Wow. Just, Wow.

I have to admit that I was much more anti-Hillary than pro-Trump in this election, but as a Catholic and a Constitutionalist, I was pleased with Donald Trump’s victory on several levels. As a Catholic, this was an election about Life. There was simply no way I could support a radically pro-abortion candidate like Clinton. Abortion is one of the non-negotiable issues that Catholics can never support for any reason. To listen to Hillary in the debate suggest that a woman has the right to kill a child in the womb just before birth made my stomach churn. I am still not completely confident that Trump is a pro-life as he tried to portray himself during the campaign, but I am sure about Mike Pence and I am confident that, with a Republican in the White House, Congress will finally have the backbone to defund Planned Parenthood, and I fully expect them to hold Trump to his promise of appointing pro-life Constitutionalist judges to the Supreme Court.

As a Constitutionalist, I agree wholeheartedly with Charles C. W. Cooke that we finally have a chance to get back to our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks-and-balances. I think that Trump’s campaign was sufficiently independent – and adversarial – that the Republican Congress will have the unique opportunity to oppose him if he “goes rogue.” We know the Democrats will oppose him out of habit or spite, the same way the reflexively supported Obama in whatever he wanted to do, so Congress finally has a chance to reassert itself in our Constitutional system. It’s been a long time coming.

So suppose President Trump decides to nominate his sister or some other liberal judge not on his announced list of Supreme Court candidates. I fully expect, and would demand, that the Senate would reject the candidate both because he/she is unqualified but also to show the president that he doesn’t have carte blanche as Obama did. Also, once again, I expect the vice president to have some say in the process as well. Seeing the list of qualified people that the president-elect has chosen (Rudy for AG!), I’m less worried than I was a few months ago that he’ll do anything stupid.

And finally, I choose to believe that someone who would go through the last 18 months as Mr. Trump has, must have some idea of the magnitude of what he’s gotten himself into. I may be giving him more credit than he deserves, but I think he’s finally run into something bigger than he is. I’m sure he’s confident to believe he can handle it, and I hope he can, but I hope that the first time he steps into the Oval Office, he experiences a sense of humility befitting the job. And I’ll continue to pray for him and for our country. I ask you to do the same.

On Friday I attended the Carenet Dinner in Hollis NH.

For those not familiar with it, Carenet is a protestant ministry for pregnant woman, women removing from abortion and men and women learning how to be parents.

I spoke to Linda Barrie one of the officials about their work

And to their keynote speaker Pastor Keith Ferrin from Seattle

I shared a table with Mike Rogers and Steve MacDonald of Granite Grok who spoke to me after the event about both Carenet and the Election:

As Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for life said there is plenty of room for all of us in the pro-life movement, I’m pleased to see Carenet do their part.

We have repeatedly heard from professed Catholic pols like Tim Kaine that they are “personally opposed” to abortion yet vote for it on a regular basis.

There is an obvious question that this brings up that I really haven’t heard anyone ask people like Kaine and as I, due to my job, could not see or hear the entire debate, figured I’d ask it here.

“You say you are ‘personally opposed’ to abortion, can you explain your reason for personally opposing abortion?”

The answer to this question should be telling, particularly if the objection is a moral one, because if the objection is a moral one, why is that moral issue not important enough for one to oppose it politically.

“I only know this is wrong.”

– Guinan
Star Trek: The Next Generation
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”

I’m a sucker for time-travel stories. Whether it’s Harry Potter, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Back to the Future, Stephen King’s 11/22/63 or anything else, a good story about the hero traveling back in time and affecting (or restoring) “the timeline” is one of my favorite diversions. If the plot is clever and resolves itself well, I’m even willing to put up with hokey dialog and two-dimensional characters. I just love it when a story, which can easily open itself to paradox, cliché and deus ex machina anti-climax, manages to apply self-consistent logic and arrive at an exciting, thought-provoking and satisfying ending.

Of course, we know that time travel is impossible. You can’t go back in time and murder your grandfather, there are no alternate universes and there is no grand government conspiracy hiding an actual time travel device so we just think it’s impossible. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to change the past, at least not if you’re a progressive, or whatever term the left chooses to apply to itself. The only hard part is getting yourself into a position to do it, such as becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

If you’re like me, and believe that words have meanings and expect that logical self-consistency is essential for any set of laws to make sense, then you would agree that once a law is passed it’s meaning should remain constant until such time as the legislature chooses to amend or repeal the law. That’s a pretty basic feature of any “government of laws, not of men.” The problem, as the left sees it, is that our Constitution was set up to make it hard to change the law, but we conservatives see this as a feature, not a bug.

