June 27, 2022
Another crisis pregnancy center is torched by radical pro-aborts.
The terrorists scrawled on the walls "if abortions aren't safe neither are you".
The First Life Choices clinic of Longfront Colorado (near Boulder), a Christian clinic that aids pregnant women, was burned and graffitied, proving what many of us have always said, that these people are not interested in women's health but in keeping their blood sacrifices to Moloch. They are witches, not humanitarians. If they were humanitarians they would protest perhaps but not try to destroy a clinic providing medical and social services to expecting mothers.
" On my honor I promise to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."
That is the Scout Oath.
So how is marching in a gay pride parade and waiving rainbow flags "morally straight"? How is it "mentally awake" for that matter?
It's amazing how the Left has flipped everything on it's head. No doubt these Scouts believed that homosexuality is like hair color and that what they are doing supporing "gay pride" is heloping other people. But it is immoral. There is a reason why they are called queer - even by themselves; they know this doesn't qualify as "morally straight" but they desperately want to redefine the term.
Looks like they are succeeding.
And what of the Scouts as an organization? They are always under attack for molestations of the boys yet people can't see that that is an inevitable biproduct of the thinking shown here. You can't dance with the Devil and not expect to get burned.
SCOTUS sides with a high school football coach in a First Amendment case about prayer at the 50-yard-line. In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS says the public school district violated the coach's free speech and free exercise rights when it barred him from praying on the field after games.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2022
The deadline is here for 40,000 soldiers who have as yet to take the Covid shot.
So the military will replace them with whom exactly?
Well, they are taking in HIV positive people. I guess the sniffles is worse than AIDS?
The Mad Hatter wouldn't even think this was remotely sane.
Comedian-cum-commentator Bill Maher has of late been making some new friends and enemies and raising many an eyebrow. At issue are his Real Time monologues in which he has taken his "side,” the Left, to task for "woke” insanity ranging from canceling people over innocent quips to convincing children they can be the opposite sex to whiny "millennial” entitlement. It reminds many of the #WalkAway movement and of billionaire industrialist Elon Musk’s recent resolution to vote Republican. Nonetheless, Maher never actually becomes "red pilled”; one way or another, he makes clear he’s firmly on the Democrat plantation. There’s a good reason for this, too — a psychological reason.
Here's one to make you guffaw!
Strange how they never, ever, look to their own policies.
California Democrats to Investigate Cause of High Gas Prices
June 26, 2022
Thought of the Day:
Some people are equating being against gun ownership with being against abortion as a pro-life issue, saying you're not truly pro-life if you don't embrace both positions. But this is a false equivalency, as it conflates a tool with an act.
It's a bit like saying you can't be pro-life unless you support banning speculums because they can be used during abortions.
There's an old saying, "A bad worker blames his tools." Maybe now we could also say: A bad social reformer blames his society's tools.
And guns in the right hands save lives, something very, very rarely true of abortion, which has the sole purpose of taking lives.
In a discussion on Facebook about the Russo-Ukrainian War, a guy named Daniel Rifenburgh says:
Starve Ukraine of munitions and they'll make peace fast. Russia has won. Let's declare it over. Let Russia keep the eastern russophone districts. The alternative is endless war, which is what the military-industrial complex and the globalist elites want. Screw them.
Bryan Alexander states:
The war won't be endless. (No war is.) And we still don't know what Putin's true objective is. He may want to conquer all of Ukraine. And the Baltic countries. And the globalists do NOT like the war in Ukraine. The globalists want peace—war is bad for business (except for arms manufacturers—but that is true in any war—and also true in peace).
I disagree Bryan; I don't think the globalists want peace at all right now. They want Russia forced into their glorious new empire. And they want to make war profits. And they want to help Joe Biden and other statists like Justin Trudeau hide their many sins with the war. They want to expand NATO and the E.U. into Asia. They want old style countries like Russia to become passe' in the new world government system. I think this war serves a great many purposes. I do agree we don't know what Putin's aim is, but I suspect it is not necessarily to take all of Ukraine now but to take all the Black Sea and leave Ukraine totally dependent - fodder for a later takeover. Conquer Ukraine and they have to defend it, hobble it and they have a buffer. It's the old Mongol strategy, and the reason why Ukraine is named that very name (It means "borderland" and was so called because the Golden Horde would go there periodically and ransack the countryside, leaving it a wasteland and buffer against the West.) I don't know for sure but I suspect Putin is doing much the same. And he wants a promise that NATO and the E.U. stay out of the "Russias" of which Ukraine was and is a member.
