I just saw this on TWITTER and it brought to mind another documentary from the mid-90s, but first this short video:
Geomorphology of a river: what happens when you install a dam or a weir and how the sediment transport changes [full video + full explanation here: https://t.co/cjyB0k8UXu] pic.twitter.com/L47YsqCCcJ
This reminded me of the following video many years ago (1994? 1995?). This newer video from Twitter is playing decades old catch up and it’s impact on geological dating [the above video and below] are enormous.
(YOU CAN CHANGE THE RESOLUTION MODE IN THE SETTING FUNCTION IN THE VIDEO)
The principle of superposition requires that superposed strata in sedimentary rocks form from successive layers of sediments. The principle of continuity asserts that each layer has the same age at any point. These principles apply a relative chronology to superposed strata. The correlation between strata and time allowed Charles Lyell to establish the first geologic column in 1830.
From his examination of sediments in the Gulf of Naples in Italy a century ago, Johannes Walther, one of the founders of sedimentology, formulated his law of correlation of facies: “As with biotopes it is a basic statement of far-reaching significance that only those facies areas can be superposed primarily which can be observed beside each other at the present time”. Walther’s law, which gave rise to the modern sequential analysis of facies, is not in agreement with the principles of superposition and continuity. His law, as well as the observations of the Bijou-Creek deposits, suggested that the contradiction might be due to the belief that superposed strata are the same as successive layers.
The author’s first experiments on lamination and those performed at the Colorado State University in large flumes showed that stratification under a continuous supply of heterogeneous sand particles can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded beds, and desiccation for bedding plane partings.
In the flume experiments superposed strata were always distinct from successive layers, and neither the principle of superposition nor the principle of continuity applied to the strata.
Due to the mechanical nature of segregation and the presence of sediments and non-uniform flow in oceans and rivers being the same factors producing strata formation in the flume, the experimental results might have some application to the genesis of stratified rocks.
As the experiments cast doubt upon the use of the principles of superposition and continuity for interpreting the origin of sedimentary rocks, it would perhaps be preferable to follow the modern approach of sequential analysis, although on a larger scale. Such an approach should necessarily take into account the present series of experiments.
(See Guy Berthault’s PDFpresentation, also, ICR’s later article HERE)
You never hear the Left denounce Europe or renounce their citizenship to Europe (or whatever European country they are from):
Are abortion laws more conservative in America or in Western Europe? Would a pregnant woman seeking an abortion have an easier time getting one in Texas or in…Germany? The answers, as talk show host Elisha Krauss explains, may just change how you think about America’s abortion laws.
….You had radical left-wing pro-abortion groups threatening violence in the streets – and carrying through in some instances. Democratic members of Congress like Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) urged their supporters to get “into the streets” and “fight” in “defiance” of the ruling, using inflammatory rhetoric we’ve been assured over the last 18 months or so was designed to deliberately “incite” political extremists to commit violence.
And then there have been the unhinged celebrity responses, as predictable as they usually are, including the one from actor Samuel L. Jackson, who stupidly and ignorantly tweeted “How’s Uncle Clarence feeling about Overturning Loving v Virginia??!!” – apparently not realizing that SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni is white.
Another celebrity who made headlines over the weekend for their sizzling hot take on Roe v. Wade being overruled was “Green Day” frontman and California native Billy Joe Armstrong, who told a London crowd during a Friday performance that he was renouncing his American citizenship in an expletive-filled rant where he trashed America:
“F— America, I’m f—ing renouncing my citizenship,” the “American Idiot” singer told the crowd. “I’m f—ing coming here.”
“There’s just too much f—ing stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f—ing excuse for a country,” Armstrong added. “Oh, I’m not kidding. You’re going to get a lot of me in the coming days.”
Armstrong continued berating the U.S. during his band’s show in Huddersfield, England the following day, saying “f— the Supreme Court of America” and calling its justices “pricks,” according to the Daily Mail.
I thought this was funny and have to kick off this long post with a hat-tip to LIBS OF TIC-TOC FANS for it:
I was elated when the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey. I first heard it was a 6-3 decision, but Clay and Buck dissect that a bit on their show. So it was really a 5-4 split. What a Justice Warrior that wimp is. The first thing I thought of however… was my use of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996) case to make a larger point — which now has to be amended a bit to say this is the goal of the progressive Left, rather than law… law. Here is an excerpt from my post WHAT “IS” FASCISM?
(Originally posted in August 2007 on my old blog; brought here originally in May, 2010; Updated April, 2015)
Agree or Not?
This is a combination of two posts, the first was a question I posed to someone in a forum. Below you see what that question was and where I led that person. The second is a bit of political science. Both repeat some of the same idea, but both are different.
