A Twist in the Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon Saga

Concerning Mr and Mrs Longo doing OnlyFans --

Well, of course they did! How can anyone be surprised at that twist, after seeing the short clip of Mr Longo describing the actions of the government agents and wherein Mrs Longo wiped fake tears from her fake eye-lashed eyes with her fake clawed hands while making sure to stay in the camera's field? I wish that all porno would be outlawed, and could be destroyed; it's destroying people's lives, on an industrial scale, and thus destroying our civilization. BUT, the Longos participation on OF is a separate matter from the abuse to which these government goons subjected them. Consider -- the goons had a warrant to search for and seize a squirrel and a raccoon ... and yet they spent five hours tearing those people's home apart. This is absurd; this is tyrannical.

===

Also, isn't it amazing that *this* governmental abuse is the one which "goes viral", while the daily ones -- such as releasing violent rapists and murderers onto society; such as facilitating the murders of millions of babies every year -- are met with a societal yawn?  What does that say about our society?  How can anyone be surprised that such an up-side-down society is committing suicide?

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which is currently prosecuting an innocent man for a charge of murder because his actions to protect the lives of a subway car full of other innocent people partially lead to the death of the mad druggie who was threatening them.  Keep in mind that the druggie seems still to have been alive when the "first responders" got there, but they didn't want to risk infection by trying to resuscitate him (*).  Keep in mind that there were *three* men who restrained the crazed druggie, but that only the white man is being prosecuted.

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which, according to Mr Longo, while being very concerned to verify the immigration status of his wife, ALSO releases violent illegal alien invaders onto the public.

(*) After I retired from a lifetime in IT, and until I couldn't take anymore of the Covid-19[84] bullshit, I took a very low-paying job ($10.60 per hour) driving wheel-chair bound people to their appointments. I -- with no particular professional training -- was expected to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation for these people, should the need arise, and to clean up any projectile vomiting that might occur (God be praised, I was spared both situations; though more than one passenger was delivered to me in a soiled state). AND, I wasn't permitted to know which of my passengers had AIDS (though, some were obvious).

Some online comments comment about Peanut and Fred --

=====

Government in a nutshell. Capricious, arbitrary, pointless, wasteful and dangerous exercise of state power.

=====

I hear all the "This generations Harambe".

I tell you, this is leagues worse. Harambe was a fully grown Gorilla in a stressful situation, and the kid was in genuine danger.

Peanuts was a squirrel barely the size of a house cat. He woudnt hurt anyone, even if he wanted to, and the raid was unwarranted (i dont care if they had a court ordered warrant, if the law does evil, the law is evil), not to mention all the agents swarming the place.

Harambe was a chain of accidents and bad decisions, Peanut and Fred were deliberate evil done by the state.

=====

Peanut's Story is the ultimate litmus test on whether or not you lick government boot. Peanut did not hurt anyone. In fact, he brought joy to thousands online. His owners took good care of him and he was neither physically abused nor malnourished. However, in New York State, it is technically illegal to own a squirrel as a domestic pet, especially without the proper licenses and permits allowing you to do so. As such despite the owners good intentions, they did break a series of laws, and if we are to live in a Trusted Society, we should apply proper punishments to those who do break laws. But now comes the question: Was the punishment that was given not only just, but appropriate and necessary? If not, what type of punishment should the owners have received? Should they have received one at all? What it really comes down to, is that Peanut's Story is total representation of the Anarcho-Tyranny that the Left wants across the West, wherein the State will ignore or even facilitate violent and lawless behavior by favored groups while cracking down with the full force of the armed law on irrelevant minor infractions by anyone else.

=====

"I have information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" - Peanut the Squirrel, the final message.

Peanut meme

EDIT (2025/04/25):

It seems that the NY state bureaucrats had determined to kill the two animals even before the raid and seizure.

Viva Frei: Tom Fitton Exposes NY's Plot to Kill Peanut & Fred in Shocking FOIL Request!

There *IS* a Federal Interest in State Murder Law ... Including Regarding Abortion

 The following is a response I sent to Matt Christiansen, concerning his recent live-stream (which I viewed on YouTube) --
=====
In "MC Live 11/3/24" you argue that the federal government has no jurisdiction/interest in State murder laws.  Of course, in general, you are correct.  However, if a State's law regarding murder is in violation of the 14th Amendment, then the federal government does have an interest.

To use your "ridiculous" example (is it, really?), if a State were to de-criminalize any and all murder, then one might *legally* argue that the federal government has no interest or jurisdiction.  However, if a State were to de-criminalize the murder of blue-eyed persons, while retaining all sanctions against the murders of all other persons, than that is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

Similarly, if abortion is murder -- and it is -- then to de-criminalize the murders of persons who have not yet inhaled atmosphere, while maintaining the sanctions against the murders of those persons who have inhaled atmosphere, is also a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
=====

Election-pocalypse, RIP Peanut the Squirrel, Biden Wants to Smack MAGA A$$ | MC Live 11/3/24

On "A Medical Procedure to Terminate a Pregnancy"

Have you noticed that the Democrats and other leftists have taken to characterizing abortion as "a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy"?

