Good news from the Supremes; Zelenko succumbs; Florida's Right to Privacy; Biden adds China to the naughty list, because why not?; Biden trades F16s for votes; and the most insane C&C story ever.
Rest in peace Dr. Zelenko. Thank you for all you did for us. Your protocols and more importantly your actions. How we act during a crisis. "I have looked death in the eye and I have been made ready to meet God. I fear nothing on this earth. " Wow! I would say all of us unvaccinated and freedom loving people should take this as our motto. Our Lord God is with us. 🙏❤
I have a quote from Zev Zelenko on my fridge. It is from an interview with JD Rucker. "Anxiety lives in the psychological space where the consciousness of God is absent." Wise words. And from someone who lived with never getting enough air. Sad that one of my heroes is no longer here. 😢
I have said from the beginning this plandemic played right into too many Liberal’s psyche’s. With no real relationship with God, they were literally scared to death.
Even more sad are the professing Christians who fell into the same trap. How many times are we told "do not fear" "do not be afraid" in Scripture? I had one friend respond to my refusal to wear a face diaper to the table at a restaurant say, "I just follow the rules" to which I wanted to respond, "Yeah, that's what the Nazis said as they were pushing people into the gas chambers." Hannah Arendt was right. It is the banality of evil and most people are oblivious.
I believe he contacted Trump at the beginning of the scandemic and told him about his successful hydroxychloriquine/zinc protocol he was using to treat his patients. I first saw him interviewed by Dr. Peter Breggin in April/May 2020. Dr. Zelenko and Dr. Breggin were my first big heroes in bringing truth!
Do you remember the hell President Trump was subjected to for suggesting that there were treatments for Covid, when the experts were claiming there were none? Do you remember the utterly hysterical insanity the country and world was wrapped up in?
He wanted to save us from the economic nightmare that is unwinding before us. We haven’t begun to see the effects yet. Terrified people wanted a vaccine. There was hope that would calm them down. Of course TPTB weren’t going to permit calm.
I have never felt pushed by Trump to get vaccinated. I don’t think he ever advocated for any mandate.
The problem with Trump is that he lacks the courage AND the convictions. He was fun, but ultimately useless at anything except pointing a mirror at the corruption all around him.
I thought of this the other day when Jeff was talking about leaders who rely on experts and I meant to comment but never got around to it. Because Trump definitely relied on the people he appointed and he almost universally appointed the worst possible people for everything. MacGregor was a good pick that was just far too late to do any real good. And that's the only one I can think of.
So, that's what happened there. Trump was a great firebrand mouthpiece for a movement but let's be honest, he's no mensa member. He had to rely entirely on the knowledge, and even opinions of others. He only formed his opinions from whoever impressed him most recently. Which means he could have been great if he had appointed great people but he didn't know anything beyond what he saw on fox news and that's as swampy and establishment as all the rest, save for lone Tucker.
It's all well and good to have someone who's willing to fight, it's necessary, but it plays out a whole lot better if that person also has principles and convictions and knows what he's really fighting for.
Do any of you realize that President Trump couldn’t just pick who he wanted? He was stymied continuously by the traitor Mitch McConnell. His appointments had to be approved and traitor McConnell wasn’t letting anyone who would help Trump get through. Can you not see the stranglehold McConnell and his crew have on the Republican Party?
Trump is the first President in modern times who was not given the courtesy of Recess Appointments. One Senator, just one could have called for a Senate Recess. Not one did.
I can’t wait until you all find that Superman to run as a presidential candidate who will be able to leap right over all the political opposition and persecutions and just get it all done right.
I am pretty sure he was given wrong information to operate upon, unfortunately. A leader who is not expert on subjects has to rely on others who are supposed to be experts in their own fields. I wish he did more of a DeSantis approach where he actually does some research before making his own conclusions about things and then solely operating off of that.
Yes, could be a possibility. Everything is a mess, that’s for sure. But we can win! Just watched a great channel about neighborhood gardening. Get your neighbors all growing gardens so food is plentiful and bartering can occur. I have a small small yard but am growing lots of stuff! Now I just need to hold a meeting to get my neighbors on board. Everyone can grow food! I just gotta figure out now how to go about getting a meeting. I don’t know what my neighbors views on what is going on are. I know many of them are vaxxed. Guess I can just pass out flyers saying: want to save money/ neighborhood garden co-op. Hmmm… may try it. I think we ought to all do so. Prices are ridiculous and maybe food shortages will happen and it isn’t conspiracy. Growing gardens is a fun independent and community thing to do anyway. Right! Let’s start growing every one! Load up on seeds!!! They will be a necessary commodity !
Yes! I agree. Dr. Breggin and his wife, Ginger are amazing hero's as well. They wrote a fantastic book, that everyone needs to read: "Covid 19 and the Global Predators". I think that's where I first heard about Dr. Zelenko too, on Dr. Breggin's podcast.
Jeff, Focus on your upcoming trial. That is your primary job. The C&C Army will pray for a positive outcome.what ever that is. And when you get back, you'll have ALOT more to share with us. Now go KICK some butt in that courtroom of yours'
I so love Coffee and COVID posts every morning. Thanks!
Something my non-legally-technical mind is trying to understand is the right to privacy as justification for abortion. I know you have written about your use of the argument in an earlier post, and I should reread it. I’m also pretty sure that as a Christian you don’t believe that abortion should be happening. It’s perhaps too much of a can of wriggling worms to ask you to describe how you would approach the topic from a legal standpoint, although lots of us would enjoy that discussion.
However, my point today is that it seems so many folks seem to forget that abortion isn’t just a medical procedure for mom alone. There are TWO people involved, and one of them has no say. So, basically if abortion is just a matter of a woman’s privacy, then basically we are saying that as long as killing someone is done in private, it’s ok? I mean, taken to its logical extreme, isn’t this essentially what is being permitted?
I’m not trying to rouse a hornet’s nest here. I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic.
And yes, I obviously understand that the mom is impacted by the baby she is carrying, it may be deeply painful or hard emotionally or mentally, it causes physical hardship and difficulty. But so does parenting my elementary age kiddo. Nobody would allow me to decide to kill him, even in the privacy of my own home.
And yes, I agree that there always have been and will be unfortunate situations in which continuing a pregnancy endangers mom’s health and life to the point that the baby must be delivered early. And sometimes it’s early enough that the baby cannot survive. But these babies can be delivered in ways that acknowledge and recognize their humanity rather than in horrific acts of torturous death.
Again, I can’t imagine being a mom in a situation feeling she has no option but abortion. Our family supports these mamas and dads through our local pregnancy center. I’m really not trying to cause a ruckus.
I don't really understand that. In the case of abortion, isn't it based on defining the unborn as 'not a person' legally? If the unborn were legal 'persons,' then it would be murder, for which I don't think the right of privacy provides any cover.
One way to look at this is through the lens of property rights. Imagine you own a cabin in the mountains. It’s the middle of winter. A few weeks ago, you invited someone to stay there for nine months, but you’ve grown tired of their habits and would like to rescind that invitation. However, you know that all the roads are blocked by snow and ice, and if you evict them now, they will die of exposure. You most certainly retain the legal right to remove this person from your home. Morally, however, you’re on pretty shaky ground.
In my opinion, 99% of the contention over abortion relies on the general misconception that law and morality must always align, and this extends to the mandatory vaccination issue as well. Let’s pretend for a moment that the Covid shots actually were highly safe and effective. The case has been made that it would then be everyone’s moral duty to receive one for the benefit of society. I’d argue, however, that each individual retains the legal right to his or her own body, regardless of the higher purpose which might be served by forcing them to take a shot.
Similarly, it’s okay to be morally opposed to abortion on demand while acknowledging that none of us have the right to make decisions about another person’s body. In that respect, it is a privacy argument. If I’d be offended should a stranger or the government arrive at my house telling me how they think I should grow tomatoes, I’m going to be even more appalled when they attempt to tell me what to do with my body.
The unborn baby is not part of a woman’s body. Her body is fully intact after giving birth and the same as it was before giving birth. The unborn child is its own unique person and body, residing in the mothers uterus but still it’s own body, growing and developing within the mother until it can sustain life on its own at birth. God designed life this way!
What if it's not your body that's the body in question, though? (Evidence: DNA) There are always two bodies involved in a pregnancy, plus a father, who never seems to be included in the discussion, so three people with essential interest in the outcome. Only one of them is guaranteed to be dead, if one path is chosen.
So there’s a subset of pro-life people who would argue that something like a morning after pill should be banned, because any fertilized egg is a potential human. There’s also a subset of pro-choice people who would be in favor of abortion at any time up to (or even during) birth. However, the vast majority of the population seems to favor sensible limits as to when this should be permitted to occur, absent extenuating circumstances. The beauty of the Supreme Court giving these decisions back to the states is that each population can use the political process to set their own reasonable policies. While I am still against any government involvement at all, I believe this to be a step in the right direction. When you extend that logic down further, to the county, city, neighborhood, family level, etc., you eventually land on the individual.
I understand, agree with, and respect your argument that unborn children have rights too. The question is, “at what point do those rights begin to overshadow the rights of the mother to her own body?” I think it’s a small minority that would say “at conception.” I also think it’s an even smaller minority that says “at birth.” If we concede that this point happens somewhere in the middle, now we’re just haggling over what nebulous point to arbitrarily draw what is a very bright line. There will always be plenty of people who think the line is in the wrong place.
While I personally morally disagree with late-term abortion especially, I do not feel that I have any right whatsoever to impose that morality on another person who is actually in that situation. I may disagree with their decision, but I disagree with other people’s decisions all the time. It doesn’t make my opinion more valid than theirs.
Morally, the baby's right to life supercedes any other rights of the mother from the moment of fertilization. The trick is in how to enforce that legally. Which is why pushing for abortion to be unthinkable in our culture is a better approach.
The law and morality seldom align. A lack of morality is precisely WHY we have laws.
If folks cannot be responsible and control/conduct themselves in a morally acceptable fashion then we as a society construct/legislate laws that WE, as a community, can agree are good for us.
If violence, robbery, property destruction and murder are unacceptable, then we create laws to punish those folks who don’t naturally self-regulate.
The problem is the fabric of society is woven from shared morals and values. Those values have been eroded for decades and are now in steep decline.
Simultaneously the rule of law has not been enforced. This causes further societal decay.
The rule of law is supposed to ensure that a community is protected against those who don’t share basic moral values in order to preserve LIFE, Liberty, peace, harmony, prosperity and even the pursuit of happiness.