So let’s highlight the first question by a court case that has, well, institutionalized the “post-modern” society. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), the 9th District Appeals Court wrote:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
In other words, whatever you believe is your origin, and thus your designating meaning on both your life and body is your business, no one else’s. If you believe that the child growing in you – no matter at what stage (Doe v. Bolton) – isn’t a child unless you designate it so. You alone can choose to or not choose to designate life to that “fetus”. It isn’t a “potential person” until you say it is first a person. Understand? That being clarified, do you agree with this general statement:
“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”
Sounds really close to the 9th Courts majority view doesn’t it. The above is basically saying that your opinion is just as valid as another persons opinion because both are yours and the other persons perspective on something is formed from influences from your culture and experiences. So someone from New Guiney may have a differing view or opinion on eating dogs than an American.
Let’s compare a portion from both statements:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life…”
“…the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”
Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter. Your reality is just that… your reality, or opinion, or personal dogma. I want to now complete one of the quotes that I left somewhat edited, not only that, but I want to ask you if you still agree with it after you find out who wrote it.
Ready?
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Here are some highlights to a conversation I had with an 18-year old.
Another response I followed up on the heels of this is that Democrats now believe men can give birth as well as menstruate. They couple this idea with men cannot “tell” a woman what ta do with their body regarding abortion… why?
Dem Witness Tells House Committee Men Can Get Pregnant, Have Abortions
The White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding, prompting ridicule Monday from President Joe Biden’s conservative critics…. The pro-choice nonprofit NARAL defended use of the term, tweeting, “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.” (NEWSWEEK)
This young man mentioned the it (the baby) is not it’s own person, to which I noted: different blood type, different DNA, brain waves, heart beat, fingerprints, and the like. Conversation turned to how the law should equally be applied to all people. I steered it to the idea that if a pregnant woman is violently attacked and her baby is killed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder. Life is precious if she was planning to have a baby. Or, an hour earlier the same woman could walk into a clinic and agree to have a doctor kill her baby. This is the only case I know of where the woman can decide “what life ‘is’ and if a criminal act has taken place.”
Then I brought up the racial aspect of abortion, via the founder of Planned Parenthood, and my recent response [that day] to the SCV NAACP’s post about Roe being overturned:
The linked video in my post is this one:
This youngster had some misunderstandings of babies being adopted versus put into orphanages.
Larry recalls a conversation with Gloria Allred where she mentioned that abortion is supported by the “penumbra” of the Constitution: “the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.” Lol.
RPTs ANSWER RESOURCE
IT IS A HUMAN LIFE ~ THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS DEBATE
➡ Again, aside from religious arguments – biology and medical expertise put the conception of human life at conception (WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN)
NOT A RELIGIOUS CAUSE
➡ I showed some well-known atheists who get the importance of this idea as well (they are students of history… and one of these people in the video is my favorite atheist polemicist ~ Christopher Hitchens):
BIBLE
➡ The Bible clearly view the baby in the womb as human:
WOMEN’S RIGHT
➡ I posted a video of one of a few women who are survivors of abortion:
…it should be noted when Obama was Senator he voted to pass legislation that would allow doctors to take such babies and place them on a table to die from lack of care and food…
DEVALUED LIFE
➡ …In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. (for more info see: THIS DAY CHOOSE LIFE <<< CAUTION-GRAPHIC)
➡ A 2008 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 33.1% of women have at some point considered adoption. Of that number 4.9% were currently seeking adoptions. That’s 901,000 women looking for babies. By most recent statistics, there are approximately 129,000 children seeking adoption. Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not. It seems that if we killed less of our children, this would not be a problem. Shoot, even if we take the women who were currently seeking adoptions AND had already begun taking steps – 560,000 – there aren’t enough children to go around.
(An aside: someone does not have to adopt in order to speak to all these issues)
RAPE
➡ In a very powerful DVD 22 people are interviewed that either were given birth to by a mother who was raped and chose life over the horrible crime as well as some in the presentation who are mothers talking about why they chose life (here are descriptions of a couple DVDs. I noted on my site as well Rebecca Kiessling’s story of being conceived from a rape:
PUSHING MORALITY
➡ “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?” Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows youto-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people. ~ See the rest of this conversationHERE.
Discussions and Afterthoughts
I wish to start the conversation off with a quote from our Founding Documents:
The Declaration of Independence: The Declaration of Independence states that our unalienable rights are, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of our magnificent nation, reinforces this American creed by the fourteenth amendment; “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The first unalienable right is life. As a result, the unborn have the right to life. To deny it to them is not only morally wrong, but also anti-American. It is anti-American in the sense that by supporting abortion, one is also going against the Declaration of Independence. Prenatal humans are still human beings since the moment of conception, and so they have the same right to life as the humans that are already born. It is hypocritical that human beings after birth deny the right to prenatal human beings, since the humans after birth get to exercise their right to life. The prenatal human beings have the same right, and so, they should be allowed to exercise their right to life.
