God Bless This Abortion Mill

(Author’s Note: If you have any question regarding just how badly conservatives and ProLife believers have lost the Cultural Civil War, ponder this: Not a single one of the newspapers and websites that normally run my Cagle Syndicate column ran this one.)

A Maryland abortion mill recently held an audition that was so important the Washington Post covered it. And this wasn’t one of the friendly Planned Parenthood ‘clinics’ where they are so busy providing mammograms, check–ups, flu shots and underage marital counseling that abortion customers practically have to deliver in the waiting room before someone will see them.

This performance was at the Carhart ‘clinic’ in Bethesda, MD. There chief executioner LeRoy Carhart terminates the life of viable, unborn babies up to five months old. Although that limit is self–imposed. In the People’s Republic of Maryland, a woman can execute her unborn child even in the ninth month.

There were four individuals present, each trying to out–do the others in their unqualified support for killing the unborn. What made this audition so newsworthy was all four claimed to be religious authorities. The Rev. Carlton Veazey, Rabbi Charles Feinberg, Rev. Cari Jackson and Rev. Barbara Gerlach were present but evidently the priest of Moloch had a schedule conflict.

None of the four are exactly mainstream clergy, the mainstreamers are the ones across the street leading prayer vigils trying to prevent abortions. Consequently, abortion mills can’t be picky when it comes recruiting spiritual help. If they own a Bible and know where to put the “amen” in a prayer, it’s good enough for the ‘Choose Death’ industry.

Veazey has been described by Tucker Carlson as “an abortion fanatic” who claims abortion “is part of the basic tenet of our church.” Veazey talks less about the photo where he was “in a nude embrace with a woman who had come to him for ‘spiritual help.’” And the Washington Post reporter didn’t inquire into the circumstances of her subsequent suicide and Veazey’s ouster as pastor of the Zion Baptist Church in Washington, DC.

Rev. Jackson is a ‘married’ lesbian and Rev. Gerlach is a widow and old–time feminist. None of the four currently have a church or synagogue that provides a salary. If they were going to generate any paid speaking opportunities from their butcher shop blessing, news coverage would be crucial.

They began with spurious ‘religious’ justifications for abortion that reeked of modern misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense. In this instance, the baby.

Veazey proclaimed, “Keep them safe and keep them strong. And may they always know that all that they do is for Thy glory.” Feinberg was reassuring, “Judaism has always said abortion is never murder. It may not be permitted, depending on the circumstances…but it is never murder.” True as far as it goes. Feinberg failed to note one of those times abortion is not permitted is after 40 days. Up to 40 days a woman can go to any abortion clinic, instead of Carhart’s Last Gasp Gynecology.

After 40 days the only Jewish justification for abortion is to save the mother’s life. And saving women from homicidal ‘clumps of cells’ is exactly what late–term abortion apologists would have you believe Carhart does.

Only that’s not true either. The abortion–friendly Guttmacher Institute published a study that found “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Late–termers get an abortion for the same reason first trimester women get one, only they aren’t as prompt or organized.

The other justification is late–term abortions are ‘only’ 2 percent of the total, which sounds small until one realizes in 2013 there were a total of 664,435 abortions reported to the feds. Two percent of that appalling total is 13,288 unborn children killed and as National Review points out, “To get a sense of scale, consider that the CDC reports that gun homicides claimed the lives of 11,208 people in the US that year.

Jackson may have won the audition with her rousing declaration, “We give honor to all of these women who choose to come to this space. We sanctify this space, and we honor this as holy.”

That proves these vile people most certainly not in the service of either God or Jesus Christ who said in Ecclesiastes 11:5: “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”

During the last 100 years the world has experienced two Holocausts. A quick one by the Nazis that killed in excess of 6 million Jews and a gradual accumulation of 60,166,484 unborn children killed by abortion since the Supreme Court decided Row v. Wade in 1973.

And when comparing the two one conclusion is inescapable: As bad as the Nazis were, to my knowledge, they never had a pastor bless the ovens.

Advertisements

More Evangelicals Selling Their Soul to Support a Loser

It’s sad to say another Christian group has decided to maintain access to DC power rather than tell the truth regarding the shortcomings of a prominent politician. Maybe it’s the ego rush when calls are returned. Or maybe it’s the meetings in off–limits–to–the–public Capitol hideaways that persuades these organizations to publically support a man who’s repeatedly failed to live up to expectations.

Their support would make perfect sense if I was referring to Donald Trump. His personal failings are legion, but he’s delivered. I’m talking about the Evangelical embrace of Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell. His personal life lacks ‘hos and handsy–ness, but his public life is steaming pile of defeat and insincere promises.

Christopher Weyant, The Boston Globe

McConnell’s failures are manifest in the Family Research Council’s scorecard on the 115th Congress. FRC tries manfully to make a silk purse out of McConnell’s ear, but the task is impossible. Once you get past the hyperbolic lead, “A record number — 245 Members of Congress — scored a perfect 100 percent…last year.” One realizes most of the votes counted for nothing.