You can disagree, of course—but. Globalists don't want a new Russian empire, because Putin is a loose cannon: He is not on board with globalism. He wants Russia to be a superpower. Nor will NATO or the EU be expanded into Asia. It's the EUROPEAN Union, after all. And you rebut your own point when you say Putin wants to leave Ukraine "dependent" and "fodder for a later takeover." (How is that NOT taking "all of Ukraine," just because he takes the rest of it later, rather than now?) Putin has already said quite explicitly, he doesn't see Ukraine as a "buffer"—he sees it as part of Russia! Ukraine is NOT one of the "Russias." It's Ukraine. And it's absolutely NOT a "member" of "The Russias"—it's an independent nation. That's just factually untrue. It's not even reality. The Ukrainians have wanted their independence for hundreds of years. And they've finally had it for over 30 years now.
Bryan you say:
"but. Globalists don't want a new Russian empire, because Putin is a loose cannon: He is not on board with globalism."
I couldn't agree more and that makes my case. The Globalists don't want peace. They want a system where they control everything. Russia is in the way. (That hardly makes them our friends as some conservatives have argued though.)
NATO tried to expand into Georgia, which is in Asia Bryan. That was a large part of what triggered the Russian invasion in '08. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato/nato-promises-ukraine-georgia-entry-one-day-idUSL0179714620080403 The Georgians still hope to be let in.
Certainly some see NATO expansion into Asia. https://multipolarista.com/2022/04/09/nato-asia-pacific-china-russia/
There is also a move to get Israel to join NATO. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1587678/israel-nato-turkey-european-union-latest-news-ont
I would add Ukraine is one of the Russias; the "Russias" include Great Russia, White Russia (Byelorus), and Ukraine (along with the largely forgotten Black Russia). Kiev was once the capitol of Russia before the coming of the Mongols. It diverged after the Mongols conquered Great Russia and turned Ukraine into a buffer zone, decimating it repeatedly for centuries. The word Ukraine means "borderland". That it is an independent nation is immaterial; so is Byelorus, which is also one of the Russias. Its like saying there are no Central American nations because they are independent of each-other. Honduras is as much Central American as is Panama.
Yes, they wanted independence (who could blame them) and Russia has no claim on their territory, but the reality is they are a very new nation. And there is considerable dispute about the boundaries, which the Russians have exploited. I would add the eastern part of the country is primarily Great Russian and speaks Russian and not Ukrainian. And I would further add that the United States fomented the Orange Revolution that threw out the democratically elected pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovitch. He was kicked out via the CIA.
And I would further point out that Ukraine was regularly shelling the Crimean and also cut off the water from the Dneiper to that region. And threatened to cut the oil and gas pipelines.
That doesn't justify invasion, and I largely blame Putin, but the fact is this was an act of war and a provocation, one we simply ignored. This could have been resolved diplomatically, in my opinion.
As to your accusation that my argument falls because I say the end here is not the annexation of Russia, Bryan I think you misunderstand my point. The ultimate endgame here for Putin is to put Ukraine back in bed with them. I never said that was not the case. I was speaking about THIS WAR. Putin is willing to let go to catch the bigger fish. In the end he no doubt wants to annex Ukraine. He's said as much. But I think he could be forced to negotiate.
He could have been forced to negotiate before he ever invaded had we had anyone remotely competent inn office in Washington. The high price of fuel meant Putin was flush with cash. Stern measures early on could have moved the Russians and stayed Putin's hand.
I will add this; I've long argued that American policy is stoking the fires not just in Ukraine. We encircled the Russians. We invaded Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan. We allied with Georgia and even tried to build a pipeline system that would completely cut Russia out of the picture. And we expanded NATO, right to their doorstep. We put Poland and Hungary and the rest into the alliance. We were chewing on the Baltic States.
The Russians get very nervous when a potential enemy (and given their paranoia everyone is a potential enemy) is at their doorstep. They've been invaded so very many times. And they have no good natural defenses to protect them.
That said, I do not think Russia is in the right here, but I will give them the basic courtesy of not mischaracterizing their position. Sadly many do these days, and nobody wants to give their side of this. (I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I am saying a lot of people aren't getting the whole story.)
Putin always accepts half a loaf. I suspect he'll eventually make a peace offering taking Dunbas and the Ukrainians will have to take it. They are only resisting now with huge amounts of help from us. That won't go on forever nor should it.