The second unalienable right is liberty. Many people that are pro-choice states that it is the freedom of the woman that is pregnant to decide whether to abort the child or not. They arguethat since it is her body, she should have the right to choose. It is contradictory to this idea of liberty, for the unborn child does not have a say in the matter, and as a result, it is against the liberty of the unborn child. The moment a woman becomes pregnant is the moment that the body of the woman is no longer only hers, for there is life in her womb. Another aspect of abortion as a threat to liberty is that the government classifies prenatal humans as not human, just like in the case of slavery, in which slaves were not considered humans, and so the slaver masters that were considered humans were given the right by the government to treat the slaves however they wished. To permit abortion is equivalent to permit slavery, for prenatal humans are still humans. If one understands that slavery was wrong, one must also understand that abortion is wrong.
The third unalienable right is the Pursuit of Happiness. Abortion is against this right as well, for the unborn child was denied the right to pursue his or her happiness. How will he or she be able to pursue happiness if he or she was already murdered by the process of abortion? Prenatal human beings have the right to happiness, just as human beings that are already born do.Another aspect of abortion that threatens this right is that many of women that chose abortion start regretting their decision and as a result, start feeling depressed. These women thought that abortion would help them solve their problem, but instead, it hurts them internally in the long run. In short, abortion is a threat to happiness, and if Americans want to pursue happiness, they must abolish abortion.
The purpose of our government is to secure these three unalienable rights. However, when the government allows for abortion, they are not securing these rights. Roe v. Wade, which was a 1973 Supreme Decision holding that that a state ban on all abortions was unconstitutional, is a decision that is going against these three rights. If one truly understands the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of this country, one will be against abortion, for it threatens the country’s basis. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence is a pro-life document since the moment it became ratified.
This leads into a conversation with someone from Australia that apparently does not get the idea that the only reason the law need step in in this issue is to protect life… and this is the main point of the above points in the post. Our Constitution says we cannot own another person. So the topic is is the baby in the mother’s womb, human. This is what was said immediately after the post:
“is it a human life” is absolutely NOT the only question in this debate- and this is what I mean about people wanting to make this a black and white issue when it clearly isn’t.
I responded:
(Question after explaining Being)
Besides all the well argued points in the links about medical textbooks, biology, atheists, etc. ….
Another argument I personally like is the argument from “being.” This is a complex issue and is intimately tied up in some forms of the cosmological argument (example: Kalam Cosmological Argument ~ History and Argument).
Being. Traditionally the most important philosophical category, the term is derived from the Greek ontos; hence the area of philosophy that deals with it is called ontology. In ancient and medieval thought it was a fundamental category. In Hegel it is the starting point of all the categories. Recognition of the importance of the term as pivotal to all serious philosophical discussion continues today and has been developed by Heidegger and many others. ~ (Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, by Geddes MacGregor)
Being is a subject-matter of ontology. According to a long tradition, there are kinds of being and modes of being. The kinds of being may be subdivided in various ways: for instance, into universals and particulars and into concrete beings and abstract beings. Another term for “being” in this sense is “entity” or “thing.” in a second sense, being is what all real entities possess – in other words, existence. Being in this second sense has various modes. Thus the being of concrete physical objects is spatio-temporal while that of abstract mathematical entities like numbers is eternal and non-spatial. Again, the being of some entities (for instance, qualities) is logically dependent upon that of others, whereas the being of substances is logically dependent.
Connected with some of these traditional categorical distinctions are certain grammatical distinctions concerning the verb “to be.” the use of “is” as a copula may be interpreted in a variety of ways. “This ring is yellow” features the “is” of attribution, since it ascribes a quality to a substantial particular. “This ring is golden” involves the “is” of constitution, as it states what kind of material that particular is made of. “The ring is my grandmother’s wedding-ring” features the is of identity. Finally, “This object is a ring” involves the “is” of instantiation, since it states what kind of thing the object in question is an instance of. Thus, although being yellow, being golden, being my grandmother’s wedding-ring, and being a ring are all properties of this ring, they are properties of very different natures. Moreover, none of these properties constitutes the being of this ring, in the sense of constitution its existence. “This ring is (exists)” apparently involves a sense of “is” distinct from any which in which “is” functions merely as a copula.
