Why I Started A Change.Org Petition Asking Congress to Impeach Biden

PS Not just I need to be involved in calling on Congress to impeach Biden and impeach Biden now. 

Commentary: "Conflate"? And "Plain Meaning"?

How can Kellyanne Conway as a sexual-abuse survivor herself work with an self-admitted sexual abuser? There's no conflating about it. Supporting Kavanaugh and ***** is saying to her own sexual abuser, "What you did to me is okay." After all, you can't knowingly support some unrepentant sexual abusers and not support others at the same time. If you're supporting any sexual abusers with full knowledge of what they did and/or are doing, you are by extension supporting your own if you yourself were and/or are a victim of sexual abuse. Thus, an answer like the following one to a question about your own hypocrisy would be all the more inappropriate and intellectually dishonest:

"Don't conflate that with this, and certainly don't conflate that with what happened to me."

Translation: "Stop confronting me about my hypocrisy, and certainly stop telling me to refrain from revictimizing fellow sexual-abuse victims and survivors."

Meanwhile, in regard to a case that involves hypocrisy concerning non-sexual abuse—namely, "Schreiber v. McCamet et. al." (2018)

• At least Senator Blunt did something right for once during this whole xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist ***** Era, especially since (I guarantee you that) the same ruling would not have been made had the adoptee been a White boy or any girl that ***** and *****ites would consider (forgive the language) a token—and with the Armed Forces not being keen on *****'s plan for a military parade and the adoptee in question being a South Korean and not a North Korean (let alone one whom either escaped from or somehow got special permission to leave North Korea), ***** and *****ites are likely to all the more see adoptee as useless and even detrimental to them. As for Non-White boys, for the same ruling to have been made might've actually been possible given that ***** and *****ites would likely see no value in someone whom they couldn't try to use for a "Women for *****" schtick, especially with the current events at hand—ones that certainly make female voters and to-be voters more of a target voting demographic than male voters and to-be voters.   
• That judge basically just sent a huge (forgive the language) "**** you. I don't care about your military service" to Lt. Col. Schreiber and his family, as well as to other military families, and an "I don't care about your service" to other Armed Forces members and their families.
• The only "plain meaning" there, then, is that the judge would've ruled to let the delayed adoption process continue to go through now had the adoptee been a 17-year-old White boy or Non-White girl whom he found useful for "MAGA" and "America First" ends, never mind that putting America first actually includes letting Armed Forces members whom have served honorably as well as been of good character adopt any child whom wants to be adopted by him or her.

Therefore, "hypocrisy" still means "hypocrisy" just as "is" still means "is" and has a definition around which nobody can get—whether whomever tries to get around it is Kellyanne Conway, a bigoted judge, or anyone else.

PS Many voters and many to-be voters whom have read all of this probably have an increased desire that the October Surprise is that Special Counselor Mueller indicts *****—I know that I do after just reading about the continuing hypocrisy of ***** and his supporters. 

PPS That I wrote about whomever ***** would nominate and included the following was surprisingly prescient, especially given that I wrote what I wrote in July(!):

"Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake."

Dr. Blasey Ford made her allegations in July, and (as I predicted) Kavanaugh is indeed a ***** sycophant and (as I unbeknownstly-to-myself predicted) fellow sexual abuser of *****. 


(By the way, Julie Swetnick's own indiscretions do not mean that she wasn't sexually abused by Kavanaugh. So, don't automatically assume that he has only two known victims in his wake.)

Of Course, Conservatives Can't Trust *****'s Supreme Court Nominee (And Of Course Can't Trust *****)!