If FRC rated on legislative effectiveness the scores would max out at 25 percent.

The House passed eight laws and one resolution used for scorecard evaluation. Four of those bills failed in the Senate. McConnell’s ‘accomplishments’ were so paltry, FRC had to use the routine confirmation of appointees for most of the scorecard.

That’s the legislative equivalent of giving participation trophies at the end of ballerina ball season.

Separating what the House passed from what the Senate failed to pass shows just how much damage McConnell single–handedly does to the conservative cause.

This political mastermind is responsible for the defeat of bills designed to stop funding Planned Parenthood and forcing Christian organizations to provide contraception coverage that conflicts with their Christian belief. McConnell is responsible for the defeat of the clean Obamacare repeal and it’s ‘skinny’ brother. And just this week McConnell passively watched the Pain–Capable Unborn Child Protection Act’s defeat even though it had a majority of 51 votes.

Yet there is zero criticism of McConnell’s serial failures! Instead FRC blandly refers to defeats requiring 60 votes without explaining why a simple majority of 51 isn’t enough.

This self–imposed 60–vote requirement is an internal Senate rule that only dates back to 1975. Before if a bill was scheduled to come to the floor and a senator or party opposed the measure, they had to conduct a genuine filibuster. This meant the senator had to hold the floor, blocking consideration of any other legislation or Senate business.

Senators read aloud, told stories or simply listened to the music of their own voice during their time at the podium. The filibuster was an around–the–clock affair and sympathetic senators had to continue the delaying drone by volunteering to take a shift. This took a physical toll and many filibusters ended because the opposition simply ran out of gas.

The other way to conclude a filibuster was a cloture vote to end debate. That’s what requires 60 votes.

Today if the minority party wants to filibuster a bill it simply informs McConnell and he considers the bill blocked until 60 votes materialize to bring it to the floor. McConnell could revert to the pre–1975 filibuster this week if he wished. Changing the rule only requires a majority and he has 51 votes.

Democrats would be forced to go public with their obstructionism. Voters would see which party is blocking the function of government and I don’t think Schumer could stand the heat.

But this small–minded, political coward won’t make the change. McConnell is a double–minded man who in his heart doesn’t believe in the conservative principles he claims to support. McConnell is a defeatist who fears success. That’s why he told AP “Republicans will welcome the [post 1975] filibuster when they return to the minority.” And he’s just the man to lead them there.

The thought that Republicans could pass conservative legislation that rolls back at least some of leftism’s excesses and puts the onus on Democrats to repeal those bills never enters McConnell’s mind. He just keeps the furniture dusted until his inevitable Democrat take over.

McConnell’s wasted an entire year in which Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate. It may well be one half of the time during the Trump administration when the GOP controlled all three branches.

An accurate FRC scorecard would give every GOP senator a zero rating, because their votes keep McConnell Majority Leader.

McConnell is a weakling who will never change Senate rules unless he’s pushed and pushed hard. It’s time conservative and Christian organizations told the truth about the man who is single–handedly blocking the agenda of the people who sent Republicans to Washington.

Beware the ‘Conservative’ Who Grows in Office

The maddening problem facing conservatives fighting the growth of Big Government is that much of the growth is fertilized by former conservatives who start growing first. The phenomena is most evident in benighted lands that don’t impose term limits and have legislative bodies that meet year around.

And just as a cancerous growth is no respecter of persons, politician growth isn’t limited to the federal government.

State Sen. Bill Stanley (R–Clueless) busy growing in office.

Symptoms are evident on the state and local level. In Virginia we have a politician who initially ran for office as a small–government, conservative and unfortunately failed to resist temptation to meddle and build a ‘legacy’ the longer he stayed in the capital.

Bill Stanley promised to “fight to reduce state spending and the size of state government” in his first race for the Virginia Senate. Two crucial promises that work in tandem. Without increased spending, government can’t grow and expand its interference. Cutting spending also cuts the size of government since the Commonwealth must balance its budget.

Stanley’s first legislative session was promising, considering he’s a defense lawyer. He introduced a bill that would require local courts to try repeat juvenile violent offenders as adults. Choosing the right health insurance policy may be so daunting that it takes 26 years to prepare for the decision, but choosing between right and wrong is binary and consequences should apply at a much earlier age.

Six years later it appears Stanley’s fallen under the influence of Social Justice Warriors. He’s gone from tough–on–crime to touchy–feely.

He’s introduced a bill that would forbid local school districts from suspending any student in preschool through the third grade.

I wanted to ask the senator a number of questions regarding this state government expansion into the affairs of local school boards, but eight days wasn’t long enough to work me into the schedule. I did speak with a staffer and as far as he knew there is no epidemic of pint–sized suspensions in the district.

