A Woman's Body Does Not Have Two Heads: Pro-Abortion Irrationality

Your body does not have 2 heads and 2 different sets of DNA.

Clever image that sums up one part of the illogicality in the feminist claim that the moral issue of abortion is largely limited to the assertion that a woman does what she likes with her body.

The other part of the irrationality in that pseudo-argument is illustrated by what I wrote in my previous post Legalizing Infanticide or Limiting Abortion:

What is absurd is for women to shut all the discussion by saying "it's my body, so I decide".

It makes as much sense as for a killer to say "I used my hand to kill, the hand is part of my body, therefore no-one can tell me what I can or cannot do with it".

The fact remains that, even if a foetus is inside a woman's body, it is still a different living, and in some stages sentient, being, so should not be treated just like an appendix of her body.

Why Paedophilia Concerns Have Come to Override Basic Rules of Law

Whether or not the BBC, as the Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson argues, should prove that the programme Newsnight was not acting with malice towards senior Tory politician Lord McAlpine wrongly accused of paedophilia by an abuse victim, one thing is clear.

The current obsession with paedophilia seems to have erased or greatly diluted the basic legal principles that a person is innocent until proven guilty and, even more importantly, that the burden of the proof is on the accuser.

Paedophilia and, to a lesser extent, rape have become such politically incorrect crimes that they are treated as if they were worse than even murder or mutilation.

Yet losing life or a limb is certainly worse than being a victim of sex crimes.

When another child abuse scandal connected to the BBC, that of Jimmy Savile, emerged, we heard a never-ending number of celebrities and commentators repeating ad nauseam that children must absolutely be believed without a doubt in the world when they make this kind of accusations, almost implying that disbelief is a crime in itself and echoing similar assertions made about rape and women who claim to have been raped.

Nobody should be believed absolutely and undoubtedly: children, adults, women and men. People who say they have been victims of a crime are witnesses; and it is a well known fact that crime witnesses are highly unreliable, as this latest case concerning Lord McAlpine confirms for the umpteenth time.

This applies to all crimes: the least unpopular as much as the most hated ones. It has nothing to do with the severity of the crime, or how much it is disliked, or how strong emotions it arises.

It is a simple rule of law. To punish an innocent is worse than to let a guilty off the hook.

In the case of paedophilia, even accusing an innocent may be worse than to let a guilty off the hook.

"To call someone a paedophile is to consign them to the lowest circle of hell – and while they are still alive" correctly writes Boris Johnson.

But why have we got to this point of insanity, where paediatricians have been lynch mobbed for having the same prefix as paedophiles (from the Greek for "child") in their name and accusations can fly around and be believed so liberally?

The reason is very simple. Starting from the 1960s "sexual revolution", strongly if not entirely consciously influenced by Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich theories that repressing sexual impulses is not good for you, sexual activity has been removed from the moral sphere.

Contemporary, influential moral philosopher Peter Singer writes in his Practical Ethics that ethics should not concern itself with sexuality, and that driving a car, due to what he believes to be its environmental impact, raises more moral issues than having sex.

This new dogma has been readily and happily accepted by a majority opinion, leading to such nice results as multiplication of marriage breakdowns, adultery, divorces, broken families, abortions, illegitimate births, multiple partners and fathers, AIDS, increase in sexually transmitted diseases, homosexualist agenda being imposed on everybody, incest and Muslim polygamy made quasi-legal or accepted.

But public opinion, seeing where all this was going, namely that sex with children woud be next on the list of morally permissible activities, strongly drew a line at that. Something similar happened with rape.

Given the very confused ideas about sexuality and morality that prevail in our societies (and I grant that the subject is complex), all the furore about paedophilia (and to a lesser degree rape) derives from and is directly proportional to the eagerness and almost desperation with which all other forms of sexuality have been embraced without a thought in the world.

It turns out that sexual activity is not beyond the realm of ethics after all.