What is it to be a being or entity? Here we must distinguish between the question what it is for an entity of any given kind to exist and the question what is the distinguishing feature of entityhood…. In a special, restricted sense the term “being” is commonly used to denote a subject of consciousness (or self), and thus a kind of entity to be contrasted with mere “objects.” Such entities are often supposed to enjoy a special mode of being inasmuch as they are conscious of their own existence and posses a capacity freely to determine its course – a vie elaborated in the existentialist doctrine that, for such entities, “existence precedes essence” (Sartre). ~ (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich)
Three features of the argument are central. First, proponents must spell out what it is to be a dependent being; this is done by appealing to what is called the essence/existence distinction. A beings essence is its whatness or nature and its existence is its thatness (that it is). Proponents argue that one cannot move from a finite thing’s essence to its existence. By contemplating Fido’s dogness it does not follow that Fido really exists. If he does exist, being must be given to his essence. ~ (Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity, by J. P. Moreland)
Can you refer to yourself in your mother’s womb without using personal pronouns? Were you less of a person (having “being”) in the
Right out of the box I get this:
So are you also anti-war and anti-death penalty Sean?
The death penalty and war are based on persons who are not innocent. The baby in the womb has not killed anyone.
Clear enough… a thinking person would have connected the idea that the analogy breaks down, and maybe they would get into another topic? Nope.
You don’t think innocent people ever die in wars? You don’t believe innocent people have ever been put to death for crimes they didn’t commit?
I’ll take that as a “no, I am not anti those things”. Ok. So the issue is not whether or not it is a “person” then, you can NOT say that is the only issue.
There were over 20,000 innocent people that were said to die in the days and weeks of D-Day. Are these deaths due to the allies, or Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, and the like?
My point has been made.
Someone else chimes in:
No it has not
You can NOT say the issue is ONLY if they are people or not because you are ok with SOME people dying, even some innocent people. You just said it!
The person is missing the idea that the only time our founding documents would [read here, should] kill the innocent fetus is if the mother is going to die, like in a tubal pregnancy where in which the fetus develops in a fallopian tube. LIFE is the only issue in this… in this case the life of the mother is more important than the life of the baby in the womb… LIKE collateral damage in war. Wanting to pursue educational goals without the encumbrance of pregnancy is NOT a LIFE question. Continuing to comment on the previous response: “My point has been made.”
You haven’t made one… if you think you have — well — I don’t know whether to laugh or wag-my-head.
REMEMBER THIS NEXT SENTENCE!
Perhaps I should find more intelligent people to discuss this with.
I am willing to have an open discussion- you just want to declare you are always right and proselytize. Pointless.
Going to continue on the point the person thought they made and was done with…
So the allies are to blame for innocent deaths stemming from D-Day?
The person notes they are from Australia:
I don’t know. I have not studies American history, I am not American.
Dodge One
Are you claiming innocent people NEVER die in wars at the hands of the “good guys” (who ever they may be)?
Are you denying that innocent men and women have been put to death for crimes they did not commit?
Please answer these 2 questions directly.
The normal person would know that I already have, but I will try and re-word it, re-explain it for her:
Australia was an Allie. Do you think the innocent people Aussies killed in WWII were their fault or Germany’s, Italy’s, and Japan’s?
Probably Australians, if they fired the guns.
Now please answer my questions.
Sorry, The onus is on the evil guys.
By “onus” I mean the loss of innocent life in a war is the blame of the tyrants, dictators, and persons who think themselves deity.
Should we stop all court proceedings because once-in-a-while cases are decided wrong?
I am just following your logic to its conclusion.
I did not claim that did I? Why can you not answer a direct question? It’s so bloody annoying.
I have.
ALL babies are innocent,
ALL people killed in wars are not innocent [if they are they arecollateral damage, and the blame is on the tyrants, dictators, and persons who think themselves deity.],
nor are ALL the people on death row innocent.
The analogies you are attempting is a non-sequitur.
Keep in mind as the conversation progresses there are multiple points being responded to. So I talked about following ideas to their logical conclusions, which is the first response. The second was my repeating the same thing in a different way which finally clicked as a response to her question.
So we should just lock up all women who try to have abortions, I’m just following your logic to its conclusions” See how that shit gets us nowhere? Do you want a discussion or do you just want to be able to prance around in front of your son and tell him how right you always are?
No, you had not answered it, thank you for finally doing so.
I make the point that her contention about jailing mothers is not the position of ANY pro-lifer:
No, if abortion is made illegal (which will not happen), doctors would lose their license and/or be fined.
I did not deal with this myth, or, how abortion clinics are not run safely “above ground.” Women die in these clinics all the time because of lack of regulation. But the “coat hanger/back-alley” abortion thing is a myth. But here I will post a quick response:
…While preparing the League’s handbook, Sharing the Pro-Life Message, my staff and I searched high and low for evidence of an abortion ever having been performed with a coat hanger. We found none.
