Silence in the face of evil
Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card.
A pop-up group known as "Ruth Sent Us" (we can only guess who is behind it) threatened Church services with this warning: "Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries." A church in Colorado a church was defaced. At St Patrick's Church in NYC people were harassed.
This week Justice Alito was forced to flee his home as left wing activists showed up at his home and the home of other justices.
All of the above is illegal. Biden's DOJ hasn't done a thing. The FBI hasn't done a thing.
Nancy Pelosi is actively inciting this mob:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Monday lauded protesters expressing "righteous anger" in the wake of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that shows the court may be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.
"While we have seen and heard extraordinary anguish in our communities," Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "we have been moved by how so many have channeled their righteous anger into meaningful action: planning to march and mobilize to make their voices heard."
In the statement, Pelosi also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will "fight relentlessly to enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land."
foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-abortion-ruling-righteous-anger-supreme-court
A progressive guest on MSNBC said she would like to offer the leaker sexual services and that she'd like to get pregnant so that she could celebrate the whole affair with an abortion.
This is who they are!
Wednesday Chuck Schumer will try to pass a radical abortion bill that House democrats passed last year, known as the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). The problem with this bill is that it has a slick loophole included in it. After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” It neither explains nor set limits to a physician’s “good-faith medical judgment.” In other words, any perceived mental, emotional or familial factors could be used in order to permit an abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Here's a thought: If the democrats can vote on a national abortion law, the Republicans, once they control all three branches of government might just do the same thing.
Tags
Who is online
654 visitors
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely upon — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Justice Alito said in the draft, which was dated February and leaked to Politico."
"Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card."
How so?
Sounds like a right wing plant.
Apples and lug nuts comparison.
Come up with new damn material. It was disproven during the BLM/Antifa riots; and it is just as full of shit now.
The left needs to learn the damn law; and follow it!!!!
Then they should go protest outside the homes of abortion clinic employees. It is illegal to protest and try to intimidate judges. Or don't laws count because liberals have "right" on their side?
I've seen lots of bigotry from the left the last few days.
This is why everybody always takes you seriously.
With six fundamentalist Catholic US Supreme Court Justices America is effectively ruled by the Papists!
Once they outlaw abortions, contraception, gay and interracial marriage, they are coming for you, too...
Isn’t Gorsuch Episcopalian? Why do you think that Sotomayor is a fundamentalist?
He was born Anglican but then went to Catholic school. Sotomayor is also Catholic
I don’t know if he was born Catholic, I do know that he was married in the Church of England, and attends an Episicopal Church in Vienna, Va. I believe that he self-identifies as a Protestant.
Sotomayor is Catholic like Biden and Pelosi are but what makes you think that she is a Fundamentalist?
You have it a little wrong. Gorsuch was born and raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools but his wife is Anglican. Because she did not convert they are/were ineligible for Catholic rights and attend an Episcopal congregation that considers itself hybrid Catholic/Anglican...
Gorsuch has refused to clarify his religion...
In any case, Catholics are overrepresented.
Nobody said Sotomayor was fundie Catholic.
How do you get to six without Sotomayor?
I doubt that he picked the schools he attended before college. He got his degrees from Columbia and Harvard like President Obama.
There is no info that suggests that Gorsuch has s a Fundamentalist Catholic. Before moving here, he attended St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder. A inclusive liberal church in a liberal city.
Neil Gorsuch belongs to a notably liberal church — and would be the first Protestant on the Court in years
I never said she was.
Gorsuch was born, baptized, raised and educated Catholic. He married an Anglican and attends church with her but has never converted from Catholic to Episcopal. Looks like a duck. Waddles like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Since Gorsuch refuses to clarify his specific faith I consider him still a Catholic...
Six, seven or six and a half Catholics out of nine total SC Justices is not representative!
Could you make one point without going all pickaune about pedantic details just once?
I replied to this comment:
and asked, “Why do you think that Sotomayor is a fundamentalist?” You joined the conversation with the observation that Sotomayor is also Catholic. Perhaps you didn’t read the preceding adjective fundamentalist in the initial remark or in my comment. No worries.
You consider him a fundamentalist Catholic but supported that position or why you called Sotomayor a fundamentalist Catholic.