I think you’re actually making my point. In those crimes you cited, there’s very little divergence between the law and the moral compass of the population at large. It’s only when you have an issue where there are competing claims and valid moral arguments on both sides that you encounter these types of problems. There is no way to structure a law that doesn’t violate the rights of somebody, in the opinion of large swaths of the population. It’s okay to acknowledge that and conclude that the best role for government is almost always to step back and leave people alone.
I believe that it’s a very small minority of the pro-choice crowd that supports abortion for abortion’s sake. I think the vast majority on either side would like to see fewer abortions taking place. My opinion is that government is exacerbating the situation here as well, by outlawing a free market in adoptions. Women who don’t want a child are understandably opposed to carrying a baby to term, knowing that they will incur costs and disruption to their lives for zero benefit to themselves. Meanwhile potential adoptive parents would pay handsomely to expedite the process of receiving a child to raise, yet the government artificially fixes the price of children at zero. The only beneficiaries are inefficient and corrupt adoption agencies. How many unborn children could be saved, then raised by parents who want and love them, if we allowed the market to set a price that would incentivize poor mothers to voluntarily carry these babies to term? There are solutions to this problem that are beneficial to all sides yet don’t involve trampling the rights of anyone.
Yes, I completely agree with all of your points. Abortion should be decided at the state level by the people who reside there.
I’m personally in a unique position on the abortion issue. I myself was adopted at birth and can tell you I’m very THRILLED to be here. I have some non-identifying information on my biological mother, she was 16 years old when she got pregnant. My adoptive mother could not bear children and she often recalls her frantic desperation and desire to be a mother. So it’s definitely a Win/Win.
However, fast forward to my own youth, I was raped (more than once) by an older “friend” of the family. I found myself pregnant at the age of 13. I was so naive, had barely began menstruating and had never experienced The Talk from my own mother because she herself never had periods. I was threatened by this man, physically abused and truly TERRIFIED. I didn’t have any support and felt scared for my life. So I took a city bus to Planned Parenthood where they told me I was too young to bear a child because I wasn’t done growing myself. I felt very much cornered and frightened out of mind, so I had the abortion.
Later in my 20’s I married and went on to give birth to and raise two children. The guilt of having blood on my hands still haunts me, especially as an adoptee and a mother. But the sheer terror, shame, revulsion, self-hatred and lack of support when I was 13 haunts me even more.
I’m stuck. As an adoptee and a mother I want to be 100% pro-life, I would NEVER have an abortion now. But I was also that frightened little girl and far too terrified to face the abuser. For this reason I feel that Abortion should be allowed, safe and hopefully very very rare.
Far more important is the fact that we MUST as a society find a LEGAL financial/market solution to support these women who cannot raise a child. I hear adoption is really expensive now 😒
I’m sorry but the time to consider whether or not you’re prepared to handle a pregnancy and a child is when you decide to have sex. There are many options to consider that can prevent a pregnancy from occurring and if you’re too lazy or ignorant to explore those options than you’ve made the decision to possibly have a child to consider as the outcome. So much of this conversation, like many others we’re dealing with today, come down to maturity, your values in regards to human life, and your morals. Every life is created by God and is a blessing. I worked in OB for 25 years and I’ve seen human life at all stages and it is precious. For someone to be able to hurt or kill that baby is an abomination!
The cabin in the snow analogy works if you're simply inducing labor early at a stage where it is maybe possible, even if unlikely, that the baby could survive outside the womb. But that's not really the situation in an abortion where the purpose is to kill the baby. The analogy I've heard used in libertarian circles to discuss what's referred to as the eviction theory, is that it would be like inviting someone into your hot air balloon and then deciding a thousand feet in the air that you no longer want them in your hot air balloon. In that case, even though it is your property and you would have full rights to evict that person on the ground, it would be illegal, and morally a violation of the non-aggression principle, to evict the person at altitude because it would be certain death, therefore murder. Property rights are trumped by the right to life.
If you want to get technical, the right to life is also a property right since each person owns his or her own life. All rights are property rights. But your life is a more valuable piece of property than anything else so that property right trumps all other property rights.
"I do whatever I like" is a moot point when you can't. Women, actually, don't perform surgeries on themselves.
Government shouldn't be interfering with individual's medical decisions, they're private. Yet, in some mysterious way medical privacy expanded to doctors getting a license for outright harmful practices and without a good medical reason whatsoever. Vaccination, at least, has a medical reason. Terminating a healthy pregnancy does not! And it's a huge slippery slope making medical ethics "first, do no harm" a joke. Now it's "do government authorized harm". A Catholic hospital in California got sued for refusing to remove healthy reproductive organs of a woman believing she's a "man". "Gender" surgeons amputating healthy breasts of teenage girls. Amputations of healthy limbs because patients feel they'll be better without them. Approval of harmful pharmaceutical products and iatrogenic deaths being #3 cause. Etc. Is the government regulating ethics out of medicine about privacy or profits?
I've read that abortions for medical reason became first popular in conservative states like Alabama, and it included mental health, like depression not being able to have another baby. Then hell broke lose with Roe that "legalized" elective abortions without a medical reason.
I am wondering how the legal concept of personhood meaning "DNA of both parents" combined with technology affects birthright citizenship. If a person brings containers of fertilized eggs into another country, are those eggs US citizens, since they are outside the womb and with the logic of personhood meaning DNA then "birth" could mean simply being outside the womb. Also, should babies in (or outside) the womb need names travel documents since this way of thinking counts them as separate people?
If it is illegal to euthanize, it should be illegal to abort. If animal cruelty is illegal, abortion should be illegal. Why the double standard? If killing another person is murder, abortion is murder and should be treated as such. Why should the mother survive the abortion? If “my body my choice” is the logic, the mother should be killed in order to appropriately end the life of the baby. There is no logic in it. It’s not about privacy. The right to privacy doesn’t outweigh laws of the land. Breaking laws in private is still breaking laws. Having laws that protect life are inherently going to disrupt taking lives.
Good point. Who represents the baby's right to privacy in an abortion scenario? And to the baby's God-given American rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
With our God given rights comes a God given duty to uphold those rights and act in terms of them. All of our endowed rights from God are based on moral absolutes. Near the top of the list (consult the Ten Commandments) is the sanctity of human life. This is an absolute. Based on the same moral framework is "my body, my choice", also an absolute. The Left would have us believe these are in conflict. But that is a lie straight from hell. Everyone is so focused on their "rights", they don't even consider their duty under God's law. Consider the pregnant woman. From the moment of conception, the new life within her is a separate, distinct individual with an indefinite lifespan. She is the vessel for the birth of the new life and, as such, she has a DUTY to protect that life within her (as well as does the man who is her partner). My body, my choice is an absolute for HER body only. The pairing of this absolute with the absolute of the sanctity of human life results in her duty to protect the innocent life within her. As Christians we have got to be able to articulate the moral framework of Biblical law intelligently without resorting to the simplistic one-liners the Left uses against us. Until we acknowledge and proclaim that life begins at conception and is by definition an individual human being endowed by the Creator with all the rights as anyone else this side of the grave, we will never win the argument with the Left who wants everyone to believe that the new creation inside the womb is anything other than a clump of cells. How can we expect anyone to take us seriously if we cannot even intelligently articulate God's moral framework? We have been relegated to the back of the cultural bus and allowed the Left to set the terms of the debate and no one in society takes us seriously as a result. Simplistic one-liners are self defeating. We must set the terms of the debate and demonstrate that the Left is intellectually shallow and morally bankrupt. If we do that the rest of society will laugh at the Left and render them powerless.
How can we call ourselves Christian and allow millions of children to go into foster homes because no one wants to adopt them. The millions I speak of are just here in the USA. Just think of all the sex trafficking that goes on in DFAC. It’s not just about abortion.
There are other ways for not getting pregnant. In case of rape, immediately go to doctor. In other cases, get anticonception means. I suppose they exist in US, the do exist in Europe. I think no other country has such loose laws of abortion. In know a few European countries have something like rape, danger to mother's life, but all need to be done within the first 3 months. If by that time you still don't know you are pregnant there is something wrong.
I am not a lawyer but I am a neurotically logical thinker, and a libertarian anarchist, so I am often engaged in these discussions and I can't help but think through all angles.
For me, the morality is clear cut. Abortion is murder from the moment the egg is fertilized, so that includes the morning after pill and many forms of hormonal contraception as well. But the legality of it is where it gets tricky because while it's clearly murder, it's a very particular method of murder, one that is performed by a doctor in an environment that is and should be private. In order to really enforce any law against abortion would require infringing upon, if not entirely eliminating, the right to privacy in medical procedures. The sacrosanct relationship between doctor and patient would be violated by law enforcement.
That's what has always made this issue complicated for me. I have no doubts about the morality whatsoever. And that's why I've always preferred the approach to make abortion unthinkable, rather than simple illegal. And that's how society works anyway. Laws follow the culture, not the other way around. And I think we are making great strides in this. The pro-life movement is very young, heavily female, and very passionate. That all bodes well compared to the generations before.
I would love to be able to celebrate the overturning of Roe for what it represents, and I do appreciate any power being handed back to the states or even to more local government than that. But I worry about what it means practically for what the law can now get involved with. If it is indeed all tied in with vaccines then we've traded some precious liberty for a symbolic victory that won't actually change the number of abortions committed anyway.
I wonder how it came to be that abortion came to fall within the purview of medical doctors? I mean, nowadays it seems obvious, right?
But, maybe there is an even BIGGER question of what/who gets to say what doctoring is or is not? (What a can of worms to open, ha.)
What I mean is this, at least in part. I’ve been trying to reformulate my thoughts about this over the past year or so. Anyway, as it currently stands, the government gets to decide who and what constitutes “medical care.” This is done by way of medical licensing boards, Joint Commission that regulates hospitals, government-paid health insurance policies, and many other regulations over all manner of entities: pharmacies, radiology centers, surgery centers, etc, etc.
It currently is not possible for a person to go get a radiology study without seeing a doctor first. And that doctor is regulated via licensing by the state. It is not possible to obtain pharmaceuticals without permission from a licensed physician or practitioner. (And there are current bills in Congress that are attempting to remove from us or make more difficult for us to buy our own supplements, vitamins, and safe and effective homeopathic medicines! They truly want to remove our self-sufficiency!)
Anyway, back in the old days, I doubt one necessarily went to a medical doctor for an abortion. I have no idea, honestly. But it seems as likely that it was an old woman in such and such part of town who knew the proper herbs and whatnot to induce abortions. And who oversaw them. Yes, probably there were doctors or midwives who provided abortions. But abortion was not seen as a legitimate procedure within the typical medical practice.
When was it codified as a standard medical procedure?
I guess that’s what I am getting at.
I don’t think we can legislate abortions out of existence. Women who are determined or forced to have one will get one. But it seems that somehow, by some means, the State should not support abortions nor access to them.
