Elijah’s Blog Posts

Here’s How Progressives Can Prove They’re Pro-Life Too

Posted on Updated on

I am the father of 2 handsome young boys, Micah and Cole. During a routine ultrasound, the technician was unable to locate a particular flap of skin in Cole’s developing heart. Because my wife and I weren’t sure what that meant, I had to ask. The technician said that she would need to have someone else take a look, but that there’s a possibility that our unborn son’s heart wasn’t developing according to schedule. She reassured us that it’s likely that she just can’t see it due to the angle, but even the thought that our son’s heart might not develop properly was enough to humble us immediately.

So we went back for a much more in-depth ultrasound a week or so later. We waited in the waiting room for what seemed like forever, hoping and praying that there wasn’t anything wrong with Cole’s heart. The ultrasound wasn’t considered “medically necessary”, so it was considerably more expensive than the first one, but we didn’t care. We just wanted to know that our son was ok, and if he wasn’t… well… we just wanted to know that our son was ok. The more advanced screening was much longer, and the technician pressed much harder on my wife’s belly in order to try and see the heart more clearly. He pushed Cole around a bit, and was having a visibly difficult time trying to locate the small line on the monitor.
The small line that would indicate whether or not our child would be born free of heart complications. A small shadow that might indicate a lifetime of expenses, doctor visits, medications, and time.

Cole celebrating Christmas with the youth group at church

He was finally able to locate what he was looking for. It was because of the angle (Cole was not very active during the day).
Our son is currently 7 months old with no heart defects. Happy, healthy, and pudgy. Just like how babies are supposed to be.

But the incident got me thinking. Imagine if he had a heart defect. I would have wanted the best possible medical care for my son, just like any parent. And I’m just a regular dude with a 9am to 5pm job. My wife is a lularoe consultant. We’re not millionaires. So, more than likely, we would have had to make sacrifices in order to get Cole’s medical care.

And for this reason, I completely reject the reasoning behind increased government regulation in the healthcare marketplace. Not only is the federal government overstepping its bounds by intruding in on the healthcare market, but the intervention into the market constantly drives up costs. The meaningless regulation, the constantly increasing bureaucratic nightmare of the insurance industry, the failure of the government-run healthcare marketplaces… it’s just chaos. I can’t believe that anyone who pretends to believe in the right to healthcare would want it to be so difficult to receive proper care. The goal of anyone who actually cares about the health of his friends and family should reject anything but a free market in healthcare. The only way to make sure that families like mine are able to receive the healthcare that they need is to get the government out of the way, and allow the market to decrease the cost while increasing the quality. We should have real choices in healthcare! Who wouldn’t want real choices, increased quality, and decreased cost?

Have you noticed that medical prices are constantly increasing, but the cost of super fast computers, TVs, and drones with HD cameras are becoming better and better while the prices keep shrinking and shrinking? The laws of economics don’t change just because we’re dealing with healthcare.

So please, progressives/liberals/democrats/socialists. I beg of you.
Examine the options and realize that all of this increased regulation, bureaucracy, and government intervention into the marketplace is hurting those who you think you’re trying to help. We need to repeal the ACA. We need a free market replacement. Don’t be obstructionists. Your socialized solution has not worked, and will not work. We shouldn’t have to be dependent on the [largely incompetent] government for something as important as the health of our families.

And this doesn’t just for health insurance.

  • Get the government out of our education system. I want a high quality education for my children. The government is getting in the way.
  • No more government regulations in our loans and banking systems. I want to be able to afford a good house in a good area and not have to worry about you manipulating the interest rates and taxing a significant portion of my hard-earned income paying a whole variety of taxes. I want my money to go to my family and my needs.
  • We need to encourage free trade with other countries. Why are so many people against high quality goods and services from other countries? Please allow me to purchase high quality goods for my children. Stop getting in the way.
  • When you advocate for an increase in the minimum wage, you’re advocating for an increase in cost for unskilled labor. This should be an agreement between the employer and employee. When you force an employer to pay unskilled workers more, the cost of goods and services increases. In order to alleviate the cost, the price of goods and services go up. Why don’t you want me to be able to afford things for my family?

And how can you call yourself pro-life when you supported the Obama administration dropping over 20,000 bombs in the middle east in 2016? How can you call yourself pro-life when you support a government-run prison system that puts people to death, and only about 25% of those on death row are actually guilty?

