Category: Answer O’ The Day

Answer O’ The Day ™

A humanist system rests on humans and you can’t have humanity be dependent on “because mommy wants me.” That is what we have now and it’s ontologically indefensible and philosophically infantile. Sorry. Truth must be told. – Sarah Hoyt

 

Are the Unborn People?  
The pivotal point the abortion debate turns is not whether abortion itself is right or wrong, but whether the unborn are “persons.”

( “point upon which the abortion debate turns is not whether abortion itself is right or wrong…”  I disagree, and say it does matter, but read the article)

In general, it seems that people are quick to proclaim that “words matter” and that logic and science are key, except when it comes to certain issues. On the topic of abortion, many have attempted to argue, despite clear science and logic, that because the subject is not specifically addressed within our founding documents, the right to life for those who are unborn is not an absolute certainty (i.e., in some cases a babies “right to life” appears to currently depend, inconsistently, on whether the child is “wanted” or “unwanted”).

Similarly, there are Christians who argue that because the term “abortion” is not found in the Bible, God’s intent on this matter is somehow neutral or unclear—thus conveniently leaving us to decide this matter of profound importance for ourselves as to what is right versus what is wrong. Such an approach is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and illogical, for subjects that might appear to be unaddressed in the first instance can easily be illuminated by other issues and with reference to other information.

Are the Unborn People?

The choice of words that were purposely selected for use in the Bible are important. And in a world full of shifting truths and changing definitions, the words and pages of the Bible have remained—and will remain—unchanged (Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). But not every practice/topic is addressed, and the Bible does not claim to answer all of our questions.
There are many mysteries that surround us which will unfortunately remain unanswered until the end of time. The topic of abortion, however, is not one of them. That is because the answer to a much bigger primary and fundamental question, whether the unborn are “persons” or “people,” has been shared with mankind. Although some Christians claim the status of personhood for the unborn to be unclear, the Bible makes an important—but not very well known—Old Testament reference at the end of Psalm 22 (in verse 32):

“The generations to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought (emphasis added).”

Even though this passage does not, as some would prefer, specifically declare verbatim that “the unborn are people,” it leaves little room for doubt. Although the wording could easily have referenced “future generations” instead of “a people yet unborn” (as most of us probably would have written it), an intentional choice was made in this passage to highlight the unborn as “people,” thereby making its meaning sufficiently clear.

It is also important to note other terms that the Bible does not use in reference to the unborn. For example, this specific passage does not refer to:

  • entities;
  • spirits;
  • organisms (or future organisms);
  • “products of conception, a medical term that is currently in use (or future “products of conception”);
  • clumps or groups of cells (or future clumps or future groups of cells);
  • almost people (or future people);
  • non-persons;
  • the non-living or the non-existent;
  • soon-to-be-people, or anything else that would leave doubt as to their status as persons.

(note that the issue goes even deeper, for while we as human beings think of the unborn as beginning to exist at conception, because God is not bound by space and time, it is likely that our Creator thinks of us as people even prior to our conception (see for example Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (emphasis added), meaning that all past, present, and future generations are considered as “people” to God).

Continue reading “”

Do tell…..

Sharyl Attkisson: Mexican government bought US guns used in cartel crimes

For years, escalating violence and bloodshed in Mexico was blamed on U.S. gun smuggling and lax firearm laws. American-made weapons litter Mexican crime scenes.

But what if the truth is far different? A former federal agent is flipping the script with a jaw-dropping twist: Many of the U.S. guns used in cartel crimes were bought by Mexico’s own government.

Deadly shootouts and clashes with police are a daily reality among Mexico’s killer cartels. As a result, Mexico’s gun homicide rate is two to three times worse than the U.S., with over 21,700 gun murders in 2022. It’s a flashpoint in the debate over firearms and crime and who’s to blame. Mexico and gun control advocates have long blamed smuggling and America’s loose gun laws.

That’s the story John Dodson says he was told throughout his 15 years as a special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The narrative was, “We are to blame. Our civilian firearms market, our right to bear arms, is to blame for the violence in Mexico and along the southwest border,” Dodson said.

But that narrative, he says, has been upended by the surprising truth: “The vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico are purchased directly by the Mexican government,” he said.

Tracing data confirms it. Most of the U.S. firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes weren’t trafficked or smuggled. The Mexican government legally purchased them.  Exact numbers are hard to come by, but a 2023 State Department report confirms the U.S. approved $147.7 million in small– arms sales to Mexico from companies like Sig Sauer and Glock. Still more weapons are supplied through U.S. Foreign Military Sales.

“When we first started telling the Mexicans, ‘You have to do something to stop the drug trafficking coming north of the border,’ the Mexican authorities needed resources and funds to do that,” Dodson said. “So we started funding these operations … providing them with hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase equipment — much of that firearms.”

He says he queried ATF’s gun-tracing network. And he saw that most of the U.S. guns turning up at cartel crime scenes were originally sold to the Mexican government. Dodson said he was “flabbergasted.”

