So at 8:20 AM (Feb 8th, 2024) I said this on my Facebook:
UPDATE!
The rest of the original post….
Here is some later discussion of this:
‘Parade Of Horribles’: Johnathan Turley Skewers Colorado Lawyer After SCOTUS Ballot Hearing on Thursday
(UPDATED BELOW)
NATIONAL REVIEW discusses the options in front of the courts… but remember, another way (split the horns Plato) is available. One site says “CHECKMATE” regarding this option. More below.
Chris Christie is no fan of Trump, yet, he can see the main issue at hand:
Christie
Jonathan Turley notes the following on TWITTER:
The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from [voting] for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.
[….]
The Colorado Supreme Court has issued an unsigned opinion disqualifying Trump from the ballot: “The sum of these parts is this: President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three; because he is disqualified.” …
…This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…
…It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots….
…The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle. I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.
[….]
James Freeman Clarke once said “a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.” It is time for President Joe Biden to show that he can think of the next generation and oppose this insidious ruling.
[….]
Much can be said about this decision, but restraint is not one of them. The four Colorado justices had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation on every key element. The only narrow part of the opinion came with the interpretation of the First Amendment.
In a very truncated clip from a longer video via Bannon’s War Room, Alan Dershowitz says the following:
Dershowitz
TRANSCRIPT:
Even people like me, who would welcome the loss – on political grounds, wouldn’t accept it on Constitutional grounds, because this is about the most dangerous, worst, and…
um, unconstitutional decision I’ve read in my 60 years of teaching and practicing criminal law.
This is a power grab.
In violation of the specific words of the 14th amendment, you couldn’t be clearer when the 14th amendment allocates the power to enforce this provision.
Having the States do this? On an individual basis is (a) absurd under contemporary law. And as well, the idea that the framers of the 14th amendment, radical Reconstructionists, would allocate to Mississippi and Alabama… ahh… the right to decide who’s on the ballot, ah, just defies any kind of historical understanding.
POWERLINE has a decent update to their article expanding where the case may weave it way to:
UPDATE: A number of readers have wondered why I said the Supreme Court is unlikely to intervene. On reflection, that was an offhand comment that was not thoroughly thought through. There were two reasons for it:
First, the Republican majority on the Court is highly reluctant to wade into waters that are seen as political. Ruling in Trump’s favor would use up a large share of the Court’s diminished political capital, and Trump is hardly the person on whom the justices want to expend that precious commodity. On the other hand, the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a federal question that is squarely presented by this case and may not be easy to duck.
Second, the Court would need to act fast, as the primary season is nearly upon us. Normally, litigating any case in the Supreme Court takes time. I assume the Court would want to hear from a number of parties and would want extensive briefing. On a normal calendar, I don’t think there is enough time for that to happen. On the other hand, the Court can act more quickly if it wants to, and if it is willing to expend, in this case, the necessary political capital. So it could be possible.
A friend who is a very good lawyer writes:
I suspect that in fact the Supreme Court will immediately grant an emergency appeal and will rule 9-0, or 8-1 if Justice Jackson wants to be her usual moronic self, to overturn the Colorado decision. I imagine that every justice on the Supreme Court understands the implications of the decision, which would mean that any partisan state court could take the other party’s candidate off the ballot. So I will be shocked if they don’t feel the urgency to settle this once and for all. In fact, there has to be a lot of concern about the partisan turn of the courts in general.
I hope my friend is correct. I would only note that in the minds of many voters, the “partisan turn” of the courts is in our direction under the current Court–something to which the justices are acutely sensitive. And for the Democratic justices to renounce partisanship by voting in a way that is good for America but bad for the Democrats, in a high-profile, politically-charged case, is theoretically possible, but I am not sure there is any precedent for it.
FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE UPDATE!
The “Insurrection Clause” Doesn’t Apply Without a Declaration of Insurrection:
Colorado judges don’t get to declare that there was a federal insurrection.
[….]