So I have to ask… if the progressive policymakers won’t consult a basic economics textbook in their proposals (resulting in a more difficult life for everyone), can we really call them pro-life?

 


Ps.
Dear progressives who assume (without arguing for it) that their political system is the most “pro-life”; isn’t it annoying when someone attaches extra stuff to the pro-life label? Isn’t it annoying when someone who disagrees with you on a non-abortion related issue calls you “not really pro-life” when you disagree on something other than abortion?
Great. Now you know how we feel when you do the same. Like here. And here. And so many other places.

Please subscribe to my pro-life (meaning anti-abortion because that’s the definition of pro-life) podcast, The Fetal Position 🙂

Recognizing Your Own Ignorance & Avoiding Sensationalism

Posted on

Let’s admit it.
Critical self-reflection is a lost art. And I don’t mean finding faults in your physical appearance while trying to take a selfie. I mean intellectual critical self-reflection. We have no idea how to do this.

Yet, it is probably one of the most important things we can do, as seekers of the truth. We have to be able to look at a situation, idea, or event and say, “wow, yea I really have no idea what’s happening here. Maybe I should wait a frickin second before diving into this with my unjustified opinion!“.

Unfortunately, most people don’t do that. Uninformed people make uninformed decisions and this inspires other uninformed people make additional uninformed opinions that none of them understand. And they all get together and pat each other on the back cuz of how incredibly informed they believe they are.

The problem is worse than just a bunch of ignorant people, however. The effect of this inability to engage in critical self-reflection is compounded when paired with our ever-problematic pride.
I’ve experienced this first hand. As soon as you publicly attach your name to a particular ideology, it is very difficult to reverse that decision. Even when that position is obviously wrong! Because not only would you have to admit that you were wrong about something, but you’d have to re-evaluate how you come to your conclusions. And if that isn’t a punch in the pride, I don’t know what is.

This re-evaluation would FORCE you into being the kind of person who doesn’t immediately have a loud opinion he can shout as soon as something important happens!
And that kind of person is so boring! Waiting to understand a situation is totally lame. How else are we supposed to feign being informed for 27 facebook likes and 17 retweets? We want knee-jerk emotional reactions to all things, right away! And we want to form groups of people who have the exact same knee-jerk, emotional reactions to everything, so that we can be isolated from alternative opinions!

Here’s my solution. Be actively thinking about your own self-reflection. You ought to know yourself better than anyone else, other than possibly your significant other. Or your mom.
I have found that when I am ignorant on a topic and someone presents an opinion that I think is wrong, I immediately feel an anger well up inside of me. I have this unrelenting urge to tear them to pieces, but I have no idea how to do that. And my inability to slap them around makes me even MORE ANGRY!

I was presented with a situation like this a few weeks ago. I forget the topic, but I found myself immediately angry. I stopped myself and thought, “wow, ok. So this anger means that I am ignorant about this topic. Instead of publicly declaring my knee-jerk, emotional opinion on this (that I will likely have to revoke later, with my tail between my legs), I should do a bit of research.”

And I’m glad I did.
Turns out, I was wrong. And had I publicly declared my opinion on it, I would have had to defend the false view in order to maintain my pride.

So, if you’re like me and you find yourself angry at a particular topic, follow these steps:

  1. Ask, “why am I angry?”
  2. Is it because I am ignorant about this topic?
  3. Should I delete what I just wrote, or take back what I just said?
  4. How can I become more informed on this topic?
  5. What does the other person believe about it, and why?

If we all could just chill out for 1/2 a second before launching into an ideological battle about something we haven’t studied at all… the world would be a better place.
Start with yourself.
Today.
Be the change you want to see in the world.

What We Can Learn from MTVNews’ Racism

Posted on Updated on

MTV News recently posted a video where a bunch of uninformed, poorly-dressed young people are on a rant about white men, suggesting a variety of ways that this despicable class of people might improve their lives in 2017. You can watch the video here.

Edit: Alright so it looks like they took it down again.
Here’s my upload of the video.