The way the Constitution says you change a law is to advocate for the change and convince the legislature to pass the amendment, get it approved by the other house and have the president sign it into law. But that can be difficult since (ideally) each legislator is beholden to a constituency (those pesky “we the people” again), so they have to convince them that it’s a good idea too. If they can’t, then they may get voted out in the next election. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. What if there were an easier way?

Let’s suppose that time travel were actually possible. Our legislative crusader could go back in time, maybe to the Constitutional Convention, and actually advocate to change the Constitution. Maybe convince James Madison that the first amendment should include that phrase “Congress shall make no law limiting the ability of a mother to kill her unborn child at any time during her pregnancy.” Then the Supreme Court never would have had to wrestle with the abortion question in Roe v. Wade.

Instead, the left has discovered that Legislative Time Travel is much easier. All they have to do is decide what policy they want to enact and then declare that the meaning of the appropriate legislation is actually different from what everyone thought it was originally, and – surprise! – it actually means just what it needs to mean to enact whatever policy they want. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay “marriage” and now they’re doing it with “transgenderism.” Instead of going back in time and convincing Madison, all they have to say is “Madison really meant whatever I wish he’d meant.”

And the Obama administration doesn’t even have to go back that far. By reinterpreting Title IX to include the nebulous term “gender identity” they have the chutzpah to tell legislators, many of whom are still around, that the law they passed to prohibit discrimination based on sex now means something completely different.

So now we find ourselves in an alternate reality where laws are no longer logically self-consistent, since “gender identity” is completely subjective and this made-up interpretation of plainly written law is now in direct contradiction of the First Amendment in forcing churches and religious organizations and employers to go against the practice of their faith (i.e. the free exercise of their religion) to accommodate what the American College of Pediatricians has classified as a psychological disorder.

Since we don’t believe in Legislative Time Travel, we need representatives who will follow the Constitution and not just make things up as they go along. Since Clinton has pledged to be Obama’s third term, we can expect more of the same if she is elected. It says a lot about how far left Clinton and the democrats have become that Donald Trump is actually the candidate who is more likely to restore our timeline to one that make sense.

There’s a new campaign, Abortion in Good Faith, promoting the killing of unborn children for the sake of “justice,”

“The ban on public funding is the single most detrimental policy to women’s access to abortion in the US,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice. “We are tired of this grave injustice and our campaign lifts up the voices of Catholics who want this policy to change.”

The Catholics For Choice campaign calls for the end of restrictions on public funding of abortion, since those restrictions are “unjust,” and for ending the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding for Medicaid coverage of abortion services.

Ed Morrissey does an excellent job of destroying each of the Abortion in Good Faith arguments, and includes the following,

The teachings on abortion within the universal Christian church go all the way back to its very first years. The Didache dates back to 70 AD, and is considered the first catechism or instruction on the faith. It’s the starting point for what Catholics call the magisterium after the canonical New Testament letters, from the Apostles themselves, and its position on abortion could not have been more clear:

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

St. Basil of Caesarea addressed the issue a little over a century later:

Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses. So much on this subject.

Ed also points the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2270-75, which start with (emphasis added),

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.(71)

It is spelled out clearly and unambiguously, again,

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

Pro-abortion Democrats like the Catholics for Choice, Nancy Pelosi ,and Tim Kaine call themselves Catholic but ignore the Church’s doctrine on abortion, a doctrine dating back to the origins of the Church, either out of convenience, political expedience, willful ignorance, or moral obfuscation (or a combination of all) to promote the Hillary agenda and their party’s culture of death.

Naming their latest propaganda “Abortion in Good Faith” is a slap on the face, as the campaign aims for nothing “good” and certainly lacks “faith.”

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S, and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

 

liberal-tebow-800Yup, sharing this on Facebook totally made you a hero!

Were you angry about Colin Kaepernick not standing for the pledge of allegiance? Plenty of people on Facebook, Twitter and Reddit were.

Guess what? Colin doesn’t care, because he thinks you’re a sucker.

Sadly, he’s probably right. Kaepernick makes his money playing football. Plenty of you reading this will continue to buy NFL tickets, watch NFL on TV, and buy NFL merchandise. But you’ll put your little Facebook rant and say “See, I got him good!”, while Mr. Kaepernick laughs his way to the bank.

Addicts also rationalize this sort of behavior. I’ve watched many Sailors throw away a perfectly good career because they couldn’t stop snorting cocaine or drinking excessively. Every one of them had a “rational” explanation in their head that eventually collided with life’s hard reality.

