO constitutional authority to block Elster’s trademark request.

“When registration is refused because a mark ‘[c]onsists of or comprises a name…identifying a particular living individual’ without ‘his written consent,’ ‘[n]o speech is being restricted; no one is being punished,’” the DOJ’s petition to the high court says.

Size of Trump’s hands at center of Supreme Court trademark case: ‘Trump Too Small’

I’m sure this case is one sticky mess that the Court would rather avoid in these divisive political times. Its implications on the 2024 political cycle are out there for everyone to see. The government is right that living folks do have some protections to their name and reputation. (Perhaps some barn doors in this life are best left unopened.)

Folks the truth is that this guy can print the t-shirts and sell them all he wants; however, for him to own the phrase that we all know belongs to Marco Rubio is criminal. Claiming a legal right to spread falsehoods clearly belongs exclusively to the mainstream media.

We here at Really Right stand with President Trump. We trust that the Court will rise to this challenge to our great President (and his manhood) and send this lawyer shrinking back into the shadows of obscurity. We all know that such false claims can’t stand up to public scrutiny. It’s embarrassing that any Democrat would dream of comparing themselves with President Trump.

Anyway, this vital case will be heard by the Court tomorrow and their decision will be out just in time for the beginning of the Presidential Primary season.

Hell Hath No Fury

One of the best lines in the movie Gladiator is at the beginning when Russel Crow, playing General Maximus, is about to release the full might of his Roman troops on a bunch of barbarians. “At my signal, unleash hell.”

Today, a bishop in the Catholic Church, did something similar. He pronounced that he was excommunicating House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As a result of this pronouncement, she is now banned from Holy Communion. I will get into this more in a minute but let’s look this news story. First the pronouncement of the bishop.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” it says, before calling abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes.”

It also declares that “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support
Bishop Cordileone

So, there you have it, Nancy Pelosi, and by extension, anyone claiming to be a Christian that participates in or promotes abortion, has violated God’s Law and helped commit “abominable crimes” and such a person is to be excommunicated.

Folks, this is a really big deal. Nancy has been declared an impenitent sinner and in the eyes of the Church, she has literally been turned over to Satan.

Excommunication is the Church’s most severe penalty imposed for particularly grave sins.  Through baptism, a person is incorporated into the body of the Church through which there is a “communication” of spiritual goods.  By committing a particularly grave sin and engaging in activities which cause grave scandal and fracture the body of the Church, that communication ceases, and the person is deprived of receiving the sacraments and other privileges.

The practice of excommunication arose in the early Church.  In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul castigated that community for tolerating the practice of incest–  “a man living with his father’s wife” (I Corinthians 5:1).  He admonished the Corinthians for not removing the offender from their midst.  St. Paul said, “I hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (5:5).  St. Paul further warned against associating with anyone who bears the title “brother” (indicating being a believer and part of the Church) but who is immoral, covetous, an idolater, an abusive person, a drunkard, or a thief.  He then closed the passage by quoting from the Torah, “Expel the wicked man from your midst” (Deuteronomy 6:13).

What is excommunication?

Did you get that in the above paragraph? “I hand him over to Satan …”

Part of excommunication is that no one that identifies themselves as a Christian is to associate with her. Nancy is cutoff from God, and any fellowship with other Christians. She is to be shunned.

“Shun the unbeliever.”

An excommunicated person also cannot be received into a public association of the Christian faithful.

To allow Nancy to claim to be a Christian in good standing is wrong. By allowing her to remain in the Church she is leading others into error. This must end.

A bishop may directly impose the penalty of excommunication, but only for the most serious offenses and after giving due warning (#1318).  Following the same rationale of the early Church, this severe penalty intends to correct the individual and to foster better church discipline (#1317).  As the shepherd of his diocese, a bishop must protect both the souls of the faithful from the infection of error and sin, and of those who are jeopardizing their salvation.

Excommunication is a warning that Nancy Pelosi is going straight to hell unless she genuinely repents.

We must keep in mind that the purpose of excommunication is to shock the sinner into repentance and conversion.  Excommunication is a powerful way of making a person realize his immortal soul is in jeopardy.  Excommunication does not “lock the door” of the Church to the person forever, but hopes to bring the person back into communion with the whole Church.  Moreover, this penalty awakens all of the faithful to the severity of these sins and deters them from the commission of these sins.  This line of thought is highlighted in the Catechism when it speaks of the automatic excommunication for abortion:  “The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.  Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society”

Oh, one little nugget in the Fox News story to add some context, Bishop Cordileone sent the warning letter to Speaker Pelosi BEFORE the draft of the Supreme Court decision was leaked to the public.