Kids Reported and Arrested for Being Non Politically Correct

A rather illiterate, in terms of both grammar and ideas, profanity-laden website called Jezebel has "named and shamed" young teens for twitting about Obama in politically incorrect ways by reporting them to their schools.

Teachers as well have been the target.

Several public school teachers are facing investigations for posting items on social networking sites that opposed President Obama and his agenda. Parents raised concerns regarding the teachers’ posts, prompting the school districts to launch investigations. Similarly, teens who posted anti-Obama messages on social networking sites are being targeted by a website called Jezebel, which not only reveals the identities of the students who made the posts, but reported the students to their schools.

In Rock Hill, South Carolina, a middle-school teacher was placed on leave after posting a message on her personal Facebook page about Obama and food stamps. “Congrats Obama,” she allegedly wrote. “As one of my students sang down the hallway, ‘We get to keep our food stamps’ … which I pay for because they can’t budget their money … and really, neither can you.”

According to a school spokesperson, several parents had called the school complaining about the teacher’s post. The teacher was forced to apologize.

What had she done wrong, except expressing political views that differ from those of her bosses?

“People outside the school system ... saw her posting and some of them said they were offended by it,” spokesperson Elaine Baker said. “She used poor judgment according to our social media policy. Teachers are kept to higher standards.” Baker continued, “Sometimes you just can’t speak out publicly about what you’d personally like to say, about anything.” She told television station WSOC that teachers in general should “watch what they post on Facebook.”

I didn't know that the First Amendment does not apply to teachers.

This is not as bad as the British 14-year-old girl who was arrested for making "racist remarks" at a school in Greater Manchester, but it is going in the same direction of policing speech and thought from a very young age, so they learn soon how narrow the limits to free speech have become, even for children.

All she had done was asking her science teacher to be moved from a class of Asian pupils only one of whom could speak English.

For this the 14-year-old girl, Codie Stott, was reported to the police by the school, arrested and questioned.

Codie said: "I asked the teacher could I change groups because I didn't understand them and she said I was being racist and started shouting at me."

A complaint was made and she was taken to a police station.

Her mother said her Codie's jewellery and shoelaces were removed, her fingerprints and DNA samples were taken and she was put in a cell.

The school said it wanted to ensure it had a caring and tolerant attitude to pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and it did not stand for racism in any form.

Greater Manchester Police said it took hate crime reports very seriously and its treatment of the teenager was in line with normal procedure.

What "hate crime" was that, I'd like to know?

80,000 Citizens in 33 US States Submit Petitions for Secession

Here is what creates division. People in the US are understandably getting tired of a situation that is on the edge of unsustainability.

The presidential election, with very close results and marred by voter fraud mostly committed by Democrats and losses of military absentee ballots and of military votes which would have been overwhelmingly Republican, has not resulted in a clear mandate for Obama.

This lack of legitimacy, together with his anti-American policies, are the real cause of division in the country, so much so that people in the United States want to secede from the union. 

Citizens From Over 30 States Submit Secession Petitions to White House:

Seventy-seven thousand seven hundred and thirty-two people have signed the petition created by a citizen of Texas to secede from the union.

The petition, posted on the White House website, lays out the signatories' reasons for seeking to separate from the United States and form its own independent government:

"The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government."

At the time of writing this article, individuals from 33 states have filed similar petitions calling for secession.

The “We, the People” program includes a “create a petition” tab on the White House website. The explanation of the site claims that "if a petition gets enough support," — more than 25,000 signatures within 30 days — the "White House staff will review it, ensure it's sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response." The Houston Chronicle reported that “shortly after 2:30 p.m. Central time on Monday, the [Texas] petition passed that threshold.”

Since that report, Louisiana’s petition has also crossed the 25,000 signature threshold.

Regardless, President Obama has made no statement regarding the crescendo of calls to bust up the union.

Although Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009 said “one of the deals” made at the time Texas entered the union was that the Lone Star State could leave at any time, a spokeswoman for the former GOP presidential candidate repudiates that position and declares the governor’s preference for union.