You may think, “LOL is MTV really that oblivious to the world that they would think this is a worthwhile video to make a publish?” Well, MTV News ended up getting basically nothing but negative comments on the video all across social media, so the admins took the video down off of facebook and youtube. I managed to snag the video off of twitter before they deleted it, but they never ended up deleting it. They did repost the video, but with the update: “This video was reposted on Tuesday, December 20 with updated graphic elements” (which was believed by absolutely nobody).

Just speculating here, but my guess is that the video was taken down due to the negative feedback, but the PR team stopped it from being removed everywhere and needed a new reason to post it back up, so that the internet wouldn’t blow up because of their actions. Did they really expect anyone to believe that they reposted it because of the desire for some updated graphics?
I know you haven’t been relevant since the late 80s, but welcome to the internet MTV. You can’t post something hilariously racist, take it down, and expect people not to notice.
There have been a handful of funny responses, so I’m not going to respond to the individual points here. That’s for other people to do. What I want to do is focus on something different.

That is the problem of creating your own intellectual bubble, as MTVnews obviously has.
Its something that I’m calling reverse narrowcasting. It’s like creating an ideological echo chamber.

Narrowcasting is a term used in marketing circles that refers to where you send a particular message. If you’re selling product X, and males between the age of 30 and 45 are the likely buyer (maybe it’s a grill or something), you don’t want to waste advertising dollars sending ads for X out to 15 year old girls creating homoerotic fantasies about Obama and Biden on Tumblr.
You want to send it to a particular audience. That is narrowcasting, or target marketing.

Facebook essentially allows you to place yourself in your own category based on what you like and share; a category that makes it very easy to identify you in a particular category so that advertisers (and facebook itself) can send you targeted ads and content. You can mess around in your settings to see where you’ve been placed, if you want. Its in your settings somewhere.

But here’s my point.
As people attempting to be as objective as possible, it is our duty to avoid placing ourselves in an ideological bubble. Yes, it can be tempting to find a group of people who agree with you on everything and where a taxation is theft comment will get 53 likes, but please… avoid reverse narrowcasting. Engage with people with opposite views. Do your best to understand where they’re coming from.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a backwards hillbilly racist bigot teapartier or an ignorant snowflake self-obsessed communist. Some are. Ooohh yes, some are. But #NotAll.

If you were genuinely surprised that Trump got so much of the popular vote, congratulations. I know how to cure you. It’ll be tough, but you have to get out of your ideological echo chamber and start engaging with real people who have real ideas. The same goes for all of you who thought no one would support a socialist like Bernie Sanders.
If you can’t answer the question “why does my opponent believe the way that he does?” without defaulting to “probably because he’s an uneducated fool”, you need to end the reverse narrowcasting immediately.

Bring back intellectual integrity.

 

Why the Pro-Life Movement May be Damaged for Decades if We Help Elect Donald Trump for President – Guest Post

Posted on

(this is a guest post from Richard Poupard. The original post was published on his facebook wall, and you can find that here)

Authors Note: I wrote this piece prior to the video recording of Trump making light of sexually assaulting women and stating that he gets away with it because of his celebrity. I believe it bolsters my argument but I choose not to address it directly, for it is fairly self-evident.

screen-shot-2016-10-14-at-12-40-32-pmI have voted for the Republican nominee for president in every election since I became eligible to vote (7 in a row). I am firmly convinced of the intrinsic value of the unborn and have defended our case passionately on these pages and elsewhere. I reject the arguments of those like Rachel Held Evans who claim that the most pro-life thing to do is to vote for the more pro-choice candidate. I do not endorse any of the major party candidates for this election. However, looking at the oncoming train wreck of this cycle, I have come to a very troubling conclusion:

The election of Donald Trump has the potential to damage the pro-life cause to the point that it could take years if not decades to recover.

I believe that we sometimes forget that our goal is not only to use the political system to nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade. Our goal is also to impact our culture to value every human being because they are made in the Image of God. To value those most vulnerable and at risk and protect them from those more powerful. To respect other human beings not for their power or achievement, but due to the inherent dignity given to them by their Creator. To protect the life and dignity of not only human beings in the womb, but each and every one of us. Those are the bedrock principles of our movement, and without them, we are merely another group seeking political power.

