Advice from Lin Wood on Political Action


Recommended Posts

On March 12, 2021, Lin Wood posted a group of comments reflecting on and giving advice about the current political situation in the US.

I've been wanting the last several days to get around to copying those posts.  I think they deserve their own thread.  Here they are:


—-

 

At his request, I met with President Trump in the Oval Office 1 year ago today on March 11, 2020. 

President Trump radiates with a love of country and freedom. It was my honor to meet him in person and shake his hand. 

I told him I thought he was doing God’s will for this country and I would help him in any way I could. 

My words are as true today as they were one year ago. 

President Trump will drain the swamp and Make America Great Again.
33.2KviewsMar 12 at 00:18
 

—-
 
 
Our country is in a state of turmoil, uncertainty, and disunity that at least equals, if not exceeds, the the divisions which led to the Civil War. 

After being complacent for so many years and being almost blindly led by the federal government, We The People allowed Washington, D.C. and many of our state officials to usurp the power recognized by our Founding Fathers to be vested in We The People. 

Is there a plan to regain control of our country so that we again follow the Constitution? Some suggest yes and others say no. If there is a plan, I doubt anyone is going to reveal it to the enemy. If some say there is not a plan, I would ask how do they know that asserted fact to be true?

I have remained loyal to President Trump and plan to continue maintaining that loyalty until and unless proven wrong. I do not believe President Trump turned over the keys to our country to the CCP, the Globalists, and/or the Deep State. I believe Trump is a Patriot. So I continue to urge patience. 

In the meantime, I urge that Patriots begin to reclaim their local governments and build from that base to regain control over their state governments. The governmental entities closest to where you live will always be the most responsive to your views.

Kinda like the decision to take the vaccine. Do your own objective research and then talk to your own health care provider. Make your own informed decision, not one based on blindly following recommendations of federal government “experts.”

Stand on your personal freedom and demand that government officials recognize, not destroy, our country’s freedom.
29.9KviewsMar 12 at 13:37
 

—-
 
Citizens should demand that their local and state officials conduct a valid audit of the November 2020 ballots.

If the election results were illegal or fraudulent, demand a new election. 

Citizens should demand that their local and state officials reject any further use of computer voting machines. Keep it simple and verifiable - insist on voter identification and paper ballots.

If officials are selected in a dishonest election, they have NO right to lead or be in government. Identify them and replace them.

H.R. 1 validates fraudulent elections. Let your state legislators know you will not allow it to be the law of your state. And let your U. S. Senators know that if they vote for it, they will be the ones who soon lose the right to ever vote again as a U.S. Senator.

Exercise your right of free speech and peaceful assembly. If necessary, engage in non-violent civil disobedience.

Do not be intimidated. Fight back lawfully in exercising your fundamental human rights recognized in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. They are our rights. They do not belong to the government. The government did not grant them to us. The government cannot take them away from us.
26.2KviewsMar 12 at 13:47
 

—-
 
 
Wake up and recognize the truth. We are in the midst of a coup intended to overthrow our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We are now being deprived of the following rights and it will only get worse if we do not take all lawful actions to stop and reverse the process:

Right of free speech.
Freedom of religion.
Right of peaceful assembly. 
Right to redress grievances.
Right to a free press.
Right to bear arms.
Right to due process and equal protection. 
Right to counsel of our choice.
Right to confront accusers (and not allow them to wear masks when confronted in a court of law).
Right to a jury trial be a jury of your peers.
STATES’ RIGHTS.

If any government official does not support these rights 100%, recall and replace them.

If judges do not follow the law, inundate the Bar with complaints. Demand they resign or be impeached. 

We must ourselves lawfully act to reclaim our fundamental rights if we are going to reclaim our country.

 
=========
 
Ellen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

e

Ellen, I am puzzled about the deprivation of counsel of your choice. If you choose a lawyer you can,t afford, say, does this mean legal aid should pay for them, or what?

Perplexed alien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

e

Ellen, I am puzzled about the deprivation of counsel of your choice. If you choose a lawyer you can,t afford, say, does this mean legal aid should pay for them, or what?