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

The Bishop sent his letter April 7th and the Draft of the Supreme Court decision was published by Politico May 2, 2022.

Ok, get in Nancy’s shoes for a second. Your spiritual shepherd has told you that you need to repent for your sin of promoting, encouraging, and funding abortion, a grave moral sin, and then the nine in black robes agree with your bishop. What should you do?

Repent or double-down on your sin?

Let’s see what happened.

Nancy encourages the mob to get even with her fellow Catholics on the Court and makes sure anyone on her side of the aisle has their home address to insure maximum impact of these protests. Oh, by the way this is enabling a violation of Federal law which says judge’s homes are off limits.

She also doubles-down on trying to overturn the Court’s decision before its even announced.

Then she triples-down by trying to fast-track a law to make abortion legal for all nine months of the pregnancy in all 50-states.

Meanwhile other Catholic politicians in her Party are trying to protect abortion as it is under Roe and take it even further by making euthanasia legal from conception thru at least the first year of life.

Given all this, can any reasonable person think that the Bishop had any option but to throw her out? Nope.

Nancy is hellbent on killing and killing and more killing. She is the very definition of unrepentant.

Hey Bishop, who’s got your back?

We here at the blog are grateful that the Bishop did this; however, the Catholic Church has many weasels in it and it remains to be seen if the Church has his back in a good way or like Brutus did for Julius Caesar.

Roe v Wade and The Supreme Court: What it Means for You

If you haven’t been living under a rock, are completely delusional, or related to Aaron or George Park, you likely have heard about the leaked Supreme Court documents regarding Roe vs Wade.  Specifically, the court will overturn the ruling and leave the enforcement up to the individual states.

For starters not much is really going to change as far as a woman’s right to choose. I mean that in the sense that if you choose to engage in unprotected sex, or refuse to take birth control, nothing will be different.  The consequences of your decision will be changed though…. depending on where you live. 

I have always spoken of the great political divide in this country, and the forthcoming ruling will only add to it.  However, I want you to take a step back, forget about Roe v Wade for a minute here.  Over the past 20 years we have seen a sea change in how people/politicians govern.  It used to be the school board/city council/mayor/water board were not political…. now it’s a hot bed.  Ditto for the DA and Sheriff races.  On one side it’s how far left can you go, same holds true for the other side, compromise is a bad word.  Here is my point.

Let’s look at a California based example first.  In a county like El Dorado (far right) if you kill someone, you will be charged with and likely get the death penalty upon sentencing.  In Sacramento (center left) likely you will get life in prison, probably no parole.  In San Francisco or LA (bat s**t crazy left) you will at some point be released from prison and be able to kill again.  This is because the individual counties have their own leadership and go from there.

Back to the abortion issue.

Say Roe V Wade is overturned leaving the decision up to the states.  A state like California has already said they will not have any restrictions on abortion, and I foresee tax breaks being offered to move your abortion clinic out here.  In some counties like the aforementioned El Dorado, they likely will make it hard for those clinics to exist, think zoning laws, etc.  However, in neighboring Sacramento County they will allow an abortion clinic to open right at the county line to serve the folks who refuse to make adult choices regarding pregnancy.

On the flip side a state like Texas will criminalize abortion as fast as the legal process allows.  This additionally means enacting something like the death penalty for people who perform abortions inside its state lines.  Some cities like; Houston, Austin and Dallas may try to prevent this from occurring or have shadow clinics but after a couple doctors are sentenced to death this will change.  Look for most abortion clinics to move to New Mexico or a friendly, just across state lines, area.  The other issue likely to come from this is the election of a governor from the opposition party could well set up an arcane back and forth pendulum swing regarding abortion clinics in their states.

In closing the left is absolutely going bananas over the possibility Roe will be overturned.  To the democrats it’s about control, nothing more, nothing less.  In many ways they are correct, I think everyone agrees with me, I am pro-choice as well, but that choice is an important one…. life.  To translate for the living impaired I am very pro-life, however the choice is yours. 

