LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The Gang likes murder, especially of the pure and innocent, it is an essential part of their religion. They all do it, they all have evidence of each other doing it — a big mutual blackmail society. Beside their sick beliefs that demand it, it’s a great group-cohesion technique.

Jon,

Culturally, there is an argument I like a lot. The fanatical fixation on abortion among Progressives is an evolved form of ritual human sacrifice.

One of the ways the elites were able to maintain their power in antiquity was through human sacrifice, often of the first born. The gods have changed since then, the ritual now looks like surgery instead of a religious service involving the entire community, and the humans sacrificed are mostly still in the womb, but preaching the good of human sacrifice still serves as a powerful bond among the elites (nowadays elitists). In their minds, it signals to them and to the rest of humankind that they belong to the group of superior humans.

That is why the fanaticism. What greater demonstration of power is there than killing helpless humans who have committed no crime, without repercussion, and in publicly sanctioned rituals?

Not all cases of abortion fall within this, of course. But the Progressive preaching about it does.

Progressives are tribal savages at root.

Northam is not just a racist. He has the soul of a tribal savage.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Culturally, there is an argument I like a lot. The fanatical fixation on abortion among Progressives is an evolved form of ritual human sacrifice.

One of the ways the elites were able to maintain their power in antiquity was through human sacrifice, often of the first born. The gods have changed since then, the ritual now looks like surgery instead of a religious service involving the entire community, and the humans sacrificed are mostly still in the womb, but preaching the good of human sacrifice still serves as a powerful bond among the elites (nowadays elitists). In their minds, it signals to them and to the rest of humankind that they belong to the group of superior humans.

That is why the fanaticism. What greater demonstration of power is there than killing helpless humans who have committed no crime, without repercussion, and in publicly sanctioned rituals?

Not all cases of abortion fall within this, of course. But the Progressive preaching about it does.

Progressives are tribal savages at root.

Northam is not just a racist. He has the soul of a tribal savage.

Michael

Yes, what greater demonstration is there? Well, you could make all of us pay taxes for it and then have Planned Parenthood donate a third of that to the Democrat Party. That might add spice to the demonstration.

You hit the nail on the head with your notes above about the history of all this. They were able to express their cult religious beliefs back then because everyone did it. Then Christianity came along. To survive, they went underground. Now they want to impose their sick system on everyone again and be again safe, out in the open.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

You hit the nail on the head with your notes above about the history of all this. They were able to express their cult religious beliefs back then because everyone did it. Then Christianity came along. To survive, they went underground. Now they want to impose their sick system on everyone again and be again safe, out in the open.

Jon,

Behold:

It's not like they are hiding shit.

We need to stop pussyfooting around, take them at their word, and defeat them on these groungs.

The only reason they get away with this crap is that most people either don't believe they are serious. or don't believe they have a serious chance to do this stuff.

But they are serious and they will do it if they get enough power. Any person with eyes who is not indoctrinated in their murderous ideology knows where those things lead when implemented on a large scale.

Michael

[caroljane]

22 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

“A CULT leader known as 'John of God' has been accused of running a sex slave farm and selling babies to highest bidder on the black market.

“Joao Teixeira de Faria was arrested a week after over 600 allegations piled against him in what prosecutors say could be the worst serial crimes case in Brazil’s history.

“Hundreds of girls were enslaved over years, lived on farms in Goias, served as wombs to get pregnant, for their babies to be sold.

“These girls were murdered after 10 years of giving birth. We have got a number of testimonies.

“The Brazilian healer became a prominent spiritual figure in 2010, when Oprah Winfrey visited him and said she almost fainted during the “blissful” encounter.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8318483/john-god-cult-leader-sex-slave-farm-sold-babies/

This revolting report of a fakhealer, slaveholder and murderer in Brazil,  should be known if his accusers are proven true.  He fooled Oprah (not exactly hard to do) and that enabled him to continue his crimes, she should writhe with shame and try to make some compensation , if there could be any.

But what exactly  has this to do with Northam and abortion?. This Brazilian allegedly bred women like cattle, sold their babies and then slaughtered them after 10 years.  (History tells us that women who bore a child a year for 10 years or more  died of childbirth-related causes  at a much  higher rate than other women, although their deaths were accepted  by them and their husbands, as the will of God or the price of sacred procreation or some such foolishness. Abortion has always been used, or attempted, in desperate attempts to avoid the far-too-often fatal results of pregnancy. Anecdote - my own grandmother died of "complications of pregnancy" when pregnant with her eighth child, at age 39. There was no coercion here - it was a happy  couple and family who welcomed and loved all their children. But there was no contraception either, and no abortion).