We reviewed data from 2016 to 2023. It confirms the Mexican government was the top buyer of U.S. guns later traced to crime scenes in Mexico. One document shows the Mexican military, listed as “dealer,” purchased more than 2,000 from 2016 through 2021.

A 2023 document sources a year’s worth of U.S. guns from Mexican crime scenes, with 779 of them originally bought by the Mexican government. No other source is anywhere close.

The State Department, which oversees foreign weapons sales, declined our interview request and wouldn’t answer any of our questions. We also couldn’t get any information from the Justice Department or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The State Department has told Congress that its priority is national security.

“From what I know,” Dodson said, “the amount of those firearms that are ending up being diverted to the black market — I would cease and desist all transactions with the Mexican government when it comes to firearms.”

If every illegal alien was deported from California, how many congressional seats and electoral votes would the state lose?

Answer O’ The Day
California’s congressional representation and electoral votes are determined by the U.S. Census, which counts all residents, including undocumented immigrants. Experts estimate that California has two to four more seats in the U.S. House than it would if illegal aliens were excluded from census counts. Since the number of electoral votes is directly tied to congressional representation, this means California could also lose two to four electoral votes.

Now you know

Try “well known but – poorly – covered up, before the 2020 election”

Yes, Our President Was Senile for a Long Stretch.

On the menu today: Before we dive into the latest detailed anecdotes of President Joe Biden’s undeniable senility in his final year in office, we ought to look back at the on-the-money prediction of these all-too-late tell-all books from back in 2022. I knew this was coming and there’s an extremely good chance you knew this was coming, too. Democrats can’t wait to move on; it’s humiliating to learn Biden couldn’t function in the evenings, his staff told Democratic donors that Kamala Harris was incompetent and unelectable, and that Tim Walz was terrified of debating JD Vance. But how do you learn from a mistake if you refuse to ever admit them?

Everyone Recognizes George Clooney . . . Except Biden

The Morning Jolt, June 20, 2022:

I think the single most predictable “bombshell” of the coming years is that sometime in 2025, someone like Bob Woodward or Robert Costa will publish a book with a title like “Perpetual Crisis: Inside the Biden White House,” and we will “learn” something like:

The president’s official health report said he was in fine shape for his age. But behind the scenes, Jill Biden, Ron Klain, and Susan Rice were deeply concerned the president’s health was rapidly declining, and that he would soon be unable to perform his duties.

His speech was becoming less and less coherent, his thinking more erratic, his mood shifts more intense, and he angrily lashed out at routine advice or recommendations. He insisted he had not been told things he had been briefed on and that his wrong statements were correct. He repeatedly insisted the U.S. had committed to protecting Taiwan, when no treaty required it.

When asked about this, Biden insisted no policy had changed. At almost every public appearance, no matter how much he had been instructed to stick to the teleprompter’s prepared remarks, Biden would go off script and add some comment or outburst — like “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” — that undermined his message and created new foreign-policy headaches.

But the first lady, Klain, and Rice all concurred that Biden’s problems could be hidden from the public, at least for now, and that Vice President Harris taking over was unthinkable — both because it would be too traumatic for the country and because they had little faith in Harris’s ability to defeat Trump or DeSantis in 2024.

Either man entering the Oval Office in January would put nothing less than all of American democracy at risk. For the good of the country, Biden had to stay in place, and his cognitive decline hidden — much as FDR’s disability, JFK’s back pain, and Woodrow Wilson’s stroke had been hidden before. 

Biden’s public appearances grew less and less frequent, and he virtually stopped doing sit-down interviews. Late at night, Klain and Rice would get together, satisfied they had kept the ship sailing for another day. All the while, the public had no idea that Biden was in such rough shape.

Though it will be treated like a bombshell revelation, the fact is we all have eyes and ears and can see and hear Biden.

I just wish the lottery numbers were so easy to predict.

Enjoy these days of Joe Biden getting knocked around like a piñata, because after Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson have sold all the books they can, the story of the coverup of Joe Biden’s failing physical and mental health is going to disappear like the subject of a David Copperfield prime-time special. It’s just too embarrassing, too harmful to the Democrats’ priorities now, too much of a benefit to Donald Trump and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday, on CNN:

Continue reading “”

From Bearing Arms :

Driscoll is an Army veteran and Yale Law School graduate who previously interned with former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, who was one of the most libertarian members of the liberal-dominated appellate court.

NSSF Congratulates New ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, congratulates Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Daniel P. Driscoll, whom President Donald Trump appointed to the position today. In addition to serving as Secretary of the Army, Acting Director Driscoll will oversee the bureau that regulates the lawful firearm industry in the United States.

“President Trump’s decision to appoint Acting Director Driscoll is indicative of his resolve to bring reform to the ATF and protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and the industry that makes it possible to exercise those rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

“NSSF is deeply appreciative of FBI Director Kash Patel’s service to lead the ATF as Acting Director for nearly two months in his interim role and the recognition, along with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, that the ATF was weaponized by the previous administration to carry out a radical gun control agenda.