For people like me and many others who practice safe sex, we do not have issues where we need a Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic.  For those who don’t, and there are tons, their choice is likely to get taken away if they live in a red state.  In many ways the choice is taken away because you made a bad choice.  When you choose to have unprotected sex, especially with someone who is not a “committed partner,” the consequences can be vicious.  STDs are one thing, but an unwanted kid is another story.  My roommate in college lived this fantasy because he wanted to live dangerously.  Well, he got a gal preggo and admits it was his biggest mistake. While I commend them for getting married and keeping the kid, he is living a life of poverty.  Actions have consequences…. wait…I mean choices have consequences.

In closing, as far as taking someone’s choices away, please answer me this question.  How come Planned Parenthood doesn’t serve the affluent, mostly Anglo parts of Sacramento County?  When I looked up locations online, I found they serve an area near Arden way (poor and mostly black) and Fruitridge Road (ditto).  If these services are so vital how come people in middle to upper class don’t need or use them?  Also why are they only in downtrodden majority minority areas?

I’ll hold the line and wait for your answer.  In the meantime,…. I guess that sucks, you got knocked up by a guy who refused to use a condom while you refused to use birth control.  Fear not you can always give the baby up for adoption…. or move to California/New York/Illinois or any other whacko left state who will kill your baby on demand.  Now serving number 105…. number 105…. please report to exam room B.

The Chief

Democrats Acknowledge Satan as Source of Legalized Abortion

Yep, the truth is finally winning out. The US Supreme Court is going to offer states the right to end the Democrat’s sacred rite of child killing. As a result, the worshippers of Moloch are going all out to keep the sacrament of abortion legal. Oh, for those of you that went to public school or are just ignorant about Western Culture, here is the scoop on Moloch.

Moloch, also spelled Molech, a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice. The name derives from combining the consonants of the Hebrew melech (“king”) with the vowels of boshet (“shame”), the latter often being used in the Old Testament as a variant name for the popular god Baal (“Lord”).

In the Hebrew Bible, Moloch is presented as a foreign deity who was at times illegitimately given a place in Israel’s worship as a result of the syncretistic policies of certain apostate kings. The laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Jews to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21). Yet kings such as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6), having been influenced by the Assyrians, are reported to have worshipped Moloch at the hilled site of Topheth, outside the walls of Jerusalem. This site flourished under Manasseh’s son King Amon but was destroyed during the reign of Josiah, the reformer. “And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Moloch” (2 Kings 23:10).
Moloch Statue on display in Rome

In times of apostasy some Israelites, apparently in desperation, made their children “go through the fire to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare 2 Kings 17:31; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35 ). It generally is assumed that references like these are to the sacrifices of children in the Valley of Hinnom at a site known as Topheth (“Topheth” probably means “firepit” in Syriac). See Hinnom; Tepheth. Precisely how this was done is unknown. Some contend that the children were thrown into a raging fire. Certain rabbinic writers describe a hollow bronze statute in the form of a human but with the head of an ox. According to the rabbis, children were placed in the structure which was then heated from below. Drums were pounded to drown out the cries of the children.

One suggested identity for Molech is the Canaanite deity, Ba’al-Hadad or Hadad. Hadad was considered the king of the gods by the ancient Canaanites. Evidence that Moloch can be identified with him comes from the fact that the pagan alters in the valley of Ben-Hinnom where children were sacrificed are also described as altars to Ba’al by the prophet Jeremiah. Furthermore, Assyrian texts state that child sacrifices were made to Adad, the Assyrian equivalent of the Canaanite Hadad. This makes it reasonable to suggest that child sacrifices may have also been made to Hadad and that a cult of child sacrifice may have been related to him.

Moloch and Ba’al-Hadad

Molech represents the most repulsive of acts in God’s sight, the ritual sacrifice of children to a pagan god, which was condemned in the strongest way by the Lord, including punishment by death.

Ancient people sacrificed their children to a false god in the belief that this would result in a better life for them. God calls for those that sacrifice their children to be put to death. Sorry, but like gender, many things in life are binary choices.

Oh, abortion is also condemned in the Bible—especially the New Testament. However, Big Tech is pushing a different point of view so you may have difficulty finding this in your favorite search engine.

I did a search and found generic stuff like “you are fearfully and wonderfully made” or “the child leaped in her womb” but that’s about it. But don’t quit there.

Thankfully I know where to look to find spiritual meat and not baby food.