For the “insurrection clause” to apply, there has to be an insurrection. That means there has to be a declaration of insurrection.
Congress and the Lincoln administration both defined and declared an insurrection. There’s been no declaration now which means, legally speaking, there’s no insurrection and therefore no insurrection clause applies.
The 14th is still a legal minefield in this regard and the ability of a president to claim insurrection is in theory an open-ended nightmare. Biden could, for example, hypothetically declare that an insurrection is underway, but he hasn’t so the point is null.
Colorado judges, random uninvolved state legislatures and Uncle Bob do not get to define an insurrection against federal authority. Only federal authorities get to declare an insurrection. Neither Trump nor Biden declared one of those.
New York, for example, could not unilaterally decide that Confederate states were in a state of insurrection. But that is what Colorado is trying to do here. States ought to usurp federal authority more often, but this is a blatantly illegal usurpation.
And the factual forest should not be lost for the legalistic trees.
Other States To Use Colorado Ruling
Of course, as other states try ta do this using the Colorado “ruling,” …. which RED STATE notes:
California’s Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis, has sent a memo to the California Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, seeking to have Donald Trump removed from California’s primary ballot.
[….]
The memo states in part:
Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Anderson v. Griswold (2023 CO 63) that Trump’s insurrection disqualifies him under section three of the Fourteenth Amendment to stand for presidential re-election. Because the candidate is ineligible, the court ruled, it would be a “wrongful act” for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on that state’s presidential primary ballot.
That’s wrong. It’s so wrong it’s not even in the same time zone as right. The entire argument here is based on nothing more than raw assertion: “Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection because of course he is.”….
routing the courts by caucusing trump
Of course, if this ruling is allowed to stand and the real SUPES don’t fix it, there are other ways to vote for voters to express their God-Given ability for freedom (RED STATE):
…As I predicted to my oldest son when the decision dropped Tuesday night, there’s one remedy the Republican Party can use to avoid all of this expensive and time-consuming lawfare completely. To its credit, the Colorado Republican Party almost immediately said that they would invoke it.
That remedy: Switch to a caucus to determine the party’s nominee….
CHECKMATE!
I start this excerpt of Tim Pools fuller “Tim Cast” (RUMBLE) with Victor Davis Hanson noting the “Revolutionary Acts” by the Democrats as of a year ago on FOX NEWS. – I have an updated audio as well (RUMBLE) . Enjoy… I found a new resource which I am excited about: LARRY DORS, who pieces together the same line being said from different movies. Check out his YouTube Channel.
REASON ARTICLE[s]:
Armstrong and Getty play audio [I add the video portion] of Federalist Society contributor, Sarah Isgur, setting the record straight on the current Supreme Court being fair. More even-keeled than the previous decades of rulings. Enjoy.
Why is McCulloch v. Maryland considered such an essential case? Prof. David Schwartz of the University of Wisconsin’s Law School explains how McCulloch v. Maryland helped identify fundamental principles of federalism.
(This was originally posted Jun 27, 2015 — I make a prediction herein [also HERE~n~ HERE])
I wanted to post some of my early thoughts [rant] on the decision, followed by more rantings:
Two… yes, the number two, has now become an objective concept in law over and above millions of years of evolution (Natures Law), or God’s Law (Natural Law) honing or creating the ideal that is the “male-female” relation. Both of these ideas, Natures Law and natures God (from the Declaration), under-girded the philosophy of the movement that wrote the greatest document/contract in human history. [Take away that philosophy and you lose the document.]
The mission of the church in the West has just changed. Soon the number 2 will fall by the relativistic roadside to plural marriages. All these non-ideal familial structures (according to Nature or natures God) will erode the religious freedom the Founders set up.
But we have a generation that neither looks to history for guidance or to any religious/moral authority outside themselves.
This experiment will eventually fall into the edict of the French (Jacobin) idea of equality in outcome… And to be clear, the guillotine soon followed. Tyranny never follows far behind forced outcomes.
The priority of the male-female relationship is just a larger piece to the puzzle called “deconstructionism.”
