SCOTUS Overturns Roe/Casey!

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:

  1. “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
  2. 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.

And like good little fascists… they immediately resort to violence. The Arizona Senate had to be evacuated and riot police called in who had to use tear gas to disperse this crowd:

We will see more of what has already transpired to happen:

APOCTOZ does a bang-up job in noting day one:

(Also… cue up LOS ANGELES)

I have followed the Leftist violence issue for some time…. but got interested in toto during George W. Bush’s term and the violent imagery used against him and Republicans. I even noted in 2013 that it will get worse. Steve Scalise is just one of many examples.

A LARRY ELDER FLASHBACK


LUNCH ROOM CONVERSATION


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)

BABY PARTS FOR SALE

➡ When you devalue life I have shown clearly that they are used to power cities (BABIES: A RENEWABLE [GREEN] ENERGY SOURCE) as well as cutting up the babies and selling them on the open market ~ this next link details the many years old 20/20 investigation as well as the new info: BABY PARTS [STILL] FOR SALE ~ DEMOCRATS DEHUMANIZING HUMAN LIFE

THE FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD

➡ Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist that had NAZI doctors from Germany write op-eds in her newsletter for the foundation (MARGARET SANGER AND THE RACIST HISTORY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD). This hatred of minorities still exists in the continued opening of PP in poor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and the past disgrace of America is still alive today (EUGENICS: AMERICA’S PAST GENOCIDE OF POOR MINORITIES).

“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” ~ Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Dec. 19, 1939

DEMOCRATS AWARD RACISTS

➡ Obama and Hillary Clinton both support this dreadful past of these eugenicists ~

ADOPTION

➡ 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 you to-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 conversation HERE.


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.

(Profile Youth ~ see more at Renew America)

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

  1. Are you claiming innocent people NEVER die in wars at the hands of the “good guys” (who ever they may be)?
  2. 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….

(Pro Life Action League)

  1. “If abortion is made illegal, tens of thousands of women will again die from back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.”
    1. For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys.
    2. It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized.
    3. The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women.
    4. Women still die from legal abortions in America.
    5. If abortion became illegal, abortions would be done with medical equipment, not clothes hangers.
    6. We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous.
    7. The central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion.
  2. “Abortion is a safe medical procedure—safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.”
    1. Abortion is not safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.
    2. 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.
    3. Even if abortion were safer for the mother than childbirth, it would still remain fatal for the innocent child.
    4. Abortion can produce many serious medical problems.
    5. Abortion significantly raises the rate of breast cancer.
    6. The statistics on abortion complications and risks are often understated due to the inadequate means of gathering data.
    7. The true risks of abortion are rarely explained to women by those who perform abortions.

(Randy Alcorn)

…Continuing with the Convo…

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.

SCOTUS Strikes Down Unconstitutional Concealed Carry Law

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:

Here is some of the TRANSCRIPT:

…..“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………

MORE form JUSTICE THOMAS:

…..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.

RBG Considered “Right Wing”? (BONUS: Cartoons)

Ben Shapiro NOTES in his dealing with the below responses that if a 2-year old can answer the question, a Supreme Court nominee should be able to as well. To Wit, Justice Ginsburg is now considered “patriarchal” — my inference, but closer to the truth than this SCOTUS nominee:

Gwendolyn Sims writes for PJ-MEDIA and notes what this really is. And much like Adam Carolla’s point, it is a power play:

…..With their relentless attack on gender, the left is denying reality as author George Orwell described through the characters in his novel,1984: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” It would therefore be heresy for Jackson to incorrectly define “woman” according to the radical left’s pre-approved definition (whatever that happens to be this week). While defining “woman” may on the surface seem commonsensical, it’s actually instrumental to the left’s ideology. “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing,” wrote Orwell. If the left can force us to invalidate commonsense reality and replace it with their own, they can also hold all the power.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four,” Orwell wrote. “If that is granted, all else follows.” In other words, the left can’t allow ‘woman’ to be defined by the right as anything objective or provable. It must remain vague and subjective so that it can be defined in whatever malleable way benefits the left’s ideology and power. Or, as the Party in Orwell’s book put it, “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”…..