I have not only been convicted of the rightness of the rational defense of the pro-life view, but I’ve been surprised that it hasn’t been more effective in the marketplace of ideas. Our rational case is very strong, and when the public is not convicted by a strong rational argument, it is often the case that the reason is fear. In this case, there is fear that in an attempt to protect the unborn, pro-life advocates desire to “turn back the clock” to many of the societal ills and attitudes that plagued women in the pre-Roe period. Compounding this is the notion that many pro-lifers believe that almost worships the time before Roe – a “Back to the good old days” mentality that reinforces that fear. We tend to forget that despite the fact that abortion was illegal then, the cultural bias against women–though not morally equivalent to abortion–was also a serious moral wrong. We can save prenatal children without making the same mistakes we have made in the past.

It reminds me of someone who speaks about how wonderful air travel used to be in the early days. Travel for those who could afford it was a glamourous event in the 60s, with beautiful stewardesses serving well-dressed travelers in an opulent setting. I can understand why it appears better than today’s experience. However, we quickly forget that this wonderful experience was provided by crass sexist policies of the airline owners. These beautiful stewardesses were fired if they weighed over 130 pounds, became married, or turned 32. Women had to endure degrading measurements of their bust, waist and hips by their bosses in order to keep their job. Yes, I too would love to improve the present experience of air travel, but at the expense of supporting sexist degrading policies that we have had in the past.

This fear often is expressed with the arguments that pro-lifers do not care or value women in an unintended pregnancy situation. Our only concern is her fetus. Of course I strongly disagree with this, and have argued that our support of pregnancy resource centers amongst others as evidence that the vast majority of those claiming to be pro-life care deeply for women. It is a standard for our movement that every human being be valued and respected and there is no need to choose between mother and child. However, I do find that the attitude of many of our opponents is that we do not care if a woman’s value is trampled as long as the fetus is protected. That we are willing to sacrifice the value of adult women as collateral damage as long as someone has the political power help us end abortion. This is absolutely not true, and we should seek to spread that message far and wide.

Enter Donald Trump.

Unlike Trump’s supposed pro-life views, his history regarding the value of women is longstanding, consistent, and well documented. The list of devaluing names that he has used in regards to women is so long that it would get downright boring to read. Just go to his twitter feed and it’s hard to go by a single day that he fails to use an offensive term to a woman. Calling an accomplished journalist a “bimbo” and stating that she had “blood coming out of her wherever” when challenged with his history of sexist comments. Comparing the attractiveness of his Republican rival Ted Cruz’ wife to his (third) wife, a not-so-veiled insinuation that the youthful physical beauty of his wife is evidence of his power and prowess. He has called women “fat”, “pig”, “slob”, “dogs”, and “disgusting animals”.

I could go on for ten more pages but I want to focus on two tweets that reveal so much about his attitude and “old-school” view that is viewed as a legitimate threat to the women that we are trying to reach with the truth of the pro-life position. During the first debate, his opponent criticized his record on treating women, bringing up the example of Trump calling his first Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado, “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping”. He is recorded openly discussing her weight, stating that she went from 116-117 pounds to 160-170 and then stated “this is somebody who likes to eat.” She has since become an American citizen and supports Trump’s opponent.

Cue Trump’s twitter feed:

“Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?”

When confronted with evidence of treating women poorly he responds by attacking her sexual history, which had nothing to do with the question at hand. Furthermore, he speaks very boldly for someone who has bragged about his extra-marital affairs and has spoken on a national radio show telling the host the celebrities that he would “do”. Someone who has appeared in a playboy soft-core video himself. This harkens back to a time in which a man’s sexual history and prowess were celebrated while a single women’s history brought shame and rejection. The act in which he brags of makes her disgusting. He’s a stud. She’s a whore. And a fat one at that.

Here’s another:

“If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

Trump brags about his own affairs, but has repeatedly referred to his opponent’s husband’s affairs as evidence of her inability to lead. This harkens back to the days a man’s infidelity could be blamed on his wife not performing adequately in the bedroom. A man has got to get his somewhere, and if his wife ceases to “satisfy” him he is justified in breaking his marriage vows. Somehow she’s to blame. This view is not only antiquated; it is absolutely disgusting.

The point of view that these tweets (and many more) represent should be loudly rejected and disavowed by anyone who believes that human beings are intrinsically valuable. Acceptance of anyone who openly espouses these views and treats women as he does undermines our arguments that we do care about all humans. Stating these views from the office of the presidency as a result of our support will have a devastating effect on those we are trying to reach for years to come. Making a principled argument that we care about women dissolves in the aftermath of supporting a Trump presidency. Is it worth it?