No. This won't do. Birth might be called "a medical procedure which terminates a pregnancy", but abortion terminates a human life: the whole point of an abortion is the dead baby.

The Incoherence of Anti-anti-abortionism

I'm not "pro-life" -- that designation is the sort of "non-judgmental" pap cooked up on Madison Ave to appeal to a certain sort of woman -- I'm anti-murder, and thus I'm anti-abortion.

Earlier today, Jeremy at "The Quartering" uploaded a YouTube video in which he expresses his dismay, and even revulsion, about a recent trend on TikTok of "celebrating" the baby-murders one has commissioned.

Now, Jeremy's problem (as with Megyn Kelly) is wanting to have it both ways: wanting abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" as the utterly immoral Clintons formulated it. But, this is incoherent, it is self-contradictory.

If an abortion is the murder of a helpless and innocent human being (and it is), then only a demon wants it to be "safe, legal"; and a moral person wants abortion to be not merely "rare" but illegal and prosecuted and punished, just as with any other method of murder.

But, if an abortion is of no more moral consequence than an appendectomy, then "safe, legal, and rare" is still incoherent and self-contradictory. Now, of a truth, all moral persons want appendectomies to be "safe, legal", but ""rare"!? No, a moral person wants appendectomies to be as numerous as they need to be.

I have had an inguinal hernia repaired, as had my father and also a great-nephew; I have had an appendectomy, as has one sister. The other sister has had her gall bladder removed, as had our mother.  Certainly, it would be odd and strange were any of us to be talking about these surgeries for no specific and relevant reason, much less to be boasting about them. But, would it really be "creepy"? Would these surgeries really be something to be ashamed of?  Of course not! They have no moral content of themselves. In contrast, and except for the super-rare case of "saving the life of the mother", abortion *is* immoral, utterly and always; for the *point* of all abortions except that super-rare case is to kill a baby.

The flood of lawlessness and degeneracy which is destroying America has many streams feeding it; two of the most important are: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Abortion Regime.  Either of those alone would have been enough to destroy the nation within just a generation or two -- and remember, both of those were set up within the lifetimes of millions of Americans now living. Do you *really* think that things can go on as they are for another 50 or 60 years?

It is not that "God is Gonna Get Us Because of Drag-Queen Story Hour", rather, Drag Queen Story Hour -- the deliberate grooming of children (*) into sexual perversion -- and much horror beside, IS the judgement of God upon this nation for its rejection of true morality and true law.

(*) You may have noticed that Drag Queen Story Hour is never held at Ye Olde Folkes Home.

The Quartering: "TikTok Abortion Vlogs Are Now A Popular Thing"

Matt Christiansen: "Whistleblower on Teen Gender Transitions, AZ Abortion Ban"

When is a Person Not a Person?

 ... when the Powers That Be do not wish that person to be treated in law as a person.

Quote from linked YT video: =="Abortion (like a Clinton witness' cause of death) is homicide. And *like* homicide, it's a matter for the States to prosecute (ahem, unlike the Clintons)."==

Indeed, abortion *is* homicide, and like other acts of homicide, it is for the States to prosecute.

Yet, there is the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which states that: =="No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."==

Now, imagine that some State were to enact a law to deny some class of persons "the equal protection of the laws". Say, for instance, that New York State, whether by explicit statute or by prosecutorial action in some instances and inaction in other instances, were to deny "straight white males" having "the equal protection of the laws": Say, if a "straight white male" were to kill a black person while in the act of protecting other persons in public from the violent threats of that black person, the killing were to be prosecuted as murder, yet at the same time, some "persons of color" who assisted that "straight white male" in subduing the now-deceased violent black person were not prosecuted at all.

How, one might ask, could such a thing happen, even hypothetically? Why, in practice, it does happen in the very same way that abortion -- murder of pre-born (and sometimes in Current Year post-birth) babies -- is winked at: by denying the personhood of the persons whom powerful political interests wish to exclude from "the equal protection of the laws."

=====
Isn't it odd that when the Democratic Party were explicitly (*) the party of slavery, even they didn't go so far as their intellectual descendants do with respect to the murder of babies? The Democrats of 1860 didn't deny that slaves were persons, they merely denied that slaves were citizens. -- even in the deepest of the Old South, killing a slave could get one prosecuted for murder.

(*) In Current Year, the Democrats are implicitly the party of slavery -- the Democrats *never* gave up on wanting to enslave some persons: all that changes is the who and the whom.

