Smog is not climate. It is a purely local phenomenon.

The rape accusation was dropped. It was a Swedish case and it was dropped by the Swedish police due to statute of limitations. There is a second accusation for failure to present himself to court and that is still pending by the US to answer questions about releasing documents, and that is what he is still doing because he believes he will not get a fair trial in the US. Probably true.

I support the death penalty in some cases but if it went away because of the costs and the chance of the person being innocent after all, it would not bother me.

I support a******n in some cases too, but they would have to be limited and truly necessary. Tough to be sure every time and there will be mistakes but a******n on demand is not what Roe approved even for the first trimester and it is obvious that a******n on demand is what the Left and even some on the Right want.

I support some i******s getting approval to stay in the country when there is a good reason to show clemency but I do not support open borders ( I am a naturalized immigrant so I have a dog in this fight ).

I support term limits, I support intelligent politicians (or I would if there were actually any of them around).

I don't revere sportsmen or sportswomen (I like some of them but they are not Olympic gods and if they did not exist my life would be the same).

I cannot identify any songs or singers or performers except for a few classics. I enjoy music but again if it did not exist the sound of insects or owls or wolves (all of which I hear daily where I live) is enough music for me.

I have kids in the military and they are often in harm's way and I support them with all my heart. One thing my kids have in common is that they were not aborted.

That is so not true. It is boring to hear the same accusations over and over, especially when those accusations are totally false. If the conservatives had the opportunity to do things properly there would be no single mothers in need and if someone did drop through the cracks she and the baby would be looked after by the community and family. Government need be involved only in a broken society, which is obviously the intent of the left, and unfortunately an intent that is being met with success. The more welfare the greater the proof that we are failing and responsibility for that failure can only be put at the feet of the Left.

Everybody who reads anything in these and similar posts t***slates it based on their perceptions and prejudices. They ignore what might offend them and accept that which they think supports their viewpoint. Normal human behavior.

But if one wants to pontificate on a subject and expects to be listened to, h/she should at least research it first. Merely repeating some opinion from some other person does not make it real or true. In the College system a student cannot write original work because it cannot be attributed, thus only opinions that have been previously published can be used when writing a paper for assessment and a grade. This is, on its face, ridiculous. Why should my opinion, as an original thought, not have the same value as that of a person who has published before? What makes that work more correct than mine? Answer: Nothing. My opinion is a good as anyone else's. Thus when I say something I have researched it. I have read the original document and considered what it says before I opine.

In this matter all I had to do is read the law. It was written by people who had a much greater knowledge and understanding of English than today's population and especially that of today's educated people who are much more interested in politics than the t***h. The clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a simple one, easily understood, with only one possible meaning. It means a person, in this case the mother, since the baby has not yet been born and cannot be under any jurisdiction, has to be in the country legally. This is common in most countries and was common at the time the amendment was written. One would have to twist the language beyond its breaking point to come to any other conclusion. Nevertheless our modern progressives have managed to change the meaning and the sheeple go along with it, turning the law on its head in the process.

A woman comes over the border illegally and has a baby. That baby then becomes a citizen? In what universe? How can that baby be subject to the jurisdiction of the State? A State that had no knowledge of its existence? With no permission for the mother to be there? Hey, you had the kid, you own it. Yet we say it is inhumane to kick the mother out and not keep the kid which is also inhumane (separating families shock horror) so we knuckle under to the pressure and let both stay? Why then was the mother even there having her kid in our country in the first place? Because she knew the i***ts who live here will then have sympathy and let her stay. How is this legal? Certainly not under our Constitution.

There is one way a kid becomes a citizen at birth and that is not dependent on the mother's status and that is if the kid is born at sea or in an airplane that is in international waters (or airspace), when the Mom can claim US citizenship if the airplane or ship is one belonging to an American company. And of course the Mom is legally on board (under the jurisdiction thereof).

If the mother was not in the country legally there could be no other result than to deport both mother and child, as is done universally around the world. The 14th Amendment does not have a meaning not already included in the original document and was not written to allow an i*****l a***n to obtain rights not permitted under the law or to subvert the Constitution.

It doesn't and neither does the Roe Vs Wade precedent. Nobody reads the court's statement but everybody goes with the popular definition of what it means and everybody gets it wrong.

It was found that some states proscribed a******n for any reason while others had no rules at all. The Roe decision was meant to apply the same laws across the nation. It did not suddenly make a******n legal or suddenly say that murder was legal. It is probably correct to say that any law justifying murder (including a******n) would fail if tested against the Constitution.