Again, your post is not about  Northam nor abortion, as per the tags, nor humorous as per forum title. I suggest you move it to a serious forum more relevant to its subject.  I know conversations meander,,, but this is a meander too far, it seems to me.

[Brant Gaede]

I think what's going on in legislatures and with governors of two different states is laying down the gauntlet to what they think will be Trump's Supreme Court in order to preserve Roe v Wade. That is, they are moving the argument to their own ball park or R v W is the moderate compromise. Don't overturn it.

--Brant

Trump War

the kicker: the moral hubris of the left now embraces infanticide or they can't win for losing

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is how Northam is seen by many.

 

This isn't going away.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Don't overturn it.

Brant,

Roe v. Wade is a legal abomination. On par with the Dread Scott decision and a few other doozies.

Abortion needs to be dealt with in the legislative branches, not legislated from the judiciary.

Otherwise, as history shows, it will ultimately be dealt with by violence, especially if it gets overturned.

And nobody wants that.

I once heard the US had a constitution.

Michael

[caroljane]

20 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think what's going on in legislatures and with governors of two different states is laying down the gauntlet to what they think will be Trump's Supreme Court in order to preserve Roe v Wade. That is, they are moving the argument to their own ball park or R v W is the moderate compromise. Don't overturn it.

--Brant

Trump War

the kicker: the moral hubris of the left now embraces infanticide or they can't win for losing

this is  concise, objective political commentary, which this subject sorely needs.

[Jon Letendre]

He's finished now that their queen says it's ok to be mad at him. That was fun, but there are still so many Democrats in power. I sure hope the next target is being kept comfortable. Cuomo?

 

Hillary Clinton‏Verified account @HillaryClinton

Hillary Clinton Retweeted The Associated Press

This has gone on too long. There is nothing to debate. He must resign.

Hillary Clinton added,

Verified account

 

6:46 PM - 2 Feb 2019

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

He's finished now that their queen says it's ok to be mad at him. That was fun, but there are still so many Democrats in power. I sure hope the next target is being kept comfortable. Cuomo?

 

Hillary Clinton‏Verified account @HillaryClinton

Hillary Clinton Retweeted The Associated Press

This has gone on too long. There is nothing to debate. He must resign.

Hillary Clinton added,

Verified account

 

6:46 PM - 2 Feb 2019

 

And if she were President she should shoot herself.

--Kant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Roe v. Wade is a legal abomination. On par with the Dread Scott decision and a few other doozies.

Abortion needs to be dealt with in the legislative branches, not legislated from the judiciary.

Otherwise, as history shows, it will ultimately be dealt with by violence, especially if it gets overturned.

And nobody wants that.

I once heard the US had a constitution.

Michael

If a woman has a right to an abortion that's Federal as in the protection of rights. If she doesn't then that's states' (not individual) rights. However, if the unborn has a right to life then that's Federal, not state and certainly not county, city or town. Rand championed abortion in the first tri-mester.

The second tri is the gray area getting increasingly black into and through the third.

My view is the woman has a right to an abortion through the first tri or "quickening" then the state law takes over for the rest until the fetus is a born baby. If the aborted is living--not killing or damaging it in the womb--then rights kicks in immediately. All the state law can do, though, is problematic. It can't say a woman has a right to an abortion except for the sake of saving her life save as it is congruence with Federal law which is both legislative and judicial, the latter by referencing the Constitution which is the law behind the laws.

(There is a medical justification for what may be called infanticide: conjoined twins where only one life is possible.)

The Right to Life is a stolen concept as used by the 100 percent anti-abortionists for they have no real truck with political rights constitutional or otherwise. That right to them belongs only to the fetus or unborn baby. Not you nor I and least of all the mother.

Individual rights are a human invention based on human nature, hence not arbitrary. They are FORCED into human social existence by LAW. This is government's only moral justification--such law enforcement and protection. Government is force.

States' Rights were the political justification, of course, for the War of Southern Succession.

--Brant 

[Brant Gaede]

The US Constitution was written to establish a strong central government, not to protect individual rights so much. This is the government taken in toto. The balance of powers was simply to prevent one branch from dominating and help prevent tyranny. Good intentions led to mixed results and Lincoln's War and Federal supremacy.

The proof is the Founders would rather have 13 states rather than two smaller countries, one free, one with slaves. And the pre-industrial economics involved were tremendous. Thus the actual language of the Constitution and the gratuitous Bill of Rights to spike criticism and get the new government up and running.