It might have been useful for Stanley to interview a few teachers before he began meddling. My daughter is and teacher’s classroom discipline experiences are instructive. For example, there is the third–grade boy who made an obscene gesture as he exited the bus and entered school. This violation was reported and when the vice principal asked him about it, the boy struck the principal.

That earned him his third suspension for this year. One might be tempted to say that three suspensions prove suspensions don’t work. It’s time to try the gentle Stanley Rule, which would force elementary schools to create an alternative, in–school behavior program.

That ignores the immediate benefit of a suspension: It gives his teacher a break.

When not taking a swing at administrators, this child routinely shouts in class disrupting the room and destroying the learning environment. He bullies other children and exhibits disrespectful behavior that other, easily–led boys imitate.

The prospect of his moving into fourth grade is so foreboding that more than one fourth grade teacher has applied for a transfer to another school.

Taking away suspensions removes the only leverage administrators have these days. (Historical note: When I was in elementary school, discipline problems were solved with a paddle. That’s why there were routinely 35 students in a class. Today, teachers ask for UN Peacekeepers when they have more than 25.)

Suspending this kid doesn’t bother him bit, but it bothers the parents a great deal. It means stay home from work, arrange short–term daycare or dial 1–800–Im–Ur–Jailer. Enough suspensions and parents may finally become engaged and discipline their delinquent. Stanley’s meddling means the punishment is inflicted on the children in the delinquent darling’s classroom who obey the rules and are trying to learn. An impossibility because the teacher’s time and attention is spent trying to deal with Rosemary’s Baby.

Stanley’s staffer contends the outbursts “mean there are other issues going on at home.” Exactly. And a conservative response, that respected the rights of well–behaved children, would have directed school administrators to make a referral to the dreaded Child Protective Services after the second suspension.

Classroom decorum is preserved and conditions in the home are investigated without disrupting the school or creating in–house discipline programs that siphon more money away from the education of the kids who aren’t a constant problem.

Conservative legislation seeks to serve the law–abiding, rule–following majority without imposing new burdens or taking away their ability to act independently.

Stanley’s bill fails that simple test. It’s legislation in search of a problem. It also may put him in search of a new job when the parents of kids who follow the rules learn what he’s done to their child’s classroom.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Shutdown?

This weekend the United States Treasury will bump up against the “debt ceiling.” This debt ceiling is to the government like the credit card limit is to your dreams of really furnishing your man cave.

When your credit card is maxed out it’s no use going to The Big Screen Store to buy the new 90” TV for the Super Bowl. Your card will be declined shortly after its swiped. For the feds reaching the debt limit means the Chinese will get some temporary relief from Uncle Sam putting the bite on them for another series of loans.

There the similarity ends. You can’t borrow additional money until you either pay down your credit card debt or the postman delivers another credit card application that’s “reserved just for you!” Congress can start borrowing again just as soon as both houses pass a bill that increases the debt limit without any provision for debt payment. For politicians, operators are always standing by.

If the debt limit increase isn’t passed by this weekend the government enters “shutdown” mode and Trump will have to buy a burner phone to get back on Twitter. Or so the Opposition Media would have us believe.

The facts are these shutdowns were non–events until recently. Over the years there have been a number of shutdowns and the republic was none the worse for wear. Normal people went about their normal business, while the political class had a nervous breakdown.

The last time the government ground to a halt in 2013, Obama was in the White House and racial peace reigned throughout the land. Then the sinister Ted Cruz filibustered the debt increase and the feds were without funding for a harrowing 16 days. During that fortnight plus two Mexico annexed a defenseless Texas, the Bundy Gang seized much of the public land in Southern Nevada and rioting middle income taxpayers burned down Obamacare enrollment offices to protest skyrocketing insurance premiums.

You don’t recall that? That’s because it’s Fake News. Nothing much happened. It was so quiet the Obama administration decided to punish taxpayers by closing the Mall, national parks and other facilities that didn’t require closing. The goal was twofold: Generate hysterical shutdown news coverage and mobilize the dependent class to call a politician.

The truth is bumping up against the debt limit doesn’t shut off the money spigot. The feds are collecting tax money every day. Just before the Great Cruz Control Experiment the Washington Post published an interactive page where readers could take the $172.4 billion available even after the shutdown and decide who gets paid and who doesn’t.

I took the money and paid all the essentials: Social Security; T–bill debt service; Medicare; Medicaid; federal salaries and benefits; unemployment insurance; food stamps & TANF; military pay; Veteran’s Affairs and even that seat of Deep State Resistance — the Dept. of Justice.

There was no default. I even had $700 million left over for the odd drone strike or Congressional sexual harassment settlement. That’s why you won’t see that mistake in the Post again. The facts undercut all the shutdown predictions of doom.

Republicans took the blame for the Cruz Control, but suffered no lasting ill effects. In this season’s shutdown follies one would think that even the Slinky–spined Republican leadership in the House and Senate could win a confrontation with Democrats.