I also agree with you that, yes, what a doctor and patient discuss must be confidential. I guess, at what point however, do we as a society point our finger at something and say, “no, doctor, you are harming your patient with that procedure”? Again, seems less straightforward now, but still there has to be some line. I mean, we also have doctors mutilating children and adolescents chemically and surgically in the name of affirming their mental delusions about sex. We just cannot allow that!
And yet we definitely do not want government micromanaging our health decisions.
I'm sure there were non-doctors who could administer herbs in an early stage, but I know that abortions were explicitly forbidden in the original hippocratic oath so it does seem to be associated with doctors going pretty FAR back. And there is a logical connection there since unfortunately removing something and removing someONE from the body would require the same skill set.
I'm not sure what it would do in practice, but maybe returning to that original oath would be a good thing to do as well.
Returning to Judeo-Christian ethics and worldview (which Hippocrates was not, necessarily, as he invoked the Greek gods - he invoked a moral standard external to himself at least) would serve out society well.
Yes. I'm not suggesting following ancient Greek mythology :) but the original Hippocratic oath was far and away superior to the current one! I was probably more shocked than I should have been when I learned about how it's changed over the years. But it obviously still must hold some influence if they go to the trouble of changing it, rather than just ignoring it. So, changing it back might actually do some good. Couldn't hurt anyway.
1) The Right To Privacy is a derivative interpretation of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because a Right is NOT written into the Law of The Land, does NOT mean that Right doesn't exist. 2) The original Roe v Wade decision was not arbitrary regarding the fetus. At 13 weeks a human fetus has neither lungs nor a digestive system. Therefore, the fetus cannot exist as an individual independent of the mother, and, as a consequence of this state of being, the fetus cannot be granted the protections of the law.
It is important to keep in mind that Roe v Wade said NOTHING about abortion restrictions after the first trimester, nor did it say anything about societal or governmental SUPPORT of abortion - government funded abortions are NOT in any way a right of the woman.
Roe v Wade was a cultural compromise that neither side liked, but it worked under the Constitution and the national social contract. However, abortion advocates used Roe v Wade to push for government mandated funding of abortions, and for extending abortion regardless of the state of development of the fetus, until we saw New York and Virginia (and other States?) pass laws that not only allow abortion at FULL TERM, but allow new born babies to be "kept comfortable" as they starve to death.
So, "We gave an inch, they took a mile." Roe v Wade became the lynch pin upon which the sick, Satanist devotees of American society expanded their influence to spread and instantiate seduction, promiscuity, decadence, degeneration and corruption as the foundational paradigm of society. The recent Supreme Court decision to set down Roe v Wade is a technical legal ruling that allows a proper and effective response to these dark and nefarious forces, a response that, so far, prevents unleashed bloody civil conflict.
While I definitely appreciate your breakdown and I recognize that things in the current practice are complex indeed, my only true concerns are with what is moral under God, and then how best to make that happen in a practical sense. And those two things are particularly at odds in this issue.
Personally, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any government or any vote. No man has the right to make decisions for any other man. I realize we have to find a way to operate within the system we're in, but as a matter of discussing the philosophy, the only law that concerns me is the natural law that exists for all mankind whether you believe in God or not.
There are natural, God given rights that every human has, by the nature of being a human, that cannot be given or taken away by any government. For sure they can be infringed upon, but the rights are still yours. You can fight to retain use of them in necessary.
Which brings me to the end of your comment, which interests and worries me because I don't see how this decision will prevent a bloody civil conflict. Quite frankly, I don't really see how anything could at this point. It seems like this country is at a boiling/breaking point where something has to give. Obviously, peaceful succession would be preferable but I would be lying if I said I wasn't apprehensive about what might be building.
The only thing I know for sure that we can always do no matter the circumstances, is to pray for peace.
Let me be clear that I HATE abortion. It is a symptom of the worst attributes of humanity and makes me feel dirty to be part of the race. But I accepted Roe v Wade in the spirit of, let's see what we can do to eliminate the demand for abortions. Shows how naive I was. As for bloody civil conflict, I hope we can get past the current insanity, because I have grown children and I don't want them to have to live through a full-blown civil war, but I do see that we are skating on the edge of a razor.
I think you are right. I think it will come to an outburst when enough people realize what has happened. Older people like me can do little. But a lot of adults were forced to get the jabs, and now the government tries to poison their children. At a certain time, there will be enough younger people who will have had enough.
Agree. I am not pro abortion at any stage. But sometimes there are reasons. In Europe some countries allow first trimester abortion for health reasons, and certainly for rape cases. I could not believe at first, when I heard that abortion in some states was allowed until birth. If that is not murder I don't know what is. There are ways of anticonception, so why not use these rather then fix things when it is too late.
What’s really mind blowing is how many children are in foster homes looking for homes . How many of these children enter their teenage years alone. But pro lifers NEVER talk about that horror!
Having been a pro-lifer and, as a result, a foster parent for years, willing to adopt, and later, serving as a CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocate) for children in the state's custody, I would like to share my experience with "the system." First off, there were always enough adoptive homes for infants to make abortion unnecessary. I'm not sure nowadays with the economy in the tank. But, usually, childless couples are lined up for newborns and young babies. Typically they are placed in their adoptive homes as soon as the Termination of Parental Rights forms are signed.
When older children are taken by Social Services, a judge must approve a custody order and the Social Worker's plan to place the children in a willing relative's home or into foster care with people who have been trained and certified to provide such care. If the parent(s) want the children returned, they must repair, if at all possible, whatever shortcoming led to the custody situation. It's usually drugs, alcohol, abuse and or neglect, and often a combination of all. In those cases, which are the majority of foster care cases, the willingness and ability of the parent(s) to complete counseling, begin AA or NA, find employment, stable housing, etc determines how long the kids stay in care. Most of these children linger for years while parents do what they do. These children are not available to be adopted until the State can sufficiently prove to the Court that they have exhausted all attempts to assist and assure the parents are satisfactorily safe and secure for their children to be returned. Herein lies the problem.
These kids often have a myriad of problems, having spent their formative years in a dysfunctional home and suffered any imaginable horror. Once they are in State custody, social workers begin their assessment and there are always issues. You don't end up in foster care because everything is fine at home. They are in need of special care, end up in special schools and need educational assistance. Counseling is routine and medications are prescribed.
Months turn into years. As time goes on, the children are moved from home to home, for any number of reasons. The breakdown of placements is a serious problem, but sadly inevitable for a large percentage of these children. Often the children will sabotage the placement, hoping it will send them back to their parents. After they learn they have the power to disrupt the home and be moved, the cycle begins and changing schools and counselors becomes a norm - and if the kids had psychological issues coming in, they only worsen with the instability of life as a "fosterkid."
When it is finally determined the child's parent is not working to accomplish set goals, the Court can terminate the parents' rights and the child made available for adoption. I know of many foster parents who have a house full of adopted and foster children. But it is an upward struggle to find a home for an older child "in the system" with behavioral problems. It is a sad fact that many of these kids age out of the system and end up in the military, for lack of education and direction. (My own father experienced this in his life and joined the Navy at 17 and went off to fight WW2.)
A teen can file for Emancipation and if the Court approves, - even a minor - is on their own at that point. I've seen it happen several times and it is not a good thing. Without a committed adult providing direction, these teens often become runaways, prey for traffickers, street prostitutes, drug addicts.
This is why there are so many children in foster care, only some available for adoption. The thing is, none of these parents sought abortion. You might say their children would have been better off it they had. But who is to make that call? These children were destined to live the life they were born to live. They all matter. None of us are promised a rose garden as they say.
On a happy note, the first child my husband and I fostered, was with us for her first nine months. She ended up going to live with her father and his mother. (He refused to sign away his parental rights - so fathers need to get involved when the girl they've impregnated needs help!) Throughout her childhood, her grandmother would mail me school photos along with updates on her progress. Some years ago my phone rang. It was "my baby" all grown up, inviting me to her wedding. We've stayed in touch and I've had the pleasure of knowing her husband and their four children - and she just graduated from SNHU with a BA in Literature. I'm so happy for her and the way her life has turned out.
The best advice i can give is for pro-lifers to become foster parents, especially if you are talented as a parent. Good foster homes make all the difference in the world and are in short supply.
It is easy to tell someone to accept responsibility for someone else’s choices, but not realistic. Will you accept a DUI because your neighbor drove drunk? Will you go to jail because your friend trafficked drugs? Why should those who stand for the value of someone’s life be held responsible? I know the systems aren’t perfect, have failed in many ways, and are in desperate need of improvement. The adoption industry has corruptions of its own. Neither justify killing babies as a fundamental right. They are not related. Systems can be improved AND lives can be protected.
They may not discuss it in the same conversation as they discuss abortion, but they do discuss it.
Some of the folks whom I know who are active foster parents or providing respite foster care are committed Christians who also support the lives of unborn babies.
I agree with you that our foster care system is a MESS. And kids growing up disconnected with any form of family - biological or foster - is a tragedy. However, I doubt that killing the kids is the solution. Killing them prebirth is no different than euthanizing them when they are disconnected, unwanted-by-the-system teenagers.
I just mentioned that because I look at adoption sites and see millions of kids looming for loving families. I am sure Christian’s do talk about it… but I hear more talk about pro life than I do pro adopt . That’s all I was trying to say. And by saying it, it brings the issue into the spotlight. Children need loving homes.
Right, blame the pro life people for the irresponsible choices, reprehensible crimes and utter selfishness of others. That makes more sense. Most children in foster care aren’t there because the mother couldn’t get an abortion. LOL. People who are pro life are also against child abuse, child neglect, child endangerment etc. The gross irresponsibility of those whose children end up in foster care aren’t children who should have been aborted. Is that your logic? Thank God foster care exists. Evidence that DESPITE the fact that there are unimaginable cruelties happening to children, someone else takes responsibility for their protection. The value of our lives isn’t based on whether we are abused, abandoned, neglected or even unwanted. Laws are being established to make that clear. I think your perspective is deeply concerning and flawed, but you are most welcome to have it. We don’t have to agree.
Well said. I am a pro-lifer who spent about 10 years doing foster care for children with behavioral issues. I was part of a large group of foster parents, all pro-life.
Show me pro abortion individuals who are involved in foster care. I haven’t met any.
You make a good point, which should serve as a call to action. The various government agencies make adoption a journey of a thousand small cuts. I wish these agencies would be as aggressive screening out the gender-swap-enablers and the pedophiles in our communities, as they are with "regular folk".
It amazes me that such large and important decisions are made by the president alone and not the congress. We have idiots running the country, including congress. People have no voice anymore, unless it is related to cancel culture issues that slowly destroys morality and culture.