On the other hand, Trump claims to be the more pro-life candidate, and has offerred an impressive list of SCOTUS candidates that he will nominate if elected. Of course, his pro-life convictions are quite recently acquired, he did not mention abortion in his acceptance speech, his lifestyle and personal decisions are quite contrary to those with pro-life beliefs, and he tends to change his mind on many issues. Shouldn’t we automatically support the candidate that gives us the best chance to overturn Roe v Wade? The candidate with the best chance to increase our political power and thus enact just laws?

One principled pro-life argument is about power vs. intrinsic value. It is wrong to allow someone more powerful to impose their immoral will on a powerless and vulnerable human being. We do not allow a powerful individual to determine our value and worth. Yet the empty promise of short term political power is the only thing that Trump brings to the table. In our just quest to overturn a wrong court decision we may have become blind to our founding principles. As long as we endorse a sexist buffoon that merely gives lip service to the pro-life cause, we open ourselves up to the argument that we care little about other human beings. This is a sacrifice I do not believe we can afford to make.

Even under the very unlikely best case scenario, the benefits of Trump are highly questionable. If he keeps his promise and nominates pro-life judges, then somehow develops the political acumen to get them confirmed through a hostile senate, what will be actually gained? I understand that many believe that Trump will limit the potential legal damage that could occur from 4 more years of a Democratic president. However, what then? The damage that would be done to our pro-life principles could last for decades, as well as our ability to elect solid pro-life politicians in the future. Gaining a small amount of political ground while increasing our difficulty in reaching those that we need to reach is a price that we should not be willing to pay.

I do not look forward to another pro-choice president, but our movement has survived them in the past, and I believe is strong enough to do so in the future, as long as we keep our principles intact. If we are committed to long term change and remain devoted for human rights and dignity for each and every human being, womb to grave, we will insist that those who desire our support share our principles. We will reject candidates from either side of the political spectrum who degrade the dignity and respect of human beings by their actions and words. We will not be swayed by empty promises for potential short term political gain at the long term expense of our core principles.

As pro-life advocates, we all share the goal to eliminate the horror of elective abortion as soon as possible. We seek a culture that values each and every human being. Virtually every pro-life advocate I’ve encountered shares these views, and they are essential to support our viewpoint. Should we signal every politician that you may gain our support merely by stating a desire to overturn Roe v Wade? Even if they have historically disregarded virtually every principle that we stand on? I realize that most pro-lifers did not support Trump until the other Republican candidates failed. But by our continued support we still remain aligned with him, and bear some of the stink that his presidency would emit.

I believe the long term consequences of supporting Trump outweigh the potential short term political benefits from his presidency. We have a history of recovering from pro-choice presidential cycles – but our ideals and principles have never been tested by supporting someone with a disdain for human respect, value and dignity like Donald Trump.

Richard J. Poupard

10 Reasons to Vote Johnson/Weld, Even Though They Suck

Posted on Updated on

This entire election season is a joke. In terms of numbers, Clinton and Trump have more disapproval than approval ratings. The libertarian party, being the most popular 3rd party, really had a chance to shine. They had the opportunity to stand as a clear, level-headed, real alternative that reasonable people on both sides could choose. The libertarian message appeals to both progressives and conservatives, while simultaneously applying a consistent principle of liberty to all areas of life. Libertarians generally want to decrease corruption, get the government out of your personal life and let you live your life the way you see fit, support the troops in the most reasonable way possible, reform failing programs (like education and health care) that will produce real results, protect our natural rights here at home, and stimulate the economy in real, meaningful, and long-lasting ways.

But we ended up with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
*heavy sigh*

screen-shot-2016-11-04-at-10-26-43-amI can only imagine that the delegates who chose these two were thinking of name recognition and experience as successful republican governors in democrat-heavy states. And I suppose that makes sense, from a superficial perspective. Johnson and Weld view libertarianism as the best of republicanism and the best of progressivism, even if that’s not how libertarianism is meant to be understood.
Libertarianism should be seen as a consistent application of individual liberty in all areas of life, not some kind of random smattering of this and that. If we view libertarianism like that, neither Johnson or Weld are libertarians. They approach social issues like progressives, in that they favor using government force to get people to cooperate. This is not tolerance, it is totalitarianism. With Johnson’s numerous gaffes [#WhatIsAleppo #IShouldGetSmarter], he has shown himself to be less than an ideal candidate, to put it very lightly. And Weld has shown himself to be nothing more than a Hillary Clinton apologist, which is profoundly disappointing. No, Hillary Clinton is not “honest” or “a good kid”, you butt-hole.