The difference between the two sides is stark.

On one hand the GOP is trying to keep the government up and running under the sure hand of legislative ‘mastermind’ and Curator of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. On the other, leftist Democrats are threatening to hold taxpayers hostage by shutting down the government. They believe rewarding illegal alien lawbreakers is more important than serving the citizens that elected them.

RINOs and herd–followers in the Swamp have trouble pointing out this obvious contrast because they can hardly wait to surrender to Democrat demands for a DACA amnesty. It’s just taking longer to negotiate terms than they expected.

The fact Trump won the presidency on a promise to “end DACA,” build the wall and deport illegals has escaped the notice of these serial appeasers. What citizens believe is only important until the polls close.

In all the OpMedia buildup to the potential shutdown, I have yet to read of any Democrats fearing they will be blamed for the shutdown. Like General Grant on the second day of a battle, they would have to more pretty fast to get ahead of the GOP jellyfish caucus who is already trying on their hair shirts.

Republican ‘leaders’ and their enablers are always willing to resort to preemptive surrender before the battle is joined. To win one must fight and their heart just isn’t in it. They always have an exit strategy for everything but leaving office.

Pay As You Go Amnesty

The current controversy involving granting amnesty to approximately 800,000 Delayed Accountability for Contemptuous Aliens (DACA) is nowhere near the end of demands to appease mass lawbreakers.

The people who naïvely think that after the DACA surge is legalized the country can get back to normal are the real dreamers. Unchaining those demonstrators from the furniture in Congressional offices and TV studios only makes room for the next shift of disgruntled illegals to take their place.

The DACA surrender is just the beginning.

The cultural Marxists in charge of the media, academia, commerce and government are, for the most part, convinced blanket amnesty for illegals is the way to go and the sooner the better. It’s those pesky and unenlightened citizens who’re the problem. Telling the truth, that amnesty for illegals rewards lawbreaking and creates incentives for following waves of illegals expecting the same give–away, produces a negative response.

(The term ‘immigration reform’ is also misleading. There is nothing wrong — excepting the anchor baby interpretation and Ted ‘The Liar of the Senate’ Kennedy’s chain migration law — with our current immigration statutes. What’s missing is enforcement. Real ‘immigration reform’ would be vigorous enforcement of the laws we have now.)

That’s why descriptions of the problem use touchy–feely, focus–group language to hide the facts.

Which brings us to another ‘reform’ proposal. The Immigrant Tax Inquiry Group has a Five + Five plan that is supposed to “Enable Unauthorized Immigrants to Generate More Tax Revenue.”

Any ‘reform’ that relies on misleading adjectives makes me suspicious. What’s an “unauthorized immigrant”? Is it someone who innocently wandered into an area that’s off limits, like the employee breakroom at Costco? Or is it someone who intentionally crossed the border into a nation where he had no right to be?

And why would immigrants need a Tax Inquiry Group in the first place? Legal immigrants are covered by the same tax laws as the rest of us.

The questions answer themselves. So, misleading adjectives aside, how does the program work? Does Five + Five = immigration pacification?

The program is a pay–as–you–go amnesty described as a tax that’s split equally between employee and employer. The attraction for Juan is he doesn’t have to flee routine traffic stops anymore. The attraction for his employer is Juan is paying half the tax.

And there, I suspect, is the real motive for Five + Five and the reason ITIG doesn’t list its donors. It’s a ‘guest worker’ program that outsources the cost to taxpayers and while the benefits go to the employers.

ITIG was unintentionally candid, “The small tax is reasonable, as employers have traditionally paid unauthorized workers 25 percent less than others, and these workers do jobs others are unwilling to do. The employer still receives a 20 percent wage advantage over other legal workers, including those whose country of origin is the U.S.”

For the first time in history serfs pay for the privilege of bringing their wage scale north! Employers do even better. They can now legally discriminate against citizens in favor of cheap foreign workers. It’s a win–win, unless you’re a citizen who would be willing to do US jobs for US wages.

After agreeing to pay the tax the illegal is granted a REALcard. This lets Juan be a member of Uncle Sam’s Club. He can work in the US legally, qualify for Medicaid, take English language classes, enjoy “continuing education,” apply for a visa, apply for a driver’s license and “other benefits.” And just like a Sam’s Club card, the whole family can share his membership for one low price!

The REALcard is good for ten years or until Democrats take control of Congress and grant mass amnesty to these “second–class citizens.”

ITIG claims the program will generate $210 billion in new tax revenue over ten years, but I have my doubts. Let’s say Juan is making $40,000 a year and has two anchor babies. Five percent of the gross is $2,000, but that is much less than the $5,616 he qualifies for when he can legally claim the Child Tax Credit.