You choose the hyperbolic adjective for a reason, nothing about these two Justices suggest fundamentalism. Why can’t you admit to a mistake?
Which is why nobody can take you seriously...
You’ve made a logical, persuasive argument again. Thanks for the discussion.
So what?
Liberal, right!
That’s not a quote from 3.2.4., disinformation campaign?
"Which is why nobody can take you seriously..."
Nobody does . . .he seems to have cut back on talking down to me lately . . . and putting words in my mouth. I guess I haven't given him as many opportunities.
I haven’t seen a decrease but who’s counting.
We are not the ones promoting disinformation.
You're the one inserting a false quote:
into your comment.
The Church he selected is .
It wasn't a quote, false or otherwise
That's nice.
So why did you use either the Reply-with-Quote (RwQ) or the Quote toolbar button? Why did you want the text placed in a gray box to distinguish it as a quote?
Yes, Pastor Susan does important ministry to the homeless and those with AIDS.
That's some serious conspiracy theory shit you just threw out there.
Yeah, that is also what the damn gop said about their not so secret plans to outlaw abortions while they were packing the Supreme Court with far far rightwing ideologues dedicated to doing exactly that. Remember the gop reassuring us they were not doing that, and would not do it?
So you are still basing your entire opinion on "what if" scenarios. I call those conspiracy theories.
As I said elsewhere, and will say again....
IMO that's a brilliant way to make the justices harden their resolve and shove their decision down the liberals' throats. Sure as hell I would if I were a judge. It may also serve to turn Republican voters who would have voted against the candidates who supported that decision into deciding to vote them in for spite. "Stupid is as stupid does." (Forrest Gump)
Now let's see if those conservatives who don't agree with my objectivity, when it comes to liberal vs conservative, refuse to vote up my post - i.e. those who don' t believe that I thought Trump was absolutely right to back Israel's right to declare Jerusalem the ancient and rightful capital of Israel, and that due to conquest of the Golan Heights in a defensive war brought on by Syria Israel is entitled to absolute sovereignty over the Golan Heights, notwithstanding that any other nation would have been, but not those fucking Jews because of good old-fashioned antisemitism, eh? But on those issues, Trump was better and deserved more respect than ANY previous POTUS, matched only by America's original UN vote for partition.
I missed the whole exit ramp.
???
Abortion and the Supreme Court ended up on the road to Jerusalem.
The Democrats are famous for going all in on street drama and overreacting anytime something doesn't go their way.
And now they've fired up their brain dead dupes and inciting them to commit violence
You are speaking from both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you have admonished pro-choice people that if they wanted to have protection, they should have made a law, and on the other hand, you are now showing the flaw to that.
Roe v Wade was protected under the Constitution.
And for the record, I don't condone this kind of violence, nor protesting in front of private residences. I do understand the sense of betrayal.
Unfortunately, it seems some are taking cues from the 'pro-life protestors'. Let's hope they don't take it to the extremes that 'pro-lifers' have.
After decades of harassing clinics, doxing doctors, attacking doctor's families, bombings, murdering patients and clinicians and going as far as murdering Dr. Tiller at his church, it's hard to feel sorry for 'the other side' feeling threatened for once.
This is true. I would still like to take the higher ground. The only thing I find ironic is that the conservatives seem to forget the things you describe above.
I’ve never felt that empathy is hard, but we are all different.
I don’t think that they forget, the strident on both extremes favor situational ethics.
Yup, don't feel a twinge of sympathy for them.
And the alleged molotov cocktail found allegedly the left's choice - sounds like a right wing plant to me.
Excuse me - that's in reference to another posters' 'article' here
"Early on Mother's Day they struck. They set fire to the Madison Wisconsin headquarters of a religious group called "Wisconsin Family Action." The group provides counseling to women. Flames were seen coming from the building shortly after 6 AM. The outside of the building had been spray-painted with the words "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either." Police found the remnants of at least one Molotov Cocktail - the radical left's calling card."
How so?
Sounds like a right wing plant.
It always does to those on the left. Funny how they never seem to catch any of those "right wing plants" or "agitators".
I'm calling the left out for their power grab. You told me a majority of the American public is in favor of legalizing abortion. Chuck Schumer vows to put it to a vote. If he can't get a law passed I want to know why?