Perplexed alien

It means, witch hunts against lawyers having particular legal theories based (at least in part) on philosophical or political ideas or beliefs, deprive individuals whose case may depend upon those legal theories, from having any possibility of a fair proceeding before an adjudicator, because strong advocacy for his position has been abrogated.

Were law societies in a "free democracy" to require a yearly solemn affirmation in the rightness and propriety of Affirmative Action, how could a lawyer morally represent a citizen who wanted to overturn Affirmative Action law?  If law societies in religious states disbarred lawyers who proclaim their support for Rights to Abortions, what happens to that right?  and if it were currently illegal, what would happen to the right to challenge the constitutionality of that law if you could not hire a lawyer who would be willing and able to argue your case?

 

Little is as much a threat to the rule of law and democracy as interference with the free practice of law on behalf of citizens wishing to exercise their rights and freedoms before an adjudicator.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Legal theories argued in court with evidence.which show proof  must be considered by the adjudicator to be credible, no matter the basis of  the theory, does not that happen?  Or is the issue about the rules of evidence or what constitutes proof?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good not-so-old OL. I never heard of Lin Wood before today , wrapped in bucolic innocence here in Avonlea.

Who I s the equestrian on his or her website photo, Screaming Lord Sutch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

 Legal theories argued in court with evidence.which show proof  must be considered by the adjudicator to be credible, no matter the basis of  the theory, does not that happen?  Or is the issue about the rules of evidence or what constitutes proof?

 

Sorry, I was almost tempted to repeat myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, caroljane said:

 Legal theories argued in court with evidence.which show proof  must be considered by the adjudicator to be credible, no matter the basis of  the theory, does not that happen?  Or is the issue about the rules of evidence or what constitutes proof?

Carol,

Re the 2020 election fraud, there are two considerations.

1. Legal theories were not argued in court with evidence. What you described did not happen. Cases were filed with evidence, but the judges refused to look at them. They used a series of subterfuges to not look, too. Mostly they claimed the plaintiffs did not have standing to present the case. My favorite, and I forget the state, was that in a case filed before the election, the court said it couldn't hear it because the election had not happened yet. So the case was filed again after the election and the court said it was too late. The election had already happened. :) (This really took place.)

Lin Wood and others who know the ins and outs of all these technicalities managed to get their cases go all the way up to the Supreme Court without ANY court having looked at the evidence. Finally, SCOTUS said about one of Sidney Powell's cases that her client had no standing and threw it out. But SCOTUS must have not liked the backlash since it threw out the rest of her cases along with that of Lin Wood without comment. In no instance did any court look at the evidence.

The only legal theory that was actually argued in court, as opposed to presented in filings, was whether a person could present a case. 

That might seem impossible, but look at the cases. In only two minor instances a local court actually considered the evidence for a small region. There has been gobs and gobs of money spent by the cheaters to get the rulings from those two small cases somehow nullified.

But more and more, local legislatures have started getting involved, and in the Constitution, only state legislatures can set the rules for elections in their respective states. That means more is on the way.

This is why the election fraud issue does not leave the mainstream fake news. It's why they are trying to blame it all on QAnon and stuff like that. If a real threat to the election heist did not exist, they would simply bury all news about it like they did with pedophilia in the upper classes for decades.

(Apropos, that is no longer working and top people have been falling hard over their penchant for sex with kids. The press is forced to report it these days when it blows up, but it buries the specific cases as soon as the press can get away with it, which is generally within a day or two.)

2. The issue is NOT what constitutes as proof. The issue is what constitutes who can use the courts. The courts are afraid to look at the evidence because the judges know the requirements for proof have been met--and that's just one issue. These judges don't want to suffer the assault on their families and so on if they look at the evidence and rule on it according to the law. Not to mention the judges who are compromised and blackmailed...

Note, these judges can't rule against the law to satisfy their personal safety concerns because a higher court will have to overturn the ruling if evidence that meets all legal requirements is ruled on, so they simple refuse to issue rulings on the evidence by fudging and tying up the cases and ruling, instead, on procedural technicalities that bar them from looking at evidence.

