Pete Buttigieg re-ignites an abortion discussion

Thursday, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said that determining when human life begins is "unknowable" therefore, abortion cannot be regulated well. The word for word quote is:

“For those who have a strong view about some of these almost unknowable questions around life, the best answer I can give, is that because we will never be able to settle those questions, in a consensus fashion,”

Interesting. While Buttigieg is dodging the issue, for political expediency, many people on both the right and left have very strong feelings both ways.

Some people on the hard right feel that as soon as a sperm and an egg get together, that is a person. I personally, as a medical professional and scientist, disagree. It is a plan for a person. I don't think a fertilized egg is a person any more than a blueprint is a building. Granted, it is a unique blueprint, but it is still a blueprint. The fertilized egg's only function is to eventually become a human being.

Some on the hard left say that a fully formed, completely healthy baby, minutes from being born, is not a human being, and can be killed just because the pregnancy is unwanted. It is hard to debate those people because they have apparently no knowledge of human physiology and are basically insane.

This brings us to the crux of the issue. If you do disagree with the idea that a fertilized egg is a person, and you agree that a healthy fetus minutes from birth is a person, then you have to come up with some determination of when "becoming a human being" occurs. That is the tough part.

Here is one attempt at a reasonable approach.

After years and years of struggling with this, as a physician, I have come to my own conclusion. You don't have to agree or disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own view. I just want my to have some rational basis for my own opinion.

Some analogous situations, to illustrate the points:

1. At one end of the spectrum: At Ford or General Motors, when they begin to build a vehicle, they start with a frame. They then add other parts until it becomes a vehicle. Is a frame (by itself) a car or truck? Is the assembly program in the factory computer a vehicle? Obviously not. To say yes would be the same as saying that a windshield wiper, or a tail light assembly, is a car. A car is only a car when it has all of the attributes of a car and/or has the potential to function as a car. It is a little more vague when when looking at something that used to be a car (a rusty hunk of metal that once was a car) but something which has never had the ability to function as a car probably is not a car. Again, this does not refer to a broken down car or a scrapped car. I am talking about a group of parts that has never been a functional car. That is not a car.

2. At the other end: If a car has been completely assembled, is completely functional, has never left the factory, and is sitting in the factory at the end of the assembly line, awaiting someone to drive it out of the factory onto the parking lot for shipment, how can anyone in their right mind argue that it is NOT a car? Does the location of a car determine whether it is, or is not, a car? That is why those people are insane and should just be ignored.

That leads back to the analogous question, at what point on the assembly line, does the car become a car?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but my feeling is that when the assembled vehicle can function as a car, it is a car. It may not have GPS or A/C yet but if it has an engine and can be driven, it is a car.

In the human example, to me, as soon as a fetus can function as a human being outside of the uterus, it is a person. If a fetus can fall out of the uterus and live a normal life, it is clearly a person.

There are varying scientific opinions of exactly when in pregnancy that is (likely somewhere in the 20-24 weeks gestational age area) but there is no question that, after that time, the fetus can function outside the uterus unless there is some genetic abnormality or gestational problem.

One thing that always gets lost in the debates is that abortion is a medical procedure. The question is not whether you are for or against it. The question is when it is an appropriate procedure to be performed on any given pregnant woman. Outside of nut cases, no one wants to kill viable fully formed babies and no one wants women to carry fetuses that will not survive to full term. Therefore, the debate should center around when the medical procedure is appropriately used, not if you are for or against it.

Here is a reasonable approach:

- allow termination of pregnancies of non-viable fetuses at any stage (the baby is never going to live). No woman should have to carry a fetus that will never live (anencephaly, Tay-Sachs, certain trisomies, etc.) to term. It is cruel and unreasonable to ask a pregnant woman to do that and dangerous to her health.

- allow termination of early stage pregnancies as a result of rape or incest (because of the psychological damage to the woman)

- allow termination of pregnancy at any stage if the pregnancy itself is a risk to the life of the mother. A woman should not be expected to have to die, rather than terminate a pregnancy

- do not allow termination of healthy, viable fetuses once they reach the age that they can survive outside of the uterus because that is a distinct human being. If the pregnancy is unwanted, give the child up for adoption.

