Tuberville, MTG, Herschel, Boebert, John Kennedy, Gohmert, Scalise,
Blackburn--the list goes on and on. Then there's the likes of Larry
Craig, Gym Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Denny Hastert, and numerous other sexual
perverts that aren't as stupid, just disgustingly perverted. Why would
anyone want to belong to a party filled with stupid assholes like this?
The obvious answer is you'd have to be a stupid asshole yourself.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
surging costs in Biden�s America.

�I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
food, bread, milk, things like that,� MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. �What
could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
livability, daily, hourly issues that they�re confronted with?�

The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
politics. Children � not Democratic policies � are causing economic angst,
she said.

�But let�s be clear, having children is why you�re worried about your price
for gas, it�s why you�re concerned about how much food costs,� Abrams
rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a �reductive issue� for women.

Abrams is currently getting clobbered in the polls against incumbent Governor
Brian Kemp (R), so it appears her final pitch is a rallying cry for killing
children. Of course, national polls show that abortion is nowhere near the
top of the list for most voters� concerns.

�You cannot divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the
economic realities of having a child,� she claimed.

.@staceyabrams says abortion can help address inflation issues:
"Having children is why you�re worried about your price for gas,
it�s why you�re concerned about how much food costs. For women,
this is not a reductive issue." pic.twitter.com/BNHJWqKRpa

� Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 19, 2022

Abrams went on to offer a providential government that addresses home costs,
puts cash in your pocket, and somehow solves all your problems without
presenting policy specifics.

Still, she added that having a child is an �economic issue,� and abortion has
to be kept on the table to help women be prosperous.

In response, Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said, �The Democrat cure for
inflation is to kill more children. These people are cartoonishly evil. They
aren�t even trying to hide it. Literal comic book villains at this point.�

The Democrat cure for inflation is to kill more children. These
people are cartoonishly evil. They aren't even trying to hide it.
Literal comic book villains at this point. https://t.co/uANXcHpdT3

� Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 19, 2022

Ryan Girdusky, the founder of the 1776 Project PAC, tweeted, �This is so
demonic.�

This is so demonic https://t.co/gViv7Jyi5e

� Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) October 19, 2022

Scott Walker, the former Republican governor of Wisconsin, stated, �The
�Inflation Reduction Act� doesn�t work. Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams, Tony Evers,
Mandela Barnes, and the rest of the radicals don�t have a solution for rising
food, gas, and housing prices.�

Evers and Barnes are the Democratic nominees for Wisconsin�s gubernatorial
office and U.S. Senate race, respectively.

�So the [sic] resort to this kind of crap,� Walker added. �Wake up America!�

The �Inflation Reduction Act� doesn�t work. Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams,
Tony Evers, Mandela Barnes, and the rest of the radicals don�t have
a solution for rising food, gas, and housing prices. So the resort
to this kind of crap. Wake up America! https://t.co/LEUYA8aaqT

� Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) October 19, 2022

As observed Tuesday, it seems the only way to protect your money in Biden�s
America is if you�re a wealthy, partially-deaf, green energy fanatic willing
to spend thousands of dollars to save hundreds.

Biden administration officials have been pushing tax credits for weatherized
homes, over-the-counter hearing aids, and electric vehicles. All of those
require Americans to spend money.

Now, according to Abrams, you need abortion as well.

That�s not the best slogan for any leftist.

--
Let's go Brandon!

President Joe Biden paused while eating an ice cream cone to brag that the
United States economy was �strong as hell� � despite the fact that the
inflation rate for the sweet dairy treat alone is 13.6% over last year.

Biden, who often stops for a cone while he�s out and about, explained over
the weekend that he was not worried about the American economy so much as he
was about economies around the world.

WATCH:

BIDEN, eating ice cream: "Our economy is strong as hell"
pic.twitter.com/x5dyCg14l3

� RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 16, 2022

�Just one more economic question,� a reporter pressed the president as he
began to eat his ice cream. �Are you concerned about the strength of the
dollar right now?�

�I�m not concerned about the strength of the dollar, I�m concerned about the
rest of the world,� Biden replied as he attempted to chew. �Does that make
sense?�

�Our economy is strong as hell,� Biden continued. �The internal � inflation
is worldwide, it�s worse off everywhere else than it is in the United States.
So the problem is a lack of economic growth and sound policy in other
countries, not so much ours.�

�It�s worldwide inflation, that�s a consequence of �� Biden walked away from
the microphone mid-sentence.