That isn’t to say it never happened. We know that women did attempt to do abortions on themselves, using all manner of objects. But I never found any specific evidence of a coat hanger abortion—until now.
Who Gave Her the Idea of Aborting Herself with an Coat Hanger? What’s unusual about this case of a confirmed coat hanger abortion is that it isn’t one from the archives. It happened in 2009.
I came across the story in an article in Slate on women who decide to perform their own (illegal) abortions, despite the ready availability of legal abortion.
An account of the case says a 19-year-old woman pregnant with twins attempted to abort herself with a coat hanger and ended up in the emergency room. The babies died and the woman required a hysterectomy; she will never bear children….
“If abortion is made illegal, tens of thousands of women will again die from back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.”
For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys.
It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized.
The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women.
Women still die from legal abortions in America.
If abortion became illegal, abortions would be done with medical equipment, not clothes hangers.
We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous.
The central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion.
“Abortion is a safe medical procedure—safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.”
Abortion is not safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.
Though the chances of a woman’s safe abortion are now greater, the number of suffering women is also greater because of the huge increase in abortions.
Even if abortion were safer for the mother than childbirth, it would still remain fatal for the innocent child.
Abortion can produce many serious medical problems.
Abortion significantly raises the rate of breast cancer.
The statistics on abortion complications and risks are often understated due to the inadequate means of gathering data.
The true risks of abortion are rarely explained to women by those who perform abortions.
What the left here in the states want to do is not allow the states (per the Constitutional rights states have) to put limits on abortions. For instance:
Seriously, my ONLY point was that you need to stop claiming that the only issue in the debate is “are they human”, because that’s a bullshit argument and it is patently false. There are multiple other issues at hand.
No, are we taking an innocent person’s life, that is the only question.
You have — really — no idea of our political process, the Constitutional protections on life, the debate between left and right, etc… How confident are you in debating these issues?
I don’t need to know your countries specific political process to know my own opinions on the matter, How fucking arrogant are you?!
…Um, yes, our Constitution protects life…
There was some cross-talk, I again get back to the starting exchange:
Can you refer to yourself in your mothers womb without using personal pronouns?
Dodge Two
No. Because like I have already stated I accept that a fetus us a human life. Why can’t you get that?
Is the reader getting that? I am not.
(Oh boy) Can someone who doesn’t accept it as life refer to themselves in their mother’s womb without using personal pronouns?
Dodge Three
I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. Why would I care?
Perhaps I should find more intelligent people to discuss this with.
BAM!
The conversation continues. What amazes me is this statement later in the convo, in part. To my son this was said:
…if you would like to pull back the ego for just a moment and go back to re-read our conversations you would see that it not facts and references I am interested in, because I am not trying to convince you of anything…
Later she said this to me:
Once again Sean, you are arguing against a position you assume I hold rather than one I actually hold- because you have placed all atheists and skeptics in a box and can’t fathom any of them being anywhere outside of that box. Bravo. Try listening to people for a change, it could really take you places in future conversations. Not with me though, I’m done….
To which I responded:
You are arguing -as if- you hold the position you don’t hold… bravo. You brought up positions that mirror the pro-choice challenges. You brought up the death penalty, war… not me. You used bad analogies to try and make a point — I was just fleshing that out.
if you would like to pull back the ego for just a moment and go back to re-read our conversations you would see that it not facts and references I am interested in, because I am not trying to convince you of anything. I was trying to have a conversation and get YOUR opinions and see where we could (if at all) come to a mutual agreement with our beliefs.
So why discuss a topic (see the original post) you say you ALREADY hold in order to not convince someone of anything by making arguments that mirror the position you do not hold to find mutual beliefs on something you say we have mutual beliefs on? The post at the top of this strain is the issue, as your death penalty and war analogies made clear.
Here are three points the J6 Committee wish to make their endeavor both controlled and illegal.
FIRST
The First point is that this “committee” is illegitimate. I made this point with an upload to my YOUTUBEand subsequent post titled: “Trump’s Lawyer, John Eastman, Explains Why He Claimed the 5th.” Which is, this committee is actually illegal via the House Rules as well as the agreed upon rules of said committee. Which means, no one — zilch, zero, nada — needs to respond to any document calling them to speak at the committee. Over a thousand witnesses have been interviewed apparently… not a single one by the opposing view. This is tragically tyrannical, ripped straight from the paged of Stalin.
The same points are made but worth repetition, as, Pedagogy is the Mother of All Learning. Here the indomitable
So, that above point is key. Why would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want a one-sided [jaundiced] view of the evidence? Well… because they wish to hide something of course. To ensure something is not heard from the Halls of Congress, so-to-speak.
