Posts Tagged ‘jon fournier’

The title of this article is an example of extreme satire and irony.  The behavior of the proponents of abortion has been as atrocious as we’ve all come to expect.  Their behavior has not sunk to the level we all witnessed during last summer, when ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter were rioting almost nightly.  There is a good chance that could happen. I believe that they are just warming up.

Abortion has become a religious sacrament to those who inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.  The slaughter of unborn children, up until the moment of birth, is a sacred right to the vast majority of modern Democrats. Because abortion is seen as a sacred right, any threat to abortion is met with religious fervor. 

Marxism is at the very core of the political left.  Individual life has very little value to a Marxist because that family of philosophies is based on collectivism.  Violence and intimidation are the tactics most often used by the political left because they operate under the mistaken belief that the ends always justify the means.

This past Sunday, which was Mother’s Day, leftists decided interrupting Catholic Masses was an acceptable tactic to protest the leaked end to Roe versus Wade.  As you can see from this article, they mistakenly believe they have the right to interrupt a church service.

After interrupting Mass, the protesters feel like they can get irate when asked to leave. “I have a right as an American!” one of the pro-baby-killing activists screams as she’s walked out of the church. And while she certainly has the right to protest, she doesn’t have the right to do so inside a church, especially as Mass is being conducted.

I understand leftists seem to have an issue understanding the difference between private and public property—the communist brain disease destroys the ability to understand such concepts early on—but the church is private property, and they don’t even have to be allowed on the grounds, let alone in the building.

This Tweet documents the startling events that took place during Mass in one Catholic Cathedral

As you can see from this Tweet by journalist Any Ngo, things turned violent in Los Angeles.

Democrat politicians, such as the mayor of Chicago, are openly calling for violence.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot encouraged violence on Monday in a tweet asserting the U.S. Supreme Court’s leaked opinion draft signaling the downfall of Roe v. Wade means the justices will come for the“LGBTQ+ community” next.

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms,” she wrote on Twitter. “We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

The conduct of the so called pro abortion activists has deteriorated to the level where they  firebombed a pregnancy center, then gloated about it in a rather ghastly manner.

‘BURN LITTLE JESUS FREAKS’: ABORTION ACTIVISTS LEAVE VILE VOICEMAILS FOR CHRISTIAN ORG THAT WAS FIREBOMBED

Roe v. Wade was not only a constitutionally dubious ruling, it was morally reprehensible, and rather barbaric.  Like most of us on the political right, I am optimistic that it will be soon overturned.  Like the vast majority of Americans, I was caught completely off guard by the leak of Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the case Dobbs v. Mississippi.

Here are the two most important paragraphs from Alito’s opinion, as quoted from this article, Leak: Supreme Court to Overrule Roe, Returns Abortion to Voters (breitbart.com).

We hold that Roe v. Wade must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall into this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown to American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

I have studied the Constitution in great detail,  all from the original source documentation, rather than through Supreme Court Precedence. Up until the 1890s original documentation, such as the debates from the drafting of the Constitution, Ratification Debates in the States, The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers were the primary tools used to interpret the Constitution,  The dramatic shift to using Supreme Court Precedence, which are just the opinions of the justices, as the only tool to interpret the Constitution did not begin until over 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

Samuel Alito, who is absolutely correct in his opinion overturning of Roe v.Wade, used a combination of Supreme Court Precedence and original documentation.  If he relied just on the original understanding of the Constitution, his opinion would have been much shorter,

Abortion is murder.  That is a truth understood by founding fathers of the United States, and those that wrote and ratified the Constitution. Murder is not a crime defined by the United States Constitution. Only a handful of crimes are defined in US Constitution. Those crimes are treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Those are the only true federal crimes, the only crimes that fall under the purview of the federal government. All other crimes are left in the hands of the States.  Murder is not mentioned in US Constitution therefore it is left up to the States to define murder and prescribe punishment for those who commit that crime.  Because abortion is murder it is an issue left in the hands of the States, not the federal government.