The Biden administration has repeatedly worked to downplay the staggering
inflation that is being felt across the country, using month-over-month
averages to show that inflation rates are plateauing or even beginning to
fall � but the year-over-year averages (over 8% consistently) have hit record
levels not seen in four decades.

To make matters worse for the Biden administration, the 8% average is just
that: an average. Many American families have experienced much higher
inflation rates on items they need to live, feed their families, and get to
and from their places of employment.

Annual inflation via BLS just out:

42.9% airline fares33.1% utility gas30.5% eggs18.2% gasoline17.2%
chicken 15.7% coffee15.2% milk14.7% bread10.1% furniture9.2%
vegetables8.2% all items8.2% fruit8.1% ham7.6% women apparel7.2%
used cars6.7% rent

3.7% men apparel

� Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) October 13, 2022

A line-item breakdown of September�s inflation numbers � from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics � shows that several items have seen much higher than the
�average� 8% inflation rate since September of 2021.

Airline travel is up an estimated 42.9%, gas for heating homes and cooking is
up 33.1%, eggs have skyrocketed � in part because of avian influenza
outbreaks combined with inflation � 30.5%, gasoline is still up 18.2%,
chicken (also related in part to the AI outbreaks) is up 17.2%, coffee has
risen 15.7%, milk is up 15.2%, and bread has climbed 14.7%.

--
Let's go Brandon!

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed on Tuesday that
Americans are saving money on gasoline under President Joe Biden.

The national average price for gasoline surpassed $5.00 per gallon this
summer, even though prices at the pump are currently $3.85 per gallon,
according to data from AAA, marking a nearly 62% increase since Biden assumed
office at the beginning of last year. Jean-Pierre nevertheless contended that
the recent decline is the fruit of the commander-in-chief�s work to decrease
costs for Americans.

�Gas prices have fallen by $1.15 from their peak, which was not too long
ago,� she told reporters at a press briefing. �The ninety-eighth
consecutive-day decline this summer was fastest in over a decade. Every
month, the typical two-driver family saves about $120 at the pump compared to
where we were in mid-June. Every day, Americans save about $420 million at
the pump compared to mid-June.�

Jean-Pierre, however, neglected to mention that prices were as low as $2.38
per gallon before Biden assumed office and $3.53 per gallon when Russia
invaded Ukraine.

�Now, gas prices are falling again,� Jean-Pierre continued. �The average
retail price is down by five cents over the last week. States that saw
sharper increases in recent weeks are also seeing more rapid declines.�

Some regions are indeed witnessing especially severe rises in gas prices. For
example, residents of California are paying an average of $5.94 per gallon
for regular fuel and $6.59 for diesel.

Biden has emphasized green energy throughout his tenure while leasing less
federal land for oil and gas drilling than any administration since the end
of World War II. He has also presided over a decrease in the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve from 638 million barrels to 409 million barrels, according
to data from the Energy Information Administration. Soon after his
inauguration, Biden also nixed Keystone XL pipeline project expansions.

The White House announced on Tuesday that officials would release another 15
million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by December as a
completion of the 180 million barrels Biden vowed to release earlier this
year. When one reporter pressed Jean-Pierre on why the release was necessary
if gas prices are trending downward, she claimed that Americans would receive
�a little bit of breathing room� as a result of the policy.

�President Biden has said for months how he is committed to doing everything
that he can in his power to address Putin�s price hike,� Jean-Pierre said.
�He has said this on almost every speech that you�ve heard him talk about
when it comes to gas prices and what the American people are seeing and
feeling at the pump. And he�s been delivering on that.�

Democratic officials have claimed that the high energy prices will accelerate
a shift toward renewable power sources. Transportation Secretary Pete
Buttigieg told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the
�pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas� would cause more
Americans to seek benefits from electric vehicles. The Biden administration
has set the �ambitious target� of ensuring that electric vehicles constitute
50% of car sales in the United States by 2030, according to a fact sheet from
the White House.