Given a reasonable. approach, the real remaining debate is in the case of a healthy early stage fetus, not yet able to survive outside the uterus, as an elective procedure simply because the pregnant woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. This is the part that will fuel the most disagreement. If you think that the fetus is not yet a person, that seems to be the woman's choice. Once the fetus reaches viability outside the uterus, it is no longer a choice because the fetus is a person that can survive outside of the uterus and that is killing a human being.

People will, of course, disagree, but this seems like a reasonable position.

The Defecation Is Finally About To Hit The Ventilation

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a US Attorney to investigate the origins of the "Russia collusion" probe.

Did you just hear a number of sphincters tighten in Washington DC? You will, if you haven't. The crooks are going to be exposed, and some may end up going to jail.

The Clinton supporters/Trump haters overplayed their hands. Once the election was over, if they had laid low and dropped the whole false "Russia collusion" story, and particularly if Hillary Clinton had not kept using it as an excuse for her miscalculations during the campaign, they might have slipped it by.

But..... they didn't. They were so upset by the election, and wanted so badly to interfere with President Trump's agenda, that they doubled down on the fake story. In retrospect, maybe they thought that they had to stick with it, or at least hope and pray that Mueller found something, anything, to get them off the hook. After all, they all knew what they had done was wrong. They just never thought Trump would win and it was never going to come to light if Clinton had won. If Robert Mueller had found ANY evidence of collusion (which he didn't despite having 16 or 17 rabidly partisan Clinton supporters on his team), the crooks could have used excuses like "we thought it might be true", or "I was just following leads", etc. and that would have been their out.

However, by making it more and more public, and having either duped Sen. Warner, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Nadler, etc. or having them all lie about it (in fairness, Senator Warner pretty much stopped lying about it once the Senate finished their investigation but Schiff and Nadler are still staying with their stories), it was going to fall with a heavy thud in one direction or the other.

It is overwhelmingly important to note that that this is not the FBI Inspector General doing this. FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz will still issue his report on what happened at the FBI. But, this is US Attorney John Durham, a top Connecticut federal prosecutor who, as opposed to Michael Horowitz, is:

- NOT limited to the FBI only and can investigate anyone involved, including members of the intelligence community, media members, and civilian political opposition research producers

- DOES have subpoena power and can force witnesses to testify or invoke the Fifth Amendment

- CAN impanel a grand jury to develop criminal charges against anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing

- CAN prosecute witnesses for perjury or obstructing justice if they do not honestly answer questions.

This is a real prosecutor with the power of the US government at his disposal.

Because of the scope of this investigation, the source of this false collusion story WILL include:

- Christopher Steele and his false "dossier",

- the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee colluding with Russians and Ukrainians to generate false opposition research stories

- Fusion GPS and their role in creating the false story, including the role of Nellie Ohr, wife of Bruce Ohr of the Department of Justice. (As an aside, Bruce Ohr is looking better since it was revealed that he warned everyone that the dossier was bogus before the FISA warrants were requested.)

- CIA Director John Brennan leaking classified material to the media for political purposes,

- the various FBI and Department of Justice officials who presented false information as "verified" to the FISA court to obtain surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign,

- the FBI officials who planted covert operatives in the Trump campaign,

- the operatives that set up George Papadapolous with the false story about Russian information on Hillary Clinton

- the hacking of the Clinton email server and the classified material on it

- the unmasking of American citizens by Samantha Powers and others without justification (a crime)

- James Comey leaking classified material and attempting to influence the election outcome as FBI Director and perjuring himself in front of Congress

- James Clapper lying to Congress

- John Brennan lying to Congress

- Hillary Clinton deleting over 30,000 emails under subpoena (obstruction of justice, by definition, and a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- Hillary Clinton ordering the physical destruction of electronic devices so the contents could not be examined (obstruction of justice and, again, a violation of the Federal Records Act)

- former Attorney General Loretta Lynch meeting with the husband of the subject of an investigation while the investigation was still ongoing.

and on and on.......