No matter who ***** picks, no conservative can trust her (likely her) or him. Besides, she (as all indicators seem to have demonstrated so far) or he is going to be a ***** sycophant (at least initially—and who knows what's happened when Neil Gorsuch has ruled against his boss, whom is illegitimately in the White House in the first place and thus makes Gorsuch's appointment illegitimate in any case, no matter that the Senate's confirmed it for the time being)? Also, and most importantly, the following should cause everyone to consider why no real conservative is going to back *****'s SCOTUS nominee even if she or he even ends up being a he by the name of Merrick Garland(!):

1. Real conservatives would rather have a moderate like Merrick Garland, whom was appointed by an albe-legitimately-elected president whom we generally didn't like, than a sycophant of an illegitimately-elected-president in whom no decent person can find any merit.
2. Now-Former President Obama admitted his general disdain for most conservatives as well as most moderate & leaning-moderate people on all sides—and at least he, as far as I know, doesn't have any forcibly-aborted children or sexual-harassment victims in his wake. ***** still tries to pretend to suddenly be Mr. Reformed and Mr. Conservative when he has never even repented for—and he demonizes everyone whom calls him out on—his own immoderate and far-from-conservative actions, among which are trying to get Marla Maples to abort Tiffany Trump (and someone who really wants to overturn "Roe v. Wade" would come clean about wanting to abort his own child, not to mention his affair-conceived child—and to be fair, one now has to wonder at what point the affair stopped being an affair and crossed into Marla Maples being Stockholmed, since a man who can rape his wife and try to force any woman to abort her child probably didn't have a fully-willing partner in Marla. When he or she also considers, among other things, how ***** bragged about "grabb[ing a woman] by [her private areas]" and "mov[ing] on her like a [dog]", one has to wonder if Marla could've said "No" and had it taken for an answer.)
3. In other words, Former President Obama is generally a "You get who you see" kind of person and was that way as a politician, even though he at least made bipartisan concessions. ***** is a "For thee and not me" kind of person, and the kind whom "narcissist", "sociopath", and "Machiavellite" only begin to describe!
4. Especially any women and any (supposedly) pro-life nominee of ***** will be a token and a court packer—and only one SCOTUS nominee of an illegitimately-elected "POTUS" is needed to be pack a court; so, two nominees of a Non POTUS make a packed SCOTUS, even if the rest of the justices are nominees of legitimate now-former POTUSes.

On a Wilkes-Barre High School Debate, Fragmented Computers, and Segregation

I think that Vice President Walker knows what he's saying. Besides, the two schools have clearly worked together in the past (I did my research here.), and consolidating them would just make their working together (among other things) permanent. Also, think about Coughlin-Meyers JSHS like a computer: if you don't want a fragmented computer with too many files in the first place, you don't want what could easily be one school continuing to be two schools. In addition, Vice President Walker (quite literally) is putting the schoolboard's money where his mouth is: for the people whom actually want to have the concept of school choice, he's giving it to them.

As far as segregation, real segregation "is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age or sex"¹. By the way, I as well know what I'm saying²: any of my ancestors and their relatives who attended Coughlin³ didn't get a choice as to whether they'd be openly of their ethnic group ("race") or open about their religious choices—consolidating schools and giving school choices are as related to bigotedly segregating as defragging and cleaning up computers is: they aren't! Let me know, though, when saving taxpayer money and real-estate space, and giving school choice are related to—for example—being implicitly and explicitly hostile to Jews on ethnic and/or religious grounds, and then we'll talk! 

¹Or ability, though never mind us people with disabilities, again 🙄

²Except apparently about people with disabilities—but hey, what's new? 🙄 Ableism is ingrained into the culture and as old as the Anti Semitism that my ancestors faced—when a third of the angels fell, they were intent as bringing ableism into the to-be-created world as they were to bring Anti Semitism, perhaps especially because they foreknew that many Jews would have disabilities.

³Paradoxically enough, the one who I know attended Coughlin ended up being a busha and a boged—never mind that he was one of the ones given a Yiddish diminutive and a second-generation pogrom survivor whose first-generation-pogrom-survivor mother was closest to him and my other great-granduncle whom she gave a Yiddish diminutive. In his (and the other great-granduncle's) eyes, exploiting another one of my great-granduncles—and probably my great-great-grandma, too—was totally okay!