Hahaha- I’d vote for that one ☝️!! Let’s do two multipliers- One for Jeff - 💵since he’s the most amazing lawyer/writer for us and one for Eric 🤑since he can fill in for Jeff and makes us laugh equally as much. ➿‼️➿
A bunch of us could send you tidbits to write on from our prospective states. I'm not from California but Oregon is close enough. They just put up a nice new bill board advertisement in San Diego with palm trees and sunshine that says, "Come to California, the abortion capitol of the world!" and similar. Funded Planned Parenthood, funded by tax dollars. https://www.kusi.com/are-taxpayer-dollars-funding-pro-abortion-billboards-in-california/
That is beyond disgusting. I am a 5th generation California native, my g-g-grandfather is one of the 10,000 founding fathers of California as per Native Daughters of The Golden West. I got out of there 35 years ago. The state (not to mention this country) has been stolen by the minority. I am pretty sure that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for lesser evils than are being perpetuated today. Embarrassed to be a California girl.
I still say that, & have never even visited “The Left Coast.”
California car tags are showing up increasingly here in Sweet Home Alabama.
We welcome conservatives who’ve had enough but the Cali Fruits/Nuts who apparently haven’t learned the causes of Cali’s demise...not so much.
We are a deep red (some say Crimson) state, & while I wear the flattering universal color purple that makes any lady look good) we don’t want a purple or even a blue state (apologies to my War Eagle friends, & granddaughter).
I know your first priority is your law practice (and thank The Lord for that!) but I will miss you next week when you don’t pop up in my email. C&C is the first thing I look for in the mornings. I appreciate what you do for us, so much. I also look forward to the banter back and forth with C&C friends in the comments. I maintain that we should, someday, have a C&C Army face to face get together and wear name tags of our user names so we know who each other is. 😂 I’d love to meet all of you some day. I’ve been on here since commenting wasn’t a big thing. The input from everyone has helped turned this into an Army. 👏 👏
I just changed my user name to make meeting everyone seem more fun.. I’m so used to professional names .. Let’s go to Florida and have a C&C party !🎉🇺🇸🇺🇸🎉🇺🇸🎉
While I welcome the SCOTUS EPA decision, it bothers me that language in the opinion appears to display tacit acceptance that, in fact, there is a climate crisis. That this is ingrained even in ostensible conservatives does not bode well. The same crisis mentality, with it's mass worldwide one size fits all non-solution, suffused the COVID reaction/scam. Given widespread belief in climate change as an existential and immediate threat, the powers that be may have an even easier time subjugating the masses through climate fear than they did with COVID.
I used to feel more strongly as a climate change person. My background is environmental toxicology. But now what I see since the veil has lifted are problem made by corporations that we the consumers are supposedly responsible for. None of us asked to drown in plastic. We didn’t ask for sunscreens that kill reefs. It is the same lack of foresight and money and power grab that we are seeing with Big Harma. Do I believe more care should be taken: yes. But let’s keep on eye on those propagating this.
I keep wondering, "who approved all of that toxic stuff (microplastics, reef-killing sunscreen, etc)? I believe the FDA played it's part, as well as EPA, and maybe, I don't know, USDA? They're the ones, along with the manufacturer corporations, responsible to understand the implications to our environment. Of course, suing them sucks up yet more of our tax dollars...
I feel any man-made pollution or behavior that can effect the climate is not a creation of ordinary people but a result of profit motives inflicted by corporate technocrats, themselves and it's their duty to contribute their $Trillions to reversing the problems rather than making ordinary people pay twice.
Don't have your background, but I used to feel more strongly about environmental issues as well. To date I have only found one company that is actually putting out products tested to be reef safe. The rest is green washing and not just by large companies.
Reducing plastic waste is a PITA. Its also more expensive in the short term.
I'd be interested in your opinion on biodegradable sugarcane resin as an alternative to plastic packaging. Is it really better or are there potential long term consequences to using it?
Agree! I didn’t like that either; glad you highlighted it.
“Climate Change” is real in the sense of natural cycles of life & living.
Climate Change to Libs, Leftists, Marxists, & other fruits/nuts is due entirely to pesky humans. Wait! Just US pesky humans...the masses in flyover land.
Elites are exempt & too egotistical to see their hypocrisy as the fly at will to WEF & other elitist events (Epstein Island) on private planes, live in electricity hog mansions, behind electric gated communities. If they had to earn a weekly paycheck they wouldn’t have discretionary time or income for the idiotic projects they dream up.
Scotus decisions on Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) as a serious infectious pandemic are also likely to be engrained in in even favorable decisions thus perpetuating the power of Big Pharma to wage psychological terrorism on the public.
For the sake of the trial, please focus on that priority! Also, one time I overlooked, but, 2 days in a row with “Book of Revelations”, I have to speak. It is “Revelation” if you are making reference to the book in the Bible. The Book of Revelation is about the revelation of Jesus Christ. Okay, I am done:)) Have a blessed weekend!
Thank you. I wasn’t sure if that was petty to bring it up, but I’m glad you did! It has always bugged me when people who know and understand the Bible refer to Revelation as plural. 😂
FWIW, "apocalypse" is an archaic (greek derived) word for "revelation". So it means the same thing... in some older places it's titled "The Apocalypse of John". It's just that the meaning of "apocalypse" has changed over time, I think largely due to the content of the aforementioned book!
Regarding your last story...no one needs to be an expert to know what's going on. Like you said...common sense. That's why these upcoming elections are so vital. We need folks in congress who actually care about our country (and "we the people") rather than themselves and their bank accounts.
Good luck and prayers next week. ❤️ Thanks for the Dr Z vid. It was so sadly beautiful. A great reminder to all of us on life. As to who they could ask about the taste of human meat🙄 I could name at least one politician and numerous hollyweirds but I digress. I never thought I’d see end times, but if we are so far along in Revelation. Uhoh.
All part of the plan. As the Lioness says, they always tell you in advance what they are going to do. Build Back Better cannot be more obvious. Before you can build, destruction must occur.
It's what keeps me sane. Gives me some satisfaction that they all actually think they are immune to retribution. They have not learned from history. Who do the angry citizens go after first. Why, the ones who caused all the misery. I hope I live long enough to see them he what they deserve.
I don't think he is concerned about that. These people (there are females too) such as O'Biden, Gates, Soros, Schwab, etc are bitter, old men who are facing the prospect of not living very much longer and simply want to take as many with them as they can before they die. They are sociopaths and, as I said, there is no common ground with them for us to even understand their thinking. Without hope, that's all you are left with - a god-complex.
I was reading C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" late last night and this passage jumped out at me: "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself. That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended - civilizations are built up - excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans."
Love CS Lewis! His works as so full of insight and wisdom. The enemy has no hope and through the authority of the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit, He is building His kingdom down through the centuries. This is our assurance and it is for a time such as this that we were born.
Someone please tell Fauxcahontas and that jackwagon Krugman that Europe has just experienced two of its COLDEST winters in decades. That's one of the reasons the Russians are enjoying record oil sales.
😂 Fauxcahontas 🤣… obviously she’s has had no real education…. Obviously her only education unfortunately like most is controlled propaganda media and indoctrination … the planets climate cycles have been recorded since the first Mesopotamian civilizations… the Sumerians left us clay cuneiform tablets … they kept records of climate cycles… our industrial era infinitesimal micro blip in earths time will not interfere with our 4.54 +/- billion year old Earth… how incredibly arrogant that this era of modern opportunistic money grubbing politically motivated grifters has convinced the population we’re all gonna die due to fossil fuels… 🧐😵💫
That is the reason "they" changed it from Algores "Global Warming" to the more inclusive "Climate Change". In this day and age we would hate to sideline any extreme weather incident with our narrow minded views on lack of diversity, whether it is from DARPA or GOD.
Heatwaves? Climate change. Cold snaps? Climate change. Droughts? Climate change. Floods? Climate change. Bushfires? Climate change. Animals dying out? Climate change. Animals overpopulating? Climate change. Greedy capitalists have more money than you? Probably also Climate Change. The Snake Oil of the 21st Century - good for every ailment!
Hey! Back in the day, I thought the same ... and awe! It could never happen! But it turned out the Science Fiction was more Future Realism all along. Who would have thunk?
Human Burger? Hum? It's like ... what's for super tonight? And no telling what demonic preparation is going on here!
Rest in peace Dr. Zelenko. Thank you for all you did for us. Your protocols and more importantly your actions. How we act during a crisis. "I have looked death in the eye and I have been made ready to meet God. I fear nothing on this earth. " Wow! I would say all of us unvaccinated and freedom loving people should take this as our motto. Our Lord God is with us. 🙏❤
I have a quote from Zev Zelenko on my fridge. It is from an interview with JD Rucker. "Anxiety lives in the psychological space where the consciousness of God is absent." Wise words. And from someone who lived with never getting enough air. Sad that one of my heroes is no longer here. 😢
Love that quote!
I have said from the beginning this plandemic played right into too many Liberal’s psyche’s. With no real relationship with God, they were literally scared to death.
Even more sad are the professing Christians who fell into the same trap. How many times are we told "do not fear" "do not be afraid" in Scripture? I had one friend respond to my refusal to wear a face diaper to the table at a restaurant say, "I just follow the rules" to which I wanted to respond, "Yeah, that's what the Nazis said as they were pushing people into the gas chambers." Hannah Arendt was right. It is the banality of evil and most people are oblivious.
I’ve missed something; you say he never got enough air. So was his “rare cancer” a type of lung cancer?
Didn’t know him personally but almost felt like I did; his voice was the first ray of hope for me in the midst of insanity (coming from our govmint)
Yes, he only had one lung and had metatastic sarcoma according to Steve Kirsch's newsletter.
Amen, Annie!
Well said!
He will be missed by many. I have told many friends to consult his website for health intel. God Bless you Zev!
Wasn’t he Trump's Dr?
I believe he contacted Trump at the beginning of the scandemic and told him about his successful hydroxychloriquine/zinc protocol he was using to treat his patients. I first saw him interviewed by Dr. Peter Breggin in April/May 2020. Dr. Zelenko and Dr. Breggin were my first big heroes in bringing truth!
Yes, he did treat Trump . So my question is why did Pres Trump push that unnecessary experimental shot??? I really want an answer to that🤔
Do you remember the hell President Trump was subjected to for suggesting that there were treatments for Covid, when the experts were claiming there were none? Do you remember the utterly hysterical insanity the country and world was wrapped up in?
He wanted to save us from the economic nightmare that is unwinding before us. We haven’t begun to see the effects yet. Terrified people wanted a vaccine. There was hope that would calm them down. Of course TPTB weren’t going to permit calm.