GOP Trilemma: Compromise, Stand Firm, Go to the Right

This interesting video sums up, better than many words and in-depth analyses, why Obama won. This has truly become a client state. I like the following definition of client state, applied to Scotland:

Keep spending more and more money on more and more voters, and you've built a client state. Those in receipt of the largesse will want it to continue. One day the money will no longer be there to spend (see technical note from Liam Byrne for details), but by that point you will have engineered a situation where any modulation of public spending will cause pain to such a large proportion of the electorate that the chances of the Conservatives winning a straight fight will be much reduced.

Although I am not American, I am very, very sad that Romney did not win the election.

I had got to like him, a Christian, obviously good, warm and gentle person. I liked the way he spoke during the presidential debates, firm but always polite, compared to the impersonal and arrogant Obama.

I can easily believe what popular radio talk show host and political commentator Rush Limbaugh said of him, that “Mitt Romney is one of the best people, human beings I’ve ever met.”

Limbaugh also said:

None of it makes any sense! Mitt Romney and his wife and his family are the essence of decency. He's the essence of achievement. Mitt Romney's life is a testament to what's possible in this country. Mitt Romney is the nicest guy anybody would ever run into. Mitt Romney is charitable. He wouldn't hurt a fly. He doesn't hate. He's not discriminatory in any way, shape, manner, or form.

This is about Romney as a person. But the reasons why I would have voted for him, if I had been American, are obviously political and I've blogged extensively about them before the election, from the economy to abortion, from Marxism to the presidential debates, from totalitarianism to the Benghazi attack.

Romney's policies were not perfect, but infinitely better than Obama's. Barack Hussein is also someone who has been very shady about his life as well as mendacious about his politics, which makes it unwise to trust him as President of the world's most powerful country.

Exactly because I am European, I've considered the US as something to look to for upholding the western and Christian values that are being eroded so rapidly in my continent.

I'm seriously saddened now to see that the US is going the European way too. But I am still hopeful: this is not the last election, and things may happen before the next that might change America's current political and economical course towards socialism, big government, welfare state, poverty and loss of moral compass.

Looking at the election results, there has clearly been a shift much more pronouncedly to the political left in US voting patterns, strongly determined by minority votes like blacks and Latinos, groups that probably made the difference about who of the two candidates got elected.

Some commentators, on the BBC for instance, said that the Republicans must acknowledge the democraphic change produced by the much higher percentage of Latinos in several states and, if they want to woo these voters, should make changes to their policies, prominently on immigration.

We have to remember this: "As Doug Ross has pointed out, Obama is – among many other things – the lawless president: the first one to sue states for enforcing laws Congress had passed".

The state in question is Arizona, and the law is the immigration law:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that one key part of the Arizona immigration law, known as Senate Bill 1070, is constitutional, paving the way for it to go into effect. Three other portions were deemed unconstitutional in a 5-3 opinion.

The part ruled constitutional is among the most controversial of the law's provisions. It requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally.

The three parts ruled unconstitutional make it a state crime for an immigrant not to be carrying papers, allow for warrant-less arrest in some situations and forbid an illegal immigrant from working in Arizona.

The long-awaited decision was a partial victory for Gov. Jan Brewer and for President Barack Obama, who sued the state of Arizona to keep the law from taking effect. By striking down the portions they did, justices said states could not overstep the federal government's immigration-enforcement authority. But by upholding the portion it did, the court said it was proper for states to partner with the federal government in immigration enforcement.

This may help explain why Latinos tend to vote for Obama. But should the Republican Party make concessions of this sort and risk going against the Constitution? Is this just a small compromise, or is it damaging what America, since its foundation, really is and stands for?

On immigration, Obama was accused by Bush administration counsel John Yoo of executive overreach:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here. The first is that “the Laws” includes the Constitution. The president can and should refuse to execute congressional statutes that violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is the highest form of law. We in the Bush administration argued that the president could refuse to execute laws that infringed on the executive’s constitutional powers, particularly when it came to national security — otherwise, a Congress that had a different view of foreign policy could order the military to refuse to carry out the president’s orders as Commander-in-Chief, for example. When presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR said that they would not enforce a law, they did so when the law violated their executive powers under the Constitution or the individual rights of citizens.