I believe the Ukrainians have basically lost this war unless other countries actually go in militarily and not just with aid. In other words, the war has to expand or Ukraine will have to make a deal.
And that deal will have to include a vow not to join NATO or the E.U. That is Russia's dealbreaker.
Let's recap: Following the Supreme Court ruling, the situation in the USA is politically identical to that in Europe and almost the world, where abortion is regulated by law and not by the Constitution.
In some states in the USA and Europe, abortion is more free. In others, abortion is less free.
For reasons known only to those who provide their opinion from journalists, this situation is now intolerable (in the USA) while it has worked very well for decades (in Europe).
It all makes a lot of sense.
Translated from Italian
Russia attacked Ukraine with over 60 cruise missiles in less than 24 hours, starting last night, and targeted multiple cities including Kiev, Kharkov, and Lvov (all of which had been relatively untouched lately). The really significant news, though, is that—for the first time—many of the missiles were launched from Belarus, which makes Belarus a de facto co-belligerent with Russia—and they should be treated as such.
20 Jun 2022 - Swiss Policy Research
Magic potion or snake oil? An honest look at the international data.
The key findings are that there's no justification for vaccine passports or mandates, even in a healthcare setting. Vaccines may only provide some short term net benefit for the elderly or health compromised individuals but can increase infection risk immediately after vaccination and boosters.
Here's a summary of the key findings which are supported by multiple citations and references.
Both vaccine study data and real-world data reviewed above suggest that since omicron, vaccine protection against infection starts at 50% and drops to zero within a few months, whereas protection against severe disease and death in senior citizens starts at 75% and decreases to 50% within a few months.
Furthermore, there is no difference in viral load and infectiousness between vaccinated and unvaccinated people; no evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of mild or moderate covid; and no evidence that vaccination reduces the risk of long covid in non-senior citizens. Prior covid infection continues to provide a more durable protection against re-infection.
Thus, while the risk/benefit ratio may still positive in senior citizens and other risk groups (based on current evidence), this does not appear to be the case in healthy young adults and children. Danish professor in global health and vaccine expert, Dr. Christine Stabell-Benn, recently argued that she "wouldn’t recommend vaccination of anybody under 50 years of age.”
Furthermore, both "vaccine passports” and vaccine mandates, even for health care workers, have no medical or epidemiological
Read the full article here:
June 25, 2022
#BREAKING: Police fire tear gas towards pro-choice protesters in Phoenix
Right now Arizona police are in riot gear clearing out the pro-choice protesters as they Fire teargas right into the crowd straight from the Capitol windows in Phoenix Arizona pic.twitter.com/DuwFA08zKU
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) June 25, 2022
BREAKING— Abortion activists are handing out the PERSONAL ADDRESS of Justice Clarence Thomas’ home to threaten the Supreme Court Justice pic.twitter.com/92gl80CmrZ
— Luke Mosiman (@Luke_Mosiman) June 24, 2022
The Treasury Department now says they must take race into account whenever making fiscal policy!
Here is the ridiculous document.
Read this snippet:
The Department of the Treasury’s mission is to maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by combating threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. Government’s finances and resources effectively.
The American Rescue Plan (ARP) is a $1.9 trillion package of which more than $1 trillion is managed by Treasury to jumpstart the nation’s economic recovery. Through its ARP investments, Treasury is working to ensure that families, businesses, and neighborhoods that have been historically excluded from economic opportunities or experienced persistent poverty are fully included in the nation’s economic recovery and future growth.
The announcement includes "new strategies to advance equity,” including:
Prioritizing fiscal rewards based on race:
• Foster an equitable recovery that helps ensure all Americans rebound from the economic consequences of a global pandemicEnd
I would argue that none of what they claim as their mission is what the Founding Fathers intended. They were supposed to collect taxes and manage the money. Nothing about "equity" or "job growth" was in the deal.
Second, there is no mandate in the Constitution to promote one race over any other. Race is not supposed to enter into the matter.
This is weaponizing our own money against us.
We can't get this lawless bunch of radicals out of office soon enough, in my opinion.
How about actually doing your jobs and managing our tax dollars rather than squandering them?
Common Sense and Wonder has two articles showing how Joe Biden and those who support him are the true insurrectionists.
First, his press secretary refused to say that the Administration will support the SCOTUS ruling on abortion - which is the law of the land.