Exposure, abortion, child sacrifice, and other forms of infanticide more often than not were both legal and respectable in pagan societies from the earliest times.  Unwanted children in ancient Rome were abandoned outside the city walls to die from exposure to the elements or from the attacks of wild forging beasts. The Greeks often gave pregnant women heavy doses of herbal or medicinal abortifacients. The Persians developed highly sophisticated surgical curette procedures. Ancient Hindus and Arabs concocted chemical pessaries – abortifacients pushed or pumped directly into the womb through the birth canal. The primitive Canaanites threw their children onto great flaming pyres as a sacrifice to their god Molech. The Polynesians subjected their pregnant women to onerous tortures, their abdomens beaten with large stones or hot coals heaped upon their bodies. The Egyptians disposed of their unwanted children, especially girls, by disemboweling and dismembering them. Their collagen was then ritually harvested for the manufacture of cosmetic creams. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Plato and Aristotle both recommended infanticide and abortion for Eugenic purposes. Juvenal and Chrysostom revealed that many abortions were performed in order to conceal illicit or illegal sexual activity. Soranos argued that some women killed their children out of sheer convenience or self-indulgent vanity. Ambrose and Hippolytus said that some families resorted to these drastic measures for economic reasons. Others, according to Justinian, did so for religious, ideological, or sectarian reasons. But most women, reported Calaetus, simply were coerced by oppressive cultural norms, values, and structures to despise and reject their progeny.

Indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

From time to time voices were raised against the slaughter of the innocent and helpless. But they were like voices crying in the desert: hauntingly prophetic but scornfully spurned.

It was not until the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world in the second and third centuries that a consistent and convincing pro-life message began to sound. But when it did, the whole civilized world stopped to listen.  It was not long until laws were passed and a cultural consensus was reached to protect both women and children. The church’s pro-life message was arresting.

The reason Christianity commanded such attention and compelled such action was not just that the sanctity of life was a new and novel notion. The pro-life emphasis was provocative because the church affirmed it universally and without dissent, because it was undeniably rooted in Scriptural Revelation, and because it was coupled with complementary action on the part of the faithful.

Affirmation. The wholehearted consensus of the early church was that abortion and infanticide were in fact murder. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. On that, all of the patristics absolutely agreed.

The Didache was a compilation of Apostolic moral teachings that appeared at the end of the first century. Among its many admonitions, it asserted an unwavering reverence for the sanctity of life: “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.”

The Epistle of Barnabas was an early second-century theological tract that was highly regarded by the first Christian communities. Like the Didache, it laid down absolute strictures against abortion and infanticide: “You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated.”

The second-century apologist Athenagoras in a letter to Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, “We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God…. The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care.”

In the third century, Clement of Alexandria asserted that “our whole life can proceed according to God’s perfect plan only if we gain dominion over our desires, practicing continence from the beginning instead of destroying through perverse and pernicious arts human offspring, who are given birth by Divine Providence. Those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well.”

GRAND ILLUSIONS: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood by George Grant pages 209-211

Grand Illusions is available for free at the link. You need to search by title or author in the left hand column to find the book.

The Greek word for sorcery or witchcraft throughout the Bible is pharmakea. That is also the word that is consistently used in ancient literature for abortifacient. There is a Scriptural connection, then, between occultic sorcery and abortion. Considering the backdrop of Baal and Molech worship and their occultic and child sacrifice elements, this connection should not be too terribly surprising.


Let’s look at Revelation 22: 15 per the King James Bible

“For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

Liberals really hate this verse. Here’s a breakdown from the original Greek per Strong’s.

  • Dogs” is a reference to sodomites or homosexuals.
  • Sorcerers” includes people that make drugs that result in abortions and attempt to alter their reality.
  • Whoremongers” includes male prostitution or men indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse
  • Murderers” unjustified or intentional homicide
  • Idolaters” worshipper of an idol, worshipper of Mammon (money), participant in heathen worship or festivals
  • whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” people who love to deceiving men, act according to precepts and principles of idolatry, purposely promote untruth

Oh, all the above are banned from Heaven and destined to hell.

Ok, so where’s the Satan part?

Let’s start with this quote from Gavin Newsom. “We are going to fight like hell.”

If Gavin does nothing and Roe is overturned, abortion in California remains unchanged; however, that’s not good enough. Gavin not only wants to make California an abortion travel destination but wants to make infanticide legal to boot. Yep, why stop killing them when they’re born. California is going to implement one of the primary goals of evil bio-ethicist Peter Singer.