--
Let's go Brandon!

The White House announced on Tuesday that President Joe Biden would release
15 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The national average price for gasoline is currently $3.85 per gallon,
according to data from AAA, marking a nearly 62% increase since Biden assumed
office at the beginning of last year. In response to the rising prices, Biden
announced in March that his administration would release 180 million barrels
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stock of emergency crude oil created
to manage supply disruptions in energy markets. Transactions for the final 15
million barrels will clear by the end of December.

�Global crude oil supply flows remain a challenge, due in large part to the
ongoing instability caused by Russia�s actions in Ukraine,� the White House
said in a statement. �The President is prepared to authorize significant
additional sales in coming months if conditions require.�

West Texas Intermediate, the American benchmark for crude oil, was nearly $85
per barrel as of Wednesday morning after a decline on Tuesday afternoon. The
White House noted that officials �will not hesitate� to use the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve or other tools �to shore up the global supply of energy,
support domestic inventory levels, and bring prices down for Americans.�

Biden plans to repurchase crude oil at prices that could range between $67
per barrel and $72 per barrel. According to the White House, the move will
�protect taxpayers and help create certainty around future demand for crude
oil.� Two years ago, however, former President Donald Trump attempted to
stabilize the energy sector by filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with
oil priced at $24 per barrel, a rock-bottom rate that occurred as a result of
worldwide lockdowns. Democrats blocked the measure amid broader stimulus
package negotiations.

Biden has presided over a decrease in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from
638 million barrels to 409 million barrels, according to data from the Energy
Information Administration. When one reporter questioned White House Press
Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre this week on why the release was necessary since
gas prices are trending downward, as the administration asserts, she claimed
that Americans would receive �a little bit of breathing room� as a result of
the policy.

�President Biden has said for months how he is committed to doing everything
that he can in his power to address Putin�s price hike,� Jean-Pierre said.
�He has said this on almost every speech that you�ve heard him talk about
when it comes to gas prices and what the American people are seeing and
feeling at the pump. And he�s been delivering on that.�

Although the release is primarily intended to cut domestic energy prices, at
least 5 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have found their
way to nations such as India, the Netherlands, and Italy, as well as a
Chinese oil company with links to Hunter Biden.

The economy and inflation are salient issues among voters preparing to cast
ballots in the midterm elections, with 84% considering the former to be a top
factor on their minds. The Republicans lead the Democrats by a 16% margin and
a 19% margin with respect to trust on handling the economy and inflation,
respectively, according to a recent poll from ABC News and The Washington
Post.

The government of Saudi Arabia released a statement last week claiming that
Biden had asked the kingdom to avoid a decrease in oil production until after
the American elections. Earlier this month, Biden reportedly began preparing
to ease sanctions on Venezuela so that Chevron, an American oil company,
could resume production in the socialist nation.

--
Let's go Brandon!

With less than three weeks to go before the midterm elections -- which many
pollsters predict will be a bloodbath for Democrats -- liberals are getting
desperate.

While nationwide surveys show soaring inflation, skyrocketing food and gas
prices, rampant crime and the crisis at the U.S. southern border as the top
issues for voters, liberals are hyping a woman's right to choose abortion, a
losing issue with the way things are right now.

The uber-liberal Independent newspaper brought out this breathless headline
on Tuesday: "Biden promises to codify Roe v Wade in January if Democrats win
control of Congress."

"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
U.K. paper declared.

"If Republicans get their way with a national ban, it won't matter where you
live in America," Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser on Tuesday. "The only
sure way to stop these extremist laws that have put in jeopardy women's
health and rights is for Congress to pass a law."

Biden went on to say that he would "codify" Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973
Supreme Court decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right, on
the 50th anniversary of the ruling.

"And I've said before: The Court got Roe right nearly 50 years ago, and I
believe Congress should codify Roe once and for all," he said to applause.

"And, folks, if we do that, here is the promise I make to you and the
American people: The first bill that I will send to the Congress will be to
codify Roe v. Wade. And when Congress passes it, I'll sign it in January, 50
years after Roe was first decided the law of the land," he said to more
applause.