--Brant 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

If a woman has a right to an abortion that's Federal as in the protection of rights. If she doesn't then that's states' (not individual) rights. However, if the unborn has a right to life then that's Federal, not state and certainly not county, city or town. Rand championed abortion in the first tri-mester.

Brant,

I case you missed it, I came up with a legal prescription that solves this problem. It is not part of our constitution. However, I believe some Supreme Court Justice might some day come to the same conclusion because it can easily be inferred from the constitution.

On 2/2/2019 at 1:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have a more nuanced legal view. Since the mother's body is literally being used for the environment and survival of the fetus, I hold that jurisdiction over the life of the fetus belongs to the mother, not to the state. In my perfect world, she literally and legally holds the power to determine if that individual lives or dies from slaughter. And no one would be able to touch her legally if she chose to kill it. And, yes, this would go all the way up to birth. After birth, after separation of the newborn from the mother's body, the governmental protection of individual rights kicks in, starting with the right to life.

The government, that is, the government and all forms of society, in my view, exists outside of the mother's body, not inside it.

So is abortion a federal issue or states issue? To me, it's neither. The US government has no legal standing with a sovereign entity--not without a treaty. 

Can the government decree your disposal of your internal organs, say, if you wish to donate a kidney? No. You decide whether your kidney stays inside you or not. The government does not rule over your innards. Even for automatic organ donations on a driver's license in the event of a catastrophe, you have to sign a consent. That's current law. I don't see why a fetus falls outside this.

Since the fetus is biologically an individual human and not a kidney, if the mother is sovereign over her innards, I see no other logical option than admitting that the mother has the power of life and death over it.

Once the baby is born, then it becomes a federal issue.

Also, I think "right to an abortion," if written into law, would be a legal abomination. Sovereignty over others is not a right to be defended by a government that has no jurisdiction.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Since Progressives NEVER reverse direction, I'll do the same. I won't reverse direction either. Do unto others and all...

And here goes. Progressives don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They are scum. They are liars. And they never got over losing eugenics as a science. Those assholes want to have the power over who lives and who dies. And I, and others like me, will not let them.

Back when the Charlottesville imbroglio happened, Trump said there were good people on both sides.  The principle of charity should have you interpret him to mean that there were good people on both sides of the statue question.  Not that there are good people among the white supremacists who hijacked the event.  Media attack dogs have been repeating the other interpretation ever since.  The same with the David Duke stumble during the campaign, which he attributed to a faulty earpiece (though it easily could have been a matter of drawing a blank on the name, like Aleppo).  This attack dog mentality just makes noise; maybe it affects votes, though I doubt by much. 

Let’s compare to another recent case: Kamala Harris gave a speech where she called for all private health insurance companies to be put out of business.  Then the next day she supposedly changed her mind.  I don’t buy it.  She’s going to wear that albatross forever.  No way she misspoke the first time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Back when the Charlottesville imbroglio happened, Trump said there were good people on both sides.  The principle of charity should have you interpret him to mean that there were good people on both sides of the statue question.  Not that there are good people among the white supremacists who hijacked the event. 

Dennis,

I don't like this analogy because it uses a double standard. Northam holds back for political expediency, not for personal morality. He eventually wants to normalize the Gosnells in society and knows he has to go by babysteps to get the job done.

President Trump did not have such an agenda with his comment. He literally meant what he said as self-contained. He did it out of love for people in general. He did not hold back in order to go by babysteps to normalizing a white power movement and the David Dukes out there. I know for a fact he does not want that to be mainstream.

So those are two completely different processes and intentions.

Comparing them as if they were the same is a logical error.

Besides, I would have to look it up, but were you saying the same thing about President Trump during the Charlottesville episode that you are saying now? I don't recall anything of the sort and I probably would have because there were few Trump supporters posting on OL back then. I, personally, was getting blasted. In that context, when somebody spoke up interpreting President Trump's words using the principle of charity, I noticed. Why? Simply because there were so few of them and passions were high.

I might be wrong in my recollection, but it would be really out of character for me to miss a voice of reason like that when folks were down on me.

In other words, if my memory is correct, I would have to notice that right now you defend Northam on principle, now that all hell is breaking loose. But those principles are nowhere to be seen if you have to defend Trump when all hell is breaking loose on his head. I won't make the claim as fact, though, because I don't have time to look it up. Besides, this is small potatoes and people are people. (And I like you.  )

But I mention it because this is precisely the kind of thing nobody notices, especially as they pat themselves on the back for how much more objective, reasonable and moral they are in relation to others.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It just keeps coming.