SJWYeah, I’m like this most days…

So yes, I’m accusing you of addiction. You don’t really care about what Kaepernick says (or doesn’t say), because you’ll continue to fuel his expensive lifestyle. It’s not just the NFL though. How many of you “conservatives” still drink your 75 adjective coffee drinks from Starbucks, despite their support for Planned Parenthood’s continued genocide of innocent children? Is it because you just can’t find another caffeine fix, or do unborn lives not matter?

plannedparenthoodmeme
That caramel macchiato hates unborn and black lives

The truth is that unless you actually stand up for what you believe and change your behavior in real life (and Facebook isn’t real life), every Kaepernick and Starbucks will continue to trample on your beliefs, because your cowardly addiction gives them an unlimited license to do so.

This is the last week for Da Magnifient Prospects if you like RH NG36B share his work and hit DaTipjar and mention him




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road

As a Knight of Columbus [that’s where my nom de plume comes from], I was particularly pleased to see the recent op-ed column by Supreme Knight Carl Anderson (whom I’ve had the pleasure to meet) in which he called for Catholic politicians either to stop supporting abortion “rights” or to resign their office. I could not agree with him more.  As Pope Benedict XVI said in Sacramentum Caritatis, the question of Catholic politicans supporting abortion is “not negotiable.” So a pro-abortion Catholic politician can only be one of two things:

  1. Misinformed on the Catholic teaching on abortion, such that he thinks his pro-abortion stance is somehow consistent with his Catholicism and thus with his conscience, or
  2. So craven in his desire for political power that he is willing to violate his conscience to acquire it.

Option 1 is addressable by knowledgeable Catholics engaging the candidate. Option 2 can only be addressed by the candidate himself, and I would argue that any politician who can be shown to be in this category should be automatically disqualified from receiving your vote (or anyone’s for that matter). [Note that I am not calling for a “religious test” for the candidate, but rather that voters disqualify him by not supporting the candidate. There’s a huge difference.] Moreover, if a sincere effort has been taken to inform the candidate to address the first problem and the candidate persists in his support for abortion, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that he is now in the second category and undeserving of your support. As a Knight, I find particularly galling the attitude of pro-abortion politicians who not only make an issue of their Catholicism, but also publicize their membership in the Knights of Columbus to enhance their credentials.

Indeed, I was involved a few years ago in an effort to have the Knights adopt a policy whereby they would kick out any member who, as a politician, could be shown to support legislation or policy that contradicted Catholic teaching on abortion, marriage or the family. We made considerable progress, but ultimately the motion was defeated at the Knights’ convention. The reasoning was that it was not the Knights’ job to determine who was a Catholic in good standing, which is the only qualification for becoming a Knight of Columbus in the first place. They felt that that decision lay with the bishops. I can’t help but feel that a certain amount of political reticense (dare I say “cowardice”) also played a part in the decision because the Knights are – quite rightly – protective of their tax-exempt status as a world-wide philanthopic and insurance agency.

Unfortunately, while the Knights could enforce such a policy in a non-partisan manner (Lord knows there are many Catholic Republicans who support abortion), it is undeniable that it would have a disparate impact on Democrat politicians due to that party’s extreme pro-abortion platform. And given Democrats’ penchant for forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups and individuals to violate their consciences to support abortion, it is a safe bet that such a policy would put the Knights firmly in the Democrats’ cross-hairs to remove the tax exemption that enables the Knights to do so much good work throughout the world.

But if our Supreme Knight recognizes that pro-abortion Catholic politicians are in serious-enough error to call for their resignation, surely if they persist in their error, Mr. Anderson should call for their resignation from the Knights. Allowing them to continue as Knights brings scandal and undermines the Knights’ position as the pre-eminent private Catholic charitable institution in the world. While I applaud his call that Catholics must not vote for such politicians (including Tim Kaine), I challenge him to extend this policy to its logical conclusion.

A note to readers: It’s getting down to “crunch time” for Da Magnificent Prospects, so I’d really appreciate it if you could share this article and my others with your social media friends. My other articles are:

Hamilton and Marriage
Trump, the Church and Immigration
The “Final Five” Show Us How It’s Done
The Left is Wrong About Rights
Ends, Means and Democrats
Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar, and thanks for your support!



If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar and don’t forget to mention Techknight if you are hitting Datipjar in support of him.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



trump_pointing
This guy wants you to stop whining

I have a concealed carry permit.  I don’t brag about it or bring it up in conversation.  I don’t tell people when I’m carrying a weapon.  I just follow the laws and blend in, and I find most permit holders do the same.