It's a racket and this is an important moment in American history. Without the violence, this is taking on the gravity to the government of the Civil War. We will see whether the American form of checks and balances is robust enough to survive. If it isn't, the American government will turn into a banana republic ruled by a despot, or better, a despotic oligarchy. I, for one, believe it will survive. But it's not a quick process since the resistance is so entrenched. In practice, checks and balances was never meant to be easy.

btw - You won't get any of this stuff in the fake news media. But facts are facts and they don't go away by being ignored. Not even in the courts.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, caroljane said:

 Legal theories argued in court with evidence.which show proof  must be considered by the adjudicator to be credible, no matter the basis of  the theory, does not that happen?  Or is the issue about the rules of evidence or what constitutes proof?

 

If you are wondering if there are court proceedings that might illustrate what happened to, say, one of the "Kraken" filings, here's a Law & Crime article from last December that offers links to particulars:

Wisconsin Federal Judge Picks Apart Sidney Powell and Lin Wood’s Lawsuit in ‘Brutal’ Order

Some folks thought it was hilarious ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even look at Marc Elias.

He's the equivalent of a mob lawyer and is corrupt to the gills.

Besides, he recently got sanctioned by the  Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over legal misbehavior in a case in Texas about the 2020 election.

Trying to introduce Marc Elias as just as valid as Lin Wood is like making an equivalence between Jeffrey Epstein and Gandhi.

Ick...

As to Law & Crime articles, I have found way too many anti-Trump adjectives in them where nouns indicating facts should be to consider that outlet as anything but hack media (that is, propaganda). This lack of integrity has been consistent over the years in the materials I have looked at over there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, wow.  O.f course this is just one case, but based on it, it looks like the dyna mic duo are calling for equal access to a trial for lawyers who don,t know or don,t care about court procedure...a kind of .legal Equal Opportunity mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trying to introduce Marc Elias as just as valid as Lin Wood is [...]

[The legal sin of Marc Elias, as reported by Law & Crime:

Federal Appellate Court Sanctions Democratic Election Attorney for Filing a ‘Redundant and Misleading’ Motion]

... as for the Wisconsin judgement noted above ... 

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/486701367/Wisconsin-Order

The full set of proceedings is lengthy:

wisconsinKraken.png

The order to dismiss has a lot of background or narrative told by the judge. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18702085/feehan-v-wisconsin-elections-commission/

Here's more of L Lin Wood's "whistleblower" ... of whom he has said:

Quote

"I have met this whistleblower on multiple occasions and have found him to be kind, sharp, and extremely credible. He has seen the underbelly of the American regime. I wish I could introduce you all to him, but so many people want him dead.
It’s a travesty."

And:

Quote

You can judge for yourself whether the claims of the whistleblower must be investigated by law enforcement. I spent several days with him. I am convinced a thorough law enforcement investigation is demanded.

"Judge for yourself"! 

Edited by william.scherk
Added some more context, background, links & details
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epstein and Gandhi? Michael we are talking about two lawyers here fighting a political battle. Well, three if you drag Gandhi into it, but surely he suffered enough when he was alive.    Clarence Darrow and Roy Cohn, I could see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Clarence Darrow and Roy Cohn, I could see.

Carol,

Not even close.

Elias is a fixer. A more competent version of Michael Cohen, but morally far more corrupted. And that's saying a lot because Cohen is a moral slimeball.

Clarence Darrow, Roy Cohn, and Lin Wood all have one thing in common. They all sincerely believe (or believed) in what they are (were) doing. They are all characterized by a vision of trying to make the world a better place.

Elias and Cohen aim at cheating, gaming the system, embezzling and so on. That's their view of the law and of being successful. Their thing is money, power and sex--for their clients and for themselves--at all costs.

It's a character thing.

Don't believe me? Here's just one example. Elias was Clinton's bag man who paid for the phony Russian dossier on Trump that claimed he hired hookers to piss on a mattress the Obamas, it claimed, slept on. Pure garbage and he knew it. But he funneled millions of dollars for it anyway and covered it up. Don't get me started on human trafficking and the Clinton foundation, all nice and smokescreened up due to the efforts of one Marc Elias and his firm, Perkins Coie. That's just scratching the surface.