But taking it as precedent it says that only in the first trimester is a******n subject to medical decision by the woman's doctor. It is not something the mother can decide. She can request, and usually find a doctor to go along, but she herself has no right to k**l her baby based on anything other than a medical decision. An a******n for convenience, or as a form of birth control, is murder and illegal even under Roe.

A******ns in the later trimesters were never intended under Roe for any reason except the health of the mother or the baby and was not meant to allow unrestricted a******ns, nor was it meant to prevent any State from making a******n illegal in the second or third trimester if that State chose to do so.

The unrestricted murder of babies that has resulted (over a million a year!) is a travesty of the law. No matter what the Democrats tell you it is still murder.

It is simple. The 14th amendment said that the babies born in the country of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the nation (ie were legally in the country in the first place; with a visa or some other document) would become citizens. If the parents (and that could be mom and/or pop) were legal, so is the baby. If they were illegal the baby is not a citizen. Anchor babies simply do not exist, not here and not in any other country. The whole concept of anchor babies is crazy. Think about it.

If you apply for a visa you will be denied if you are a woman who is pregnant (beyond a certain time and obviously if your visa is for a year you cannot be even a little bit pregnant), for this reason. It is I think in the application process so if you are pregnant and you come here and have your baby here you are guilty of fraud and your visa would be cancelled and you would be deported plus your baby would be denied citizenship and also deported.

That is the law as it is written.

I flew for many years between Asia and the USA and was quite adept at identifying pregnant women who would wear bulky clothes to hide their condition when they arrived on a tourist visa, obviously intending to have their baby in the US so that in the future that kid would have the right to citizenship. Pissed me off but it was also obvious that the customs officers were very aware of the practice and did nothing to stop it.

I don't mean to blame the women. I see it as a given that many men do not support their partners or their children leaving the woman to cope alone and it must be tough if she has no money and finds herself pregnant once again. Turning to PP for help is understandable. Given what I know about liberals I feel that they must take the lion's share of the blame because of the policies they promote, policies that are designed to break down our society and replace it with socialism or worse. Be glad to discuss those policies but in this case I want to concentrate on the evil of a******n. Marriages between conservatives of course break down too, but conservatives are not predisposed to abandon the children as a result and will pay child support or wh**ever to protect them. I realize this is simplistic and subjective but I have lots of personal experience to be sure I am right.

The breakdown in the family, caused in part by the breakdown in morality, marriage, together with the increase of single women on welfare has caused more families to be fatherless. Maybe promote is too strong but facilitate? Encourage?

Liberals see it as necessary in order to break down our way of life/government to bring in the socialistic paradise they want us to become. Making people more dependent on government is one of the tools they use and single mother families suit them just fine. Of course a******n would go up under those conditions, with a lack of financial and family stability being just one factor.

No conservative wants to see this and no conservative would encourage or support it.

There are a lot more single mothers now and they are on welfare mostly and it is not the conservatives who set that up or encourage it. The Liberals are responsible for that.

I don't know what a Previnter is but it must be good if you like it.

When I was a youngster it was accepted that everybody had the responsibility for his/her own life. A man married a woman and if they decided to have kids they took responsibility for them and for their own actions. There were few unwanted kids and those that were unwanted would be looked after or adopted by couples that could not have kids of their own. Now the system, as controlled by the Liberals, encourages single women to have lots of kids on welfare and the father is not required or involved. You must surely be able to see why kids fall through the cracks now if only because the foundations of our lives has become so weak. The answer of course is to roll back the clock and have people become responsible citizens once again. Given the destruction committed so far by the Left and the lack of morality as a result, there is not much likelihood that will ever happen.

Planned Parenthood is hardly involved in birth control; their plan for that is a******n. Wake up and look for yourself.

Margaret Sanger set up Planned Parenthood specifically to reduce the birth rate in the black population of the USA. Because most of the PP establishments are in black neighborhoods and the black community a******n rate is above their birth rate this is obviously succeeding. Include the black-on-black murder rate and the African-American segment of our population is bound to die out within less than a generation and be totally gone within 20 years. To the Liberals this is totally acceptable so long as they can claim they are holier-than-thou and pass the blame to the evil conservatives.

I for one can see right through the Left and consider them to be the greatest threat ever faced by this country. If we are brought down it will not be because of an external threat but will be from within. I have seen the enemy and it is Liberalism.