(RPT)
My other thoughts for here is something I have said for quite a while now: “
“Leftism” eats itself
It always has. We have seen socialist groups fight for their agenda to be paramount (thinking of Russian and German historical hegemony that led to many deaths to accomplish this goal… before the end result of the power structure and well-known leaders took power — which caused even more deaths — Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, just to name a few well known 20th century Lefties). To Wit,
Because of the flag issue, already there is talk of the Jefferson Memorial (the founder of the party running around from activist issue-to-issue ~ they do this because they replace the God shaped vacuum with politics)… banning Gone with the Wind (even though a black woman [the first time in our history] won “Best Supporting Actress)… etc.
The hubris of the left can be seen as well in thinking that they [politicians] can control weather (the sun) by legislation. Or changing gender by the stroke of a pen. Pride predates the fall.
In the “rights” area I always point out that these “special rights” [not equal rights] are shown in conflict. Here is one example theorized by Dale Berryhill:
Another example comes from an activist site:
So you can see when you move from equal under the law to special interest groups getting special protections, these camps begin to battle each-other. They “eat” each-other.
This is how I see it.
On one level it shows a proclivity to self destruct when you remove God from the equation.
The God that includes 100% justice, 100% love, 100% grace, 100% hatred for sin, etc. (not emphasizing parts of God one agrees with or on and demphasizing or muting aspects of God one disagrees with). You know, the Judeo-Christian concept of God, the bedrock to our Republic.
So I like it because the chaos of the secular world shows the Christian-theistic worldview works. I also like it because this dysmorphism exists primarily on the left of the political spectrum ~ which makes sense because they are a) more secular, and when religious they b) have more of a proclivity to emphasize one aspect of God over another in their theology (pick-and-choose the God they serve).
So I like it because it shows that while the GOP is also chaotic to some extent, it works better when its ideals are leaned on (trade-offs). (The Utopian ideal of the lefts base do not believe in trade-offs.)
(RPT PREDICTION) ALL THAT BEING SAID… there is a dangerous aspect to this. As the left eats itself, they have historically looked for scape-goats. Jews and Christians are typically the fall-guy… especially in the 20th and 21st Century. More violence will follow.
The left “KNOWS” its goals are well meaning, and so find acknowledgment that they are true and society “NEEDS” them ~ again, based on the “well meaningfulness.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severley, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292 (Full text).
So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life.
This is the downside, and as RJ Rummel pointed out in his fourth book in his series, “Death by Government,” that as democracies become more undemocratic, policies begin that cause more death to its own citizens. Of course this is not an immediate happenstance, but legal and jail-time pre-date these outcomes. For instance, the next move will be gay-couples demanding to be married in churches and bringing those cases to the courts.
I will end this rant with a quote from a man who knows personally about this “secularization”
“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’ Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; … [and] if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.'”
Quoted in Ericson, Edward E. Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney, The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings 1947-2005. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2006, page 577.
Tulsi Gabbard opens up about the importance of her faith and how the Democratic party has come to resent religion. The former Hawaii Congresswoman shares how her personal relationship with God grounded her on the presidential campaign trail while opening her eyes to the growing hostility from inside the party towards people of faith. Tulsi is joined by Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow to discuss his career defending religious liberty and the ongoing battles that threaten this essential freedom.
INTRODUCTION TO ME
For my new readers
(This intro will make sense at the end)
Okay, this is just the beginning of a future discussion/post of a documentary; I have yet to watch it – it is called, “The 13th. I have some assumptions regarding what I know about the documentary so far due to years of that specific topic, or peripheral topics being read or discussed via talk radio. But I try to be even keeled – that being said, we all have our biases. Mine are driven by an online presence since the late 90’s “NET ZERO days” discussing religion and politics at SPACEBATTLE, then at MySpace, then a free blog at BLOGSPOT from 2006 to 2010. Then my .COM from 2010 to current time. I discuss or read the same on Twitter at times (joined 2010) as well as Facebook (joined 2008).