I thought this was a good Tweet by Obianuju Ekeocha that makes a salient point, which is the patriarch has been right this entire time. Men ARE better at everything…. although Miss Ekeocha didn’t express it in those terms. That is my interpretation:

Maybe the #MeeToo movement should be the #MeWho movement. A phrase that came out of that movement is this: “Believe Women”

  • What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Or how bout this trope?

  • “Women make 73 cents for every man’s dollar.”

So again the question is,

  • What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

How about this: “women remain underrepresented in CEO positions.” You get the point.


FUNNIES




















Biden’s Racial Litmus Test for SCOTUS Unconstitutional

Alan Dershowitz explains why Joe Biden excluding potential Supreme Court nominees on the basis of their race and gender is almost certainly unconstitutional.

More via RED STATE:

Alan Dershowitz went on with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures today to talk about the upcoming retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, and Joe Biden’s illiberal promise to exclude thousands of qualified potential replacements specifically and only on account of their race or gender or both.

It’s a litmus test that clearly isn’t keeping with the Constitution and is probably (definitely) legally unconstitutional. Disallowed. You know, un-American.

Look you can brag all the long day that you’re trying to be inclusive, but that won’t change the facts that you’re actually being exclusive, Joe. This is just one more time Biden’s letting the far-left wing control the Oval Office, which Bartiromo mentions in the clip…..

(READ IT ALL)

A Token Black Woman For The Supreme Court (Matt Walsh)

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is an opening on the Supreme Court and it’s been decided that a black woman must fill it. Which black woman? Well any will do, apparently. Once again we see the absurd racism of “racial equity” on full display. Also, there has been a huge surge in children experiencing speech delays because of masking. And Media Matters publishes a lengthy expose about a certain bigoted Dr. Phil clip that lots of people on Facebook have seen and shared. They’re very concerned about it. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal finally with the NFT phenomenon. Is it a good investment opportunity or is it the dumbest thing in the history of the world and a sign of our civilization’s decadence and decay?

Justice Sotomayor Falls For Media Manipulation

These people (lefty judges on the Supreme Court) are just as clueless as the dopey Democrat behind the Starbucks expresso machine.

SOTMAYOR SAYS 100,000 CHILDREN IN HOSPITAL

PJ-MEDIA notes that this this “false claim can be easily fact-checked thanks to data from the Department of Health and Human Services.” Continuin they continue to say:

which says that the current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations with COVID in the United States is 3,342.

Those are hospitalizations with COVID, not from COVID.

How exactly did Sotomayor get it so wrong? How can a Supreme Court justice so irresponsibly spread misinformation? Further, why should the hospitalization rate matter at all? The issue before the court is not the severity of the disease; it’s the constitutionality of Biden’s mandates.

THE CDC FACT CHECKED STATS

EVEN CNN

Even CNN forced to fact check Justice Sotomayor’s astonishingly false Covid lie…!!

RIGHT SCOOP adds to the data coming in showing that the Lefty SCOTUS members are either lying or horribly misinformed — maybe by CNN? MSNBC?

Sotomayor and Breyer lied through their teeth today about Covid. The media, when they aren’t ignoring this or saying the justices were RIGHT are claiming it was simply error or misspeak. But none of that is true, it was deliberate lying, like we see every day from their fellow activist liberal Democrats across the government and media, to include Fauci, Biden, and the rest.

And new hospital data from New York only shows how BAD of liars they are.

That’s right. So much for the “overwhelming hospitals” line of bull. If ICUs are full it’s because of procedure, not people coming in due to covid. And that means it’s not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” too, by the way.

She’s right. This was treated as a conspiracy theory for TWO YEARS and now we know it to be FACT.

And same in Florida last month.

But we have kids in trunks and Biden still pushing for mandates.

Seb Gorka on Newsmax

Sotomayor: The Stupidest Person to EVER serve on the Supreme Court.

Larry Elder Lambasts Joy Reid’s Historical Ineptitude!

