https://www.dailywire.com/news/44276/christian-baker-jack-phillips-scores-major-victory-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
This article follows my theme.
"They know, like we all do, that Phillips was railroaded here. "
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Abortion
Everyone knows that abortion kills a baby.
When a woman gets pregnant and is married and has been trying to have kids, no one wonders if a cat or a puppy is going to come out months later. People never ask "What do you think the clump of random cells will turn into?"
People ask questions like "Do you know if it is a boy or a girl?" (knowing it is a human) and "What name will you give him/her?"
Why?
Because everyone knows that when a woman is pregnant, barring events like a natural miscarriage, and unnatural events like abortion, she is going to give birth to a young human being.
Even those who are pro-abortion know that the thing growing inside of a pregnant woman is a baby. There is too much scientific evidence presented to refute that.
You can tell because the current dialogue around abortion has started to move into "post birth abortion". (Also known as infanticide). The same people that tried to use the argument of "for the life of the mother" 50 years ago are now arguing for abortion up to the day of birth and not giving medical care to babies after a failed abortion. How can you argue that a born baby isn't worthy of life? Well, it should come as no surprise. They knew the thing inside the mother was a baby all along. They have known it was infanticide of a baby inside his/her mother's womb and called it "abortion". So why would they stop short at the birth canal.
Their real motivations are somewhat complex. Some see abortion as a way to keep the size of the underclass manageable. You can see this in the fact that abortion statistics demonstrate a higher level of racial minority abortions and a higher level of poor abortions. For their philosophy, you need a large enough underclass to keep electing Democrats with the promise of "fixing" the problem, while really not doing anything but perpetuating the problems, but without having a large enough underclass to ever propose and be able to execute a rebellion.
Some see abortion as a way to avoid consequences. They sell the lie of consequence free sex and the only way to deliver that is abortion and the lie that there are no consequences for sex outside of God's design. Also in this case, they know it is a child, but see it as a consequence, not a human being. It is a "drag" on their "lifestyle".
Some see abortion as a way to free women from the oppression of men. It is something that only women have a say over, and men are allowed no voice. You can see this in the double standard. If a woman wants the child, a man is responsible to support that child for the rest of his life, as he would any other child. If a woman doesn't want the child, there is nothing that a man can do (legally) to stop a woman from having an abortion. A man clearly had to be involved in the creation of the child, but that same man gets absolutely no say in what happens, but must bear responsibility for that child.
Everyone knows that abortion kills a baby.
When a woman gets pregnant and is married and has been trying to have kids, no one wonders if a cat or a puppy is going to come out months later. People never ask "What do you think the clump of random cells will turn into?"
People ask questions like "Do you know if it is a boy or a girl?" (knowing it is a human) and "What name will you give him/her?"
Why?
Because everyone knows that when a woman is pregnant, barring events like a natural miscarriage, and unnatural events like abortion, she is going to give birth to a young human being.
Even those who are pro-abortion know that the thing growing inside of a pregnant woman is a baby. There is too much scientific evidence presented to refute that.
You can tell because the current dialogue around abortion has started to move into "post birth abortion". (Also known as infanticide). The same people that tried to use the argument of "for the life of the mother" 50 years ago are now arguing for abortion up to the day of birth and not giving medical care to babies after a failed abortion. How can you argue that a born baby isn't worthy of life? Well, it should come as no surprise. They knew the thing inside the mother was a baby all along. They have known it was infanticide of a baby inside his/her mother's womb and called it "abortion". So why would they stop short at the birth canal.
Their real motivations are somewhat complex. Some see abortion as a way to keep the size of the underclass manageable. You can see this in the fact that abortion statistics demonstrate a higher level of racial minority abortions and a higher level of poor abortions. For their philosophy, you need a large enough underclass to keep electing Democrats with the promise of "fixing" the problem, while really not doing anything but perpetuating the problems, but without having a large enough underclass to ever propose and be able to execute a rebellion.
Some see abortion as a way to avoid consequences. They sell the lie of consequence free sex and the only way to deliver that is abortion and the lie that there are no consequences for sex outside of God's design. Also in this case, they know it is a child, but see it as a consequence, not a human being. It is a "drag" on their "lifestyle".
Some see abortion as a way to free women from the oppression of men. It is something that only women have a say over, and men are allowed no voice. You can see this in the double standard. If a woman wants the child, a man is responsible to support that child for the rest of his life, as he would any other child. If a woman doesn't want the child, there is nothing that a man can do (legally) to stop a woman from having an abortion. A man clearly had to be involved in the creation of the child, but that same man gets absolutely no say in what happens, but must bear responsibility for that child.
Everyone knows that abortion kills a baby.
Reporters and Reviewers are biased
Everyone knows, episode 3:
Everyone knows that "Reporters" and "Reviewers" typically idolize the thing they report about, that these same people have a bias towards either what they are reporting on or certain aspects of what they are reporting on, and that their biases impact what they are reporting on negatively.