Princeton bioethics prof Peter Singer

Gavin isn’t ready to roll out infanticide for two-year-old’s just yet but anywhere just shy of one year is the immediate goal of current legislation put forward by his keep abortion lethal committee. If you missed it, killing the elderly (euthanasia) is already legal here. Who’s next, maybe the homeless?

Gavin wants to fight like hell because that’s his team. Human sacrifice is a high priority for this man. Government is his “god” and abortion is his sacrament. Plus, he can be a closet racist. He is using abortion and taxpayer money to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor. Which brings us to the next quote.

Planned Parenthood said they are “fighting like hell.”

Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of eliminating blacks and the mentally defective. It’s founder regularly attended cocktail parties with the folks that helped Hitler eliminate gypsies and Jews—the so called “final solution”. That so many Jews support Planned Parenthood is proof that those who refuse to learn from history get to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Satan worship and paganism are on the rise in our culture while church attendance is way down—per Gavin “nonessential”. Universally, Democrats are promising that all hell will break loose if Roe v Wade gets tossed. Again, this can only be understood when the State (political power) is their god and abortion is their sacrament.

As Rushdoony said, “all law is religious.” When the God of the Bible is kicked out of the public square and public policy then some other god will take its place. All false gods are demon worship and thus end up being Satan worship via counterfeit religions. All men are religious, the thought of a godless society is not Utopia or some stupid John Lenin song but hell on earth.

This culture of death puts our nation and its people under the condemnation of God.

Dear Church, God is coming soon but not to take us to Heaven but coming in judgement and vengeance. The George Grant quote above is an indictment of just how far we have fallen.

Ruth B. Murderer’s “Dying Wish” Blarney

By Chief

Before you judge me based on “speaking ill of the dead,” Ruth Bader Ginsberg was no trailblazer as far as the unborn are concerned. She is indirectly through her beliefs on abortion, indirectly responsible for the murder of untold masses of the unborn babies/fetuses at the hands of (un)Planned Parenthood. The lion’s share of these black lives (didn’t) matter. Old “buzzy” had so much blood on her hands, Reverend’s Al and Jessie were jealous!

Senate Democrats and the media, promptly after her expiration, began speaking about a dying wish to “not have her replacement named by this current President.” This is a half-truth at best, a fabrication at worst. Her exact words were “I wanted to be replaced by a women President.” Now this is an OK take, since wisdom at the time pointed to a Hillary blowout on election night. Problem is Donald Trump won and as Barack Obama said, “elections have consequences.” Well….it’s true they do. Now Trump gets to pick the replacement, and with Mitt Romney agreeing to support a floor vote, Democrat Senators have no way of stopping the nominee. Predictably Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of the intellectually challenged, decided the nomination should be left up to the next president…because of Merrick Garland.

Let me explain the difference between RBG and when Scalia died. Scalia’s passing had a GOP controlled Senate and the possibility existed that the make-up of the court would be changing. As a result, they stalled and blocked the nominee. RBG is far different, while the make-up of the court will change; the President and the Senate are under control by the same party! My thoughts are put up a nominee and let’s see the process play out. History says the nominee will either; not get enough votes (weak kneed Republicans) or their judicial career will be a failure (Stevens, Souter). I say this because history says the Democrats bat about 100% on the court and the GOP is around 50% (looking squarely at you Roberts).

Moreover, here is a bigger difference between both Supreme Court deaths. Scalia died suddenly; RBG was in failing health for about a decade. She could have easily been replaced during the Obama years and the replacement would have garnered most bi-partisan support. Instead she wanted to go out on her terms and almost did! Sadly, she couldn’t hold out any longer and now she will be replaced; however, she will be replaced by a women!

In addition, Democrats screwed up big time between the nomination of Merrick Garland, and crying about Merrick Garland not getting a hearing. I say this because read the damn room! You put up an older, white male, now I’m assuming gender here, but your party had made it clear white men were an enemy of the nation! Why not do what Trump is going to do, put up a woman, or better yet, possibly a non-white woman? Imagine the headlines if the GOP pulled their tactics on a nominee like that?