Larry sets the record straight. Joy Reid effectively lied to her viewers. Let’s look at the actual history here.

PART ONE

Larry corrects Joy Reid’s ridiculous tirade where she inaccurately accuses Mitch McConnell and the Republicans of engaging in immoral, rotten behavior and blowing up the Filibuster Rule.

PART TWO

John Brennan, Pretty Fly (For A White Guy)

Of course the guy that voted for a Communist in 1976 over Jimmy Carter is all in with Cultural Marxism:

….MSNBC analyst and former Sen. Claire McCaskill said during a panel segment on “Deadline: White House” Monday that she’s “never seen so many whiny white men calling themselves victims” until the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). McCaskill said lying is now acceptable “for the new Republican Party.”

“Well I must say, to Claire’s point, I’m increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days in light of what I see of my other white males saying,” Brennan said in the segment…..

(DAILY CALLER)

Nick Searcy responds:

….Nick Searcy had a message for former CIA Director John Brennan who said that he’s “increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days.”

“That’s so weird, @JohnBrennan,” the 61-year-old actor tweeted Monday following Brennan’s comment that he was “embarrassed to be a white male.”

“We white males are all embarrassed that you are one of us too,” he added. “Why don’t you scram?”….

(DAILY CALLER)

POWERLINE uses the embarrassment angle to mention a few things, the following being one:

….*Speaking of embarrassing, the petition for certiorari (i.e., for Supreme Court review) filed by the Asian-American plaintiffs in their case against Harvard provides a breakdown of Harvard’s undergraduate admit rates by ethnicity/rate and academic credentials. The numbers look very much like Yale’s, which we reported on here.

In brief, Whites in the top 10 percent academically are admitted as undergraduates to Harvard at a rate of 15.3 percent; Asian-Americans at a rate of 12.7 percent. Blacks in the top 10 percent are admitted at a rate of 56.1 percent.

To find a decile in which Blacks are admitted at about the rate at which the top 10 percent of Asian-Americans are, one must go all the way down to the fourth decile (from the bottom). In other words, an African American in the fourth-lowest academic decile (that is, in the 30 percent to 39 percent range) has a slightly higher chance of being admitted to Harvard than an Asian American in the very top decile. And in that fourth-lowest decile, where 12.8 percent of Blacks are admitted, Whites are admitted at a rate of 1.8 percent; Asian-Americans at a rate of 0.9 percent.

Black Americans should be embarrassed that the academic performance of Black students is so comparatively poor. White Americans should be embarrassed that our colleges universities, by rewarding mediocre performance by Blacks, provide scant incentive for improvement.

All Americans should be embarrassed if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the Harvard case and declare that college’s racial preferences unlawful….

Some Quick Thoughts Of Where We Stand (Part 2)

KEY: If any votes are thrown out through either fraud, breaking the law (the court ruling), or mishandling the count (not allowing poll watchers), then this is only the fault of one Party. DEMOCRATS!

FIRST! the latest

Yesterday I was letting people know (family and friends) the following: “165,000 in Philly, and 330,000 in Pitts were processed against state law. If shown true in court, 80% of Bidens and 20% of Trumps ballots would be nixed. Trump would win PA. Ohio’s AG asked SCOTUS to rule against the lower court usurping PA’s voting law. Missouri AG asked as well, saying the court ruling shouldn’t be able to change state election laws.” It was based on this as I was doing deliveries (I added the Pam Bondi video from a couple days earlier to give context to Giuliani):

Via “Our plan for the President. Rudy Giuliani with Sebastian Gorka on AMERICA First“.
I added the Pam Bondi video which I have a fuller version on in this audio: “Hans von Spakovsky On Election Integrity

THE QUESTION

The question was basically, Justice Alito asked for PA to separate the late votes where signatures and postmarks may have not been up to Pennsylvania election law — if these ballots are simply mixed in the rest [to hide the irregularities], what is the possible action. Remember, a court added to election law, whereas the state legislature is the only entity that can change election law/rules/procedures… not mayors, city councils, or governors or the courts. IN FACT, the Attorney Generals of Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma are urging SCOTUS to overturn the lower courts ruling. Why? Because the chaos Democrats created in PA would spread to other states where Democrat Judges would wantonly rule on issues of election laws. Here is more from THE DAILY SIGNAL:

Three of the state attorneys general—Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, and Mike Hunter of Oklahoma—held a virtual press conference Monday to announce the filing of an amicus brief in the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot challenge brought by the Pennsylvania Republican Party, which is before the Supreme Court.