I'm going to hit a few different areas.
First, let's take a look at the video game Fallout 76. This was a game that was hyped to no end. Bethesda went to great lengths to get the positive word out there, going so far as to invite game reviewers and YouTubers to the Greenbrier Resort for a weekend of elitest hob-knobbery and free gear. When the game released a little while later, with very little changed from when these "Reviewers" played it, nearly everyone was disappointed in it. The "Reviewers" hadn't done a good job actually reviewing the game. They were just happy that they got to be part of the "in" crowd" and so many, if not all of them, padded their reviews and gave the "benefit of the doubt" to the game. They failed to bring truth to their reviews and, in so doing, failed those reading those reviews.
Second, let's look at politics. The vast majority of reporters are Democrats. It is a verifiable fact. An even larger majority of political focused reporters are Democrats. Also, a verifiable fact. There is a reason our current President calls many of them "Fake News". It is because the "Reporters" are so blinded by their biases that they couldn't report a straight news story to save their souls. They only report things from their perspective instead of stepping outside of their echo chambers and wondering what all the rest of us think on a topic. Everyone knows that Hillary lied about top secret e-mails and then had her tracks covered by Democrats serving in the FBI. Everyone knows that the entire Trump-Russia-collusion hoax is simply a Democrat smokescreen to try to explain away why Hillary lost the election. It certainly couldn't be the open disdain for certain people that she and her party has or that we all know Socialism is a lie or that she isn't physically fit enough to stand for long stretches of time.
Finally, let's look at Captain Marvel. Movie reviewers love to see themselves as "Progressive". If you've ever read anything about the crap movies (yes, everyone knows they're crap movies) at the Caanes (or however it is spelled) Film Festival, you know that they love talking about "art" and "pushing the boundaries" and other crap. Anyway, Captain Marvel actress (who cares about her name) and Marvel came out with the whole "women power", "down with white men" and "this is a feminist movie" lines. Instead of saying, "Hey, this movie reflects strong women." (which I would have supported like I did when that was said about Wonder Woman) they come out attacking men. Like their economics, these nut jobs believe that for one person to win, other people have to lose. They don't believe that we can all work together and live in harmony. For them, it is a zero sum game. For them, for women to win, men have to lose. Rotten Tomatoes (which was supposed to be a good blend between professional reviewers and movie fans) just made a pretty significant change to the way they do things because they didn't like the fact that man hating by the main actress and the parent company made men not want to watch this movie. Early reviews are in and, surprise, surprise, critics are doing whatever they can to heap praise on it, while at the same time not going far enough to long-term damage their careers. Everyone knows that they are being kind in their reviews so that they can continue to call people who don't like being insulted "closed minded".
Everyone knows that "Reporters" and "Reviewers" typically idolize the thing they report about, that these same people have a bias towards either what they are reporting on or certain aspects of what they are reporting on, and that their biases impact what they are reporting on negatively.
Democrat Governor and Taxes
Everybody knows:
Everybody knows if you elect a Democrat Governor taxes are going to go up.
During a debate, Governor Whitmer was challenged and asked if she supported a $.20 gas tax increase. She said she did not. The implication was that she didn't support a gas tax increase at all, or less than $.20, and that her opponent was trying to misrepresent her.
Governor Whitmer, according to all news sources, is going to propose a $.45 gas tax increase.
An extreme gas tax that would increase the current tax from $.263 to $.713, more than doubling the current taxes.
This would happen in stages and be complete by Oct 1, 2020 (a mere year and 7 months from now).
I can tell you that I am not shocked by this in the least. It is exactly what I expected. And, if anyone has been paying attention, it should have been exactly what they expected too.
Democrats run as moderates, until they get into office, then govern as leftist extremists. Typically, Republicans have run as conservatives, and governed as moderates. Trump and Reagan as Presidents and Newt Gingrich as Representative are the notable exceptions.
Again, everybody knows if you elect a Democrat Governor taxes are going to go up.
Men and Women and Transgender in Sports
Think I am going to make a series. I'm going to call it "Everyone Knows".
Here's the next installment:
Everyone knows there is a reason why they have a "Men's" category and a "Women's" category in sports and why that is. It is because, in many cases, men would win nearly all the time if there were not two separate categories. It isn't sexist to say that, it is scientific and true.
Anyone arguing that women can do anything men can do (and are implying that men and women are the same) is ignoring science and truth.
The reason transgender former men, now women are cleaning up in sporting competitions is because you have former men competing with women. There is a clear advantage for the former men, even with hormone treatments and anything else that is going on. At the cellular level, men are different than women, and women are different than men. Again, science and truth.
For the same reason we even have 2 categories (Men and Women) it doesn't make sense to have former men compete with women.
Everyone knows this, even those arguing for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)