In closing, the Democrats own tactics have come back to haunt them. Back in the Obama era, Dirty Harry Reid weakened the filibuster for judge confirmations, Schumer and his ilk figured they would be in power for ever…wrong! Also look at how that bunch of clowns treated Brett Kavanaugh? Understand again, he was replacing a center right judge (Kennedy). Since then the Senate GOP has become enraged and determined to stick it to the Democrats. Whomever Trump puts up is getting confirmed, and I for one plan on getting the popcorn ready! Imagine if the Democrats try to do to the nominee what they did to Kavanaugh. Remember the press release from the Democrats that read, “Insert name here?” Imagine attacking Amy Barrett for being Catholic, or Barbara Lagoa who is of Cuban descent…this is going to be great!

In short, the media is lying, and the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves, Obama, and RBG. Elections have consequences.

The Chief

PS a cousin of mine who went through SERE training in the military once told me of this story. “They locked us in plywood boxes the size of a single door refrigerator, small enough so you could not sit or stand. For 24 hours straight we heard the sounds of screaming and crying babies.” It was hell on wheels…… Is it wrong that I wish for that kind of hell for Ruth B Murderer? Except maybe that the box is see through so she can witness exactly what she fought for during her years on this earth?

Ginsburg Exits Supreme Court

In news that was expected, Justice Ginsburg is finally off the US Supreme Court. As predicted at many an editorial meeting of this blog, this exit was feet first in a body bag.

For Democrats, this is supposed to be some sort of a shock? Folks, this lady has been kept on the Court with a combination of morphine, gauze, and duct tape for many years. Truthfully, she should have left four years ago but she—like many in the Beltway—was cocksure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential race. Had she not been a bitter clinger to her seat of power—something the nine in black have a reputation of doing—she could have given Barack Obama a chance to replace her with someone even less beholden to the Constitution and half her age.

The original nine in black robes

Frankly, I’m glad she’s gone. This lady had so much blood on her hands that every day with her on the Court was a mockery of the Almighty. Ruth Ginsburg’s legacy was the moral and judicial decay of our nation. She is celebrated as some sort of champion for women, something which is totally untrue. Ginsburg was a champion of eugenics, degradation of the nuclear family, and expansion of illegitimate power to the national government. Ginsburg did not feel any moral obligation to honor her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution or defend our nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

However, we know that Democrats vow to never let a good crisis go to waste so expect them to fundraise on this issue like crazy and fight like hell to keep any Trump appointees away from the Court.

Ironically, the biggest losers in all this are the Democrats. George Soros and his ilk have spent many millions to fund the unrest caused by folks like Some Black Lives Matter. Joe Biden will be even less relevant to the political process than he was. Joe’s campaign is remarkable similar to the old movie, Weekend at Bernie’s. Joe is just the figurehead, but the brains are elsewhere in the political machinery. Oh, what happens with Covid now? Will Democrats care about it anymore? Will it silently be pushed aside? Can Democrats fight and win a battle on multiple fronts this close to the election? Especially with a media that can only obsess with one thing at a time.

Joe Biden to star in next Weekend at Bernie’s

Oh, if Democrats had their way, Ginsburg’s corpse would lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda until election day. However, since she was allegedly Jewish, tradition requires a quick burial, so what will they do?

When discussing Ginsburg’s death on the phone yesterday, it occurred to me that the bunch from Planned Parenthood would be holding a vigil at her graveside and hoping like hell that somehow, Ginsburg would remain in the Court longer. To that end, I picture them waiting just in case the bell rang and Ruth wishes to spring forth to adjudicate once again.

Early cross-section sketch of RGB memorial

Amazon already has a sympathetic program about her, no doubt to try to get the Pope to canonize her as Saint RGB.

Cover of RGB (2018)

Given what we know about the current Pope, the fact that she was not Catholic may no longer be a barrier to declaring her a saint. Thus far, we have not had independent confirmation from Father Leatherby that the Pope is likely to do this just to spite the conservatives in his church.

Oh, as for the sainthood thing, a miracle must be documented after the person’s death. FYI Ruth already checked that box. Yep, its true. Can you imagine any 87-year old person with preexisting conditions from New York City living in a hospice setting that died of anything but Covid-19 anytime this year? Yep, the media said she died of pancreatic cancer. That folks is a miracle.

I look for President Trump to nominate her replacement very soon, like maybe before the dirt even hits her casket. If I was Trump, I would put up the very prolife female, Roman Catholic judge from Colorado or another female that has a track record of supporting life. The Democrats always make Republican nominations about abortion, so I saw go for it, Donald. Let’s end Row v Wade now.

I think Trump’s reelection is assured—not that he needed more help—but this will really put it out of reach for Biden.