(RIGHT SCOOP) Democrats call everything a threat to democracy. Guns are a threat to democracy. Trump is a threat to democracy. Truckers are a threat to democracy. Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases is. Counting every vote is. Preventing voter fraud, living in Florida, using the wrong pronoun. Even refusing to send your kids to drag strip shows is a threat to democracy according to the left and the media.
But the realest threat to the American system, which is a constitutional system, is what is happening right now in the so-called January 6 “investigation.” Mark Levin broke that down tonight on Life, Liberty and Levin and it’s awesome – in the sense of hearing someone put into words correctly and well a thing that is terrible and not at all awesome.
SECOND
What is that “something”?
That something is discussed in a previous post, just updated a couple of days back but posted originally in February 2021, “Trump Offered 10,000+ Troops Prior To J6.” You see, they cannot claim that Trump wanted this to happen, or directed it, or any other charge if they allow the fact… the fact that Trump — upon hearing chatter of violence — wanted to ensure that this type of scenario didn’t happen. The FEDERALISTreports on a new Congressional investigative report of this failure (RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip):
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.
The Capitol Police (USCP) were HALF-STAFFED ON JAN. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms DENIED MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE USCP CHIEF in the days leading up to Jan. 6,OFFICERS WERE POORLY EQUIPPED and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were NEVER TRAINED TO HANDLE A RIOT EVEN AFTER THE RIOTS OF 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.
[….]
“This inaction left the Capitol unnecessarily vulnerable,” Banks and Davis noted.
Banks and Davis pointed to an After-Action Report from Capitol Police showing that the law enforcement department reorganized its intelligence without authorization which left it without essential “open-source intelligence capabilities” and caused staffing changes that “may have contributed to the tragedy” on Jan. 6.
In light of this information, Banks and Davis added that “the USCP intelligence unit had knowledge of the potential for violence yet failed to adequately communicate the threat or take the necessary steps to protect the Capitol.”….
John Solomon explains the new revelations that show Pelosi’s sergeant-at-arms refused the support of the National Guard ahead of Jan 6th due to “bad optics.”
(Watch the fuller show where the above clip came from, HERE)
What is not known by the typical cable news watcher, probably, is that both the Capital Police and the mayor of D.C. turned down offers to help secure the government areas before and as the mob of crazed Lefties and Righties descended on the Capital:
…Three days before the riot, the Pentagon offered National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. Capitol Police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter. Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, police planned only for a free speech demonstration. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)
Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020:
Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states.
[….]
In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states.
But this isn’t the main issue… what is is the dilemma this would bring if noted publicly. You would get these commentaries in prime time:
Yep. Hypocrites. See more related to the issue on my site:
And another lie perpetrated by the media and the J6 Committee is that 5 police officers died because of the riot on Capitol Hill. While I disagree with Tucker on his opening point regarding Ashley Babbitt, he is wholly right on what he follows it with in the segment.
Finally, today marks a monumental step in the right direction for gun rights activists. Listen as Buck Sexton breaks down the Supreme Court’s decision:
…..“to keep and bear arms.” That first part, keeping up of the arms, was dealt with pretty well in D.C. v. Heller. Remember that case from some years ago?
You had an individual licensed to have a gun for work but who lived in the District of Columbia and couldn’t even bring his firearm that he had at work all day home with him. So that’s crazy, right? But that was the law, and they would arrest you. D.C. was vicious about enforcing even the most minor infractions of firearms law. Unless you’re, you know, a gang member with a long history of drugs; then they’re always looking. And this is the thing you have to remind yourself about the libs.
If you’re somebody who has guns and is actually a danger to society, they don’t want to make an example of you. They want to go soft on you. This is what we’ve seen with the progressive prosecutors and criminal justice reform, as they call it. But if you’re guy who likes to go hunting on the weekends but you cross from Virginia into D.C. with two shotgun shells in your pocket that are 20-gauge meant for pheasants, guess what? Too bad. You’re on your own. They’re gonna lock you up. That’s their attitude, right?
Well, in this case the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen — Bruen is the superintendent of the New York State police — what we have here is the “bear arms” part of it finally coming into Supreme Court focus. And by 6-3 the proper cause requirement for getting a handgun permit, a firearm permit to have and carry a concealed pistol or revolver, the proper cause requirement is gone now. It is unconstitutional.
Now, what this means, in effect — remember D.C. v. Heller said, “You gotta be able to — if you’re a law-abiding citizen and you meet some very basic thresholds, you gotta be able to — buy a gun. You can’t just say, ‘You’re not allowed to have a gun, period,’ because the Second Amendment.” Well, now it’s can you get a concealed carry permit? Can you actually carry your weapon with you? And I know there’s gonna be the whole distinction between concealed carry and open carry and all this.