I wonder if I'm supposed to look at the following tweet with the principle of charity, too.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I case you missed it, I came up with a legal prescription that solves this problem. It is not part of our constitution. However, I believe some Supreme Court Justice might some day come to the same conclusion because it can easily be inferred from the constitution.

So is abortion a federal issue or states issue? To me, it's neither. The US government has no legal standing with a sovereign entity--not without a treaty. 

Can the government decree your disposal of your internal organs, say, if you wish to donate a kidney? No. You decide whether your kidney stays inside you or not. The government does not rule over your innards. Even for automatic organ donations on a driver's license in the event of a catastrophe, you have to sign a consent. That's current law. I don't see why a fetus falls outside this.

Since the fetus is biologically an individual human and not a kidney, if the mother is sovereign over her innards, I see no other logical option than admitting that the mother has the power of life and death over it.

Once the baby is born, then it becomes a federal issue.

Also, I think "right to an abortion," if written into law, would be a legal abomination. Sovereignty over others is not a right to be defended by a government that has no jurisdiction.

Michael

I love the idea of a right to sovereignty. It exactly parallels the right to life but with a lot more cultural if not intellectual oomph. It then is not the woman's right to life versus the baby's or fetuses immediately out of the box. And it absolutely encompasses both sexes.

However, this makes it a Federal issue all through the pregnancy. Thus the states would essentially out of the loop. And you and I are still in conflict.

--Brant 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

And you and I are still in conflict.

Brant,

Does that mean we can't be friends anymore?

 

Michael

[9thdoctor]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Besides, I would have to look it up, but were you saying the same thing about President Trump during the Charlottesville episode that you are saying now? I don't recall anything of the sort and I probably would have because there were few Trump supporters posting on OL back then. I, personally, was getting blasted. In that context, when somebody spoke up interpreting President Trump's words using the principle of charity, I noticed. Why? Simply because there were so few of them and passions were high.

I might be wrong in my recollection, but it would be really out of character for me to miss a voice of reason like that when folks were down on me.

Evidently I didn't weigh in on the Charlottesville imbrogio when it happened.  If I did I can't find it.  But I did post about the David Duke episode:

FWIW, I dislike Trump less now than I did then. 

[Jonathan]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:44 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have a more nuanced legal view. Since the mother's body is literally being used for the environment and survival of the fetus, I hold that jurisdiction over the life of the fetus belongs to the mother, not to the state. In my perfect world, she literally and legally holds the power to determine if that individual lives or dies from slaughter. And no one would be able to touch her legally if she chose to kill it. And, yes, this would go all the way up to birth. After birth, after separation of the newborn from the mother's body, the governmental protection of individual rights kicks in, starting with the right to life.

In my view, the mother has the right to evict the embryo/fetus/baby, but not to kill it. If it can't survive independently of her, then that would determine that it's not viable, and that the mother has no obligations to it. If it can survive, then that would determine that it is viable, and the mother's parental obligations apply. I think that individual rights kick in at the moment that the individual is capable of living outside and independently of the womb, and that moment can only be determined by removing the embryo/fetus/baby, unharmed, and allowing it to display if it can live.

I think of it in the same way as any other property rights issue: Your body is your property, but that doesn't mean that any and every violation of that property right results in the act of killing the violator being a valid, reasonable or proportionate response. If you own, say, a plot of land with a small, uninhabited building on it, and discover a squatter, or even an abandoned baby, you would not have the right to kill that trespasser. That would be quite an extreme and inappropriate response to such a minor violation. And the inappropriateness would be increased if you had previously taken some sort of action which you knew would result in the trespasser being allowed into the small building.

J

 

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Back when the Charlottesville imbroglio happened, Trump said there were good people on both sides.  The principle of charity should have you interpret him to mean that there were good people on both sides of the statue question.  Not that there are good people among the white supremacists who hijacked the event.  Media attack dogs have been repeating the other interpretation ever since...

Didn't our Carol join in on the repeating the lie that Trump had said that Nazis were good people? Am I remembering that correctly?

And another leftist lie at the time was that Trump "refused to condemn" "those on his side" who had committed violence (despite his having said that he condemned all violence on both sides), and that he even excused the person who used his vehicle as a weapon as having rightfully acted in self-defense. I spent a few days working on convincing a couple of journalist friends that their misinterpretation of that issue was not supported by any facts, that there conclusions were non sequiturs. It was quite a struggle to get them to set aside their emotions and to dispassionately listen to and absorb what I was saying. And even after they understood and finally agreed, they were still resentful and hanging on to their emotional judgments, though I had made at least some headway on that front as well.