The firearm industry is confident that President Trump’s appointment of Acting Director Driscoll to lead the ATF will return the bureau to its proper role as a law enforcement agency laser focused on combatting violent crime and illegal firearms trafficking, and to act as a non-partisan regulator of the firearm industry.”

NSSF is confident Acting Director Driscoll will view members of the firearm industry, including licensed retailers, as ATF’s partners on the front lines of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, combatting illegal firearms trafficking and preventing violent crime involving the misuse of firearms.

Q:
Why do the demoncraps suddenly hate Elon Musk so much?

A:
It’s not so much Musk personally, but what DOGE represents; The exposing and dismantling of the corrupt bureaucrap state and the hog trough on the goobermint gravy train that corrupt politicans and their lackeys have used to graft literally trillions of dollars into their pockets with little to no way to track most of it.

I can’t say if Woodrow Wilson had it planned this way, but his ‘progressive’ state laid the foundation for the bureaucrap goobermint of Roosevelt’s welfare state, and later the military industrial complex formed to fight World War 2, that provided the ways and the means for those with corrupt intent to scam the system for their own benefit.

Those people are now the ones we see screaming their heads off, accusing Trump and Musk of everything they can think of to stir the low IQ mob into insanity.

It pays to remember that the insane can be quite dangerous, and as an acquaintance says often enough: “Prepare Accordingly”

BLUF
So in conclusion, please: Stop politicizing everything. Stop looking for counterfactual counter-narratives. Give credit where credit is due.
And most importantly, stop posting legal arguments that are completely devoid of law. You have a responsibility to the people of this country.
Do better.

Mark Goldfeder

Dear @Senate Judiciary Democrats 🇺🇸 (🦋 now on bsky) , You are so incredibly wrong, and I can prove it. A thread, in response to yours. The only difference? Mine has citations. Let me explain:

Just to recap… Mahmoud Khalil exercises his First Amendment rights. But, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio didn’t agree with what he said.


To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req

Most of the nine are not controversial at all- people engaging in terrorism, etc.

The one that has you all indignant is ground number (VII): [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

You say you are concerned that this ground would violate the First Amendment rights of someone like Mahmoud Khalil. Let’s examine that contention.

First, let us be clear that you are not arguing that he has not endorsed or supported terror. I say this because if only you expressed any concern about the people he has been terrifying for over a year, maybe I would have some sympathy for your crocodile tears now. You didn’t.

So the question becomes: Are his First Amendment rights the exact same as a citizen’s First Amendment rights? The answer may surprise you: Not exactly, but it does not matter.

At least some First Amendment protections do apply differently to aliens than they do to citizens. Ready for those citations? See, for example. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 3 I0, 419-424 & n.51 (2010)

“The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems…the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ ” that are normally accorded to members of our society, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U. S. 393, 396–397, 404 (2007) (quoting Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser , 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986)).”

Now, my dear Dems, are there any cases discussing the types of ways in which speech rights might be applied differently to foreigners who do specific things, including advocating for certain group that for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security?

Why yes! Thank you for asking. In fact, there is over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent! See Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

(This case was about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute Hamas affiliated anti-West agitators who want to…violently overthrow our institutions):

“…Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few; and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government…

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself, unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance, and as lone as human governments endure, they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.”

So our first conclusion is this: The First Amendment might apply with some conditions to foreigners, and based on Supreme Court precedent this is literally one of those conditions.

Continue reading “”

The answer is “Hubris”

The question not being asked.

This Autumn has been rough for the Southeast. First, Hurricane Helene ripped up Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas, and then Hurricane Milton hit a different part of Florida and tore it up.

And the season isn’t over yet.

Tilting At Windmills is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

By now, you may have already heard about what happened down in Florida and may well have happened elsewhere. It turns out that personnel working for FEMA knocking on doors to see if people were eligible for federal funds were told to skip the homes of obvious Trump supporters.

After publication of this story, a FEMA spokesperson told The Daily Wire it was “deeply disturbed” and “horrified” by the employee’s actions, and that it has “taken extreme actions to correct this situation.”

“While we believe this is an isolated incident, we have taken measures to remove the employee from their role and are investigating the matter to prevent this from happening ever again,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “The employee who issued this guidance had no authority and was given no direction to tell teams to avoid these homes and we are reaching out to the people who may have not been reached as a result of this incident.”

“This is a matter that we take extremely seriously and we are doing everything we can to make sure all survivors receive support from FEMA. To date, we have helped over 365,000 households impacted by both Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the state of Florida and have provided over $898 million in direct assistance to survivors.”

“We are horrified that this took place and therefore have taken extreme actions to correct this situation and have ensured that the matter was addressed at all levels. Helping people is what we do best and our workforce across the agency will continue to serve survivors for as long as it takes.”

That’s all fine and well.

Plus, the individual responsible for that, Marn’i Washington, has been fired from her position and the case has been referred to the Office of Special Counsel. That means she faces potential prosecution for her actions, which should most definitely happen.

However, while people are focusing on what happened—and for understandable reasons—I can’t help but ask the question no one else seems to be asking. Why did she think she could get away with it?

Continue reading “”