If you thought the Mueller Report was something to anticipate....wait until the truth about all of this comes out.

This news is EXACTLY why the left has been trying to smear Attorney General Barr. They knew this was coming and they tried to get some shots in first. It won't work. Those darned facts will keeping showing up. You can't beat facts with innuendo.

Releasing the Mueller Report is a very bad idea.

After listening to Trey Gowdy today, in an interview, I have to change my mind about the Mueller Report being released. As a political junkie, I really wanted to see it. I thought releasing it was a good idea. Now, I think releasing it is a really bad idea. This has nothing to do with the current President.

First, it is illegal to release a good portion of it. Grand jury testimony and classified information cannot be released, by law. It doesn't matter how much anyone, even powerful politicians, want to see it. Additionally, if Reps. Schiff or Nadler leak the information, which they will if they get it, they should go to prison.

Gowdy, a former prosecutor, said that any time an investigation is performed, the investigating body gives the information to the prosecutors. The prosecutors then determine whether there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In this country, every single person, no matter what, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, with evidence, in a court of law.

If no evidence, or insufficient evidence, is present to indict any individual for a crime, the investigation concludes and the person being investigated is not publicly smeared with the accusations that were not supported with enough evidence.

Think about that. The Mueller investigation has concluded and the investigation is not recommending any additional charges against anyone. So...... what would be the point of demanding its release? Simple....... to smear anyone included in the investigation publicly, including those not being charged with doing anything wrong. Doing this does not allow the accused to defend themselves or to present exonerating or exculpatory evidence, as would be done in a court room. It is fundamentally unfair to the accused.

Looking toward the future, this would set a terrible precedent. Any individual can be accused of any heinous crime by almost anyone. If the investigation concludes showing that it never occurred, using this precedent, the mere fact that the investigation occurred can be put in the public sphere. As Secretary Donovan once said, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?" Just like newspaper retractions on page twenty after a phony headline on page one, there is no removing that stain entirely.

The implications of this in politics are enormous. Every candidate will have accusations thrown at them from opposition research and, despite being cleared, those accusations will be in the public arena. If the prosecutors conclude that there is no crime, there is absolutely no reason to nitpick over findings in the report. Nothing will change and the accused individuals lose their rights to defend themselves. No matter where you fall in the political spectrum, this should scare you.

Take any politician, at random... say, imaginary Animal House Senator Blutarski.... and he is accused of having sex with under-aged children. An investigation is completed and there is ZERO evidence that he ever did anything of the sort. Using this precedent, news reporters and opposition politicians can demand that the details of the investigation be made public and the media will report on "the investigation into Senator Blutarski having sex with kids" even though there isn't a shred of truth to it. The media will defend their partisan actions by saying, "We didn't accuse him. We are just reporting that there is an investigation." What will that do to Senator Blutarski's re-election hopes? He is smeared for life. That will then happen in EVERY campaign, on both sides.

Think that scenario is far-fetched? The FBI already did it to Senator Ted Stevens, in order to make him lose his re-election. That is one of the reasons the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. That is precisely why it was done. After the election was over and he barely lost, Stevens was exonerated, but the damage was done. Just a note, one of the people who was identified as committing prosecutorial misconduct in that case was Andrew Weissmann. Recognize that name? No? He was a prominent member of the Mueller investigation.

Therefore, as much as I really want to see that report, releasing it to the public, or to partisans in Congress, for that matter, is a very bad precedent to set.

As an aside, technically, this investigation was illegal to begin with. Both James Comey and Lisa Page have testified, under oath, that there was no evidence of a crime when the investigation began. Therefore, the appointment of the Special Counsel violated the very statute that created the office, because the statute specifically states that one is appointed to investigate a specified crime. There was no specified crime and thus there should have never legally been an appointment. The only crime that led to the appointment was committed by former FBI Director James Comey when he leaked classified information to the media. intentionally.