I have never felt pushed by Trump to get vaccinated. I don’t think he ever advocated for any mandate.
The problem with Trump is that he lacks the courage AND the convictions. He was fun, but ultimately useless at anything except pointing a mirror at the corruption all around him.
I thought of this the other day when Jeff was talking about leaders who rely on experts and I meant to comment but never got around to it. Because Trump definitely relied on the people he appointed and he almost universally appointed the worst possible people for everything. MacGregor was a good pick that was just far too late to do any real good. And that's the only one I can think of.
So, that's what happened there. Trump was a great firebrand mouthpiece for a movement but let's be honest, he's no mensa member. He had to rely entirely on the knowledge, and even opinions of others. He only formed his opinions from whoever impressed him most recently. Which means he could have been great if he had appointed great people but he didn't know anything beyond what he saw on fox news and that's as swampy and establishment as all the rest, save for lone Tucker.
It's all well and good to have someone who's willing to fight, it's necessary, but it plays out a whole lot better if that person also has principles and convictions and knows what he's really fighting for.
Do any of you realize that President Trump couldn’t just pick who he wanted? He was stymied continuously by the traitor Mitch McConnell. His appointments had to be approved and traitor McConnell wasn’t letting anyone who would help Trump get through. Can you not see the stranglehold McConnell and his crew have on the Republican Party?
Trump is the first President in modern times who was not given the courtesy of Recess Appointments. One Senator, just one could have called for a Senate Recess. Not one did.
I can’t wait until you all find that Superman to run as a presidential candidate who will be able to leap right over all the political opposition and persecutions and just get it all done right.
Do tell. Please let us know when you find that exceptional individual.
I am pretty sure he was given wrong information to operate upon, unfortunately. A leader who is not expert on subjects has to rely on others who are supposed to be experts in their own fields. I wish he did more of a DeSantis approach where he actually does some research before making his own conclusions about things and then solely operating off of that.
Yes, could be a possibility. Everything is a mess, that’s for sure. But we can win! Just watched a great channel about neighborhood gardening. Get your neighbors all growing gardens so food is plentiful and bartering can occur. I have a small small yard but am growing lots of stuff! Now I just need to hold a meeting to get my neighbors on board. Everyone can grow food! I just gotta figure out now how to go about getting a meeting. I don’t know what my neighbors views on what is going on are. I know many of them are vaxxed. Guess I can just pass out flyers saying: want to save money/ neighborhood garden co-op. Hmmm… may try it. I think we ought to all do so. Prices are ridiculous and maybe food shortages will happen and it isn’t conspiracy. Growing gardens is a fun independent and community thing to do anyway. Right! Let’s start growing every one! Load up on seeds!!! They will be a necessary commodity !
I just wrote out a reply that was meant for both you and Katie and posted it above. That whole thing is a frustrating mess.
Why did the traitor Mike Pence stand there like a funeral director giving credence to Fauci and Scarf Woman?
Was someone here defending Pence? I've never heard ANYONE defend Mike Pence, ever. But....he was another choice of Trump.
Can you give a link?
Yes! I agree. Dr. Breggin and his wife, Ginger are amazing hero's as well. They wrote a fantastic book, that everyone needs to read: "Covid 19 and the Global Predators". I think that's where I first heard about Dr. Zelenko too, on Dr. Breggin's podcast.
“Fear Not” is mentioned 365 times in the Bible. Fear and Faith can not exist together.
Dr. Zelenko continues to be an inspiration to all.
Jeff, Focus on your upcoming trial. That is your primary job. The C&C Army will pray for a positive outcome.what ever that is. And when you get back, you'll have ALOT more to share with us. Now go KICK some butt in that courtroom of yours'
Agreed.
I so love Coffee and COVID posts every morning. Thanks!
Something my non-legally-technical mind is trying to understand is the right to privacy as justification for abortion. I know you have written about your use of the argument in an earlier post, and I should reread it. I’m also pretty sure that as a Christian you don’t believe that abortion should be happening. It’s perhaps too much of a can of wriggling worms to ask you to describe how you would approach the topic from a legal standpoint, although lots of us would enjoy that discussion.
However, my point today is that it seems so many folks seem to forget that abortion isn’t just a medical procedure for mom alone. There are TWO people involved, and one of them has no say. So, basically if abortion is just a matter of a woman’s privacy, then basically we are saying that as long as killing someone is done in private, it’s ok? I mean, taken to its logical extreme, isn’t this essentially what is being permitted?
I’m not trying to rouse a hornet’s nest here. I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic.
And yes, I obviously understand that the mom is impacted by the baby she is carrying, it may be deeply painful or hard emotionally or mentally, it causes physical hardship and difficulty. But so does parenting my elementary age kiddo. Nobody would allow me to decide to kill him, even in the privacy of my own home.
And yes, I agree that there always have been and will be unfortunate situations in which continuing a pregnancy endangers mom’s health and life to the point that the baby must be delivered early. And sometimes it’s early enough that the baby cannot survive. But these babies can be delivered in ways that acknowledge and recognize their humanity rather than in horrific acts of torturous death.
Again, I can’t imagine being a mom in a situation feeling she has no option but abortion. Our family supports these mamas and dads through our local pregnancy center. I’m really not trying to cause a ruckus.
You are describing the basis for the state's ability to overrule a constitutional right under a doctrine called "strict scrutiny."
I don't really understand that. In the case of abortion, isn't it based on defining the unborn as 'not a person' legally? If the unborn were legal 'persons,' then it would be murder, for which I don't think the right of privacy provides any cover.
One way to look at this is through the lens of property rights. Imagine you own a cabin in the mountains. It’s the middle of winter. A few weeks ago, you invited someone to stay there for nine months, but you’ve grown tired of their habits and would like to rescind that invitation. However, you know that all the roads are blocked by snow and ice, and if you evict them now, they will die of exposure. You most certainly retain the legal right to remove this person from your home. Morally, however, you’re on pretty shaky ground.
In my opinion, 99% of the contention over abortion relies on the general misconception that law and morality must always align, and this extends to the mandatory vaccination issue as well. Let’s pretend for a moment that the Covid shots actually were highly safe and effective. The case has been made that it would then be everyone’s moral duty to receive one for the benefit of society. I’d argue, however, that each individual retains the legal right to his or her own body, regardless of the higher purpose which might be served by forcing them to take a shot.
Similarly, it’s okay to be morally opposed to abortion on demand while acknowledging that none of us have the right to make decisions about another person’s body. In that respect, it is a privacy argument. If I’d be offended should a stranger or the government arrive at my house telling me how they think I should grow tomatoes, I’m going to be even more appalled when they attempt to tell me what to do with my body.
The unborn baby is not part of a woman’s body. Her body is fully intact after giving birth and the same as it was before giving birth. The unborn child is its own unique person and body, residing in the mothers uterus but still it’s own body, growing and developing within the mother until it can sustain life on its own at birth. God designed life this way!
Indeed! This is the crux of the issue.
What if it's not your body that's the body in question, though? (Evidence: DNA) There are always two bodies involved in a pregnancy, plus a father, who never seems to be included in the discussion, so three people with essential interest in the outcome. Only one of them is guaranteed to be dead, if one path is chosen.
Thank you for bringing up the father. I always wonder when women are chanting "no uterus, no opinion" why don't the men answer "no sperm, no baby"
So there’s a subset of pro-life people who would argue that something like a morning after pill should be banned, because any fertilized egg is a potential human. There’s also a subset of pro-choice people who would be in favor of abortion at any time up to (or even during) birth. However, the vast majority of the population seems to favor sensible limits as to when this should be permitted to occur, absent extenuating circumstances. The beauty of the Supreme Court giving these decisions back to the states is that each population can use the political process to set their own reasonable policies. While I am still against any government involvement at all, I believe this to be a step in the right direction. When you extend that logic down further, to the county, city, neighborhood, family level, etc., you eventually land on the individual.
I understand, agree with, and respect your argument that unborn children have rights too. The question is, “at what point do those rights begin to overshadow the rights of the mother to her own body?” I think it’s a small minority that would say “at conception.” I also think it’s an even smaller minority that says “at birth.” If we concede that this point happens somewhere in the middle, now we’re just haggling over what nebulous point to arbitrarily draw what is a very bright line. There will always be plenty of people who think the line is in the wrong place.
While I personally morally disagree with late-term abortion especially, I do not feel that I have any right whatsoever to impose that morality on another person who is actually in that situation. I may disagree with their decision, but I disagree with other people’s decisions all the time. It doesn’t make my opinion more valid than theirs.
Morally, the baby's right to life supercedes any other rights of the mother from the moment of fertilization. The trick is in how to enforce that legally. Which is why pushing for abortion to be unthinkable in our culture is a better approach.
The law and morality seldom align. A lack of morality is precisely WHY we have laws.
If folks cannot be responsible and control/conduct themselves in a morally acceptable fashion then we as a society construct/legislate laws that WE, as a community, can agree are good for us.
If violence, robbery, property destruction and murder are unacceptable, then we create laws to punish those folks who don’t naturally self-regulate.
The problem is the fabric of society is woven from shared morals and values. Those values have been eroded for decades and are now in steep decline.
Simultaneously the rule of law has not been enforced. This causes further societal decay.
The rule of law is supposed to ensure that a community is protected against those who don’t share basic moral values in order to preserve LIFE, Liberty, peace, harmony, prosperity and even the pursuit of happiness.
I think you’re actually making my point. In those crimes you cited, there’s very little divergence between the law and the moral compass of the population at large. It’s only when you have an issue where there are competing claims and valid moral arguments on both sides that you encounter these types of problems. There is no way to structure a law that doesn’t violate the rights of somebody, in the opinion of large swaths of the population. It’s okay to acknowledge that and conclude that the best role for government is almost always to step back and leave people alone.
I believe that it’s a very small minority of the pro-choice crowd that supports abortion for abortion’s sake. I think the vast majority on either side would like to see fewer abortions taking place. My opinion is that government is exacerbating the situation here as well, by outlawing a free market in adoptions. Women who don’t want a child are understandably opposed to carrying a baby to term, knowing that they will incur costs and disruption to their lives for zero benefit to themselves. Meanwhile potential adoptive parents would pay handsomely to expedite the process of receiving a child to raise, yet the government artificially fixes the price of children at zero. The only beneficiaries are inefficient and corrupt adoption agencies. How many unborn children could be saved, then raised by parents who want and love them, if we allowed the market to set a price that would incentivize poor mothers to voluntarily carry these babies to term? There are solutions to this problem that are beneficial to all sides yet don’t involve trampling the rights of anyone.
Yes, I completely agree with all of your points. Abortion should be decided at the state level by the people who reside there.