But here's the problem: In June, the nation's high court struck down
precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. So
Congress voting to pass a bill that simply "codifies" the tenets in the 1973
ruling would all but certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, which
ruled that it wasn't a protection guaranteed in the Constitution.

Biden has absolutely no power to "codify" Roe v. Wade -- and he doesn't even
know that.

In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Samuel Alito said the Roe ruling and
subsequent court decisions that reaffirmed Roe "must be overruled" because
they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so
"damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is
implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on
which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely -- the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Alito wrote.

"That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned
in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this
Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty," he added. "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue
of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

What's more, abortion is not a winning issue for Democrats, at least not this
time around, according to James Carville, the architect of Bill Clinton's win
in 1992. Back then, more than 10 million Americans were unemployed, job
creation was the slowest since the Great Depression, the federal deficit had
reached a record high, and poverty and welfare rolls -- along with inflation
-- were soaring.

"A lot of these consultants think if all we do is run abortion spots that
will win for us. I don't think so," Carville said. "It's a good issue. But if
you just sit there and they're pummeling you on crime and pummeling you on
the cost of living, you've got to be more aggressive than just yelling
abortion every other word."

And this is the guy who coined the campaign motto, "It's the economy,
stupid."

It was then, and it is now.

--
Let's go Brandon!

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre isn�t the brightest bulb in
the diversity hire bunch, but she may very well be the most honest.

On Wednesday, KJP � as she is affectionately known � stated point blank that
she didn�t understand a question from a White House press pool reporter. The
truthful response was refreshing. Yet it was utterly confusing because the
query was one of the most straightforward questions possibly ever.

�Does President Biden want more migrants to come to Delaware?� an unnamed
reporter asked.

�I don�t even understand that question. I�ll move on,� a befuddled KJP
responded.

Watch here:

This is one of the most straight forward questions I have ever heard.
https://t.co/P3BFLX2lGd

� Tim Meads (@TimMeadsUSA) October 19, 2022

Arguably, that is the most articulate and confident she has ever sounded.

Usually, KJP always talks like she is being fed her lines through a faulty
earpiece that cuts out every other word and she has to guess what the next
word is.

It may not be normal, but it is typical for KJP.

The reporter was obviously referring to a large number of illegal aliens �
meaning millions of individuals � who have flooded the country since Biden
took office. In recent months, conservative governors have shipped thousands
of those people to Democratic hotbeds such as New York City, Washington,
D.C., Chicago, and even Martha�s Vineyard.

DeSantis has been threatening to send even more to Delaware.

Just a few weeks ago, KJP understood that topic. Now, she claims she has no
idea what the reporter is talking about when asked, �Does President Biden
want more migrants to come to Delaware?�

Since the press secretary seems to be unable to answer that question, this
author will attempt to do it for her from the perspective of a leftist:

What the president wants is for Republicans to end their hate, work
with him, and craft a bipartisan compromise so that we can bring
these brave men and women out of the shadows and on a path toward
citizenship so they can obtain the American dream. Maybe that means
they move to the great state of Delaware. The president certainly
loves his home state.

That fictional answer � while pretty believable, if I do say so myself � is
full of nonsense. It�s very easy to speak like a progressive � you just have
to include flowery language, attack Republicans, and accuse opponents of
being hateful.

It seems evident that the real reason the Biden administration has been
pushing mass amnesty is that Democrats feel that doing so would shore up a
new voting bloc and solidify the party�s power.

When KJP isn�t answering honestly about issues relating to illegal
immigration, it is entirely clear that she does not know what she is speaking
about.

For example, in early August, she claimed while discussing illegal
immigration that �it�s not like somebody walks over� the border. Thousands of
people do that each day.

Doocy: "Somebody unvaccinated comes over on a plane, you say that's
not okay. Somebody walks into Texas or Arizona unvaccinated, they're
allowed to stay?"

Jean-Pierre: "That's not how it works� It's not like someone walks
over."

Doocy: "That's exactly what is happening!" pic.twitter.com/mr8XE1n1oY
� Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 29, 2022

Like all White House press secretaries, she just has to repeat whatever the
White House messaging is. KJP isn�t really paid to critically think or tell
the truth.

She doesn�t really have any desire to do so either. As she has made
emphatically clear, she is simply proud to be both the first black and openly
gay press secretary in history.