William has a hankering for Elias for some damn reason. Morally slumming. And he likes it. That's his choice. Hell, I'm no saint, though. I used to smoke crack cocaine and, at times, lie my ass off to very good people to get drug money. Thank God I moved on. Each person has his or her own time to move on. It's their life, not mine. And, tragically, many run out of time...

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, caroljane said:

Er, Cohn was disbarred for defrauding.g a dying client. An example of what he believed in?

Carol,

As you said in a different context, we are not talking about the same thing.

Cohn did have a sin, but fighting dirty against power-hungry people who fight dirty is not one of them. His sin was his war on homosexuals while he, himself, was a homosexual. There is no moral excuse for that. The only thing positive was that he went up against adults, not children.

He has been portrayed as power-hungry, but that was not his thing. He fought the power-hungry and was effective. He helped remove from power and destroy those he deemed were bad for freedom. That was because he was moved by adherence to a higher vision, not by sleaze.

(It's the difference between strategy and tactics. He used dirty tricks as a tactic at times, but his strategy was to keep communists out of power. The left always get strategy and tactics wrong when they speak in public.)

Compare that against scumbags like Marc Elias. His thing is that he protects elitist pedophiles as a racket, not because he's conflicted or believes adults torturing and abusing kids is something that makes for a better world. He does it for the money and privilege. If the people who give him money and privilege were into genocide, he would work to protect the killers. Every evil dictatorship is full of lawyers like him.

Also, disbarment is not a proper standard of ethics. It's a standard of adherence to power. Belonging to the bar does not make a lawyer moral. There's a reason lawyer jokes exist. Lawyers are permitted, and even encouraged, to lie to their clients--and hell, the public in general--all they are not permitted to lie to particular people in the ruling class. That's a no-no for the bar. They can even lie to some judges (just look at the FISA stuff), but not others.

Bill Clinton's disbarment would be an interesting case to look at through this lens. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Since you have brought it up, Michael, you must know that his penchant for very young men, his mob ties and efficacy as Trump's fixer make him more akin in many people,s eyes, including mine, to Epstein than Elias.

I find it hard to believe he had any morals, in his political views or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

  Since you have brought it up, Michael, you must know that his penchant for very young men, his mob ties and efficacy as Trump's fixer make him more akin in many people,s eyes, including mine, to Epstein than Elias.

I find it hard to believe he had any morals, in his political views or anything else.

Carol,

I expect that from you.

From everything I've seen you write, you have no idea what life looks like through the eyes of people like Trump supporters. I imagine you think it looks the vision through your own eyes, that they see life like you do, and they are simply too stupid to know they are hypocrites, deluded, etc. etc. etc. Obviously, unlike the people you admire. Huh?

Jonathan Haidt has studied this perspective thing very carefully. Look him up. He's academic. He's science. He's one of the "superior" kind of person elitists hold up as one of their own.

The results from his experiments show that conservative people (not the elitist conservatives, but ones like Trump supporters) are very good at understanding the views of liberals and other people. But liberals (the elitist kind) suck at understanding the views of anyone but them.

The science is settled.

:evil: 

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I expect that from you.

From everything I've seen you write, you have no idea what life looks like through the eyes of people like Trump supporters. I imagine you think it looks the the vision through your own eyes, that they see life like you do, and they are simply too stupid to know they are hypocrites, deluded, etc. etc. etc. Obviously, unlike the people you admire. Huh?

Jonathan Haidt has studied this perspective thing very carefully. Look him up. He's academic. He's science. He's one of the "superior" kind of person elitists hold up as one of their own.

The results from his experiments show that conservative people (not the elitist conservatives, but ones like Trump supporters) are very good at understanding the views of liberals and other people. But liberals (the elitist kind) suck at understanding the views of anyone but them.

The science is settled.

:evil: 

Michael

 

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

I expect that from you.

From everything I've seen you write, you have no idea what life looks like through the eyes of people like Trump supporters. I imagine you think it looks the the vision through your own eyes, that they see life like you do, and they are simply too stupid to know they are hypocrites, deluded, etc. etc. etc. Obviously, unlike the people you admire. Huh?

