May 092017

The position of abortion opponents is that the fetus is a person entitled thereby to the protections afforded to children.

But Dr. David Sanders, associate professor of biology at Purdue, said about an anti-abortion supporter: “He thinks fetuses are children, and he belongs to an organization that likes to show images of fetuses – and that’s something that’s a trademark,” Sanders began. “What would you call the public display of a butt-naked body of a child? I would call that child pornography.” HERE.

He expanded on the accusation by questioning whether Created Equal had received consent for the images they use. “Do they have the permission of the fetus? Obviously not. Do they have the permission of the parents to show these images of children, naked children, their naked children?” Sanders pressed.

The line of inquiry produced widespread murmuring in the audience, as several listeners interrupted Dr. Sanders to point out that the question of consent seemed to assume the personhood of the fetus.

Drayer, in a statement to The Liberty Conservative, said that Dr. Sanders was trying to change the subject due to the lack of a cogent argument for why abortion is not a moral injustice.

“The claim that displaying abortion victim images in public is equal to showing child pornography is absurd (and laughable based on the reaction from the crowd gathered for the debate).  Federal law defines child pornography as ‘any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor.’ By all accounts, images of abortion victims do not even come close to meeting that definition,” said Drayer. “The displaying of images of dismembered preborn children in public have long been considered protected political speech by federal courts where displaying child pornography is a criminal act punishable with up to 30 years’ maximum in prison.”

While several circuit courts and numerous lower courts have ruled that public display of abortion pictures are protected by the first amendment, some state high courts have notably disagreed, citing a compelling government interest in shielding children from “exposure to certain images of aborted fetuses and dead bodies.”

Dr. Sanders, who emphasizes that he was invited to the debate under false pretenses and never agreed to recording or livestreaming of the debate, expanded on his point in an interview with The Liberty Conservative.

“My point was that if they see fetuses as children, then the bodies should have the same respect as one would have for a child’s body,” said Dr. Sanders. “I’m using their argument that the fetus is a child, it’s not an argument that I’m making. I’m not making an argument that this is child pornography.”

Dr. Sanders also said the audience was “stacked” and suggested that Created Equal had brought supporters in from other places to attend what he called a disrespectful and unethically organized debate.

May 092017

Some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country, those in the media, journalism and entertainment revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us deplorables.
As most of us learned when bullies are made to swallow a dose of their own medicine, they are more likely to whistle a different tune. So goes it for the White House Correspondents who staged a massive bomb of a dinner.

Some of the punks in Berkeley may be learning the hard way. The terrorist left in general, on the other hand, is far from having learned its lesson. But they will, for as long as they insist upon attacking innocents, the ranks of right-wingers who are willing and able to fight back will continue to swell.

May 092017

It’s physically impossible for most people to kiss their own butt but a majority of French voters figuratively did that by rejecting Marine LaPen and electing Macaroni who married a woman, …. well who he married isn’t as important as why he wanted to become President of a dying France. France has been slowly committing suicide as it’s past governments have been offering the glad hand to potential Terrorists.

France is coming apart. It’s been splitting along many seams that were sewn together to make France great.
Never mind that America and England twice had to rescue France, the French it seems are hell bent on self destruction despite great food, wine scenery and architecture. .


May 092017

Supporters of Islam as well as perhaps religious liberty supporters are against banning Muslims from America but they need to start being truthful about President Trumps efforts to keep more Terrorists from entering America.

Banning immigrants or subjecting potential immigrants to extreme vetting makes as much sense as making sure you don’t consume poison. Whether of not potential immigrants come from the Registry of Saints or are descendants of the holders of a murderous philosophy is not the issue.

Terrorists look like “Not Terrorists” but one thing most terrorists, .. from 9/11 to the Paris attack where a policeman was killed and two officers seriously injured in the shooting on the Champs Elysees in Paris, the one thing they share is:  “a belief that America, Europe and Israel should not exist” and they are determined to help make that happen.

Unfortunately they refuse to identify themselves so how can the President keep them out of America?

One way is to ban immigrants, refugees and visitors from places where their “belief that America, Europe and Israel should not exist” is accepted. The president attempted to do that but the courts in error ruled his Executive Order was: “A Muslim Ban”, . . even though his ORDER was no such thing because the word Muslim was not in the ORDER. His ORDER covered people, not their religion. The March 6, 2017 Executive ORDER is 6,130 words but neither Islam nor Muslim are in it. Terrorist appears 29 times. Terrorists 3 times.
It’s a Terrorist Ban, not a Muslim ban. . ,