I have over 5,000 books and many documentaries… but do not think it is all lopsided to my view. I have many hundreds, as an example, of books by evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, chemists, and the like either defending, explaining evolution; likewise, many of the same refuting Intelligent Design or Creationism.
I likewise have studies almost all the major world religions well. I have studied the cults as well and the occult. Topics I have read over the years include philosophy, economics, history, theology, comparative religion, cults (political and religious), apologetics, current affairs, etc.
Another quick example. Reading a commonly used quote theists used by an atheist philosopher when discussing war and religion. I wanted to see more context regarding the quote, so I purchased the book and read the entire chapter I knew the quote resided. In the end I used a slightly larger portion of the quote as it expanded the thought even further. (See the quote by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong HERE.)
In my media library I have many hundreds of debates between theists and atheists; naturalists and Intelligent Design theorists; Creationists and Evolutionists, etc. I have 2,057 uploads to my YouTube, the first one dated Apr 6, 2007. (As well as a growing RUMBLE file.) I have 57,994 Files in my Microsoft Word – the bulk of which is writing, or cataloging of debates/discussions since the late 90s I have been involved in.
Very rarely have I come across a detractor of the Christian faith who has – at some point in their life – said,
Just one book on FAITH?
Or just one book on POLITICS?
Never do these people think, “I should know what I am rejecting.” Honest insight and knowledge about those whom you refute should be more common that it is. In a very old conversation I gave these examples:
I often bump into people that have watched some or most of the following “documentaries” I likewise own and have watched all on the following list (one should take note that some of these are shown in public school classrooms):
But rarely do I meet someone of the opposite persuasion from me that have watched any of the following (I own and have watched):
People do not search out clarity, only confirmation.
….OKAY. MOVING ON….
This will be just a cataloging of some statements and discussion followed by a refutation. The discussion on Facebook started over the SCOTUS decision about the Coach praying. Here is the set up:
The first challenge I wish to illuminate is one regarding “what is the coach had been a Muslim” (I respond sometimes in video as I drive for a living.)
MUSLIM
T.S. — Sean [me, RPT] so do you believe that this supreme Court would rule the same way if this coach was Muslim and brought prayer mats for all the students instead of taking a knee
RPT — that my friend is a non-sequitur
T.S. — agreed only to the point that no one could ever really know unless it happened. However, so far this court has shown more bias towards Christian beliefs, so I would speculate that they wouldn’t have ruled the same. I hope they prove me wrong in the future.
RPT — T.S. I can tell you if a Muslim went to the field, lifted his hands up and gave Allah thanks and prayed for both teams, the Court would rule the same. That is a more consistent analogy.
T.S. — So if Christians are the only ones that would walk out onto a field and pray, how is this ruling un-biased? If only Christians are those that would do something of this nature why should they be granted more rights than another religion? Or am I misinterpreting your video?
[The first of these two didn’t upload till later, but here I put it in order. in other the context is clearer for the reader vs. the flow of the original FB conversation]
[…..]
T.S. — Sean, back to your tangent, let’s say it was a Satanist that wanted to take a knee and praise the devil would that hold muster to your non-sequitur issue? Or should I be more personal and say a 3HO Sikh coach goes out and prays to Yogi Bhajan, would that be a more appropriate analogy?