And that’s just one of many questions the plan generates that unfortunately will remain unanswered. After initially insisting I interview ITIG Founder Mark Jason, the interview was canceled after it became evident I wasn’t an open borders cheerleader.

Possibly Jason thinks Five + Five is an equitable solution that is fair to everyone. I don’t. Rewarding lawbreakers only encourages other lawbreakers. The fact illegals haven’t been caught doesn’t give them a claim on our compassion. As far as I’m concerned, a sincerely held believe that in the end is bad for the country is no improvement over an outright malign belief that actively seeks do to harm to the country.

Steve Bannon’s Spontaneous Combustion

It’s been said that death was a good career move for Elvis, it remains to be seen if Steve Bannon’s Watch–Me–Burn–Down–My–Career Tour will be equally favorable for his future prospects. The coverage of his quotes and leaks in Michael Wolff’s new book ‘Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House’ has been nothing short of incendiary.

So far this week Bannon has alienated President Trump, driven away his largest financial backer and made himself look delusional by thinking he could successfully run for president. He now joins another Breitbart.com alumnus, Milo Yiannopoulos, in the firm of Persona Non Grata and Partners.

Right now, the only way Bannon could possibly make the situation worse would be for him to start dating Kathy Griffin or ask to borrow her Trump head.

I’ve been reading coverage of the book excerpts and making lists. I started with the list of people who thought Trump would lose the election and then moved on to the list of people who hold Trump in contempt. There is plenty of overlap, but the name that’s surprising is Trump’s!

Trump is on the roster of people who thought he wouldn’t win the election. That goes a long way toward explaining why he broke his first promise to his voters and didn’t self–fund the campaign. Trump doesn’t back losers. According to Wolff, his goal was to become even more famous and then cash in on his increased notoriety after the election and make Trump enterprises even bigger.

No wonder his campaign was composed of a thin veneer of consultants on top and large numbers of enthusiastic rally attendees at the bottom, with mostly nothing in between. Trump was happy with the adulation of the masses, the attention of the media and the consternation of the entrenched political class.

Trump was liberated by his low expectations.

What the Opposition Media overlooks is the narrative of no expectation for victory completely undermines the ‘colluded with Russia to win’ fantasy. If a steely–eyed Trump was telling his meager staff to win at all costs, well it’s Putin on line #1. But if the campaign was a lark, an ego trip and a roadshow then it makes no sense for Trump to be looking to Moscow for help in beating Crooked Hillary.

The motive for collusion vanishes. Trump’s references to Russia and email were laugh lines at rallies and debates that grim, humorless, Trump–hating reporters purposely choose to take literally. Trump in the book was on a fun–filled romp — insulting other Republicans, attacking Hillary and generating unprecedented news coverage — that was going to conclude on election night.

He would have one last rally that night, claim Hillary stole the election and then start exploiting his new–found fame. Much of the staff planned on doing the same thing. According to the book, “The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit.”

A vote margin of under 10 points for a candidate with Trump’s negatives, would be impressive and help build the client list.

Colluding with Russia on the other hand would have been work. Serious business like that requires planning and long–term strategy, which were not a characteristic of the Trump campaign.

And that leads me to the tragedy of the book and the campaign.

A candidate who didn’t think he would win, won a stunning victory because he ran on issues that resonated with Americans who were tired of being told their beliefs were hateful or backward. These citizens were sick of being treated with thinly–veiled contempt by political, academic and corporate elites who intended to change the US whether they liked it or not.

These voters stayed with Trump through thick and thin and delivered an Electoral College victory. If Trump had been a candidate who left discussions of female anatomy exploration to experts like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, there’s an excellent chance he could have won the popular vote, too.

Reestablishing the rule of law, protecting borders, putting America First, protecting the unborn and rolling back the cultural depredations of the left are important issues and Trump’s victory may be the last chance conservatives will have. If his feckless approach to governing doesn’t deliver on his promises or Trump is forced out of office, no foreseeable Republican presidential candidate will embrace those issues.

It will be one complacent, country club Republican after another. A failed state of affairs that will make Trump’s outraged response to Bannon’s comments become poignant. Trump said his “historic victory…was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country.”

A failed presidency or one that betrays his promises will guarantee they remain “forgotten.”

The #MeToo Movement and Mike Pence

If women had only known all it took to shatter the glass ceiling was to accuse your boss of sexual harassment, workplace history would have been very different! Of course — much like a frontal assault on a machinegun nest — the first over the top aren’t getting the plum jobs, but their sacrifice makes it possible for rear echelon women to either achieve or guilt their way into the ‘C’ suites.

The bosses were all for wiping out the barriers that produced a serviceable work–life balance if it meant women were handy 24/7. For them, taking work home meant road testing the new intern.

All this is why it was so refreshing to find a man in a powerful position who had strict rules regarding workplace harassment. More important, he followed those rules to the letter. That meant he was permanently immune to Gloria Allred–type ambushes at Groping Gulch.