“We are weighing in on a case, on a writ, that has been brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to bring additional arguments before the court as to why we believe the court should take up this matter,” said Landry, chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

In unofficial results contested by President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, Democratic challenger Joe Biden got 49.8% of the vote in Pennsylvania to Trump’s 49.1%. The president has not conceded the election, which major media outlets called Saturday for Biden after some put Pennsylvania in the former vice president’s column….

FACEBOOK CONVO, NOVEMBER 6th/7th

In a previous conversation on Facebook with an ex-co-worker, this is what I noted:

Granted, my original statement was a misrepresentation of what I heard in a short clip on the radio while driving. Getting in and out of the vehicle I drive, turning the sound down while on a studio lot (windows open no sound [not even the AC on] when reversing on a lot, etc). I will emphasize though what my correction said to explain better the following:

ORIGINAL POST and CLARIFICATION

[Original Statement] Biden does worse than Hillary and Obama in every state except WI, GA, MI, and PA. Lol

[Talk to text additional context] I misspoke Chris Lazar, the stat I heard was from a story LIKE THIS (Biden Is Underperforming Hillary in Battleground States) I believe Biden outperformed Hillary in those counties [cities] that many of the questionable practices [late ballots and blocking watchers, large percentages found for a single candidate, etc] happened.

[While in stopped traffic that old article I read was all I could find, not the article mentioned by the radio personality] This is what I should have been clearer on in messaging (RUSH LIMBAUGH):

Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country,” except… Are you ready? “Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”

Let me go through this again. “Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area” except for four. Milwaukee (i.e., Wisconsin), Detroit (i.e., Michigan), Atlanta (i.e., Georgia), Philadelphia (i.e., Pennsylvania.) It just so happened to be the four states that are gonna put Biden over the top in their scenarios here.

Here are two recent articles for clarity discussing this in-depth [and the portion not excerpted is a portion that supports some of Chris’s points from a previous discussion, FYI]. And this one example of Milwaukee is a reply in a sense to Chris’s nide LOL/TEAR emojis and missfounded response when I said this clearly:

  • (ME) the stat I heard was from a story LIKE THIS
  • (Chris) 😂😂😂😂 that’s an article from AUGUST 28TH!!!!!
  • (ME) I am driving now, but there is a fresher comparison
  • (Chris) stop digging to try & fit the fraud hoax

The following is a combination of JONATHAN TURLEY’S article as well as THE FEDERALIST’S article:

…..In Michigan, ballot counters take unreadable ballots, and transcribe them to blank ballots, while a poll challenger from the Democrat, and the Republican parties, observe. They sign off each ballot transcribed. Instead, in violation of state law, GOP poll challengers were made to leave the room, and the windows blocked with cardboard. Ballot counters cheered, on camera, each time a GOP poll challenger was made to leave. One Republican poll challenger, Connarn, said that a counter told her that they were changing the dates on ballots received too late in order to count them. The counter allegedly handed her a note confirming it. As soon as that happened, the Republican was told to leave….

In 2008, Barack Obama received 316,916 votes in Milwaukee County. In 2016, Hilary Clinton won only 288,822 votes there. But in 2020 Biden outperformed them both, receiving 317,251 votes countywide and besting Obama’s share of the vote by nearly two points.

What makes this suspicious is that the county is shrinking. The Census Bureau population estimates show that in the last 10 years, thousands of metro Milwaukee residents have left the area for other parts of the state and country. As the Milwaukee Sentinel put it, “We’re lagging in a key metric that often reflects the vitality and desirability of a metro area: population growth.” The City of Milwaukee, which makes up about 60 percent of the county’s population, saw the number of registered voter decline by more than 26,700 from 2008 to 2020.