But just to be able to carry in any capacity in these states was not allowed unless you were special, unless you could prove, demonstrate a special need that is different from just people in general. And 6-3 decision here. Roberts did join the majority; so he may be a wimp, but he’s not a lunatic. 6-3 decision, took a sledgehammer to the anti-gun regime of so many of these states, or I should say the anti-bearing arms regime, right? ‘Cause you’re loud to own in New York, you’re allowed to own a firearm in California, but can you carry it anywhere?
Can you get a concealed carry permit? Now, in the state of New York, as I said, this is near and dear to me because I have not been able to. As an adult, I have not been able to enjoy Second Amendment rights in my home state, and it’s obscene. And one of my favorite parts of this decision, one of my favorite parts of the way they dismantle… I mean the libs, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, just pathetic stuff in their dissent. Honestly. “Oh, but there’s so much gun violence!” Wait, but there’s so much gun violence, you guys are banning guns in these states in every way you can but there’s still so much violence.
Almost like the only people who are gonna have guns in a no gun regime state like New York or California are the bad guys. Oh, that is what happens. That is what happens. New York bans and has for over a hundred years. I’ve known about the Sullivan law passed in 1911… By the way, I rarely would say this you to. If you are a Second Amendment enthusiast, though, reading this whole decision just because of the history that it goes into is fascinating, the history of weapons and concealed carry and the Old West and even goes back in the medieval period, goes back to English common law, seventeenth century, eighteenth century.
It’s fascinating history, of course, written by the constitutionalists, the conservatives on the court in their 6-3 slap down of this unconstitutional absurdity of you’re not allowed — a law-abiding American in these states was not allowed — to get a pistol to carry concealed for protection unless they were special, which basically meant unless you’re connected, unless you know how to work the system. And that’s why honestly you know who is the getting concealed carry permits in New York City specifically? Celebrities………
…..I just want to read to you. THIS IS FROM THE OPINION, WRITTEN BY JUSTICE THOMAS, who is… I’ve said this before. If I can come up with a better, more specific phrase, but he is a national treasure. He really is. Justice Thomas is an amazing man who should be so much more… I mean, he’s celebrated by conservatives. He should be celebrated so much more nationally for what he is, being brilliant, having an incredible life story. But I digress.
“When we look to the latter half of the 17th century,” this decision says, respondents’ case only weakens. As in Heller, we consider this history ‘[b]etween the [Stuart] Restoration [in 1660] and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]’ to be particularly instructive. During that time, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm their political opponents, an experience that ‘caused Englishmen … to be jealous of their arms,’” and there’s other examples like this.
But this is the key point, friends. When you look at the history of these efforts to disarm the law-abiding, whether it’s in England, whether it’s in the medieval period, or it’s in the Revolutionary period in America, you look at these efforts to disarm, it’s always a means of the powerful asserting their control. Because they want to be able to do whatever they want to do. They don’t want anyone to be able to say, “No, you’re a tyrant. No, you’ve gone too far, and I can do something about it.”
And this really goes to the heart of the Second Amendment. When you read through the history, it’s fascinating. Those with the guns or the swords and the daggers and the halberds and those with those weapons, they don’t want others to be able to meet them with steel and gunpowder. They want to be the ones that get to call all the shots. They say, “You know what? We’re just gonna…” “No. You are not important. You don’t get a weapon,” and you could look all throughout history.
At different times, just the carrying of a sword unless you were connected to the nobility was something that could get you even executed. But then there are other times where there was an expectation that all gentlemen would be carrying. There are cultures, actually, where you have to carry a working blade. Cultures where carrying a knife for utility and for the protection of oneself and perhaps even one’s faith or one’s state, that was expected.
The libs ultimately… There’s the criminal justice component of this and the self-protection. But then there’s also the defense against tyranny aspect. And the left in this country, the anti-gun Democrat Party which now effectively is all the Democrat Party. There are some who will still pretend here and there to win some votes that they’re pro-Second Amendment. But the Democrat Party’s become the anti-gun party because they’re authoritarians.
You’ve seen this over the course of covid. You see this in your day-to-day lives. They want to control your speech. They want to control your property. They want to control every aspect of your life. They want to brainwash your children to gender identity theory. They want full and total control, and even if they may not have the eloquence and the constitutional understanding — which they certainly don’t — to put it in these terms, they do understand at some level that the individual ownership by citizens of this country, of firearms, is a personal act of rebellion against authoritarianism.