Those rules keep his reputation intact and, equally important and often overlooked, the rules keep the reputations of the women who work for him equally intact. His is an office run on performance and not pheromones.

In short, this man is nothing short of a paragon workplace ethics and respect for women. So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited the websites of the National Organization of Women, Emily’s List, the Feminist Majority and even Jezebel and found zero recognition for this pioneer in establishing workplace boundaries.

I soon got the impression you’d see Mitch McConnell attend a Roy Moore Victory Party before these feminist organizations would recognize Vice President Mike Pence.

Way back in March of this year, before our current runaway testosterone tempest, the Washington Post breathlessly announced that Pence had strict rules for his office. The commandments banned Lauer Locks on his office door, because he didn’t hold closed–door meetings one–on–one with women. No intimate after–work dinners with single women either and no attendance at functions where alcohol is served if his wife isn’t there with him.

Pence wouldn’t even wear a hotel bathrobe unless there’s a swim suit under it and he’s at the pool with his family.

Think of it. Following these four simple rules would have kept potted plants unmolested by sperm donors and saved the jobs of Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wiesletier, Michael Oreskes, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Halperin, Garrison Keillor, Glenn Thrush, Harold Ford, Jr., Joe Barton, Al Franken, John Conyers and the rules probably would have salvaged Trent Franks, because I doubt he would have popped the surrogate question in a general staff meeting.

Optimist that I am, I even think if Bill Clinton had followed the rules Hillary would be a happier woman and Chelsea might have a sibling.

Think of the relief it would bring to a young woman knowing she could spend time with her boss without being sent an unsolicited souvenir cellphone photo of the star attraction or a brief personal exercise video after she got home.

Maybe the response of women at leftist media institutions was caused by the Stockholm Syndrome for it was uniformly negative. You’d have thought Pence had stated sex was determined at birth, rather than by a family meeting sometime around age five.

The truth is the feminist and sophisticate reaction to Pence’s refusal to sexually harass women or put them in an awkward situation was so extreme you’d have thought Charlie Rose invited them to join him in a three–legged race around his desk.

The LA Times asked, “Mike Pence won’t dine alone with a woman who’s not his wife. Is that sexist?” An angry UCLA gender professor (is there any other kind?) dredged up by the Times thundered, “I believe this is gender discrimination. If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff or whoever you need to regularly meet with.”

Although I think she’s confusing a caterer with a campaign aide.

What woman in her right mind would want to miss the chance to network with Harvey Weinstein’s hands?

And Aaron Blake, a male at the Post jockeying for the role of feminist fraternizer, sniffed Pence’s rules “reeked of sexism.” Which I would think beats reeking of John Conyers’ cologne, but that’s just me.

And Vox, which is currently conducting an in–house purge of its own sex harassers, was ready for a special persecutor, “Vice President Pence’s ‘never dine alone with a woman’ rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.”

And I could find no evidence of any OpMedia change of heart.

All this leads me to conclude as far as our leftist cultural arbiters are concerned, when it comes to sexual harassment, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Support Your Local Turnstile Jumper

Petty criminals are living in a golden age. Never before in the history of mankind have the elites of Western society been so concerned with the inconvenience enforcing the law imposes on the lawbreaking community.

Our ruling elite has this naïve belief the order they see in the more fashionable parts of their respective cities is the natural state of man. When in truth, Devil’s Night in Detroit is the natural state of man.

In Washington, DC the city council is most concerned about the law violating people.

The reporters at the Washington Post, ever prepared to hop aboard the next cultural fad, have found, “Some legislators are questioning whether fare evasion [on the Metro subway and bus system] should be a crime at all, arguing that targeted enforcement campaigns are bound to ensnare poor and low–income people who don’t have the money to pay their fares — let alone fines.”

This “fare evasion” worry is an offshoot of the “mass incarceration” delusion that posits minorities are being rounded up and thrown into prison on an unprecedented scale. It’s difficult to understand how people residing in a jail, after having been convicted by a jury, constitute an outrage. Common sense would conclude mass incarceration is a result of mass lawbreaking, combined with improvement in law enforcement technology.

It’s not a chicken or the egg question. It’s a chicken, egg, omelet progression.

The defies all logic part of the city council conundrum is how easy it is to avoid being arrested for fare evasion. The choices are practically endless. Pay the fare. Walk. Take a cab. Ride a bike. Carpool. Stay away from the Metro. None of those choices result in arrest. Only the choice to break the law results in arrest.

Yet, it’s the arrest and not the lawbreaking that concerns the council. And the DC isn’t alone. Other leftist hotbeds are working to decriminalize ride stealing. Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr. is proving you don’t have to be Harvey Weinstein for him to let you off the hook. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The Manhattan district attorney’s office says it has largely stopped prosecuting subway–fare evaders, offering many offenders alternatives such as counseling and community service.”