Second, the Democrats and Bidenistas are stoking the flames over this decision.
From the article:
Angered that the Supreme Court announced inDobbsthat abortion is not part of the Constitution but is, instead, a matter for the states to decide, a lot of leftists are announcing that they’re ready to burn down the entire American system rather than yield to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Leading the charge are sitting membersof Congress, people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters. What they are demanding, and an army of activists isagreeing to do, is a classic insurrection.
Immediately upon learning about the ruling inDobbs, Ocasio-Cortez wason the warpath:
"This decision: illegitimate,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez yelled into a megaphone an activist was holding.
Following the declaration that the Supreme Court’s decision is "illegitimate,” AOC called on activists to take to the streets for mass protests, language that has sparked civil unrest throughout the United States in the past.
"Into the streets,” AOC chanted repeatedly outside the High Court, according to video captured by Hernandez.
So it was "insurrection" when Trump supporters took to the streets, but it is just fine and dandy when Democrats do it?
New argument from the left. Justices appointed to SCOTUS by presidents who won the Electoral College but not the popular vote are illegitimate.
By extension, they are saying any president who is Constitutionall
I guess it is immaterial that presidents only nominate, the Senate seats them.
Proving once again, they will tear down any institution they do not own.
Civics education in this country is horrible, at that by design. Few understand how our system works, but they all have opinions. The fact is we don't HAVE a popular vote for President. What we have is a vote in the given states to choose a slate of electors to send to Washington to vote for us. Those electors are free to vote as they please (except in states where there are laws forcing them to cst their vote for whom they are pledged.) Shoot; there is no mandate to even have a popular vote. South Carolina still had the state legislature choose the electors as late as 1860. While every state now has a popular vote for that there is no federal mandate.
And there is nothing to force any precinct to count votes. What this means is the popular vote is never a complete picture. Every precinct will count votes, but once the issue is settled in their state they can choose to keep counting - or not. So in the last couple of elections California has counted, counted, counted to run up the popular vote tally, and nobody will challenge what the precincts produce because it doesn't materially affect the outcome of the election. BUT it certainly affects the political debate. The Democrats are using this "popular vote" myth to demand eliminating the College of Electors and thus further move us to pure democracy, something the Founding Fathers feared and loathed.
As Plato pointed out, democracy quickly and invariably deteriorates into chaos, anarchy, and the rise of a tyrant.
So, if they are now saying a Justice must be appointed by the winner of the popular vote, then why not just elect the Justices and be done with it? I mean, if democracy is so all-fired wonderful, why shouldn't we democratize the Courts? Fro that matter, why have the Courts at all? Let the People decide every issue! Take a pleibescite.
It's interesting they are arguing the overturning of Roe is some sort of "eliminating" of a "right". But they want rights to be decided b y democratic action. Hypocrisy is ripe here.
If rights transcend the collective will (as Rousseau and every leftist since believes they do not) then they are not up for democratic meddling. Our Founders believed they came from "Nature and Nature's God" and not from men. That is the whole reason we have an independent judiciary.
The Left only accepts an independent judiciary when they are attacking those rights they were put in place to protect.
That was why judges were not elected (as they are in many states) to the Federal bench in the first place. Politics was supposed to stay out of it.
Maybe we should have a national popular vote on Senators and Congressmen? I'd like to see Pelosi or Di Fi have to win over voters in Alabama.
I'm Catholic. I am curious to see what, if anything, the priest says tomorrow morning. I strongly suspect there will be silence on the subject.
Frankly, the church bells should have been ringing when the ruling was announced, and the Archdiocese should have held a celebratory mass thanking God for freeing us from this great moral scourge. But there was little to no fanfare. The Archbishop came out with a statement promising support services for pregnant women and that was IT!
Has the Church become so cowardly that they will not celebrate this? Have they lost the Holy Spirit completely? Catholicism has said abortion is evil and condemned it in the strongest terms. So why weren't we treated to at least some cheers?
It is clear to me this was an act by the Holy Spirit. At a time when the Left is rising like a swarm of locusts the Supreme Court found a spine and overturned Roe. That was nothing short o fmiraculous.
So why aren't we offering any thanks?
Something is seriously wrong in our churches.
The Milankovitch cycles include variations in the Earth’s Precession on a 23,000 to 26,000 year cycle, Obliquity (axial tilt) on a 40,000 year cycle and the Earth’s orbital Eccentricity on a 100,000 year cycle. We appear to be entering a phase of reduced Eccentricity. The Earth’s orbit is becoming more circular.