Or at least the possibility waiting in the wings, waiting on the sidelines to be that act of rebellion should it be called upon. And they hate that. They hate that because they know somewhere, deep down, hold on a second. We can’t just force them to do anything we want if we have full and total control of the apparatus. We can’t just start pulling people out of their homes and arresting them in front of their families because of climate denial. What do you mean? That would be a problem for us?
Ultimately, the true believers on the left, the real center of the Democrat Party finds that notion of an armed populace unacceptable, unacceptable to them, because they want… They’re always trying… They’re progressing, you see? Yeah, they’re always moving for the next thing, moving to the next issue. But their ultimate progression as progressives is to get to the utopia that is only possible when they are in total and complete control.
And so long as we have an armed population in this country that represents the final bulwark against that tyranny. And they know it; so, they hate it. And they also like all the virtue signaling, of course, from, if we could only pass more gun laws, we would stop all the gun violence out there. It’s not true, but people say that and they feel proud and brave and smart. If only we passed this gun law.
No matter how many times they fail, it feels good for them to say it. It feels good for the left to shout this out so they will keep doing it, they won’t look at the data. Doesn’t matter to them. They want you disarmed and double masked. That’s the point. That’s how they see this. And if we allow them, that’s where we’ll go. But today’s Supreme Court decision a huge victory, a huge move in the right direction.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
BUCK: I gave a shout-out to Justice Thomas, who a lot of us know he’s amazing, but deserves even more praise than he gets from those of us who are fans of his jurisprudence, his sharp mind, and his courage. In this decision, he wrote, “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States.”
Again, this is a quote from the decision. “If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms — a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America,” and that’s the end of the quote there.
Just a reminder as well for everybody, it was the racist Democrat Party that worked so hard after the Civil War to make sure that black citizens of this country were disarmed. It was the racist Democrat Party during reconstruction and then leading all the way up into the era of the Ku Klux Klan that was doing everything it could to disarm our fellow Americans who were black. So there is a, as I said, long history of disarming in the name of oppression that stretches back for hundreds of years.
Not even just in America but hundreds of years. It stretches back all throughout history. The people in charge want you to shut up and do what you’re told. They get the guns; you get the orders. That’s the way they wanted it to be. Our Founding Fathers — the reason for the Second Amendment — realized, “No, that’s not gonna work. We’re not gonna have a free society, a truly free society of individuals with real liberty unless we change that dynamic.” So I think that’s essential to take away from all this.
(March 26, 2010)Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism
My Vimeo account was terminated many years back; this is a recovered audio from it. (Some will be many years old.)
KILLING BLACK & WHITE REPUBLICANS
This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:
You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Here is a short video discussing the matter:
“…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
“…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.
[Editor’s Note: I do wish to note what Dennis Prager does, that is, the driving force of this view and its “advocacy” is women. Especially white progressive women.]
Following the unexpected cancellation of our Reverse Q&A at Brown University, we created an ad hoc event on the streets of Portland. Here, we are exploring the reasoning behind agreement or disagreement with the claim: “There are only two genders.” We were approached by a group of students and here’s what happened.
This video was filmed on May 11, 2022 outside a Portland State University building that houses the department of social work.
Biden threatened [mafia style] oil and gas companies with the “Defense Production Act.” Here Dan Bongino speaks about the issue on a drive between studios the other day. Some articles worth a read are:
Biden Is Threatening Oil Companies With Use of Emergency Powers Against Them (RED STATE)
Defense Production Act: How Biden Is Using Emergency Powers for Green Energy (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
President Joe Biden Temporarily Suspends Oil & Gas Permitting on Federal Lands & Water(BIG 102.1)
At Washington Post, you can print factually incorrect, biased propaganda – but they draw the line at retweeting a dumb joke. MSM priorities are so twisted and out of sync with the American people, it’s just sad to see what our media has become.
Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court
LARGER CLIPS FROM FOX APPEARANCES THIS WEEK
Whistleblower docs reveal the Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Board) lied to Congress about their capabilities & plans. For intelligence agencies to work w/ Big Tech to target American citizens is flatly unconstitutional, dictatorial and should be brought to the Supreme Court
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard assesses the January 6 hearings, says the Democratic-led Congress is not taking action on the real threats facing Americans on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’
‘Outnumbered’ panelists sound off on the media and President Biden for failing to publicly denounce the murder attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
‘Outnumbered’ hosts shred President Biden’s first interview on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ for playing blame-game and ‘painting a rosy picture’ of the country wrapped in crises.
This is another one of those threads where we feel like the writer themselves has done a far better job than we ever could so we’ll leave the writing up to them.
Too late, we know, we’re already writing but still …
Jaden is a 22-year-old detrans male who shared his story about transitioning as a teenager, puberty blockers, and more………