In 2015 the entire state of Washington decriminalized turnstile jumping for minors. Their excuse being “such convictions would give teenagers criminal records and that it would be difficult for them to make it to court to challenge a citation.” Unless the court is on a subway line.

Removing responsibility for teenagers is the real pipeline to mass incarceration. The WaPost may contend it’s “unclear whether decriminalization has led to more fare evasion.” But I can give you a hint. Ask an illegal, during a break between demonstrations for his “rights,” what lax enforcement has done for the border–jumping community.

This is where the incoherence of the left’s philosophy regarding responsibility and maturity is so obvious. According to the cultural Marxists who rule us, a four-year-old boy is mature enough to decide if he wants to grow up as a man or a woman and start a drug regimen that will affect him the rest of his life.

While a 16-year-old male is not quite mature enough to evaluate the consequences of breaking the law.

One of the tools used to beat law enforcement into submission is statistical disparity. Cherry–picking data is the greatest gift to race hustlers since Jesse Jackson’s first paternity suit. A New York group contends arrests for fare evasion happen more often in low–income neighborhoods. This has all the scientific rigor of the claim that you won’t find many cats in a neighborhood with Chinese restaurants.

Arrests reflect the number of times the crime occurs. At the Capitol Hill Metro station there are very few arrests for fare evasion, unless Antifa is in town. I suppose the system could post a Turnstile Jumper Apprehension Team, where it would be as lonely as the Maytag repair man, but it would not be a good use of taxpayer funds.

The ACLU is among the professional agitators pushing decriminalization. Nassim Moshiree explains, “Absolutely there’s been a raised consciousness on this that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago.” And right he is, since approximately 30 years ago is when the New York City subway system was a dangerous and disgusting carnival of aberrant behavior that repelled riders.

The New York subway started its climb out of the sewer when respect for if not the rule of law, then at least the consequences of law was reestablished. Today none of these preening social justice warriors remember those days. Instead they are more than willing to risk the safety of your commute in the future to appease law breakers today.

Virginia Politicians Surprised Drivers Object to Destination Tax

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) opened a new toll road recently. The highway has been in existence since 1982, but the toll gantries are new. Rush hour tolling, between 5:30 and 9:30 AM, is a test of how badly you want to reach The Swamp.

VDOT uses a system called ‘dynamic tolling’, which works out to ‘do you feel lucky’? Instead of a nice predictable toll that’s the same every morning, Swamp Pike tolls adjust according to how much traffic is on the road. The goal is to keep One Percenters and vehicular communes moving along at a nice, even 55 mph.

This is harder than it seems, since many DC–area motorists drive like the last transportation they operated was a burro. Our ‘diverse’ drivers have a tendency to pause and contemplate cars stopped on the shoulder, flashing blue lights and the odd grocery bag blowing across the freeway.

On the second day the inbound toll peaked at $40 dollars one way for a 10–mile trip. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay $40 to drive into DC and watch Roy Moore sign high school yearbooks. If you want to be penalized by the government, it’s cheaper to take up smoking. One would have to inhale 13 cartons of cigarettes by noon each day to reach $40.00 in taxes.

What’s really interesting was the response of transportation officials to criticism. Their off–hand justification was punish–the–driver propaganda that’s common among transportation wallahs nationwide.

Sec. of Transportation Aubrey Lane told the Washington Post, “No one has to pay a toll. You simply could have put another person in your car and avoid a toll [sic]…everyone has a choice…we wanted to change behavior, we don’t have the resources to continue to lay asphalt and have congested roadways.”

Lane is offering the bandit’s choice: Your money or your life.

The people on the receiving end of this Let’em–Eat–Cakeism aren’t gun owners or disreputable people like Trump voters. They’re among the state’s most productive citizens who are JUST TRYING TO GET TO WORK!

When it comes to trying to stamp out ‘privilege,’ solo drivers are right up there with white people as far as the left is concerned. How dare they want to drive to work and have the flexibility to come and go as they please.

Think of the backlash if this offhand dismissal of genuine constituent concern was applied to other areas of life. Would a police chief confronted by women worried by increasing crime tell them it’s time to “change their behavior”? And then suggest they buy a gun and stop dressing so provocatively?

How about parents dealing with over–crowded schools? Would superintends tell mothers their kids are going to have to get used to someone sitting in their lap, and by the way you might consider using stronger birth control?

And isn’t is strange how transportation experts assure us building more roads is pointless because new highways are an automobile magnet. While no politician has ever said the city won’t build more schools because the buildings just fill up with kids.

The real thumb–in–the–driver’s–eye for this particular toll road is the millions of dollars raised won’t be spent on increasing road capacity. Instead the money will go increasing bicycle capacity, along with other “transit improvements” that include new bus routes and park–and–ride facilities.

Politician’s obsession with forcing their constituents into carpools is another example of elected hypocrisy. Like the Washington, DC Metro board members who it was discovered didn’t actually take the subway, I can’t think of any elected official that has ever been a member of a carpool.