Jonathan Haidt has studied this perspective thing very carefully. Look him up. He's academic. He's science. He's one of the "superior" kind of person elitists hold up as one of their own.

The results from his experiments show that conservative people (not the elitist conservatives, but ones like Trump supporters) are very good at understanding the views of liberals and other people. But liberals (the elitist kind) suck at understanding the views of anyone but them.

The science is settled.

:evil: 

Michael

And I would expect this from you.  I mentioned Jonathan Haidt on here years ago, and admire him greatly. His findings are no doubt correct. I am glad that you (and Ipresume  Haidt) don't consider all liberals as de facto elitist.Yet you have decided how I see life, according to the simple conventional wisdom of the right - other people are either superior or inferior to me, and I look down on those inferior. Maybe I hate them. Anyway, I hate freedom and don't want anybody to have any.

It is no use telling you that the facts of my life and loves and mind do not conform to your ideas because you understand what I think and feel, more than I do.  You know better.  Right?

Politically we are mirror images and maybe you are my better half, but I don't think so because I can't feel so, and neither can you.

Anyway, back to Cohn,isn't "fighting dirty against those who fight dirty"  based on the principle that the end justifies the means if your cause is just. What about a fair fight?

fi()

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, caroljane said:

Since you have brought it up, Michael, you must know...

Carol,

Here is what I know. When I discuss Cohn, I openly mention his shortcomings. I have yet to see you dwell on the shortcomings of people like Marc Elias.

From the way I see life, which is different than the way you do (based on your last couple of posts alone), I place more importance on what someone does as opposed to what someone says.

You talk a good game about insinuating that you are objective, fair, etc., but your actions do not show it. Your actions show that you believe sleaze only happens outside your tribe, even when someone inside your tribe is provably an enormous sleazeball.

So if Cohn gets disbarred, in Carol-speak, that's proof that Cohn is immoral. If Bill Clinton gets disbarred, that's simply not something one talks about. It's just not done.

If Lin Wood loses a case, that's reason to throw out insinuations about his competence and even laugh about him not knowing court procedure and on and on (even though he is super-competent at it, enough to get his cases in front of the Supreme Court). And, as an aside, he has difficulties with his equestrian abilities, being from the South and all.  The fact that the courts refuse to look at evidence of election fraud despite countless filings and mentions of proper procedure mentioned in the very cases, and this favors your tribe, well, this is something one just does not talk about. 

I can go on and on and on.

You don't like being told what you think. Yet during the lead up to Trump's 2016 election win, how many times did I say (in light of constant mockery and being told what people like me think) that I exist?

Even after 80 million (probably over 100 million) people like me come out and vote, people like you still tell us what we really think. And they can prove it with gotchas (words), even though the deeds prove otherwise. Well, deeds are something we just don't talk about. Right? Principles are simply word games. Principles have nothing to do with nonverbal observed reality. Right?

You're not the only one who does this. But the gross exaggerations, misbehavior and crimes, outright lies, etc., of the people in your tribe who do... well, that's just something we don't talk about...

But we can talk about the shortcomings of the little people all day long. We just don't call them little people. They are, but calling them that hurts their feelings...

That schtick got real old to people like me.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, caroljane said:

Do you consider yourself an elite conservative?

Carol,

Can't you read?

I say over and over that I hold "elite conservatives" are part of the problem.

Yet you ask this.

Use your eyes, not just the stories in your head. You might see a little reality and it might surprise you.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Carol's post copied from a different thread. I think she goofed. :) )

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

I must apologize for in fact not having  read your over and over posts on elite conservatives, or I forgot them .  I am over a century old, after all.

 I did not know, because I didn't check, that in. fact there was a recognized class of elite right wing conservatives. I do know that you can read also, so you might have noticed I  asked about an elite conservative, which I imagined as a loose class of top thinkers and activists. I didn't say elitist, which is the kind of liberal you imagine me to be.

Miss Spruce

Mrs Roper's Superior Boarding Establishment, Burton Street, London W1

Carol,

The Lincoln Project, made up of elitist anti-Trump Republicans, was shot through and through with pedophiles, embezzlers, etc. All this recently came out in the mainstream news. And I have been trashing them for a long, long time. Not for being anti-Trump, which, I admit, I did not like. But for being ruling class elitist assholes who were morally bankrupt.