In Texas, that apparently isn’t good enough, as hundreds of people found it appropriate to wear dildos to class.  Concealed carry folks wanted to carry in the classroom to protect students and faculty from mass shooters.  I’m not entirely certain the purpose behind open carrying dildos.

PM9This will protect you from a mass shooter. A dildo…not so much.

But it’s not just gun rights.  Heaven help you if you express conservative views.  At my college, I spoke out against affirmative action, something that the Supreme Court eventually decided was wrong.  No matter.  Rather than a civil discussion, I was harassed.  At the same college, it was OK to openly harass members showing pictures of aborted babies, but harassing someone defending abortion was an attack on women’s rights (despite statistics that many women don’t support abortion).

gallupabortion
Looks like a heck of an even split, although you wouldn’t guess that from news coverage

After enduring that harassment, I’m perfectly OK with liberal heads exploding over Donald Trump.  I don’t agree with all his policies, but he brings a smile to my face when liberals gasp over how crass and rude he can be.  Newsflash: it’s the same rude and crass behavior that you dished out to me and others over the last 15 years that we quietly absorbed.  Stop whining when the quiet kid you picked on suddenly finds a bigger bully.


The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.


NG36B is a military blogger who regularly blogs at The Navy’s Grade 36 Bureaucrat. If you love your kids and America, you should buy his Kindle book about the Navy and read it to them every night.

And hit Da Tip Jar and mention him so that he can win Da Tech Guys competition!


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson
Engraved on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

There are two important things to note about the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution. The first is that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” us any rights. Instead, it speaks of rights already in existence (unalienable and endowed by our creator, according to the Declaration of Independence) and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. The second is that each of the rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution is personal.

Liberals tend to talk about rights in terms of what others must give you: a “living wage,” health care, housing, or even an abortion. These liberal “rights” get things exactly backwards. The only way one person can have a right to something that someone else must provide is for the provider to be forced to provide it, regardless of his consent.

The liberals on the Supreme Court, in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, recently struck down the eminently-sensible Texas law that ensured safe conditions for women seeking abortions. Their “reasoning” was that the law unreasonably restricted women’s access to abortions. Let’s think about that logically for a moment. The Supreme Court, citing a “right” that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, has said that it is unconstitutional to restrict a woman’s access to abortion.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that all the abortionists in the country suddenly decided to move to Australia. Or, in an unfortunately less-likely scenario, let’s suppose that every abortionist suddenly developed a conscience and realized that they had been murdering innocent children and repented, refusing to perform any more abortions. Could anything restrict a woman’s access to abortion more than that? What then of this supposed “right” for a woman to get an abortion? Is it really possible that the Supreme Court, or Congress, or even a State Legislature could somehow prohibit this mass-exodus of abortionists? I can just see Anthony Kennedy and Elena Kagan at JFK airport looking for that last abortionist and tackling him before he can board that last flight out. The logical conclusion is that the supposed “right” to abortion is no right at all.

Is there a “right” to housing? How can that possibly be when someone must build the house? And who decides what kind of house? Do you have the right to three bedrooms or only two? A cape in the suburbs or a brownstone in the city? If you have the right to a “living wage,” who decides what that is? How hard do you have to work to receive it? How good do you have to be at your job? Does a “living wage” include cable TV and a cell phone?

It simply cannot be that anyone can have a right to something that someone else must provide. The truth is that liberals are not interested in rights as our founders understood them. They invent “rights” for one of two reasons. Either they are trying to force people to behave a certain way or they are trying to buy votes from people who care more about what government can give them than protecting themselves against what government can do to them. Anyone who supports this approach cannot claim to “support and defend the Constitution.”


A note from DaTechGuy: I hope you enjoyed Tech Knight’s piece. Remember we will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent tryouts by hits both to their post and to DaTipJar. So if you like Tech Knight’s work, please consider sharing this post, and if you hit DaTipjar because of it don’t forget to mention Tech Knight’s post as the reason you did so. If you missed his last piece, it’s here




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



When I saw this tweet from the Atlantic:

I was shocked. Not by the fact that neither the Atlantic nor any other liberal publication would ever question abortion based on ending the life of a male, but that they had violated one of the new commandments of the modern left.

The very fact Atlantic has dared to suggest that there is such a thing as “male” and “female” and that such a thing exists in the womb before said child can even be exposed to social construct is a case of liberal heresy.

I await the massive condemnation of the Atlantic by all comers and their boycott by states and celebrities all over.

Break out the stoning scene:

Now you might think that stoning is a tad rough here but as the left has decreed that Monty Python is not comedy but a blueprint for life, I guess we have to do it.