Where does that come from? How can you make a statement like that which has absolutely no basis in fact? You think that a child might have a tough time so you k**l it? I guess that explains the left's acceptance of partial-birth a******n, where the baby is allowed to be born, usually feet first, except for the head, which is them pierced with scissors or some sharp object to k**l it before it is extracted. That is better than allowing the baby to be born? Maybe the baby can be adopted and can live a good healthy life; how do you know otherwise? If the baby is suffering from a defect or disease it might not be viable, but I have read plenty of stories about how the medicos got it wrong and the baby was just fine. But the Lefties would have already k**led it so that kid had no future. The Mom was on drugs and so was the baby? Yes it causes heartbreak and sorrow but maybe the kid can still be OK. Look at Stephen Hawking; if a baby was born with his problems the Dems would have already k**led it so what would the world miss out on? Did Stephen say that his quality of life was so bad "just k**l me?"

Where do you get the authority to ignore the commandment, supported by our laws and by our own Constitution to not murder? A******n is legalized murder, so maybe no-one goes to jail, but it is still murder. If a person shoots a pregnant woman and the baby in the womb dies, it is called murder yet when a woman, through a desire for convenience after failing to prevent the pregnancy, goes in for a free a******n the country calls it NOT murder? After so many thousands of years when it was seen to be what it really is we have changed the definition, just as we changed the definition of marriage, of g****r, of success, and now we don't call it murder we call it Pro Choice?


All I am asking for is that we stop lying to ourselves and each other about a******n. Sure there are times it is necessary or medically advisable and sometimes there is a need to choose between the mother or the baby but k*****g a baby, whether that baby is in the womb or already delivered, is morally and legally wrong and should not be casually accepted by the great brain dead population that gets its information from TV.


And don't tell me that Conservatives don't care for children. Conservatives are always the first to give charity and help the weak. We don't use other people's money to do it either, like the Left does. I know lots of people who have taken the care of children not their own and most of them have a heart and a soul and are definitely not Liberals.

I understand what that means. It means that if I had a choice as to whether to support a******n or not I would choose not. I would choose life for the baby not death, which is surely the opposite of life.

So why do we say the opposite is Pro Choice? That is a given is it not? And if we have a choice, which is what Pro Choice means, surely, then we are free to choose the life of the baby or the death of the baby (against a******n or support a******n). In other words, Pro Choice is meaningless. Everyone is Pro Choice especially the ones who proclaim to be Pro Life (well except for Democrats who don't want anyone to have a choice on anything at all) and with regard to a******n (on demand and free) everyone has a choice and no-one is being denied that (yet).

Why not be honest and lay it out for everyone to see clearly by labeling the two positions on a******n as Pro Life and Pro Death? It would be more accurate and more enlightening surely?

If everyone chose to describe the Pro Choice people as Pro Death maybe the public would get it and maybe the public would start to use their brains and maybe the 1.4 million babies in the USA who are k**led every year by Planned Parenthood (another false name for a group that does not support parenthood but words have meaning don't they?) and a******n mills would not be so gruesomely and terribly high. Maybe we could become civilized just a little and maybe by calling a spade a spade it could be a start?

If he is confirmed, what approach do you think he will take to his fellow jurists who, from what I could read, said nothing to defend him or the process of confirmation (especially the way it was sh1t on by the left)? Will he put it behind him and gracefully work with those l*****t sh1thole judges or will he despise them for their gross partisanship and lack of support? How can he work with them now? Maybe it will give him some more backbone to stand up to them in the cases they handle and show them how a real conservative (ie honest) judge behaves.

But it is working. And has worked before and will work again. So long as the Conservatives are more moral and will not fight dirty like the Dems, they will lose even if only in the court of public opinion. Who in his or her right mind would want to volunteer for the position of SCOTUS if this is what is to be expected? You step up to serve and you lose your entire future, your family and your colleagues will always wonder if the accusations were true.

So we lose the most qualified applicants, we lose in the hearings, we lose the ability to put our own in the court, yet we, like Nice Guys, always agree to v**e in the left-leaning judges put up by the Dems.

The republicans in the Senate could put a stop to this today. They could force a v**e and confirm. Even agreeing to more hearings over this accusation is craven weakness.

What I see is we are not fighters. We have no bottom. We deserve to lose even if this leads eventually to the loss of the entire country. Unless we see the real threat and stand up and fight there is no future for this country except to continue to follow Venezuela down the same path.

BTW, why don't we elect non-political judges? Why partisan? Surely being a partisan judge should disqualify him/her. Isn't the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution? Not to defend and support the DNC/RNC? Why not hold all judges' feet to the fire and force them to put aside political interference and judge based on the law. So long as politics is the standard we really don't have impartial judgments or a fair legal process at all. I never hear the talking heads bring this up; are they so disillusioned and resigned? What happened to honor and integrity? Do they not have a place any longer in our wonderful Venezuela wannabe?