Now, she can add another historical milestone to her belt: October 19, 2022,
was her most honest day ever.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:13:14 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
>that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
>surging costs in Biden’s America.
>
>“I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
>nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
>food, bread, milk, things like that,” MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. “What
>could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
>livability, daily, hourly issues that they’re confronted with?”
>
>The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
>politics. Children — not Democratic policies — are causing economic angst,
>she said.
>
>“But let’s be clear, having children is why you’re worried about your price
>for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Abrams
>rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a “reductive issue” for women.

What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.

"reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
meaning with respect to human populations.

Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
>if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
>U.K. paper declared.
>
Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
under state jurisdiction?

Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
shouldn't be legislation.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:13:14 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
>
> Some of the stupid people you can have in govt.

Wait. Since when were there ever non-stupid people in government?!?!

The list of the non-stupid ones would certainly be much much much
shorter - it wouldn't even fill an business card size piece of paper!

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
>>if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
>>U.K. paper declared.
>>
>Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
>under state jurisdiction?
>
>Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
>shouldn't be legislation.

Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the Feds
step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court ruling.

So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
>>>if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
>>>U.K. paper declared.
>>>
>>Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
>>under state jurisdiction?
>>
>>Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
>>shouldn't be legislation.
>
>Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
>Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
>that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
>that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the Feds
>step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court ruling.
>
>So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
>state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
>election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.

Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')

Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
the feds or vice versa.

lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) told MSNBC on Wednesday
>>that women across the Peach State need access to abortion to keep up with
>>surging costs in Biden's America.
>>
>>"I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that while abortion is an issue, it
>>nowhere reaches the level of interest in voters such as the cost of gas,
>>food, bread, milk, things like that," MSNBC anchor Mike Barnicle said. "What
>>could you do as governor to alleviate concerns of Georgia voters about the
>>livability, daily, hourly issues that they're confronted with?"
>>
>>The election denier wasted no time defending the unholy sacrament of leftist
>>politics. Children -- not Democratic policies -- are causing economic angst,
>>she said.
>>
>>"But let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your price
>>for gas, it's why you're concerned about how much food costs," Abrams
>>rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a "reductive issue" for women.
>
>What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
>know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.
>
>"reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
>meaning with respect to human populations.
>
>Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
>language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.

It's probably because she's a stupid race-baiting election denier,
but some have conjectured it's linked to the "population bomb" people.

--
Let's go Brandon!

lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into
>> law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall,"
>> the U.K. paper declared.
>
> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
> under state jurisdiction?
>
> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
> shouldn't be legislation.

You are correct. The Feds cannot pass abortion laws, but that won't stop
something like the Constitution from stopping them from trying.

It is funny watching the Dems desperately clinging to abortion as a campaign
plank, but what else can they do?

--
Let's go Brandon!

Georgia�s 2021 voter ID law was supposed to usher in a new era of �Jim Crow
2.0,� according to Democrats. President Joe Biden said it would make that
previous era of American history look like �Jim Eagle.�

Democrats at large, including current Peach Tree State gubernatorial
candidate Stacey Abrams, warned that millions of minorities would be
disenfranchised.

Except the opposite has happened.

Since early voting began on October 17, more than one million people have
voted via early voting and absentee ballots. That has smashed previous
records. When asked about that fact, White House press secretary Karine
Jean-Pierre offered up a cacophony of excuses.

�As you know, I have to be careful. I cannot get into politics from here,�
Jean-Pierre said, despite the fact she seems to slam �MAGA Republicans� in
midterms and �election deniers� every other day.

She claimed that Republicans have been promoting anti-voting laws around the
country despite not providing any examples.

�The president has been very clear that based on the �Big Lie� there have
been a host of anti-voter policies forced on states that challenge America�s
fundamental right to vote, the access to voting,� she claimed. �So this is
against our most basic values, including respect for the law and the
constitution.�

https://youtu.be/lM1NxjGAQp0

The �Big Lie� of course refers to former President Donald J. Trump�s belief
that there was election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. According to
KJP, implying that American elections aren�t secure is tantamount to being a
traitor.

Of course, as documented, KJP herself is an �election denier.� Nevertheless,
she persisted � as the Beltway loves to say.