The president’s right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation, of course, does not apply here. No one can claim with a straight face that the immigration laws here violate the Constitution.

The second exception is prosecutorial discretion, which is the idea that because of limited resources the executive cannot pursue every violation of federal law. The Justice Department must choose priorities and prosecute cases that are the most important, have the greatest impact, deter the most, and so on. But prosecutorial discretion is not being used in good faith here: A president cannot claim discretion honestly to say that he will not enforce an entire law - especially where, as here, the executive branch is enforcing the rest of immigration law.

Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

On the other side of the debate, there are those who say that Romney was not conservative enough. Romney was chosen as Republican candidate because he covered a kind of moderate middle ground in the GOP, in the hope that this would appeal to middle America's voters come Election Day.

Some commentators now say that a more consistent conservative approach would have been the way forward.

British political journalist Melanie Phillips is one of them:

Britain and the Europeans love Obama because they think he will end American exceptionalism and turn the US into a pale shadow of themselves. What they don’t realise is that, all but lobotomised by consumerist rights, state dependency, victim culture, sentimentality, post-religion, post-nationalism and post-Holocaust and Empire guilt, Britain and Europe are themselves fast going down the civilisational tubes.

Romney lost because he refused to provide an alternative to any of this for fear of being labelled a warmonger, flint-heart or social reactionary. He refused to engage with any of the issues that made this Presidential election so truly momentous. Up against the bullying of the totalitarian left, he ran for cover. He played safe, and as a result only advertised his own weakness and dishonesty. Well, voters can smell inconsistency from a mile away; they call it untrustworthiness, and they are right.

Rush Limbaugh is another:

“If there’s one option that hasn’t been tried in a long time, it’s called conservatism with a capital C,” he said. “This was not a conservative campaign.”

This is the trilemma facing the GOP: compromise, stand firm, or go the full length and be more consistent in its conservative principles.

Romney Lost the Election. Now What?

Romney lost the election and, unlike Al Gore against George W. Bush in 2000, he lost the national popular vote, although not by a large margin. This is close to what some opinion polls just before the election had predicted.

At first there was uncertainty about the result of the popular vote and I was doubting whether he would accept this result or, as Al Gore did, he would contest it, but he accepted the result and conceded defeat. Maybe litigiosity is not his style anyway, although in this case I wish it were.

The Republicans' victory in the House of Representatives will make life difficult for Obama.

Obama's political friends may not like this and call it obstructionism, but that's what the Congress, elected by and representing the people, is there to do: to balance the power of the administration and prevent it from becoming a tyranny.

And with this President and his Marxist, Islamophile, statist ideas there is certainly a lot that needs counterbalancing and outright opposition.

We can try and make all sorts of hypotheses about why Romney lost the election, although I don't know how useful it can be now.

It's been a real rollercoaster, with the polls a few months ago giving a certain victory for Obama, then the first televised presidential debate changed that scenario dramatically and saw the number of people saying they would vote for Romney skyrocketing.

We can say that the undoing of Romney was due to two factors, two events that occurred very shortly before the election, both fortuitous and accidental, showing how thin the basis of Obama's victory is.

These two events are the unemployment figures marginally improving, and the tragic Superstorm Sandy.

There are those who believe that without even one of those developments things would have gone the other way and Romney would have been elected President, and that Obama has been this time again, as always, an extraordinarily lucky man.

But maybe these assumptions derive from the misconception, common among conservatives, that pre-election polls were generally wrong or biased in Obama's favor, whereas they proved in fact to be rather accurate.

What Now?

Now that the election is over -  there may be a renewed effort to hold Obama and his administration responsible for the support they gave, at the time of the 'Arab Spring-Turned-Winter', to the Libyan terrorists who took governance of Libya and carried out the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, killing four Americans.