I’m personally in a unique position on the abortion issue. I myself was adopted at birth and can tell you I’m very THRILLED to be here. I have some non-identifying information on my biological mother, she was 16 years old when she got pregnant. My adoptive mother could not bear children and she often recalls her frantic desperation and desire to be a mother. So it’s definitely a Win/Win.
However, fast forward to my own youth, I was raped (more than once) by an older “friend” of the family. I found myself pregnant at the age of 13. I was so naive, had barely began menstruating and had never experienced The Talk from my own mother because she herself never had periods. I was threatened by this man, physically abused and truly TERRIFIED. I didn’t have any support and felt scared for my life. So I took a city bus to Planned Parenthood where they told me I was too young to bear a child because I wasn’t done growing myself. I felt very much cornered and frightened out of mind, so I had the abortion.
Later in my 20’s I married and went on to give birth to and raise two children. The guilt of having blood on my hands still haunts me, especially as an adoptee and a mother. But the sheer terror, shame, revulsion, self-hatred and lack of support when I was 13 haunts me even more.
I’m stuck. As an adoptee and a mother I want to be 100% pro-life, I would NEVER have an abortion now. But I was also that frightened little girl and far too terrified to face the abuser. For this reason I feel that Abortion should be allowed, safe and hopefully very very rare.
Far more important is the fact that we MUST as a society find a LEGAL financial/market solution to support these women who cannot raise a child. I hear adoption is really expensive now 😒
I’m sorry but the time to consider whether or not you’re prepared to handle a pregnancy and a child is when you decide to have sex. There are many options to consider that can prevent a pregnancy from occurring and if you’re too lazy or ignorant to explore those options than you’ve made the decision to possibly have a child to consider as the outcome. So much of this conversation, like many others we’re dealing with today, come down to maturity, your values in regards to human life, and your morals. Every life is created by God and is a blessing. I worked in OB for 25 years and I’ve seen human life at all stages and it is precious. For someone to be able to hurt or kill that baby is an abomination!
The cabin in the snow analogy works if you're simply inducing labor early at a stage where it is maybe possible, even if unlikely, that the baby could survive outside the womb. But that's not really the situation in an abortion where the purpose is to kill the baby. The analogy I've heard used in libertarian circles to discuss what's referred to as the eviction theory, is that it would be like inviting someone into your hot air balloon and then deciding a thousand feet in the air that you no longer want them in your hot air balloon. In that case, even though it is your property and you would have full rights to evict that person on the ground, it would be illegal, and morally a violation of the non-aggression principle, to evict the person at altitude because it would be certain death, therefore murder. Property rights are trumped by the right to life.
If you want to get technical, the right to life is also a property right since each person owns his or her own life. All rights are property rights. But your life is a more valuable piece of property than anything else so that property right trumps all other property rights.
Very well said, thank you.
"I do whatever I like" is a moot point when you can't. Women, actually, don't perform surgeries on themselves.
Government shouldn't be interfering with individual's medical decisions, they're private. Yet, in some mysterious way medical privacy expanded to doctors getting a license for outright harmful practices and without a good medical reason whatsoever. Vaccination, at least, has a medical reason. Terminating a healthy pregnancy does not! And it's a huge slippery slope making medical ethics "first, do no harm" a joke. Now it's "do government authorized harm". A Catholic hospital in California got sued for refusing to remove healthy reproductive organs of a woman believing she's a "man". "Gender" surgeons amputating healthy breasts of teenage girls. Amputations of healthy limbs because patients feel they'll be better without them. Approval of harmful pharmaceutical products and iatrogenic deaths being #3 cause. Etc. Is the government regulating ethics out of medicine about privacy or profits?
I've read that abortions for medical reason became first popular in conservative states like Alabama, and it included mental health, like depression not being able to have another baby. Then hell broke lose with Roe that "legalized" elective abortions without a medical reason.
It sounds like 'strict scrutiny' is as slipper a slope as is 'substantial due process.'
I am wondering how the legal concept of personhood meaning "DNA of both parents" combined with technology affects birthright citizenship. If a person brings containers of fertilized eggs into another country, are those eggs US citizens, since they are outside the womb and with the logic of personhood meaning DNA then "birth" could mean simply being outside the womb. Also, should babies in (or outside) the womb need names travel documents since this way of thinking counts them as separate people?
If it is illegal to euthanize, it should be illegal to abort. If animal cruelty is illegal, abortion should be illegal. Why the double standard? If killing another person is murder, abortion is murder and should be treated as such. Why should the mother survive the abortion? If “my body my choice” is the logic, the mother should be killed in order to appropriately end the life of the baby. There is no logic in it. It’s not about privacy. The right to privacy doesn’t outweigh laws of the land. Breaking laws in private is still breaking laws. Having laws that protect life are inherently going to disrupt taking lives.
My phone is not letting me “like” your comment. I agree.
Good point. Who represents the baby's right to privacy in an abortion scenario? And to the baby's God-given American rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
With our God given rights comes a God given duty to uphold those rights and act in terms of them. All of our endowed rights from God are based on moral absolutes. Near the top of the list (consult the Ten Commandments) is the sanctity of human life. This is an absolute. Based on the same moral framework is "my body, my choice", also an absolute. The Left would have us believe these are in conflict. But that is a lie straight from hell. Everyone is so focused on their "rights", they don't even consider their duty under God's law. Consider the pregnant woman. From the moment of conception, the new life within her is a separate, distinct individual with an indefinite lifespan. She is the vessel for the birth of the new life and, as such, she has a DUTY to protect that life within her (as well as does the man who is her partner). My body, my choice is an absolute for HER body only. The pairing of this absolute with the absolute of the sanctity of human life results in her duty to protect the innocent life within her. As Christians we have got to be able to articulate the moral framework of Biblical law intelligently without resorting to the simplistic one-liners the Left uses against us. Until we acknowledge and proclaim that life begins at conception and is by definition an individual human being endowed by the Creator with all the rights as anyone else this side of the grave, we will never win the argument with the Left who wants everyone to believe that the new creation inside the womb is anything other than a clump of cells. How can we expect anyone to take us seriously if we cannot even intelligently articulate God's moral framework? We have been relegated to the back of the cultural bus and allowed the Left to set the terms of the debate and no one in society takes us seriously as a result. Simplistic one-liners are self defeating. We must set the terms of the debate and demonstrate that the Left is intellectually shallow and morally bankrupt. If we do that the rest of society will laugh at the Left and render them powerless.
How can anyone call themselves christian and say abortion is okay? That is a contradiction in terminis
How can we call ourselves Christian and allow millions of children to go into foster homes because no one wants to adopt them. The millions I speak of are just here in the USA. Just think of all the sex trafficking that goes on in DFAC. It’s not just about abortion.
Someone fact check me, but it is my understanding that 400,000 children go missing each year in the US.
There are other ways for not getting pregnant. In case of rape, immediately go to doctor. In other cases, get anticonception means. I suppose they exist in US, the do exist in Europe. I think no other country has such loose laws of abortion. In know a few European countries have something like rape, danger to mother's life, but all need to be done within the first 3 months. If by that time you still don't know you are pregnant there is something wrong.
My phone is not letting me “like” your comment. I agree wholeheartedly.
I am not a lawyer but I am a neurotically logical thinker, and a libertarian anarchist, so I am often engaged in these discussions and I can't help but think through all angles.
For me, the morality is clear cut. Abortion is murder from the moment the egg is fertilized, so that includes the morning after pill and many forms of hormonal contraception as well. But the legality of it is where it gets tricky because while it's clearly murder, it's a very particular method of murder, one that is performed by a doctor in an environment that is and should be private. In order to really enforce any law against abortion would require infringing upon, if not entirely eliminating, the right to privacy in medical procedures. The sacrosanct relationship between doctor and patient would be violated by law enforcement.
That's what has always made this issue complicated for me. I have no doubts about the morality whatsoever. And that's why I've always preferred the approach to make abortion unthinkable, rather than simple illegal. And that's how society works anyway. Laws follow the culture, not the other way around. And I think we are making great strides in this. The pro-life movement is very young, heavily female, and very passionate. That all bodes well compared to the generations before.
I would love to be able to celebrate the overturning of Roe for what it represents, and I do appreciate any power being handed back to the states or even to more local government than that. But I worry about what it means practically for what the law can now get involved with. If it is indeed all tied in with vaccines then we've traded some precious liberty for a symbolic victory that won't actually change the number of abortions committed anyway.
I appreciate your thoughts about this.
The medical privacy does indeed seem tricky.
I wonder how it came to be that abortion came to fall within the purview of medical doctors? I mean, nowadays it seems obvious, right?
But, maybe there is an even BIGGER question of what/who gets to say what doctoring is or is not? (What a can of worms to open, ha.)
What I mean is this, at least in part. I’ve been trying to reformulate my thoughts about this over the past year or so. Anyway, as it currently stands, the government gets to decide who and what constitutes “medical care.” This is done by way of medical licensing boards, Joint Commission that regulates hospitals, government-paid health insurance policies, and many other regulations over all manner of entities: pharmacies, radiology centers, surgery centers, etc, etc.
It currently is not possible for a person to go get a radiology study without seeing a doctor first. And that doctor is regulated via licensing by the state. It is not possible to obtain pharmaceuticals without permission from a licensed physician or practitioner. (And there are current bills in Congress that are attempting to remove from us or make more difficult for us to buy our own supplements, vitamins, and safe and effective homeopathic medicines! They truly want to remove our self-sufficiency!)
Anyway, back in the old days, I doubt one necessarily went to a medical doctor for an abortion. I have no idea, honestly. But it seems as likely that it was an old woman in such and such part of town who knew the proper herbs and whatnot to induce abortions. And who oversaw them. Yes, probably there were doctors or midwives who provided abortions. But abortion was not seen as a legitimate procedure within the typical medical practice.
When was it codified as a standard medical procedure?
I guess that’s what I am getting at.
I don’t think we can legislate abortions out of existence. Women who are determined or forced to have one will get one. But it seems that somehow, by some means, the State should not support abortions nor access to them.
I also agree with you that, yes, what a doctor and patient discuss must be confidential. I guess, at what point however, do we as a society point our finger at something and say, “no, doctor, you are harming your patient with that procedure”? Again, seems less straightforward now, but still there has to be some line. I mean, we also have doctors mutilating children and adolescents chemically and surgically in the name of affirming their mental delusions about sex. We just cannot allow that!
And yet we definitely do not want government micromanaging our health decisions.
I'm sure there were non-doctors who could administer herbs in an early stage, but I know that abortions were explicitly forbidden in the original hippocratic oath so it does seem to be associated with doctors going pretty FAR back. And there is a logical connection there since unfortunately removing something and removing someONE from the body would require the same skill set.