Thoughts on Impeachment

Democrats are having a revolution in their midst. The leadership doesn’t know how to stave-off the insurgency of the Broad Squad and likeminded socialists in their midst so what can they do? Oh, how about unite by fighting a common enemy? Perhaps, someone that they hate almost as much as the Republicans. Amongst themselves they say, “Let’s investigate Donald Trump. Let’s impeach Donald Trump. Let’s imprison Donald Trump.” In their Keynesian little minds they reason that Trump has to be guilty of something, how else could he become rich?

If you pay attention to the Democrats, you learn something very significant about them; namely, they always accuse others of doing what they do. In their mind, when they do something, it’s just natural and right but when others do it, its corruption, shameful, or otherwise wrong. It matters not the subject, you can find this in so many areas of public policy and discourse. One of their favorite accusations is racism, but did you notice that they are the only ones that care about a person’s race. The rest of us care more about the content of one’s character, but everything Democrats talk about is based on skin color and other categories that only they care about.

Likewise, they are now accusing Donald Trump of doing what Joe Biden actually did as Vice-President; the difference is that Trump never did it and Joe did. Thus Democrats have one rule for themselves—the ruling class—and another rule for everyone else. The corollary is that it’s patently unfair to hold people to the same standard.

But why impeachment? Is this Nancy Pelosi’s Hail Mary pass to achieve the impossible or her last ditch effort to hold on to the Speaker position? Both?

I think you have to go back to the time when Democrats last hated someone as vehemently as Trump and that President would be Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon

(Democrats didn’t hate Ronald Reagan, they just didn’t take him seriously and unlike Trump, Reagan was a likeable guy and worked with both parties.) Democrats came off the 1972 revolution when Pelosi’s generation took control of the Party and were promptly focused on crucifying Richard Nixon. Nixon was Vice-President during the McCarthy hearings and hated communists. For many, it was payback time. Nixon was only guilty of trying to protect his friends but back then that was enough to run him out of office. Nixon was ultimately forced to resign because of phone calls—sound familiar. Why do you think no tape exists of Trump’s call to Ukraine? Nixon had tapes and was crucified for it in Congress. Now because Trump has transcripts and not an actual recording of the call, Democrats will try to use that against him. Do you see the circular reasoning employed here? If you have a tape we’ll use it against you and if you only have a transcript and not a tape then we’ll use that against you too because that means you must have something to hide.

I think the Democrats are trying to relive the glory days of Watergate but the glory is only in their heads and not based in reality. Neither the Broad Squad and their fellow travelers towards Communism nor Donald Trump are going to let this reenactment end like last time.

The impeachment effort has already come off the rails because the narrative has been proven to be based on lies, innuendo, and fabrications.

President Trump is a bull in a china shop. He says inadvisable things to inadvisable people, mainly because he is inadvisable – literally no one can advise him. The vast majority of things Trump says are ignored or brushed off by those who understand the difference between bloviation and manipulation. Still, Trump’s constant stream of noise can make it difficult to tell the difference between the two.

So when an intelligence community whistleblower came forward with an allegation that, on a call with the Ukrainian president, Trump proposed a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government – release of military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden – the allegation didn’t appear absurd on its face. The timeline, after all, seemed to match up: Trump allegedly suspended military aid to Ukraine personally a week before talking with the Ukrainian president, only to release the aid after the holdup was met with public scrutiny.

Then, the Trump administration released a transcript of the call, in which Trump used the typical New York real estate wheeler-dealer language of favors: favors related to investigations surrounding CrowdStrike, the firm tasked with analyzing the hack of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, an investigation that concluded with allegations of Russian interference; favors related to helping Rudy Giuliani investigate the origins of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation; favors related to investigating the Bidens. The theory seemed to be gaining credibility.

Then it seemed to fall apart. It turned out that the Ukrainian government apparently had no clue that Trump was even withholding military aid – and without such a quid, there couldn’t be a pro quo. The Ukrainian president publicly proclaimed that Trump hadn’t pressured him. The whistleblower report turned out to be third-hand gossip rather than first-hand information. And allegations of a cover-up imploded as the Trump administration released information ranging from the transcript to the whistleblower report itself.

Impeachment effort is sputtering – already

Two other thoughts on the impeachment thing. First, Trump has a right to defend himself from the accusations of the Democrats; to expect him to just sit there and take it like George W Bush did for eight years is not going to happen. Trump will vigorously defend himself. Second, Trump promised to investigate the corruption of the last administration. Clearly Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden deserve scrutiny given their known behavior while in office. There is enough on the public record, often in their own words, to indict either. Is this impeachment push a ruse to thwart forthcoming criminal charges on one of them?