While it’s true that Obama in 2008 won about 18,000 more votes than Biden in the City of Milwaukee itself, one would also expect the countywide vote total for Biden to be less than Obama. Obama was a historic figure that motivated record numbers of blacks to vote in 2008. In addition, he had one of the most robust and successful campaigns in American history. His ground game and get-out-the-vote efforts were unprecedented, utilizing door knocking, canvassing, and phone banking. Not surprisingly, in no small part because of the black vote in Milwaukee County, he won the state of Wisconsin handily by a 6.9-percent margin.

[….]

The numbers in Milwaukee County suggest something fishy is happening in Wisconsin, and the Trump campaign is right to call for a recount.

So the above was for clarity.

CHARLIE KIRK ADDS TO THE ABOVE

Now, because of all of the above, REAL CLEAR POLITICS (hat-tip, 100% FED-UP):

BOOM!

Remember what I told my family and friends two days ago (Link Below) — and we are in the midst of either scenario:

Never before has an election been overturned by the amount of spread between the two candidates.

But, Trump has accomplished many hurdles. So there are many tracks I see happening.

One is [best case scenario] that SCOTUS is going to reject ballots after the 3rd (8pm) of November. The ballots not allowed to be jointly viewed by GOP/DEM “minders” need to be reviewed again, the ballots “cured” while not under view within 6-feet of GOP persons will be fully rejected because of that and that the equal “curing” didn’t happen in other districts for heavy Trump areas. [“Curing” happened in multiple districts in multiple states]. The machines (software) that “glitched” in the district in MI is in 30 states. ALL those ballots need to be hand counted and viewed properly. If this happens, Trump may win….BEST CASE.

WORSE CASE? Trump is a lame duck but uses his last couple months to install an independent council to look into Bidens’s’ dealings. Using his position to show everyone how corrupt the Democrat machine is and the depths of cheating elections, thus, taking away the peoples real power. As he heads into the sunset helping set up a revived GOP machine to help fight the retarded philosophy of the Left’s corruption and depths of depravity in socialism.

Some Quick Thoughts Of Where We Stand (+ Article Dump)

 

Joe Biden Not Listening To RBG’s Wishes on Court Packing

Joe Biden said packing the Supreme Court was a “legitimate questions,” but refuses to give his stance.

Why doesn’t this “wish” get Democrats attention?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared her opposition to court-packing proposals that have gained traction among Democratic 2020 contenders in an interview published Wednesday.

Ginsburg said the Court functions well at the current number of personnel in a wide-ranging conversation with NPR, and panned prior efforts to expand the panel as quixotic.

“Nine seems to be a good number,” the justice said. “It’s been that way for a long time.”

“I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court,” Ginsburg said elsewhere in her remarks…..

(DAILY CALLER)

Hugh Hewitt Covers RGBs Death

Hugh is a good resource for a moderate view of the issue. I include video of his appearance on the Al Sharpton Show. Me, i am not a fan of RGB at all. I think she is an uber-radical who has wanted to allow for consensual sex between 12-year olds and adults.

PACKING COURT

IMPEACH

Another Gay Man That Opposes Same-Sex Marriage #SSM

(Originally posted March 28, 2013)

Here is what Doug Mainwaring has to say on the issue via his article: “Same-Sex Marriage: We’re Playing Chess, Not Checkers” In another article, Ryan Anderson notes the tactics of the Left:

The Left’s Three Techniques on Marriage Redefinition — and How to Counter Them

This week, everyone’s talking about gay marriage. And as the Supreme Court weighs opinions on two, key court battles, both sides of the ongoing debate are on edge and continuing to advance their views on the matter. But among the many voices speaking out against same-sex marriage is one that may shock you: Doug Mainwaring, a conservative activist who is gay.

But the Left also has deployed three distinct tactics: First, they’ve been successful at oversimplifying the issue, personalizing it and refusing to engage the complexities of social reality. Second, they’ve implied that the LGBT community speaks in one voice. And third, they’ve demonized their opponents as “bigots” and “haters.”