Precession is like pitch and yaw in an airplane, while Obliquity is like roll in an airplane. Eccentricity can be viewed as an airplane circling the airport for a landing. The Earth is like a big airplane on autopilot. Nobody is at the controls. So tell Al Gore to plant his fat arse in a seat and strap on his seat belt until the plane comes to a complete halt.
Many people tie Milankovitch cycle to Ice Ages and Warm Interglacials, claiming that solar irradiance received by the Earth varies accordingly.
This may be partly true but the major impact is the tidal pumping and gravitational tugging by the Sun as well as planetary alignments, particularly the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter. Gravitational tugging opens up Earth’s tectonic plates and releases more geothermal heat.
As we approach the Winter Solstice, the Earth tilts away from the Sun, imposing greater tensile forces on the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is also closer to the Sun. It is known that seismic activity in the Southern Hemisphere during the Winter Solstice is twice as much as the Summer Solstice. Such tensile forces open up the Earth’s tectonic plates and releases more heat. The El Niño is due to the stresses finding relief along the Peru-Chile Trench. The La Niña is due to the stresses finding relief along the Tonga Trench.
All of the global effects that we currently observe in rain, floods, snows, tropical storms, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and cold waves are directly tied to the warm waters off Tonga driving energetic, moisture-laden air into the atmosphere. The Tonga Trench has been very active since 2021 and continues to be so. On Jan. 15, 2022, we witnessed the most powerful submarine volcano ever recorded. The Winter Solstice was December 21, 2021.
For more information, suggest you peruse the concepts of Plate Climatology by James Edward Kamis.
The problem is, all of our historical recreations are based upon assumptions. We weren't there to take direct measurements, so, those historical proxies are generated by looking at secondary effects, and estimating what that would mean for temperature, or whatever other measurement they're trying to recreate. Even atmospheric samples, trapped in ice are not, and can not be a faithful representation of what the atmosphere was like at that time. For, through diffusion, those trapped atmospheric samples gained and lost gases for that entire time.
I'm not saying they're useless. Indeed, we should keep trying. Yet, it is very difficult, and indeed, perilous to draw conclusions when neither the fidelity, that is accuracy in time, nor resolution, precision in value, of a variable is clearly understood.
The Supreme Court highlighted that abortion is NOT covered by the constitution, and the Supreme Court cannot fill this gap by acting like a legislature as was done in two previous cases brought to the Supreme Court, 'Roe' and 'Casey'
Therefore the 6-3 verdict held: 'The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion' Consequently, the previous Roe and Casey cases are overruled and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.'
This simply means that if States don't already have legislation covering the access to or restrictions on abortion, they need to get some in place.
I don't think there are any US states which have no regulations regarding abortion. What many 'pro-choice' activists are upset about, is that a number of US states have restrictive access to abortion.
US Pro-life and Pro-choice activists need to be lobbying their state politicians, not Supreme Court Justices.
Incidentally Australia is in a similar situation to the US. Access to abortion is not regulated by our Federal Government, it is regulated by individual States and Territories.
Note: 'Roe' and 'Casey' are two previous SCOTUS decisions, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.
v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833.
You can download and read the 200+ page opinion published by the Supreme court at the link here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
The summary of the case leading to opinion is covered on page 1.
DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022
Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that "[e]xcept in a medical
emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall
not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an
unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn hu-
man being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191.
Respondents—Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors—challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Before this Court, petitioners defend the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.
PS: If the Democrats were really interested in universal abortion rights in the US, they could have Codified Roe vs Wade in federal legislation while they have control of the White House, Senate and Congress.
I think this has sweeping ramifications in matters of how the Court views its role. This ruling seems to validate the concept of Federalism, and says that abortion is something outside the scope of it's authority. While the ruling itself denied this sets a precedent for restraining court involvement in other issues it in fact does that very thing.
I would add that I think this ruling, from my reading of it anyway, makes a legislative effort at the Federal level moot. If Congress were to pass a law making abortion legal everywhere it would be overstepping its bounds as surely as did the Court. I think based on this SCOTUS would have to find such a law unconstitutional. They have pretty much states this is a state matter. I think this may require a Constitutional Amendment to allow a national abortion law.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it certainly would appear to be the case to me.
If you listen carefully enough they will tell the truth once in a while.
52 queries taking 0.061 seconds, 209 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.