Folks, this impeachment thing will result only in the termination of Joe Biden’s candidacy for President. As others have predicted on this blog, Biden couldn’t win, place, or show in any early primary states anyways. Given the weak Democrat field, it is possible that someone else may step off the sidelines and enter the fray. The filing window will begin closing soon in some states but if the field remains like it is, I see Trump easily winning reelection. I can’t speak to the other side but by their actions, Democrats have boosted the enthusiasm for Trump voters to an all-time high.

The other wildcard to watch is the Supreme Court. I think it highly probable that Justice Ginsburg will not be on the court come next fall. A looming court vacancy will upend anything else the Democrats might do between now and then.

Idiotic Reporters Stumble Badly

Quite a few people in this country have the IQ of a potted plant, meaning the bane of their existence is to be taken care of by someone else, their owner.  In other cases, you have people–mostly those who write for newspapers–who have the IQ of a piece of meat.

US Supreme Court Fall 2018

These two wrote an article about Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) giving “side eye” –a sign of disrespect to a colleague of hers, Brett Kavanaugh–in the annual Supreme Court photo.  Jenny Holander and Marie Claire will never win a Pulitzer. Furthermore, I doubt they could ever pass a test that proves their IQ is positive.  The article is a thinly veiled hit piece written by a couple women who knowing very little think they know more than anyone else on this earth.  This is why they cannot find work anywhere else and have to resort to click bait articles.  Kind of ironic, but she is giving “side eye” to Sam Alito, as Brett Kavanaugh is pictured in back over her shoulder…….strange.

Get a load of this quote…..

Don’t get me wrong-I could certainly be seeing what I want to see here, mostly because RBG is a women’s rights icon. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh behaved like a spoiled child when asked about assault allegations at his confirmation hearings and got a spot on the bench anyway. Also, in fairness, RBG has adopted this facial expression in previous SCOTUS shots that did not include Kavanaugh, so there’s that.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Side-Eyeing Brett Kavanaugh In This New SCOTUS Portrait Is Us All

Hmm…so I guess Americans no longer have the right to defend themselves in court?  Throw out the Constitution?

Here’s an even better quote from these two way smarter than you or me authors……

Friday is portrait day at the Supreme Court of the United States, and you know what that means-a spot of shade-throwing by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or so it seems. The November 30 portrait is the first that includes now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Antonin Scalia after a bitter tug-of-war about whether the multiple sexual harassment claims against him (which Kavanaugh denies) should render him ineligible. (Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford has only recently been able to return home due to death threats, but I digress.)

So, I guess Kavanaugh replaced Scalia (may he rest in peace) ummmmmmmmmmmmm no Neil Gorsuch did, or maybe I’m just too dumb to believe what I think these people just told me.  Maybe I should ask the Blog Father’s wife who is a teacher about this one?

Good grief! Journalism is dead but wow. You two really are so off the reservation even Elizabeth Warren won’t call you among her brethren tribe.  Maybe you should take up a career with a declining paper like the Sacramento Bee. Their standards were lowered a long time ago and are likely looking for people with IQ’s below that of a slug!  But honestly; thank God you’re employed. I wouldn’t want my hard-earned tax dollars paying you two idiots to stay at home.  However, if you want to go play in traffic, I endorse it, you won’t be missed. Your journalistic skills make you prime candidates for the Darwin Awards because you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute to humanity.

Just a quick lesson; feel free to check my stats on this……. Neil Gorsuch replaced Antonin Scalia……Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy; but since I’m a white male, you think I probably have Mien Kompf and the Communist Manifesto by my bed every night so check with someone else to confirm my facts!

NeverTrumpers Proven Wrong Again

Those of us that proudly voted for President Trump and supported him from the primary season to the Whitehouse have yet another accomplishment to crow about today. Trump told Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris to go pound sand and got three conservatives appointed to the Nine Circuit Court of Appeals. I told you the Ninth Circuit would be his next target for judicial reform. These two ladies burned any hope of civility and decorum with the slime attack on Brett Kavanaugh.

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

I know there are more openings on that court and Trump can severely hamstring the nuttiness in California if some common-sense folks are placed on the Ninth Circuit.