However, even though they both suck, I am still going to vote for them.
And here’s why:

  1. I’ve heard your arguments and I’ve responded to them all.
    • A vote for a 3rd party is not actually a vote for Trump or Clinton. Trump/Clinton never had my vote, so refusing to vote for Trump/Clinton isn’t “mathematically” a vote for Clinton/Trump.
      Stop saying that.
    • The only truly wasted vote is a vote that isn’t cast. Or a vote for someone you hate. I refuse to waste my vote. If everyone “wasted their vote” this year, we could have Johnson in the White House.
    • I am not voting against Trump because he’s said mean things. I’m not voting against Clinton because she’s a woman. I’m voting against both of those idiots because they have terrible political philosophies, bad policy plans, and they’re awful people who are dragging American political discourse through the trash.
    • If Trump/Clinton really needed my vote, perhaps they should have been more libertarian.
    • The reason a 3rd party can’t win is because no one votes for a 3rd party, and the reason no one votes for a 3rd party is because a 3rd party can’t win. It’s a vicious circle. Break the cycle.
    • I am voting on principle, not for some lame, lesser-of-two-evils, pragmatic utilitarian reason.
    • Exactly how evil do the two main candidates have to be before we vote against them both?
      I choose the 2016 election.
  2. When you compare the platforms of Johnson/Weld to the platforms of the other candidates that will be on my ballot (I’m in NY, so it’s Trump/Pence, Clinton/Kaine, Johnson/Weld, and Stein/Baraka), I am much closer to Johnson/Weld than I am to any of the other ones.
  3. I have considered myself a libertarian for several years, and if I’m going to vote along “party lines”, that would be the libertarian party. That entails a vote for Johnson/Weld. I don’t consider it a “hold my nose and vote” vote, because I agree with a fair amount of what they have done and said in terms of policy proposals.
  4. Johnson/Weld will not win. I’m not stupid. However, there is a remote possibility that Johnson could win, but it is actually impossible for Weld to win. Let me explain.
    • In order to win the presidency, a candidate much get 270 electoral votes. If this doesn’t happen (because 3rd party candidates won some states), the president is chosen by the House of Representatives. They choose the president from the top 3 (which will be Trump, Clinton, & Johnson) and the vice president from the top 2 (which will be Pence & Kaine).
      It is a slim possibility, but it’s not impossible to have a Johnson/Pence white house, and that is a combination I can support without feeling violated.
  5. Johnson has said that he does not plan on running in the 2020 election, and I am so happy. Perhaps we can get a principled libertarian who is also a good communicator in for 2020. I don’t think voting against Johnson is going to send an audible message to the moronic delegates who chose him for this election.
  6. If the libertarian party gets 5% in the election, they will qualify for federal funds for elections. I’m not saying I approve of my tax dollars going towards political propaganda, but if there’s nothing we can do about the existence and purpose of the money, I’d like to see the libertarian party get some of it. This will change the way libertarians run for president, and that’s a good thing. And the libertarian party is the only party that might actually repeal the tax-dollars-for-political-campaign-propaganda crap!
  7. I am more concerned with voting against Trump and Clinton than I am with voting for Johnson. If Johnson didn’t exist, I’d likely write in Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party or cast a blank ballot. I am voting 3rd party as a protest vote against the Republican/Democrat duopoly. It is clear that neither the republicans or democrats represent anything close to what I believe.
  8. Abortion. Yes, I know. Johnson is pro-choice.
    But Johnson also recognizes that the federal government should have never gotten involved in the abortion debate, because the constitution has not explicitly given abortion to the federal government.
  9. It has been 108 years for the Cubs.
    It has been 156 years for a 3rd party candidate. #AbrahamLincoln
    IT’S THE CURRENT YEAR!
    Q.E.D.
  10. I’ve always wanted a president without eyebrows.