I'm not sure what it would do in practice, but maybe returning to that original oath would be a good thing to do as well.
Yes.
Returning to Judeo-Christian ethics and worldview (which Hippocrates was not, necessarily, as he invoked the Greek gods - he invoked a moral standard external to himself at least) would serve out society well.
Yes. I'm not suggesting following ancient Greek mythology :) but the original Hippocratic oath was far and away superior to the current one! I was probably more shocked than I should have been when I learned about how it's changed over the years. But it obviously still must hold some influence if they go to the trouble of changing it, rather than just ignoring it. So, changing it back might actually do some good. Couldn't hurt anyway.
Yes, absolutely! Agree 100%.
1) The Right To Privacy is a derivative interpretation of the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because a Right is NOT written into the Law of The Land, does NOT mean that Right doesn't exist. 2) The original Roe v Wade decision was not arbitrary regarding the fetus. At 13 weeks a human fetus has neither lungs nor a digestive system. Therefore, the fetus cannot exist as an individual independent of the mother, and, as a consequence of this state of being, the fetus cannot be granted the protections of the law.
It is important to keep in mind that Roe v Wade said NOTHING about abortion restrictions after the first trimester, nor did it say anything about societal or governmental SUPPORT of abortion - government funded abortions are NOT in any way a right of the woman.
Roe v Wade was a cultural compromise that neither side liked, but it worked under the Constitution and the national social contract. However, abortion advocates used Roe v Wade to push for government mandated funding of abortions, and for extending abortion regardless of the state of development of the fetus, until we saw New York and Virginia (and other States?) pass laws that not only allow abortion at FULL TERM, but allow new born babies to be "kept comfortable" as they starve to death.
So, "We gave an inch, they took a mile." Roe v Wade became the lynch pin upon which the sick, Satanist devotees of American society expanded their influence to spread and instantiate seduction, promiscuity, decadence, degeneration and corruption as the foundational paradigm of society. The recent Supreme Court decision to set down Roe v Wade is a technical legal ruling that allows a proper and effective response to these dark and nefarious forces, a response that, so far, prevents unleashed bloody civil conflict.
While I definitely appreciate your breakdown and I recognize that things in the current practice are complex indeed, my only true concerns are with what is moral under God, and then how best to make that happen in a practical sense. And those two things are particularly at odds in this issue.
Personally, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any government or any vote. No man has the right to make decisions for any other man. I realize we have to find a way to operate within the system we're in, but as a matter of discussing the philosophy, the only law that concerns me is the natural law that exists for all mankind whether you believe in God or not.
There are natural, God given rights that every human has, by the nature of being a human, that cannot be given or taken away by any government. For sure they can be infringed upon, but the rights are still yours. You can fight to retain use of them in necessary.
Which brings me to the end of your comment, which interests and worries me because I don't see how this decision will prevent a bloody civil conflict. Quite frankly, I don't really see how anything could at this point. It seems like this country is at a boiling/breaking point where something has to give. Obviously, peaceful succession would be preferable but I would be lying if I said I wasn't apprehensive about what might be building.
The only thing I know for sure that we can always do no matter the circumstances, is to pray for peace.
Let me be clear that I HATE abortion. It is a symptom of the worst attributes of humanity and makes me feel dirty to be part of the race. But I accepted Roe v Wade in the spirit of, let's see what we can do to eliminate the demand for abortions. Shows how naive I was. As for bloody civil conflict, I hope we can get past the current insanity, because I have grown children and I don't want them to have to live through a full-blown civil war, but I do see that we are skating on the edge of a razor.
I think you are right. I think it will come to an outburst when enough people realize what has happened. Older people like me can do little. But a lot of adults were forced to get the jabs, and now the government tries to poison their children. At a certain time, there will be enough younger people who will have had enough.
Agree. I am not pro abortion at any stage. But sometimes there are reasons. In Europe some countries allow first trimester abortion for health reasons, and certainly for rape cases. I could not believe at first, when I heard that abortion in some states was allowed until birth. If that is not murder I don't know what is. There are ways of anticonception, so why not use these rather then fix things when it is too late.
What’s really mind blowing is how many children are in foster homes looking for homes . How many of these children enter their teenage years alone. But pro lifers NEVER talk about that horror!
Having been a pro-lifer and, as a result, a foster parent for years, willing to adopt, and later, serving as a CASA (Court-Appointed Special Advocate) for children in the state's custody, I would like to share my experience with "the system." First off, there were always enough adoptive homes for infants to make abortion unnecessary. I'm not sure nowadays with the economy in the tank. But, usually, childless couples are lined up for newborns and young babies. Typically they are placed in their adoptive homes as soon as the Termination of Parental Rights forms are signed.
When older children are taken by Social Services, a judge must approve a custody order and the Social Worker's plan to place the children in a willing relative's home or into foster care with people who have been trained and certified to provide such care. If the parent(s) want the children returned, they must repair, if at all possible, whatever shortcoming led to the custody situation. It's usually drugs, alcohol, abuse and or neglect, and often a combination of all. In those cases, which are the majority of foster care cases, the willingness and ability of the parent(s) to complete counseling, begin AA or NA, find employment, stable housing, etc determines how long the kids stay in care. Most of these children linger for years while parents do what they do. These children are not available to be adopted until the State can sufficiently prove to the Court that they have exhausted all attempts to assist and assure the parents are satisfactorily safe and secure for their children to be returned. Herein lies the problem.
These kids often have a myriad of problems, having spent their formative years in a dysfunctional home and suffered any imaginable horror. Once they are in State custody, social workers begin their assessment and there are always issues. You don't end up in foster care because everything is fine at home. They are in need of special care, end up in special schools and need educational assistance. Counseling is routine and medications are prescribed.
Months turn into years. As time goes on, the children are moved from home to home, for any number of reasons. The breakdown of placements is a serious problem, but sadly inevitable for a large percentage of these children. Often the children will sabotage the placement, hoping it will send them back to their parents. After they learn they have the power to disrupt the home and be moved, the cycle begins and changing schools and counselors becomes a norm - and if the kids had psychological issues coming in, they only worsen with the instability of life as a "fosterkid."
When it is finally determined the child's parent is not working to accomplish set goals, the Court can terminate the parents' rights and the child made available for adoption. I know of many foster parents who have a house full of adopted and foster children. But it is an upward struggle to find a home for an older child "in the system" with behavioral problems. It is a sad fact that many of these kids age out of the system and end up in the military, for lack of education and direction. (My own father experienced this in his life and joined the Navy at 17 and went off to fight WW2.)
A teen can file for Emancipation and if the Court approves, - even a minor - is on their own at that point. I've seen it happen several times and it is not a good thing. Without a committed adult providing direction, these teens often become runaways, prey for traffickers, street prostitutes, drug addicts.
This is why there are so many children in foster care, only some available for adoption. The thing is, none of these parents sought abortion. You might say their children would have been better off it they had. But who is to make that call? These children were destined to live the life they were born to live. They all matter. None of us are promised a rose garden as they say.
On a happy note, the first child my husband and I fostered, was with us for her first nine months. She ended up going to live with her father and his mother. (He refused to sign away his parental rights - so fathers need to get involved when the girl they've impregnated needs help!) Throughout her childhood, her grandmother would mail me school photos along with updates on her progress. Some years ago my phone rang. It was "my baby" all grown up, inviting me to her wedding. We've stayed in touch and I've had the pleasure of knowing her husband and their four children - and she just graduated from SNHU with a BA in Literature. I'm so happy for her and the way her life has turned out.
The best advice i can give is for pro-lifers to become foster parents, especially if you are talented as a parent. Good foster homes make all the difference in the world and are in short supply.
Amazing outcome for “your baby”. Thanks for sharing your insight.
It is easy to tell someone to accept responsibility for someone else’s choices, but not realistic. Will you accept a DUI because your neighbor drove drunk? Will you go to jail because your friend trafficked drugs? Why should those who stand for the value of someone’s life be held responsible? I know the systems aren’t perfect, have failed in many ways, and are in desperate need of improvement. The adoption industry has corruptions of its own. Neither justify killing babies as a fundamental right. They are not related. Systems can be improved AND lives can be protected.
Actually many of them do.
They may not discuss it in the same conversation as they discuss abortion, but they do discuss it.
Some of the folks whom I know who are active foster parents or providing respite foster care are committed Christians who also support the lives of unborn babies.
I agree with you that our foster care system is a MESS. And kids growing up disconnected with any form of family - biological or foster - is a tragedy. However, I doubt that killing the kids is the solution. Killing them prebirth is no different than euthanizing them when they are disconnected, unwanted-by-the-system teenagers.
I just mentioned that because I look at adoption sites and see millions of kids looming for loving families. I am sure Christian’s do talk about it… but I hear more talk about pro life than I do pro adopt . That’s all I was trying to say. And by saying it, it brings the issue into the spotlight. Children need loving homes.
Right, blame the pro life people for the irresponsible choices, reprehensible crimes and utter selfishness of others. That makes more sense. Most children in foster care aren’t there because the mother couldn’t get an abortion. LOL. People who are pro life are also against child abuse, child neglect, child endangerment etc. The gross irresponsibility of those whose children end up in foster care aren’t children who should have been aborted. Is that your logic? Thank God foster care exists. Evidence that DESPITE the fact that there are unimaginable cruelties happening to children, someone else takes responsibility for their protection. The value of our lives isn’t based on whether we are abused, abandoned, neglected or even unwanted. Laws are being established to make that clear. I think your perspective is deeply concerning and flawed, but you are most welcome to have it. We don’t have to agree.
Well said. I am a pro-lifer who spent about 10 years doing foster care for children with behavioral issues. I was part of a large group of foster parents, all pro-life.
Show me pro abortion individuals who are involved in foster care. I haven’t met any.
You make a good point, which should serve as a call to action. The various government agencies make adoption a journey of a thousand small cuts. I wish these agencies would be as aggressive screening out the gender-swap-enablers and the pedophiles in our communities, as they are with "regular folk".
It amazes me that such large and important decisions are made by the president alone and not the congress. We have idiots running the country, including congress. People have no voice anymore, unless it is related to cancel culture issues that slowly destroys morality and culture.
I nominate Eric to fill in for you as needed next week! 😜
I 2nd that motion! Everyone in favor ??
Aye!