The general media silence on this matter has certainly much helped Obama's re-election.

But the many voices who called for his impeachment for treason may now find more vigor and urgency.

Either way, I have the feeling that, especially now that he doesn't even have to worry about re-election for another term and can be even bolder in his approach and extreme in his policies, Obama might just go too far and provoke his own downfall before his second term is over.

Should Obama Be Impeached for Treason?

Many American voices are rising to say that Obama, far from being re-elected, should resign or be impeached for high treason.

"He should resign!" Giuliani told a revved up crowd of Mitt Romney supporters in Ohio. "He told us he would resign if he did this poorly! Do you remember that?"

"'He lied!' Giuliani continued. "He has been a disaster. The worst president for our economy in our lifetime. He doesn't want a second term. He wants a second chance, because he screwed it up the first time."

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, affectionately called "America's mayor" for the way he handled the terrible aftermath of Sept. 11 when he was Mayor of the city, knows a thing or two about both Islamic terrorism and disaster crises.

Bravely he called for Obama's resignation, doing what many other people in politics and the media should have done.

Obama did make that promise. As with many others of his promises, he broke this one. Actually, he broke two: that of mending the economy in his first term, and that of resigning if he din't. He lied on both accounts.

The video above shows a February 2009 interview in which Obama promised to turn the economy around in three years. At 4.15 minute of the video, in answer to a question whether he should change course, he says that he is at the beginning of his office, but if he hasn't fixed the economy in 3 years his will be a "one-term propoposition", and that he will be held "accountable".

Giuliani is right in holding Obama - in the President's own words - "accountable", although unfortunately not many have dared do the same.

Giuliani attacked Obama for his "incompetence" over his management of the economy, his handling of the assault on the U.S consulate in Benghazi, and for putting his own campaign ahead of managing the fallout from Superstorm Sandy.

Obama's treatment of the Benghazi crisis, about which Obama supporters turned out to know knothing (which may go some way to explain why they are his supporters), has been so serious to warrant calls for impeachment for high treason.

Former five-term congressman Tom Tancredo says: "Benghazi amounts to giving 'aid and comfort' to enemy".

Radio, TV and press veteran Barbara Simpson, in her piece Liar or Traitor? writes: "In a just world, he would be impeached and tried for treason; he would not be re-elected. I hope you know that."

As we've known for many days now, CIA sources said they had reported to Obama "within 24 hours" that the fatal Benghazi assault was carried out by Islamist militants, and had nothing to do with the Muhammad video which for weeks he spinned was the caue of the attack.

More recently, documents obtained by former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat have emerged.

These documents reportedly show that the Obama administration is responsible for the deaths of four Americans in the Benghazi consulate assault because it empowered the Islamic terror group al-Qaeda to take control and rule over Libya.

Barack Obama’s claim to election fame – that Al-Qaeda has been destroyed – needs a reality check, according to a group of anti-Al Qaeda Libyans in exile. “We beg to differ,” they exclaimed. “Obama gift-wrapped Libya, handed it over to Al-Qaeda, and we can prove it.”

...These documents include evidence of highly sophisticated weaponry provided to jihadists which leads them [anti-Al Qaeda Libyans in exile] to doubt that any solutions will take place under what they called “The Obama regime”.

We have come into the possession of an array of records obtained from top-level sources inside the Libyan government. They include passports of Al-Qaeda operatives and identifications of terrorists from many nations—Chad, Egypt and Pakistan to name a few—which are now all camped in Libya as they enter by crossing borders guarded and managed officially by what they called “government appointed Al-Qaeda leaders.”

This explains why the drafts of two letters on September 11th expressing worry that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under ‘troubling’ surveillance and that the Libyan government failed to fulfill requests for additional security. “It wasn’t failure,” these pro-U.S. agents said, “but the Libyan government’s mafia-like system, subordinate to Al-Qaeda and installed with the blessings of the Obama administration that is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi,” they said.

And this also explains why Obama preferred to blame the Youtube video rather than the terrorists for the fatal Benghazi attack.