Abortion is not a right because no one has a right to commit murder.  Hypothetically, if there  really was a right to an abortion,  the issue would still remain in the hands of the States, if we still followed the original interpretation.  Because abortion is not listed specifically in the Bill Rights,  it would be covered by the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If abortion was a right covered by the 9th Amendment, it would still be left in the hands of the States because the Bill of Rights is a hands off for the federal government. The rights protected by the Bill of Rights are far too important for the federal government to touch them in any way, not even the Supreme Court.  Decisions involving are most important rights were left in the hands of the States exclusively.  This is documented in great detail in this lengthy discourse, which took place at the beginning of the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives. 

It was not until the 1920s that the Supreme Court declared that it had the authority to rule on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  The Supreme Court granted itself that authority in direct opposition to the plain meaning of the Constitution using what is called the Incorporation Doctrine.  I will cover the Incorporation Doctrine in great detail in a future article.

All this talk of abortion being a right covered by the 9th Amendment is mute because abortion is murder, and no one has a right to commit murder.

Maura Healey, the current Attorney General of Massachusetts, who is now running for Governor, is a hard left ideologue. She has been in constant lockstep with the more radical Democrats, such as Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders.  Her Climate Change Plan, which is outlined on this page of her campaign website,  proves this most compellingly.  All quotes in this article are from that disconcerting page.

As you can see from this paragraph, Healey has completely bought into this sham called Climate Change.

The climate crisis is our greatest risk and our greatest opportunity. Our choice is clear: to protect our families, communities, and the environment that sustains us, we must rapidly transition to clean energy. As Governor, Maura will make climate change a top priority. She understands the critical urgency of this issue and she knows what is at stake—especially for the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable communities. The actions we must take now to protect our families and communities from climate change also present a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a healthier, more equitable future and to position Massachusetts as a global leader in clean energy technology and innovation. She will make that vision a reality by innovating state government, working directly with communities, implementing science-based policy, partnering with clean technology businesses, and supporting clean energy research and development.

Her plan would all but eliminate fossil fuels, replacing them with unicorn farts and fairy dust.  She claims that she wil be able to replace them with wind and solar energy.  That claim is just as implausible as my statement about unicorn farts and fairy dust.  The State of California implemented a plan very similar to Healey’s.  Brownouts, skyrocketing energy prices, and economic hardship are now the norm,

Maura Healey’s grand scheme is completely devoid of reality.  Check out this proposal:

Electrifying buildings will be one of our biggest challenges– but also an opportunity for safer, healthier homes and buildings. We have the technology that we need, but we need a bold set of policies to obtain the level of greenhouse gas emissions reduction necessary and to do so equitably. 

We also need to change the business model of our gas utilities, which are, after all, public utilities. The Healey Administration will require the gas utilities to adopt transition plans that are customer-focused, equitable, and consistent with the state’s emission reduction requirements. 

Healey is planning on transitioning away from natural gas for heating homes to electricity, while transitioning from natural gas and other fossil fuels to solar and wind to produce electricity.  That will result in perhaps tens of thousands freezing to death during our harsh Massachusetts winters because that plan is completely untenable.

Energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to address emissions and lower customer costs. We must continue and expand our award-winning MassSave energy efficiency program. But we cannot get the job done by relying solely on the MassSave program or by continuing to build homes and buildings that rely on fossil fuels. That is why, in a Healey Administration, municipalities will have the option to adopt a specialized energy code that gives them the authority to ban gas use in new construction. 

This next part of the plan is fanciful because our electrical generation and distribution systems will not keep up with the increased demand, even if we keep the status quo.

Maura will also put 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030 by providing larger rebates for used and low-cost electric vehicles, while making it easy for customers to access these rebates at the time they buy or lease their vehicle. She will prioritize public spending on electric vehicle charging infrastructure projects that benefit low- and moderate-income households and overburdened communities. 

Even more fanciful is this next part of her plan.

The Healey Administration will end the sale of new passenger cars and light duty trucks powered by gasoline or diesel by 2035. All public fleet purchases will be electric by 2028. They will require utilities to offer discounts for charging at night when electricity demand is low. The Healey transportation agenda will also include bold investment in electric vehicle infrastructure and strong incentives for their adoption, including for heavy duty vehicles, as well as pedestrian walkways, and safe, expanded bike lanes. 

This next component of Healey’s insane scheme is the most deluded.  They’ve been attempting to make a go of offshore wind to generate electricity on a large scale here in Massachusetts for about a decade, with no luck.  It has been an absolute failure.