Because the gop in the Senate will filibuster it...
A bill based on the parameters of Roe would even garner Republican votes. I was told that the pro abortion side had a majority. If they can't pass a bill, then they clearly don't have a majority.
Beyond all that, Obama once had a filibuster proof Senate. Why didn't they do it then?
Any thinking person who is capable of grade school math knows that is BS.
A thinking person is able to recall events as opposed to googling. I know what you did, but it won't work because on 2 occasions Obama actually did have 60 dems seated in the Senate:
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
And 5 months is plenty of time to pass a bill.
Well gee Vic, perhaps a thinking person recalling events would remember that Obama started 2009 with 58 Democratic Senators.
Spector came on board in April 2009. That's 59.
Byrd was hospitalized in May of 2009. That's 58.
Kennedy was dying of brain cancer and did NOT vote after June of 2009. That's 57.
Care to refute that simple grade school math Vic?
Your total of just over five months is BULLSHIT.
In reality, Obama NEVER had a filibuster proof Senate.
That's why I provided the link. For those who either forgot or are in denial.
It's just more gaslighting. Somehow a Senator who caucused with the Democrats and ran for President as a President doesn't count. But, since I'm a fair guy, I'm open to any evidence that Bernie Sanders, and Sanders alone, joined with Republicans to stop Obama from passing some critical piece of legislation.
Or pretending that Byrd never voted after May.
Or that Kennedy wasn't replaced by a Democrat.
It's really embarrassing to see.
She doesn't mention when those people were replaced. It's right there in the article I linked.
Blatant misrepresentation of sources is a problem on this site. It always amazes me to see people double and triple down on their lies.
It's really amazing. They simply ignore what's right there in the article.
Bullshit Sean.
That would be relevant if there was 5 months of 59 Democratic Senators + 1 Independent. There WASN'T.
Who pretended that Sean?
Again, who said that Sean?
Your comment sure is.
Then why would you expect me the REPEAT it Vic?
Sure as fuck is.
It does? Then why do it?
Actually Vic, YOU are the one ignoring what's right there in the article. You stated:
As your link proves that the highest number of DEMOCRATS seated in the Senate during that time was 58.
I await the movement of the goal post...
Stop the dishonesty.. 60 Senators caucused as Democrats.
The fact that the 2000 Democratic Party VP nominee as well as a perennial Democratic Party Presidential Presidential Candidate called themselves independent doesn't help you. They CAUCUSED AS DEMOCRATS.
Who do you think you are fooling with transparent deception? Why not be honest and explain the situation honestly instead of trying to mislead people?
Your post 6.2.5 is so blatantly dishonest I'm embarrassed for you. One can only Pity the ignorant people who fell for it.
He originally said "Obama once had a filibuster proof Senate. Why didn't they do it then?"
you've offered nothing to prove him wrong.
PS- Get a calendar. Learn how it works. Then apply it to the information in Vic's post. Then apologize for wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.
Fuck off Sean.
See above.
Stop blatantly spreading misinformation.
Actually it wasn't. Courts don't write laws; and that is exactly what the Supreme Court did in Roe vs Wade.
That is a law any way you look at it. The Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds, period.
Yet the left continue to do it because they know Democrat politicians back them; and the partisan POS AG/DOJ won't do anything to them. Until people who back Democrats hold them accountable; these leftist Brown Shirts will continue to terrorize those that dare to disagree with them.
Then I suggest you contact your government representatives at the state and federal levels and let them know that you want Roe codified into law at each level. The Supreme Court's ruling will not end abortion. Some states have snap back laws that will outlaw abortions immediately after the ruling. Others already have laws codifying abortion into their state's constitution; so they will not change.
Don't hold your breath for either side to do anything on abortion at the federal level. Senate Democrats are preparing to bring a very liberal bill on abortion passed by the House that no Republican would ever vote for. Schumer knows it will never pass already; but he is playing politics to stoke up the anger on the left even higher. Don't worry, the Republicans won't do any better if they retake the House and Senate after mid terms. Brandon is still sitting in the White; and I am sure his handlers can pull his strings well enough to operate the VETO stamp. Congress has had close to 50 years to come up with an abortion law at the federal level. Each side has held bullet proof majorities during that time as well as the White House; yet none of them bothered to even try. Their job is to get reelected; not to serve the people that put them there.