�Speaking generally of course, but more broadly, high turnout and voter
suppression can take place at the same time,� she added. �One doesn�t have to
happen on its own. They can be happening at the same time, but I will leave
it there without being able to really dig into the politics of this.�

Common sense would dictate that if voter suppression was occurring anywhere
in Georgia, then a record amount of minorities would be reporting that they
have been barred from voting.

Quite the opposite, the share of black voters in Georgia has actually
increased from 2020, according to Politico.

�At this point in 2020, Black voters made up 33 percent of the share of the
electorate, and in 2022, they�re up to 35 percent,� the outlet reported.

Yet Democrats can�t admit that a Republican voting law actually helped
increase democratic participation, so instead, they bloviate and makeup
nonsense.

The party�s entire midterm plan is to deny reality.

Up is down, right is wrong. Men are women. Abortion is healthcare. Biden is
competent. Record voting turnout is voter suppression.

--
Let's go Brandon!

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:13:14 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:

>> "But let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your
>> price for gas, it's why you're concerned about how much food costs,"
>> Abrams rebutted, claiming that abortion is not a 'reductive issue'
>> for women.
>
> What exactly does that mean? I know what "reproduction" means and I
> know what "reduction" means but they're not at all the same thing.
>
> "reductive" isn't a real word - and "reduction" has a rather nasty
> meaning with respect to human populations.

According to the online Cambridge Dictionary (as well as the online
Merriam-Webster Dictionary), 'reductive' is indeed a word:

"considering or presenting something in a simple way, especially
a way that is too simple:

"'reductive explanations of the origin of life'"

<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reductive>

It's obvious to me that Abrams was saying that women aren't narrowly
fixated on a single issue to the exclusion of all others; that their
electoral interests can't be boiled down simply to one thing, but that
there is a broader interconnectivity to it all.

> Though I strongly suspect that comment has more to do with English
> language illiteracy than anything remotely genocidal.

Pot, kettle, black. Fifteen seconds of googling could have put you
right about that word, but the temptation to throw undeserved mud at a
figure on the left was too much for you.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:

>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:

>>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
>>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
>>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
>>>
>>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
>>> issue under state jurisdiction?
>>>
>>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
>>> there shouldn't be legislation.
>>
>> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
>> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
>> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
>> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
>> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
>> ruling.
>>
>> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
>> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
>> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
>
> Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
> both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
> right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
>
> Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
> took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
> the feds or vice versa.

From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
(or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
"statute" when he said "amendment."

It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

-Micky

President Joe Biden (D) faced mockery online late last week after he falsely
claimed on the campaign trail that there are "54 states."

Biden made the remarks Friday at the "Pennsylvania Democratic Party
Reception" while talking about how the Democrats had success in the 2018
midterm elections by talking about health care.

"And, of course, they're going try for their 499th time, or whatever the
number is -- they're still determined to eliminate the Affordable Care Act,"
Biden said.

"And, by the way, if they do, that means -- not a joke, everybody," Biden
said. "That's why we defeated it in 2018 when they tried to do it. We went to
54 states."

WATCH:

Biden claims there are "54 states"
pic.twitter.com/eIKn9VlBPM

-- Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) October 29, 2022

Biden faced a lot of mockery in response to the comment with many expressing
exhaustion at how many times incidents like this have occurred with the
current president.

"Biden says there are 54 states in America," comedian and actor Rob Schneider
tweeted. "Next speech he will explain the 81 million votes..."

Writer Kelsey Bolar tweeted, "How much more of this are we supposed to
tolerate?"

"This Pelosi mad lib keeps getting weirder and weirder but any way you slice
it, crime is bad under Joe Biden in al 54 states," Fox News Radio Host Jimmy
Failla tweeted.

Attorney Jordan Sekulow tweeted, "The leader of the Democrat Party and
unfortunately for us, the President."

"Painful and embarrassing to watch," political commentator John Cardillo
tweeted. "IT'S. EVERY. TIME. HE. SPEAKS."

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) responded: "Joe Biden now says there are 54
states. I guess if you count the states of denial, confusion, delusion and
disaster that his Regime has caused he just might be on to something."