Under a Healey Administration, Massachusetts will achieve 100 percent clean electricity supply by 2030. Maura will position Massachusetts as the nation’s offshore wind capital by expeditiously permitting the 5,600 MW of offshore wind procurements currently authorized by law and more than doubling the Commonwealth’s target to 10,000 MW offshore wind by 2035.

Where are the solar panels going to come from to implement Healry’s next plan? The obvious answer is China because they have a monopoly on the rare earth materials used to produce solar panels.  The environmental carnage caused in the mining of these materials will be far worse than what occurred in the former Soviet Union.

The Healey Administration will capitalize on the strong existing Massachusetts solar industry with a total of 10 GW of deployed solar by 2030. They will deploy rooftop solar installations in the communities where widespread adoption is lacking and encourage smart siting of large solar facilities.

The next component of her plan is science fiction.  It cannot be accomplished.

Maura will quadruple energy storage deployment by 2030 and invest in research and development to make long-duration storage a reality. She also will build upon Massachusetts’ award-winning energy efficiency programs by ending fossil fuel incentives, encouraging fuel switching and beneficial electrification, and focusing on whole building electrification in low-income and overburdened communities. And a Healey Administration will give customers greater control over their energy use through home solar and storage systems, community energy systems, advanced meters, time varying rates, and smart appliances.

If Maura Healey is elected Governor of Massachusetts, her plan will absolutely cripple the Massachusetts economy, producing widespread economic devastation, perhaps even worse than what has taken place in California.

For the past week I’ve been watching the drama unfold online, stirred up by Elon Musk and his attempt to purchase Twitter.  The drama has been entertaining and repulsive, watching progressives melt down over the fear that Elon Musk will bring free speech to Twitter.

This editorial, Opinion | Let’s hope Elon Musk doesn’t win his bid for Twitter – The Washington Post, is one of the more nauseating, although subtle, examples.

Mr. Musk has promised to make Twitter a “platform for free speech around the globe.” This vision is more or less the same one now-departed CEO Jack Dorsey championed throughout his tenure, and especially in the platform’s early days. But like its industry peers, Twitter has moved over time toward stricter rules. That isn’t because executives have changed their views, but rather because they have learned some lessons after observing how their products can be abused to manipulate elections, or spread health misinformation, or harass people en masse.

Certainly, moderators sometimes make mistakes, and more transparency surrounding enforcement decisions is in order. But a broader backtracking would be an error. To protect speech at all costs and keep Twitter free of bots and spam, as Mr. Musk has said he would like to do, is almost impossible.

This quote is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  The Marxist Oligarchs who control social media, and the vast majority of news organizations, are the individuals who manipulated the 2020 election so successfully it was stolen from President Trump..  Also they are the real cluprits guilty of spreading nonstop health misinformation, while censoring the actual truth.

The left has often channeled George Orwell and his Newspeak.   No better example is this Tweet.

The Left Wing Oligarchs have almost held a total monopoly over online political speech.   It has all been part of a master plan.  The author of this article, Media Is Hating On Musk’s Twitter Bid Because They Hate Free Thought (thefederalist.com), does a fantastic job outlining the grand scheme.

Right now, the corporate media and Big Tech are on a thought control team running interference for the left. The outlets set the narrative with biased, misleading, and fluffy coverage of Democrats. The media constantly tells Americans that Donald Trump worked with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, Kavanaugh is a rapist, Republicans are racists and domestic terrorists, and the summer of rage riots were “mostly peaceful.”

The media expect you to believe all of those lies because they said it was so. If you question them, they smear you for spreading “misinformation.” Big Tech reinforces that deliberately faulty coverage by editorializing and spinning news for its “trending topic” section on the site.

For years, Silicon Valley giants have done the control regime’s bidding. When the left felt threatened by Trump, conversations about Covid-19 origins and treatments, election integrity, Hunter Biden’s laptop, or the truth about biological sex, Big Tech companies such as Twitter gladly banned, censored, and “fact-checked” any content it deemed “misinformation.”

The only thing that disrupts this cycle is when the uncensored, unmanipulated truth about the media’s depravity is exposed. As it stands right now, any narratives that contradict the thought control regime’s wishes are obliterated from the internet.

The mask has completely slipped off the political left thanks to Elon Musk’s battle to purchase Twitter.  As Michelle Malkin so famously said “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”