I respond with a court case that makes it clear and expands upon what a religion is:
Here is a quote from the famous 1961 court case, Torcaso v. Watkins: See: Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47. The Main points were made. HOWEVER, this great small commentary on the SCOTUS ruling of the coach is made by Matt Walsh MATT WALSH BOOM! See more also at RED STATE. COLIN KAEPERNICK + Discussion withing the larger issue also got started on kneeling during the anthem. Two sub-topics in this strain were about Kaepernick’s reasoning for kneeling as well as differences between actions in the “break-room” versus a prayer on the field. Private vs. Public Referencing one of the videos I did, T.S. noted this: T.S. — R.R., listen to Sean’s video as he states private company could fire somebody for talking religion and or politics so yes this teacher could have been fired because it was during school time. RPT — someone cannot be fired for praying over their lunch T.S., They can be fired for aggressive proselytizing — but SCHOOL IS A GOVERNMENT institution. Not private. RPT — So R.R., yes, listen to my video, well. Reason for Kneeling At the end of this conversation, to which I am adding to and bowing out of on Facebook per my response here, the motive for is “spite” of America, and the flag.” Nothing changes this fact. I will end with a CNN quote to make the point, after the following. (I also highlight the portion that was misstated I believe by T.S., or not known, and is the root of our disagreement): T.S. — …. How is it disrespectful to kneel for the flag but is respectful to kneel for “God”? RPT — T.S., Colin wasn’t kneeling for the flag (nor were others, they were kneeling to spite the flag) T.S. — It was in protest but not against the flag. He was taking a knee because it was brought to his attention by a Green Beret that sitting was disrespecting the flag. I agree with the Green Beret that kneeling isn’t disrespectful, and it turns out so did Colin, but somehow he’s been demonized. Those that also seem to agree that kneeling is respectful is the supreme court, as long as it fits their belief systems. RPT — honestly I don’t know where you get your ideas to support this and other claims. As usual, the facts (Kaepernicks own words) don’t fit your statement/opinion: RPT — Dom and I are headed out… but the above was Larry Elder, he does a bang-up job dealing with the issue. But knowing how people react to “conservative libertarians” [irrationally] — even going so far as calling Larry “the black face of white supremacy” — here is another source I am sure you implicitly trust: (CBS NEWS) Headed out. Love ya man. T.S. — I didn’t go back and check my source, turns out he is a Green Beret not a Marine. (NPR: “The Veteran And NFL Player Who Advised Kaepernick To Take A Knee”) Here is the non-Facebook addition to make my point and show that T.S. is off base a smidge. As a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Kaepernick sparked controversy when he sat, then knelt, during the National Anthem before several 2016 NFL preseason and regular-season games. He said he did so to protest police shootings of African-American men and other social injustices faced by black people in the United States. “To me, this is something that has to change,” Kaepernick said in an August 2016 interview. “And when there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent and this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.” Kaepernick also said he could not “show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” So it is “to spite the flag,” based on lies. (More on this in a bit) That is one. Continuing, Kaepernick went from sitting to kneeling because he was disrespecting those who and are serving: After first, Kaepernick sat during the anthem. Later, he opted instead to kneel “to show more respect for men and women who fight for the country.” The change came at the suggestion of former NFL player and Green Beret Nate Boyer….. (CNN) Not to show respect for the flag. Oppressed RPT — everything Kaeper said was pretty much not true. So neither he nor the people he said police were oppressing (or the white supremacist and privileged society he espoused) have any connection to reality. So not only is he not oppressed, but neither are his “homiez” T.S. — Sean I know you’re not saying that people of color have not been and still are being oppressed, or are we just cherry picking to try and discredit one person in hopes that it discredits an entire movement. Remember until we’ve walked in someone’s shoes we can’t know their truth. RPT — T.S., how are black persons oppressed? … outside of government subsidizing fatherless homes The oppression mentioned by T.S.? Driving while black: T.S. — Sean until families of color don’t have to have the talk about driving while black there will always be a state of being subject to unjust treatment or control. Luckily you’ve never HAD to have that conversation. I’ve been on both sides of that talk and when it comes from a white person it’s about how you can get out of it without a ticket rather than with your life. RPT — T.S., …….In Ferguson, Mo., after announcing a federal investigation into the cop-shooting death of an unarmed black teen, Holder said: “I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. … I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.” The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of “racism” on that highway has been investigated — and debunked. Twice. Numerous complaints of DWB — “Driving While Black” — were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring and put their officers through, among other things, “sensitivity training.” New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists’ speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit. The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead they accused the researchers of using a “flawed methodology.” Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn’t it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No — the facts did not fit the script. The next year, state police “stop data” showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority — almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the “flawed methodology” of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study’s methodology “flawed.”….. RPT — T.S., Some of this and more is found discussed in depth in an upload of mine 7-years ago (50 minutes long: https://youtu.be/tujTPr0SpCM). But the racial break down in New York of the police force is about 1/3rd white, 1/3rd black, and about 1/3rd Hispanic. And ticketing and stops are still heavily black. Why?? Already explained above. T.S. — So the study showed that more black people drove on that stretch of highway therefore more were pulled over. It’s like the statistic that people are more likely to get into an accident the closer to home they are. It’s a flawed study if there isn’t an equal base line all ethnicities accounted for. Now that’s just a supposition as I haven’t read their base-line, but you should get the point. I can tell you there are more white people that speed from Ventura to Santa Barbara. Does that mean the CHP aren’t biased against black people because they are pulled over less in this area (sarcastically)? I’ve personally experienced vehicles being pulled over based on the drivers color of skin. Two instances they were driving my car in areas that I drove all the time past officers. The only difference was the color of the skin of the person behind the wheel. None of this has any bearing on their treatment while being pulled over. One instance the driver was pulled out of the car pushed against the police vehicle with hands restrained while being questioned all after respectfully addressing the officer and putting the keys on the dash and hands out the window. All of this was because I had a brake light out. Did they even come talk to me the owner of the vehicle, that’s right they didn’t. He was given a warning after the officers partner heard me calling racial bias. Was I given anything, again the answer was nothing, not even a fix-it ticket or a warning. To re-iterate he was being the respectful one in this situation while I and the officers were acting inappropriately. And yet again we have found ourselves way down a rabbit hole that has no bearing on my original question. How is it disrespectful to kneel for the flag but is respectful to kneel for “God”? RPT — T.S., as well as they break the law (driving laws) more than other ethnicities: The Justice Department’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, explains that differences in traffic stops can simply be attributed to “differences in offending.”…… (IBD) This is where the INTRO comes into play and will hopefully lead to future conversation over the aforementioned documentary. A.Y. pops in with this: A.Y. — [speaking to R.R.] the United States government is not Christian. Our country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion and separation of Church and state. Our court is not supposed to make decisions based on religious beliefs. [….] Sean, you should watch the documentary the 13th. RPT — A.Y., Can you please explain where in the Constitution it says, “separation of church and state”? I carry a copy with me and will have time to look later. I have read it for years and miss it each time. The only time that phrase is used is in a letter by Thomas Jefferson (1803?) in response to a Baptist pastor who was worried about his state setting up a Christian denomination as a “state religion.” Jefferson responded that his Baptist denomination would not have to fear because the Constitution protected religion FROM THE STATE. Not the STATE FROM RELIGION. Today people thing the latter was meant. It was not. I had a very short discussion with TED LEVINE (Silence of the Lambs, Heat, etc.) on the issue. I have noted the longer “paper” I link in the post to — above in Conversation. In fact, I have read the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation (I even have a modern English version), the Declaration of Independence, and the like. Maybe you can point it out? Anyhew, off to work (late already). Got a busy day, been working 11-to-12 hours a day. Driving to Arizona on Saturday… so Monday may be my earliest to respond, well. At any rate, I always note the following to preface important conversation: “By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.” RPT — If I watch the documentary, will you discuss some points of it? That is real question. You can message me in FB if you wish to be more private, or, my email is here A.Y. — sure we may discuss on here or in messenger. BRAVO. Very rarely do you find a person willing to commit to look at the facts… let us see if it holds true. …BACK TO THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN T.S. AND MYSELF… T.S. — Sean until families of color don’t have to have the talk about driving while black there will always be a state of being subject to unjust treatment or control. Luckily you’ve never HAD to have that conversation. I’ve been on both sides of that talk and when it comes from a white person it’s about how you can get out of it without a ticket rather than with your life. RPT — …….In Ferguson, Mo., after announcing a federal investigation into the cop-shooting death of an unarmed black teen, Holder said: “I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. … I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.” Numerous complaints of DWB — “Driving While Black” — were filed by blacks driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. So the state entered into a consent decree, agreed to federal monitoring and put their officers through, among other things, “sensitivity training.” New Jersey commissioned a study, checking motorists’ speed with laser guns and photographing drivers of vehicles going 15 mph or more over the speed limit. The result? It turned out that more speeders were black than white, which explained why cops pulled over black motorists so often. The U.S. Justice Department, which requested the study, did not want the results released to the public. Instead they accused the researchers of using a “flawed methodology.” Why shelve a report that disproves racism? Isn’t it good news that Jersey troopers do not pull blacks over willy-nilly? Would this not improve race relations in New Jersey? No — the facts did not fit the script. The next year, state police “stop data” showed that, on the southern part of the turnpike, 30 percent of the drivers pulled over were minority — almost twice the 16 percent rate of minority stops elsewhere on the turnpike. So amid new allegations that cops were targeting minorities, and to correct the “flawed methodology” of the previous researchers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey commissioned yet another study. The result? Again, it turned out a disproportionately higher percentage of drivers on that stretch of highway were black, and that blacks were more likely than non-blacks to drive 80 miles per hour or faster. Again, critics called the study’s methodology “flawed.”….. […] Some of this and more is found discussed in depth in an upload of mine 7-years ago (50 minutes long). But the racial break down in New York of the police force is about 1/3rd white, 1/3rd black, and about 1/3rd Hispanic. And ticketing and stops are still heavily black. Why?? Already explained above. T.S. — So the study showed that more black people drove on that stretch of highway therefore more were pulled over. It’s like the statistic that people are more likely to get into an accident the closer to home they are. It’s a flawed study if there isn’t an equal base line all ethnicities accounted for. Now that’s just a supposition as I haven’t read their base-line, but you should get the point. I can tell you there are more white people that speed from Ventura to Santa Barbara. Does that mean the CHP aren’t biased against black people because they are pulled over less in this area (sarcastically)? I’ve personally experienced vehicles being pulled over based on the drivers color of skin. Two instances they were driving my car in areas that I drove all the time past officers. The only difference was the color of the skin of the person behind the wheel. None of this has any bearing on their treatment while being pulled over. One instance the driver was pulled out of the car pushed against the police vehicle with hands restrained while being questioned all after respectfully addressing the officer and putting the keys on the dash and hands out the window. All of this was because I had a brake light out. Did they even come talk to me the owner of the vehicle, that’s right they didn’t. He was given a warning after the officers partner heard me calling racial bias. Was I given anything, again the answer was nothing, not even a fix-it ticket or a warning. To re-iterate he was being the respectful one in this situation while I and the officers were acting inappropriately. RPT — as well as they break the law (driving laws) more than other ethnicities: That is it for now, except that A.Y. did contact me with a meme… …to which I updated and older post to respond to the part that wasn’t included in the original meme, here: I have yet to see if she will acknowledge just how bad here meme was. And yes, darn those pesky facts. Clipped from my: “The Cults, Language, Revelation, and Secularism (1999)“
Free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick revealed in a new interview that the 2015 shooting death of Mario Woods in San Francisco pushed him to protest police brutality and injustice, and led to his decision to kneel during the national anthem. The remarks were published online in the magazine Paper on Tuesday…..
…..Holder’s own department statistics show that African Americans, on average, violate speeding and other traffic laws at much greater rates than whites.
The New Jersey Turnpike? The long-believed claim of “racism” on that highway has been investigated — and debunked. Twice.
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:
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:
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:
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?
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:
Recap: Day one of the abortionist insurrection… pic.twitter.com/Y5YhvVAMIG
— APOCTOZ (@Apoctoz) June 25, 2022
(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
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).
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
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.
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….
…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.
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.
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.
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”
Or how bout this trope?
So again the question is,
How about this: “women remain underrepresented in CEO positions.” You get the point.
FUNNIES
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…..