Category: Politics

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

The Sturm und Drang of Joe Biden

“But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

“Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic….

“But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country….

 “And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people….
 
“They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

“MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

“They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

“They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.”

Joe Bite-Me
Pederast of these united States

1.) I was born in 1959. Never in my lifetime has a US President — sitting or retired — ever spoken of 75million voting members of the American Public in such a manner. Further, having an earned degree in History I can tell you that not even the tyrant Abraham Lincoln spoke in public of Southerners the way that Bite-Me spoke of Make America Great Again Republicans. Bite-Me used the kind of language in this Philadelphia speech that is reserved for how Presidents speak of enemy combatants when on a war stance.

2.) From a political perspective this is all about distraction. Bite-Me knows that the mid-terms are promissory of electoral disaster given his policy failures on inflation, crime, illegal immigration, Afghanistan, Ukraine, supply chain deterioration, Hunter Biden and his laptop, and nearly everything else to which the man has put his hand. As such, Bite-Me needs the national conversation to be about something else besides his failures. The answer that lies most immediately at hand is Donald Trump. Bite-Me obviously believes that Trump is enough of a lightning rod to distract enough people from voting Republican and so mitigating somewhat the looming mid-term electoral disaster that is certain to descend upon the Democrats. Bite-Me is seeking to change the conversation in his favor from the evils that bespeak the current political landscape to the evils of Donald Trump and his minions.

3.) Most have not missed the blood red lighting background that shrouded Bite-Me’s speech. Obviously, that was not accidental. It gave the whole speech a kind of Rocky Horror Picture show macabre appearance. I suppose some would contend that the blood red lighting was a type of predictive programming intended to suggest to some unhinged Democrat (but I repeat myself) from among the rank and file to take mayhem and violence into their own hands as perpetrated against some poor unsuspecting Make America Great Again devotee.

4.) Note that the speech takes the usual page out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rule for Radicals.” Bite-Me’s speech is classic,

“Pick the target (MAGA), freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. ”

Also, there is the Alinsky type move to “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” This is something that the Dems have been masterful at since the election of Trump.

5.) It is easy to see how this kind of language potentially creates some kind of incident (false flag or otherwise) wherein Bite-Me goes on National Television and “postpones” the mid-term elections. Now, that may seem over the top and normally I would concur but if you had told me four weeks ago that Bite-Me’s “Justice” Department was going to raid a former President’s home I would have also told you that you needed to back off of your conspiracy theories.

6.) In the end Bite-Me comes across as P. G. Wodehouse’s “Oswald Mosley” character, Roderick Spode. Wodehouse’s Spode was someone who took himself very seriously but was so buffoonish and comical that only other ne’er-do-wells and those who long lacked a father figure would be the ones hanging on Spode’s speeches and following Spode about in their silly uniforms. In short Joe “Spode” Bite-Me is becoming a fictional character out of a Wodehouse novel where only losers take the character seriously.

With this speech and Bite-Me’s recent casting of aspersions on the Make America Great Again rank and file as being “Semi-Fascist” (A semi-fascist I take to mean is someone who only makes some of the trains run on time some of the time) we have put the Banana in Banana Republics.

 

SCOTUS Claims Divine Speech

“But when the government speaks for itself, the First Amendment does not demand airtime for all views, after all, the government must be able to ‘promote a program’ or ‘espouse a policy; in order to function.”

Stephen Breyer
SCOTUS Justice

9-0 ruling — Boston City Hall vs. Shurtleff

1.) Thus proving my long held contention that the Federal Government serves as the God of the Gods, taking upon itself the privilege of having all final words. The FEDS are God speaking and when God speaks nobody is allowed to promote a counter program or espouse a counter policy.

2.) This in turn proves that the FEDS support an established religion. That established religion is Statism. If the State cannot be gainsaid then the State is the god of the government and the god of social order. Freedom of religion is a myth where the State is God.

3.) If the FEDS allow some groups to speak they must allow all groups to speak but if the FEDS themselves speak then their word is the word of God.

McAtee Notes Leithart’s Irrationality

Carol Swain and “The New White Nationalism”

The most impressive study by far on this topic comes from the Princeton scholar Carol Swain and her book “The New White Nationalism in America.” Published in 2002, Swain argued that what she called the new white nationalism is different than the white supremacism of old, which intuited whites as biologically, genetically, and intellectually superior to non-whites. The new white nationalists are instead motivated by something entirely different: they’re making the case that the current project of multiculturalism is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminating against white people and white interests on behalf of non-white constituents whose interests are taking a priority in terms of national policy. In other words, if we are society that is increasingly built upon the leftist notion of identity politics, where blacks have their own political interests and Hispanics have their own political interests and Asians have theirs, then it logically follows that white people must have their own unique political interests as well. And yet, when whites assert such logic, they are scolded for exemplifying bigoted and racist sentiments!
 
Swain argues that concern over this blatant double-standard goes way beyond white nationalists; it resonates deeply with the wider white population and is causing significant resentment and backlash. A recent study found that more than half of white Americans believe that “whites have replaced blacks as the ‘primary victims of discrimination.’”
 
Dr. Steve Turley
Excerpts from Newsletter
 
I would only add here that we have to keep the ideological aspect of all this before us as well as what Turley brings out. At the end of the day, this isn’t only about Identity politics as if people from different races can’t be in opposite racial camps then what the identitarians insist only exist for particular races. For example, there are HUGE numbers of White people who are identifying with minorities in the BLM movement in this country, and that because the minority political movement is ideological as much as racial. Black Lives Matter is a Marxist movement and what it is achieving is it is convincing a large percentage of the black community (93% plus) that to be black or minority is to be Marxist. The resistance to that Black Lives Matter movement is found primarily in the white community, which ideologically speaking, is Anti-Marxist. However, there are plenty of white people (in the Academic, Feminist, Pervert, Journalism, and Ecclesiastical communities) who support BLM and the Marxism it shovels. So the Identity politics does not fall exactly along racial lines. What is really going on underneath reveals itself when people of other races cross Identity politics lines to join people of different races in order to support their majority ideology in those racial movements. In brief, a small percentage of the minority community hates the Marxist movement(s) and a substantial percentage of the white community (via perversion, Academia, Feminists, the Church etc) support the Marxism characterized by BLM and anti-fa.
 
The unfortunate thing here is that the political fault lines do indeed end up being largely racial in terms of who is and is not in the different Marxist vs. Anti-Marxist camps and when that happens generalities pile up to the point that people in all races just begin assuming on the basis of race alone that the people they are seeing automatically belong to the ideological camp that is most often associated with their race.
 
And to be honest, while may not be ideal this is understandable. When conflict begins to heat up generalities are a good thing to operate by if one has to make snap decisions upon which the survival of one’s family may depend.