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <tjnl21$3jo$2@pcls7.std.com>,
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
> > <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
> >>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
> >>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
> >>>
> >>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
> >>> issue under state jurisdiction?
> >>>
> >>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
> >>> there shouldn't be legislation.
> >>
> >> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
> >> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
> >> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
> >> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
> >> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
> >> ruling.
> >>
> >> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
> >> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
> >> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
> >
> > Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
> > both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
> > right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
> >
> > Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
> > took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
> > the feds or vice versa.
>
> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
> (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
> "statute" when he said "amendment."
>
> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.

Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
8, DuPree.

That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
drivel".

On 10/31/2022 12:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tjnl21$3jo$2@pcls7.std.com>,
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
>>>>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
>>>>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
>>>>> issue under state jurisdiction?
>>>>>
>>>>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
>>>>> there shouldn't be legislation.
>>>>
>>>> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
>>>> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
>>>> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
>>>> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
>>>> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
>>>> ruling.
>>>>
>>>> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
>>>> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
>>>> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
>>>
>>> Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
>>> both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
>>> right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
>>>
>>> Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
>>> took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
>>> the feds or vice versa.
>>
>> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
>> (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
>> "statute" when he said "amendment."
>>
>> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
>
> Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
> enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
> 8, DuPree.
>
> That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
> federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
> it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
> drivel".

Hey, does it say somewhere in the Constitution that the Senate Majority
Leader can confirm SCOTUS Justices only when he feels like it? TIA.

On 10/31/2022 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tjnl21$3jo$2@pcls7.std.com>,
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
>>>>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
>>>>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
>>>>> issue under state jurisdiction?
>>>>>
>>>>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
>>>>> there shouldn't be legislation.
>>>>
>>>> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
>>>> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
>>>> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
>>>> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
>>>> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
>>>> ruling.
>>>>
>>>> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
>>>> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
>>>> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
>>>
>>> Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
>>> both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
>>> right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
>>>
>>> Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
>>> took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
>>> the feds or vice versa.
>>
>> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
>> (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
>> "statute" when he said "amendment."
>>
>> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
>
> Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
> enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
> 8, DuPree.
>
> That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
> federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
> it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
> drivel".

And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>"Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care into law
>>if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections this fall," the
>>U.K. paper declared.

>Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an issue
>under state jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal constitution did not protect
abortion rights. It's not a constitutional court and cannot rule, in
advance, as to the constitutionality of possible legislation that might
be introduced in the next Congress if the Democrats retain the majority
in both houses.

At the very least, if abortion is treated as an interstate matter
without an over-the-top interpretation of the Commerce Clause, such as
protecting the right to travel to outside your home state in order to
secure an abortion, then even this Supreme Court wouldn't rule that to
be unconstitutional.

>Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then there
>shouldn't be legislation.

That's not how it works since FDR.

In article <XUX7L.6$G506.0@fx04.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

> On 10/31/2022 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <tjnl21$3jo$2@pcls7.std.com>,
> > MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >
> >> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
> >>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
> >>>>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
> >>>>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
> >>>>> issue under state jurisdiction?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
> >>>>> there shouldn't be legislation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
> >>>> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
> >>>> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
> >>>> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
> >>>> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
> >>>> ruling.
> >>>>
> >>>> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
> >>>> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
> >>>> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
> >>>
> >>> Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
> >>> both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
> >>> right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
> >>>
> >>> Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
> >>> took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
> >>> the feds or vice versa.
> >>
> >> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
> >> (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
> >> "statute" when he said "amendment."
> >>
> >> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
> >> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
> >> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
> >
> > Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
> > enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
> > 8, DuPree.
> >
> > That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
> > federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
> > it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
> > drivel".
>
> And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?

So long as the state is violating any guaranteed rights, no. That's why
we have states. If you don't like how your state does things, you can
move to one that's more in line with your beliefs.

In any event, the remedy for an overreach of state power isn't for
judges to make up federal powers that don't exist out of thin air.