I think those people are vile.

Apropos, speaking of vile, here is a story for your eternal silence.

Milwaukee County Judge Brett Blomme arrested, faces charges of possession of child pornography

I bolded a few things.

Quote

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Brett Blomme was arrested Tuesday on tentative charges of possession of child pornography, the state Department of Justice announced.

Blomme, 38, was taken into custody by special agents with the state Division of Criminal Investigation "following an investigation into multiple uploads of child pornography through a Kik messaging application account in October and November 2020," according to a statement.

UPDATE:Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett expresses 'complete surprise' at arrest of Judge Brett Blomme on tentative child porn charges

Criminal charges are expected to be filed against Blomme on Wednesday. He was arrested in Dane County. 

A 44-page search warrant filed Friday by a DCI special agent said investigators found Blomme, using the name "dommasterbb," uploaded 27 videos and images containing child pornography. Two of the files were uploaded at a Milwaukee County government building, the search warrant said.

The special agent sought permission to search Blomme's courtroom, chambers, houses in Milwaukee and Dane counties and his 2017 Audi. Blomme is currently assigned to Milwaukee County Children's Court.

. . .

Blomme was elected to the court in the spring 2020 election, defeating incumbent Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Dedinsky, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Scott Walker. 

Before being elected, Blomme was the head of the board of zoning appeals for the City of Milwaukee, appointed to the post by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, and head of the Cream City Foundation, which provides grant money to LGBTQ groups in the Milwaukee area. 

A longtime LGBTQ activist...

. . .

He ran as a liberal challenger to a conservative Walker appointee. 

"I'm the progressive alternative," he said during the campaign.

Notice that this progressive judge is a pedophile in charge of children's justice. How's that for icing on the shit-cake? He was ruling over children's affairs. And there's this. He wasn't nailed for downloading child porn. He was nailed for UPLOADING it under a pseudonym, i.e, sharing it with his pedo-buddies. He was so comfortable, he used government facilities to upload this stuff, which, btw, is any number of crimes.

Some judge, huh?

Now, do you have anything you would ever spontaneously say about this? That is, without being called out like I am doing right now?

As a liberal, you have empathy, right? You care where others do not. 

Do you have any thoughts about--or empathy for--the children whose lives got destroyed doing that child porn? Just so perverts like Blomme can have a grand old time with his buddies?

Any empathy at all?

Or are you wincing at my use of the term "pervert"?

I have no doubt if you had discovered this article on your own, there would be nothing but silence coming from you about it. For all eternity. Why? Because Blomme is on your political team. And that means he's inherently superior irrespective of his ickiness. After all, progressives care. They care and care and care. Oh, do they care. That's the foundation of their moral superiority. I mean, children in cages by old meany Trump, etc... (sobbing) The poor, poor children...

But Blomme. Well, that's just not something one talks about...

btw - This kind of bust is not rare... One should talk about it. But, hey. Reality isn't important in moral dominance hierarchies, huh?

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Another post by Carol on a cryptocurrency thread, but dealing with the topic here. Come on, Carol. You can do it right. I have faith in you. :) )

29 minutes ago, caroljane said:

How did my last post get into this thread? I hardly know what paper money looks like, never mind crypto.

One of my favourite gospel tunes is"If you don't love your eighbour you Don't Love God." If you want to get a correct idea into someone else's differently-abled head besides mine, you might start with Atlanta's Christian Sex addicted community. One of them hates women much more than he loves God.  spread the word.

Carol,

Why START there? 

Oh... Of course... I forgot. The goober-beans-looking sex pervert killing Asian women in Atlanta means all religious Southerners are misogynists, right? (That's the narrative subtext.)

btw - Is there anybody up in Canada who is religious and fucked-up? Of for that matter, not religious and fucked-up?

Are Canadians fucked-upless? Are they immune to fucked-upery?

For example, does murder happen in Canada? Murder among progressives? Or misogyny? 

If it does, somehow, I never hear about it. Ever.

Why no narrative subtext?

I wonder why, I wonder...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now