The only time most of those hypocrites want to cozy up to constituents is in a hot tub.

The absolute topper though, is that drivers docilely accept the fact their transportation priorities will continue to be ignored in the future. We’ve come full circle in Virginia. In the 19th Century state government was too small to pay for roads and most of its effort was devoted to keeping the black man down. The solution was privately–owned toll roads.

Now state government is too big and too lazy to build new roads, so in a particularly larcenous twist it takes a road like I–66 that has already been paid for and makes it a turnpike. It’s time for driver’s everywhere to rise up an exhibit some roads rage. We should be circling our respective state capitals like Comanches until legislators start expanding the highway network.

If that won’t work then it’s time to go nuclear. Force politicians to use mass transit to get to work until they build some new roads for the rest of us.

I’m Glad I’m Not an Alabama Voter

More specifically, I’m glad I’m not an Alabama conservative. The choice confronting conservatives in the December 12th special senate election is very difficult. But not so tough that our cultural arbiters aren’t eager to give conservatives and Christians the benefit of their wisdom.

The same Opposition Media—Pundit—Celebrity nexus that didn’t condemn Teen Vogue for its recent issue introducing young girls to the “joys” of anal sex, is now urging Christians to vote “their convictions.” This is certainly a welcome change from being characterized as figures of fun who dabble in hate, but I’m still skeptical of the OpMedia’s sudden admiration for our sterling character.

Particularly when they urge us to choose a candidate based on moral beliefs the OpMedia routinely mocks and derides. Our media betters want Christian voters to pick an ideal candidate. Someone who would look good in a Baptist pulpit, instead of the left’s hotel bathrobe.

Naturally, their choice is Democrat Doug Jones instead of hands–on Republican Roy Moore. The argument isn’t all that compelling, particularly when one recalls all of Roy Moore’s alleged victims survived, whereas Democrat Ted Kennedy’s didn’t.

This election is also noteworthy in that it reverses the usual nose–holding option conservatives confront. I recently wrote how I was tired of being told to hold my nose and vote for country club conservatives. The Republican establishment would patiently explain that even though this spineless weathervane could never be depended upon to fight for bedrock conservative issues, he would be marginally better in office than his leftist opponent, since he’s a sure vote for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader.

This year conservatives have a chance to vote for a somewhat tarnished candidate that will fight tooth and toenail for conservative causes and the establishment tells us to forget about that nose thing and just vote Democrat.

From the beginning I was suspicious of the alleged underage abuse allegations against Moore. I’ve worked in campaigns for over 40 years and timing is a key factor in the negative side of the campaign. I’ve been the media consultant for races where we had devastating information regarding the opponent and we sat on it for weeks or months until such a time as the information could be released and the opposing campaign would not have time to recover.

I suppose I could accept the Washington Post’s claim that their scoop on Moore was generated in–house and not handed to them on a platter like the Russian Dossier. Only, if the stories about Moore’s alleged behavior were “common knowledge,” why did the knowledge only become common nationwide after Moore defeated Luther Strange and it was too late to put someone else on the ballot?

That convenient timing looks like a premeditated decision to hold the story and thereby influence the election. Then there’s the yearbook signature that’s an exact copy of the Judge Moore signature on the woman’s divorce decree from years later, but bears no relation to his unofficial personal signature at the time the yearbook was supposedly signed.

The OpMedia is doing its part to make voting Democrat less painful for wavering conservatives and Christians. Why Democrat Doug Jones’ middle name is ‘Moderate’ according to his glowing press clippings. He’s going to focus on jobs, education and infrastructure. There’s zero mention of Jones being the frontman for a George Soros–funded effort to politicize US Attorneys.

According to Breitbart, the Soros–funded effort supported ‘ending mass incarceration’ and its report — authored by Jones — used language similar to the Obama Justice Dept. effort to grant de facto amnesty to illegal aliens.

Running in the middle and governing from the left is common for Democrats. Last election Virginia had its first transvestite candidate for the House of Delegates. This man in woman’s clothing assured voters that he also intended to focus on meat–and–potatoes issues like transportation.

You can imagine voter’s shock after he won when they learned his first issue in Richmond would be forcing insurance companies to cover ‘gender transition’ and ‘gender reassignment’ surgery. Evidently, the road our shift–shifter was most interested in improving was the one between his house and the gender–bending clinic.

Alabama voters will see the same transition when Jones gets to Washington, absent the pronoun switch.

As far as I’m concerned, the voting decision for Christians comes down to a single comparison. Roy Moore may or may not have fondled babies 40 years ago, but if Doug Jones gets to Washington he’ll be voting to kill babies and fund Planned Parenthood from day one.

That’s why if I were an Alabama voter I’d choose Roy Moore now and support a conservative opponent in the 2020 Republican primary.