"Lori Lightfoot, the Democrat lesbian mayor of Chicago , took to Twitter Monday to warn others in the LGBTQ+ community that the Supreme Court would be "coming after us next," following the leaked draft opinion striking down the key abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973).
"To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next," Lightfoot wrote on Twitter. "This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!"
The mayor of Chicago calling for violent insurrection against Supreme Court.
Really it's nothing new for the Democrats and the left.
Correct. These violent groups like "Ruth sent me" and antifa and BLM are to the democrats what Chicago's "42 gang" once was to the Outfit. They harbor the violent terrorists used for intimidation.
Ruth sent me, antifa, BLM. It's telling that these bottom feeders ONLY show up when there is resistance to something the left supports. And those on the left have been gullible enough to believe them.
Anti-fa and BLM aren't protesting. What are you talking about?
A few openly celebrate them, others try a bit of whataboutism and most denounce them when pressed on it.
I wonder how they really feel?
They've been so used to being told what to do and how to feel I doubt they can formulate their own thought process or verbalize an original, personal thought.
I think you're right.
Have you ever seen the shepherd lead the sheep right into the slaughter house?
Their actions are closer to lemmings. One does something and the rest follow suit without thought.
The Monastery of the mind. They may not have learned much math or science, but they were obviously taught that mob rule is the way to get what you want
Are you trying to diss Saint Ignatius or Edward Leigh?
She is right. But she didn't call for a violent insurrection like #45 did when he lost the election.
I agree, letting men compete in women's sports is a disgusting war on women.
Did you know there are more pro life women than men?
What loophole are you talking about Vic?
Gee, that statement is verbatim from the WSJ article. Shouldn't there be a link to that article in your seed?
There is a long understood legal definition of 'good-faith' Vic. There is no need to reiterate it ad nauseam.
That's contradictory Vic. You cited the 'good-faith medical judgement' predicate in the bill. That makes it clear that it isn't about mere perception.
Yes there is.
If a woman simply doesn't want the baby in the 9th month, is that a risk to her health? Her well-being? Isn't it emotional stress?
If the answer is yes to any of the above, we have abortion on demand right up until birth.
Then you admit that your statement was bullshit.
Progress.
That a galactic deflection Vic.
You went from arguing the alleged vagueness of 'good-faith medical judgement' to blathering about a woman making unilateral decisions. That's NOT how the bill reads and your own statements illustrate that fact.
So, please be clear Vic. WTF is your issue with the bill?
Absolutely not. The vagueness of 'good-faith medical judgement' means just about anything can qualify as harmful to the woman. Some doctor will get to decide - based on what? His judgement.
It's a fairly simple concept and you can't grasp it.
“Some doctor will get to decide…”
As opposed to some legislator?
A doctor with no restrictions whatsoever.
“A doctor with no restrictions whatsoever.”
Which is none of your business to begin with.
An abortion in the 9th month is everyone's concern.
“An abortion in the 9th month is everyone's concern.”
It actually isn’t. Tell me how a woman’s personal decision in determining her fate in any way effects you personally.
Unless, of course, you are equally willing to have your private medical decisions determined by outside sources.
What did the Roe decision say about that or do you care about the decision?
I'm sure that afrayedknot would agree with state requirements on the proper way to dispose of the unwanted tissue.
The very simple concept to grasp is that doctors make those kinds of 'good-faith medical judgements' all the time Vic.
If not a doctor, who do you think should be making medical decisions Vic?
[deleted]
You continue to do something that you have historically done: Try to paint the actions of the most radical (ie, those who commit illegal acts) onto the larger group (ie, anyone who is to the political left of you) . This is the logical fallacy of "One to Many" that reactionaries, fascists, or anyone who wishes to demonize and dehumanize another group of people have used, well, seemingly forever. Why? I guess because humans tend not to think overly critically because we are just too busy living our lives, especially if it sounds somewhat plausible and or reinforces that which we already tend to believe.
Be afraid. Be Very afraid! Why? Say, "Vic sent us..."
Use prayer, if you can pray the gay away, you can pray the baby away.
Assuming that a born, raised and practicing Catholic or other Evangelical is Pro Life, is a complete non sequitur.
I give you Joe Biden .....