We need to better understand the Left’s strategy, for there are lessons here.

Thom Watson, right, and Jeff Tabaco show the rings which they exchanged during their 2009 wedding ceremony at their home in Daly City, Calif., Monday, June 10, 2013. (Credit: AP)

Who could be against expanding benefits for more people? That’s the first technique the Left used: Oversimplify the issue while personalizing it. Redefine marriage so more people get health care or tax exemptions or whatever other grab bag of goodies you want to focus on. (Never mind that you don’t have to redefine marriage to solve policy problems.)

Viewed in this light, the marriage debate is like so many other liberal-conservative divides. Take almost any bad social or economic policy. It’s easy to identify the winners—the family getting Obamacare, the corn farmer getting a subsidy, the bank getting bailed out, the worker making an inflated wage. These all can be cast as stories of people getting “stuff.”

[….]

This is hard to counter, but it can be done. And we have to do a better job at it. We need to call out the Left when they oversimplify complex human realities. We also need to effectively communicate complexities using stories and examples.

The Left’s second technique is to disparage dissenters. Marriage revisionists mimic the tactics of abortion advocates. Pro-life women have been demeaned as women-in-name-only. Now gays and lesbians who oppose redefining marriage are described as self-loathing. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer claim to speak for all women on abortion, while Andrew Sullivan and Zach Wahls are held up to speak for all LGBT families.

It is a strategy expressly devised to marginalize the experiences of folks like Bobby Lopez (see his article “Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Child’s View”) and Doug Mainwaring (who was raising his kids with his partner when he realized they needed a mom—his ex-wife—and wrote “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”).

We need to do more to make heard the voices of such brave people. And in doing so we’ll address that first challenge of demonstrating complexities through real-life examples.

Lastly, the Left has tried to bully us into silence. A principal strategy of the forces that have worked for 20 years to redefine marriage has been cultural intimidation—threatening defenders of marriage with the stigma of being “haters” and “bigots.”

They’ve said anyone who disagrees is the equivalent of a racist. They’ve sent a clear message: Stand up for marriage, and we will, with the help of our media friends, demonize and marginalize you. Just ask Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A.

And now this last technique has made its way into a Supreme Court decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion that the only reason Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean” and “humiliate” gay and lesbian Americans.

This kind of grotesque incivility is toxic. The fact that it is part of a majority opinion is not just outrageous but frightening.

[….]

So we marriage advocates must continue speaking out. But we also need to learn how to state our case succinctly and winsomely: Marriage is the way that societies from time immemorial have united a man and woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to any children born of their union. That’s how children are provided with the precious gift of being brought up in the publicly supported bond of the mom and dad whose union gave them life.

Let’s refuse to be cowed into silence. Let’s redouble our efforts to help our fellow citizens to understand what every political community prior to the year 2000 understood.

Catchy slogans can address complicated issues for only so long. Eventually reality prevails. Silencing dissent may be possible at first, but over time more and more people find their voices.

Bullies may intimidate for a season, but in the end truth wins out.

See also THE BLAZE’S post about Doug entitled, “GAY ACTIVIST SHOCKS CRITICS WITH THIS SCATHING OP-ED…AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Don’t know that “nixing” gender comes with these cases that this brave gay man mentioned above when he said, “Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad.” Here is part of the bill from Minnesota, Doug’s home state, that attempted just this:

But a look at SF925 reveals that something much more insidious than advocates let on is underway. This bill would strip the words “mother” and “father” of meaning under Minnesota law. Henceforth, the bill states, these words — among the most beloved and culturally freighted in the English language — “must be construed in a neutral manner to refer to a person of either gender.”

For more on this, see my post linked in the picture above, as well as Massachusetts doing the same. This should engender ANY conservative or conservatively minded libertarian (gay or straight) to oppose this movement predominantly guided by the Left and the many low-information (young) voters.

“[The laws of any state rest on] the basis that the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” — Supreme Court, 1885

Here is another gay man talking about what marriage IS:

One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

1. Foster the bonding between men and women
2. Foster the birth and rearing of children
3. Foster the bonding between men and children
4. Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
5. Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”