I"ll happily give my 2¢! 😂
😁
Hahaha- I’d vote for that one ☝️!! Let’s do two multipliers- One for Jeff - 💵since he’s the most amazing lawyer/writer for us and one for Eric 🤑since he can fill in for Jeff and makes us laugh equally as much. ➿‼️➿
🤣🤣🤣
A bunch of us could send you tidbits to write on from our prospective states. I'm not from California but Oregon is close enough. They just put up a nice new bill board advertisement in San Diego with palm trees and sunshine that says, "Come to California, the abortion capitol of the world!" and similar. Funded Planned Parenthood, funded by tax dollars. https://www.kusi.com/are-taxpayer-dollars-funding-pro-abortion-billboards-in-california/
That is beyond disgusting. I am a 5th generation California native, my g-g-grandfather is one of the 10,000 founding fathers of California as per Native Daughters of The Golden West. I got out of there 35 years ago. The state (not to mention this country) has been stolen by the minority. I am pretty sure that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for lesser evils than are being perpetuated today. Embarrassed to be a California girl.
For real??!!!!
Unbelievable - evil out from under the rock!
Hi Eric, when I lived in Cali I use to say “ The land of fruits and Nuts.”
I still say that, & have never even visited “The Left Coast.”
California car tags are showing up increasingly here in Sweet Home Alabama.
We welcome conservatives who’ve had enough but the Cali Fruits/Nuts who apparently haven’t learned the causes of Cali’s demise...not so much.
We are a deep red (some say Crimson) state, & while I wear the flattering universal color purple that makes any lady look good) we don’t want a purple or even a blue state (apologies to my War Eagle friends, & granddaughter).
RIP Dr. Zelenko. I loved your courage and your curiosity to find the BEST solution during the China virus.
and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE submit an amicus brief in the abortion case!
I know your first priority is your law practice (and thank The Lord for that!) but I will miss you next week when you don’t pop up in my email. C&C is the first thing I look for in the mornings. I appreciate what you do for us, so much. I also look forward to the banter back and forth with C&C friends in the comments. I maintain that we should, someday, have a C&C Army face to face get together and wear name tags of our user names so we know who each other is. 😂 I’d love to meet all of you some day. I’ve been on here since commenting wasn’t a big thing. The input from everyone has helped turned this into an Army. 👏 👏
Name tags of our user names! Love it!
I agree about coming for the comments as well as the post. This has to be one of the best Substack communities out there.
I just changed my user name to make meeting everyone seem more fun.. I’m so used to professional names .. Let’s go to Florida and have a C&C party !🎉🇺🇸🇺🇸🎉🇺🇸🎉
Come on down!
The best. 🏆
Wonderful idea!
While I welcome the SCOTUS EPA decision, it bothers me that language in the opinion appears to display tacit acceptance that, in fact, there is a climate crisis. That this is ingrained even in ostensible conservatives does not bode well. The same crisis mentality, with it's mass worldwide one size fits all non-solution, suffused the COVID reaction/scam. Given widespread belief in climate change as an existential and immediate threat, the powers that be may have an even easier time subjugating the masses through climate fear than they did with COVID.
When Obama sells his two ocean front manors, then I’ll start worrying about the oceans rising.
🎯
I used to feel more strongly as a climate change person. My background is environmental toxicology. But now what I see since the veil has lifted are problem made by corporations that we the consumers are supposedly responsible for. None of us asked to drown in plastic. We didn’t ask for sunscreens that kill reefs. It is the same lack of foresight and money and power grab that we are seeing with Big Harma. Do I believe more care should be taken: yes. But let’s keep on eye on those propagating this.
I keep wondering, "who approved all of that toxic stuff (microplastics, reef-killing sunscreen, etc)? I believe the FDA played it's part, as well as EPA, and maybe, I don't know, USDA? They're the ones, along with the manufacturer corporations, responsible to understand the implications to our environment. Of course, suing them sucks up yet more of our tax dollars...
I feel any man-made pollution or behavior that can effect the climate is not a creation of ordinary people but a result of profit motives inflicted by corporate technocrats, themselves and it's their duty to contribute their $Trillions to reversing the problems rather than making ordinary people pay twice.
Great comments
Don't have your background, but I used to feel more strongly about environmental issues as well. To date I have only found one company that is actually putting out products tested to be reef safe. The rest is green washing and not just by large companies.
Reducing plastic waste is a PITA. Its also more expensive in the short term.
I'd be interested in your opinion on biodegradable sugarcane resin as an alternative to plastic packaging. Is it really better or are there potential long term consequences to using it?
I thought the same thing.
Climate change 🤮
I disregard anyone who even brings it up as if it were real. Nope 👎🏻
Agree! I didn’t like that either; glad you highlighted it.
“Climate Change” is real in the sense of natural cycles of life & living.
Climate Change to Libs, Leftists, Marxists, & other fruits/nuts is due entirely to pesky humans. Wait! Just US pesky humans...the masses in flyover land.
Elites are exempt & too egotistical to see their hypocrisy as the fly at will to WEF & other elitist events (Epstein Island) on private planes, live in electricity hog mansions, behind electric gated communities. If they had to earn a weekly paycheck they wouldn’t have discretionary time or income for the idiotic projects they dream up.
Well said!
Yours is also my pet peeve, the tacit permitting of lies to persist unacknowledged and not refuted. Well said!
Scotus decisions on Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) as a serious infectious pandemic are also likely to be engrained in in even favorable decisions thus perpetuating the power of Big Pharma to wage psychological terrorism on the public.
For the sake of the trial, please focus on that priority! Also, one time I overlooked, but, 2 days in a row with “Book of Revelations”, I have to speak. It is “Revelation” if you are making reference to the book in the Bible. The Book of Revelation is about the revelation of Jesus Christ. Okay, I am done:)) Have a blessed weekend!
If I weren't writing for a secular audience, I would probably caption it the "Book of THE Revelation" but that confuses secular folks.
Love that you are able to interact so much today! 😊 Have a great weekend as you prep for trial!
Thank you. I wasn’t sure if that was petty to bring it up, but I’m glad you did! It has always bugged me when people who know and understand the Bible refer to Revelation as plural. 😂
Same as when they refer to a single Psalm as Psalms. As in “turn to Psalms 23.” 🤣
😂
YES! Thank you, Tyra and others. Yesterday’s misnomer irritated me too, but I let it slide thinking maybe it was a typo.
One other correction, it’s actual title is the Book of the Apocalypse - though Book of Revelation is certainly acceptable.
And finally, THANK YOU JEFF CHILDERS. You are a champion - our champion.
FWIW, "apocalypse" is an archaic (greek derived) word for "revelation". So it means the same thing... in some older places it's titled "The Apocalypse of John". It's just that the meaning of "apocalypse" has changed over time, I think largely due to the content of the aforementioned book!
Regarding your last story...no one needs to be an expert to know what's going on. Like you said...common sense. That's why these upcoming elections are so vital. We need folks in congress who actually care about our country (and "we the people") rather than themselves and their bank accounts.
Thank you for a great post today!
Good luck and prayers next week. ❤️ Thanks for the Dr Z vid. It was so sadly beautiful. A great reminder to all of us on life. As to who they could ask about the taste of human meat🙄 I could name at least one politician and numerous hollyweirds but I digress. I never thought I’d see end times, but if we are so far along in Revelation. Uhoh.
Solvent Green. Fiction becomes reality. Rest in peace Zelenco. You will be missed and never forgotten.
Biden works very hard at destroying our country and getting us into war.
All part of the plan. As the Lioness says, they always tell you in advance what they are going to do. Build Back Better cannot be more obvious. Before you can build, destruction must occur.
Another shining example of his foolishness in apparently thinking he would be exempt from any harm.
It's what keeps me sane. Gives me some satisfaction that they all actually think they are immune to retribution. They have not learned from history. Who do the angry citizens go after first. Why, the ones who caused all the misery. I hope I live long enough to see them he what they deserve.
I don't think he is concerned about that. These people (there are females too) such as O'Biden, Gates, Soros, Schwab, etc are bitter, old men who are facing the prospect of not living very much longer and simply want to take as many with them as they can before they die. They are sociopaths and, as I said, there is no common ground with them for us to even understand their thinking. Without hope, that's all you are left with - a god-complex.
Godspeed, Dr. Zev.
Indeed.
God Bless you and your loved ones Dr. Zev.
May God comfort his friends and family during this sad time.
I was reading C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" late last night and this passage jumped out at me: "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself. That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended - civilizations are built up - excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans."
Love CS Lewis! His works as so full of insight and wisdom. The enemy has no hope and through the authority of the Lord and the power of the Holy Spirit, He is building His kingdom down through the centuries. This is our assurance and it is for a time such as this that we were born.
The Tower of Babel, over and over.
I love CS Lewis! Such a great thinker with so many thought-provoking and interesting ideas!
Someone please tell Fauxcahontas and that jackwagon Krugman that Europe has just experienced two of its COLDEST winters in decades. That's one of the reasons the Russians are enjoying record oil sales.
😂 Fauxcahontas 🤣… obviously she’s has had no real education…. Obviously her only education unfortunately like most is controlled propaganda media and indoctrination … the planets climate cycles have been recorded since the first Mesopotamian civilizations… the Sumerians left us clay cuneiform tablets … they kept records of climate cycles… our industrial era infinitesimal micro blip in earths time will not interfere with our 4.54 +/- billion year old Earth… how incredibly arrogant that this era of modern opportunistic money grubbing politically motivated grifters has convinced the population we’re all gonna die due to fossil fuels… 🧐😵💫
That is the reason "they" changed it from Algores "Global Warming" to the more inclusive "Climate Change". In this day and age we would hate to sideline any extreme weather incident with our narrow minded views on lack of diversity, whether it is from DARPA or GOD.
Heatwaves? Climate change. Cold snaps? Climate change. Droughts? Climate change. Floods? Climate change. Bushfires? Climate change. Animals dying out? Climate change. Animals overpopulating? Climate change. Greedy capitalists have more money than you? Probably also Climate Change. The Snake Oil of the 21st Century - good for every ailment!
“Human Meat Burger”? Anyone remember SOYLENT GREEN?
Yes, I thought the same thing. In fact it was on TV last week,I only watched the first few minutes but it starts: NEW YORK 2022! FREAKY!
NO!
Seriously?!?
NY 2022?!?
Ok.
Now we have to watch it!
Doesn’t anyone know Marina Abramovic?
https://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3466/Wake-Up-and-Smell-the-Culture.aspx
Disgusting. “baby cooking” parties, whether actual or a “joke.”
The photos are real. Spirit cooking has been a thing with these people for a while and they don’t hide it.
I tried link to no avail
Sorry. It worked for me just now. Reposted from another place on her blog archive:
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3466/Default.aspx
Certainly do! 😵💫
Yes! And we all thought it was science fiction...
Hey! Back in the day, I thought the same ... and awe! It could never happen! But it turned out the Science Fiction was more Future Realism all along. Who would have thunk?
Human Burger? Hum? It's like ... what's for super tonight? And no telling what demonic preparation is going on here!