On 10/31/2022 10:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <XUX7L.6$G506.0@fx04.iad>, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2022 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <tjnl21$3jo$2@pcls7.std.com>,
>>> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:33:46 -0400, shawn
>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:34:44 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:22:36 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Biden will sign legislation protecting access to abortion care
>>>>>>>> into law if Democrats win control of Congress in midterm elections
>>>>>>>> this fall," the U.K. paper declared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait a minute - didn't the SCOTUS just rule that abortion was an
>>>>>>> issue under state jurisdiction?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either it's a federal or a state issue and if its not clear then
>>>>>>> there shouldn't be legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not unusual at all. It is a state issue now until the Federal
>>>>>> Government steps in. If an amendment is passed that clearly states
>>>>>> that abortion is an issue solely between a woman and her doctor then
>>>>>> that returns the issue to federal control. Until such time as the
>>>>>> Feds step in the issue is a state issue due to the Supreme Court
>>>>>> ruling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this issue has gone from a state issue to a federal issue to a
>>>>>> state issue and may go back to being a federal issue again after the
>>>>>> election. Nothing is permanent where the government is involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now when you say an amendment you mean an amendment that is passed by
>>>>> both Houses of Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states
>>>>> right? (aka 'a constitutional amendment')
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do you mean something else? Because I was under the impression it
>>>>> took a constitution amendment to transfer rights from the states to
>>>>> the feds or vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> From a reductive standpoint, yes, but the devil is in the interpretation
>>>> (or the interpretors more recently). I also suspect that shawn meant
>>>> "statute" when he said "amendment."
>>>>
>>>> It's worth trying, but I see this SCOTUS being perfectly willing to
>>>> strike down any federal law protecting abortion, based on some 16th
>>>> century Calvinist theory or some such drivel.
>>>
>>> Or maybe they'd strike it down because it simply isn't one of the
>>> enumerated powers of the federal government found in Article I, Section
>>> 8, DuPree.
>>>
>>> That's how the federal government is supposed to work, after all. The
>>> federal government only has the powers that are specifically granted to
>>> it by the Constitution. Last time I checked, that isn't "Calvinist
>>> drivel".
>>
>> And what's supposed to limit a *State's* powers over citizens? Anything?
>
> So long as the state is violating any guaranteed rights, no. That's why
> we have states. If you don't like how your state does things, you can
> move to one that's more in line with your beliefs.

Either you misspelled the word "isn't" or I have no idea what the fuck
you're talking about. What new.

> In any event, the remedy for an overreach of state power isn't for
> judges to make up federal powers that don't exist out of thin air.

President Joe Biden claimed on Tuesday that he spoke with the doctor who
invented insulin � a doctor who was so selfless that he refused to patent the
drug and profit from its use � but Dr. Frederick Banting died nearly two
years before the president was born.

President Biden spoke about what his administration had been doing to lower
health care costs for American families, touting his efforts to specifically
bring down the cost to consumers for prescription drugs like insulin � and he
claimed to have spoken with the doctor who invented it.

WATCH:

Joe Biden claims that he spoke to the man who invented insulin.
pic.twitter.com/FLjIZ1jPdE

� Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 1, 2022

�How many of you know somebody with diabetes? Needs insulin?� Biden asked as
he paced back and forth behind the lectern. �Well, guess what? And � when we
� when Debbie and I passed this law, it included everybody � not just
seniors.�

�And so, what happened was, we said okay, you know how much it costs to make
that insulin drug for diabetes? Cost,� Biden continued. �It was invented by a
man who did not patent it because he wanted it available for everyone. I
spoke to him, okay?�

But Dr. Frederick Banting, who was one of the doctors who discovered insulin
in 1921 � refused to put his name on the patent � passed away in February of
1941. Joe Biden was not even born until November of 1942 � some 21 months
later.

Banting received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 1923 following
his discovery. His assistant, Dr. Charles Best, was a medical student at the
time and assisted with the discovery. He did put his name on the patent,
along with Dr. James Bertram Collip, who helped refine it, but the two sold
the patent to the University of Toronto for $1.

All three believed that it would not be ethical for them to take profits from
something that could potentially save thousands or even millions of lives.

Physiologist John MacLeod, who also chose not to be named on the patent,
played a role in the discovery, but had passed away in 1935. While both Drs.
Collip and Best were still living after Biden was born, he ruled them out as
the ones he spoke to because they did ultimately put their names on the
patent.

--
Let's go Brandon!