TDS is a tough thing for its victims to overcome.

J

 

[Jon Letendre]

 

KKK took my baby away
They took her away
Away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took her away
Away from me

The Ramones.

The Virginia legislature submitted a bill that would allow abortions to occur right up until the moment of delivery—and even beyond if the baby survived the procedure.

Get Politically Incorrect Cartoons Too Shocking To Publish On Our Site

These cartoons have gotten us banned before. See the viral cartoons that 100% trigger liberals and snowflakes.

 

See The Shocking Cartoons

Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam, supported the bill along with his fellow Democrats and feminists who apparently consider babies no more than an assemblage of meaningless molecules. The law didn’t pass, but other abortion lovers in New York loudly applauded the passage of a similar bill in their state. They are now free to butcher innocent lives at will.

GrrrGraphics is Now on SubscribeStar, A free speech supporting alternative to Patreon, Support us there! Click to Join

Then it was revealed that Northam donned a racist costume in high school. He either dressed up in black face or wore a KKK outfit. It remains unclear which one was him, but a photo showing the two on his yearbook page was damning. Why hasn’t it been revealed before? I started thinking it was only revealed now in order to distract from the abortion controversy.

The Illuminati who controls the Deep State loves abortion. The Satanists among them love to torture and kill innocent people and nobody is more innocent than a newborn baby. What’s next, the execution of children because they’re ‘unwanted’ by their parents? Before you laugh at this notion, consider the Illuminati is already trying to carry out the message on their Georgia Guide Stones.

Satanists for some reason like to announce in advance what they’re going to do to us, and they’re doing it right now. They put fluoride in the drinking water and chemtrails in the air. They force their GMO foods on us as well as their vaccines. Have you noticed how anxious they are for us to get jabbed with flu shots? In a child’s first year they recommend over 70 vaccinations. California is making it the ‘law.’ Now some say being against vaccines should be a crime. They want people to lose control over their own bodies.

The next killer will be 5G. Not only will it be used to control minds, it will also fry them. The illuminati don’t want us on ‘their’ planet. They own it. They think they own us. We are their cattle to be culled. If we accept their premise that life is nothing but disconnected matter without meaning, then it will make it all the easier for them to finish us off.

It’s time to stand up for what is right in this world. Common sense tells us that the murder of innocent babies isn’t right and is also horrific.

—Ben Garrison

 

[Jon Letendre]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

In my view, the mother has the right to evict the embryo/fetus/baby, but not to kill it.

Jonathan,

Just to be clear, I am not proposing a right to kill. I am proposing a matter of individual sovereignty where the US government has no jurisdiction. Each woman would establish what rights she would enforce within her own body, even whether the right to life was a right at all.

I don't have to like what they do to their citizens in Somalia, like whether they kill their citizens for apostasy or just because, but I have no sovereignty there. Ditto for the US government. That's the principle I propose.

As to the right to free speech, anyone against abortion would be free to exercise their limits of persuasion communication in the public square, including communication directed at pregnant women who are considering an abortion. Ditto or those pro abortion. May the best persuader win (and without government financing).

I believe cases of abortion would drastically fall under my proposal, the government would have to stop financing it as some kind of "right," women would have the individual power over what happens inside of their own bodies, and people would be free to campaign against abortion as immoral without having to call it a "right." 

What's more, this idiocy of saying that a fetus is not human would be expunged from the discussion.

Faced with the consequences of a few abortions (which will happen under any form of any law anyway--this is as old as humankind itself) and the consequences of setting the legal elites and politicians up as gods to redefine which humans are human and which are not, I'll go with the few abortions and grant sovereignty to the mother since it is her body providing the biological environment for the fetus, not mine.

And that removes the sovereignty of the legal elites and politicians from the equation. 

I think it is easier to persuade individuals than it is a power class.

I don't believe reality offers any other choice for law. It's a matter of who rules over who.

At least, in my formulation, the legal clarity of who decides what and why becomes defined without utopias and eugenics mucking up the legal thinking, and defined based on defining human nature as it exists, not as someone thinks it should be according to some opinion or other.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/1/2016 at 9:04 PM, 9thdoctor said:

... I keep hearing about the David Duke thing, and it isn't fair. 

Dennis,

Hat's off.

 

Thank you for finding that.

Michael