The Rageaholic: Arizona BOOFS Baby Murder - Razör Rants

=====

EDIT (2024/04/14): I much doubt that Tim Pool reads this dusty little blog. Nonetheless, he recently had a segment in which he brings up the conflict I pointed out above between the 14th Amendment and abortion.

IF a pre-born human being is a person (and they are), THEN abortion is murder (and it is), AND thus the US Constitution *requires* the States to prosecute for murder: the abortionist, the abortionist's aides and office workers and financiers and any other persons connected to the abortion-mill, the woman who contracted the murder, and any persons who aided in the procuring of the murder.

BUT, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to prosecute a person who murders a pregnant woman for *two* murders. In fact, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to even prosecute a person who causes a pregnant woman to miscarriage.

TimcastIRL: SCOTUS Must Rule On 14th Amendment For Abortion, Otherwise CIVIL WAR

Atheism and Infanticide

Shadow to Light: Atheism and Infanticide

Shadow to Light: “As Coyne’s reasoning makes clear, the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide. I can’t be sure, but I bet if you look at the arguments of those opposed to legalizing abortion back in the 1960s and 70s, you’d find people warning about this exact development and you’d find such warnings being dismissed.”

Ilíon: I can be sure, I remember it. And it wasn’t just in the 60s and 70s. I wasn’t really aware of the abortion regime until about 1980 … and at least into the 1990s, if not into this century, the pro-abortionists were pooh-poohing the argument not only that that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, but that it *must* lead to infanticide.

At some point in the very recent past, the pro-abortionists totally switched it up — whereas previously they had pooh-poohed the argument that “the legalization and normalization of abortion has provided the slippery slope toward infanticide”, they began to actively argue that *since* there is no moral difference between a pre-birth human being and a born human infant and *since* the killing of a pre-birth human being is legal, that *therefore* the killing of a born human infant must also be legalized.

You know, exactly as we anti-abortionists had argued they eventually would and must.

Here is an exchange from Facebook occasioned by the post at Shadow to Light --

Ian Bibby: The "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time.


Bradley Nartowt: Strictly speaking, the slippery slope States that A does not mandate B as a consequence.

Often, people will misuse this and think "because slippery slope, if A, then B is prohibited." Which, of course, is nonsense.


Ilíon: There is also a Slippery Slope which can be stated as "He who says 'A' must say 'B'", and that's the one that the people who want 'A' and don't really object to 'B' always pooh-pooh.

"He who says 'A' must say 'B'" -- that is, given that 'A' entails 'B', if someone asserts 'A', then ultimately he will assert 'B'.

Here, 'A" is abortion (because that is the moral outrage that our society accepted first), and 'B' can be either euthanasia or infanticide. Here, the Slippery Slope does indeed apply. As Ian said, "he "Slippery Slope Fallacy" - the one "fallacy" that somehow results in correct predictions 100% of the time." The Slippery Slope applies becasue the same *premise* that justifies any one of euthanasia or infanticide or abortion -- denial of the Imago Dei, and thus denial that all persons possess the inalienable right to life -- also justifies all of the others.

No man can serve two masters [modified]

For as long as I've known him, Victor Reppert has been a "soft" leftist (*). Recently, he has decided to climb down off the fence he had been stradling (working backward in time --
1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).

In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:

The following two positions are consistent with one another.

1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.

The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.

I blew that "reasoning" out of the water --

VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."

No, they aren't.

The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Murder can never be "constitutional"

And, of course (since he's off the fence), he totally ignored that I had shown his "reasoning" to be false, and instead made a new OP based on it.


(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.

========
So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.

Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).

To which I replied:

Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)

Ilion: Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

VR: Sure! So, let us say that you can afford to defend yourself against ISIS terrorists and dangerous foreign governments. You earned the money to do so, after all. But the bleeding-heart vote-buying politicians who run the government want to confiscate your money so that they can defend not only you, but all those welfare queens in the middle and lower classes, who, after all, only want to be defended against terrorism using other people's money. And why, in the name of Ayn Rand, should they be allowed to do such a thing?

Now that he's off the fence, look for continued (and amped-up) leftist irrationality from Mr Reppert, and also more intellectual dishonesty as displayed in the above "response".

Non-exhaustively --

1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);

2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;

3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;

4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?


=================
Edit:
Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).

What Chesterton is doing is illuminating the very Christian (and "conservative") principle that not all sins can safely be made crimes.

Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".

AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).

SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?

Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".

And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.


(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".

=================
Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.

This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.

(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.

Pretty much sums it up

Millions Severed from Got No Secrets to Conceal

'Science!'

Douglas Wilson: 3 Reasons the Campaign on Planned Parenthood is Winnable -- Pastor Wilson shares a short description of some of the 'Science!' being done on murdered babies. He gives the description in plain English and in sciencese (personally, the sciencese affected me more than the plain English)

The results of the above research, incidentally, were published in Science. That particular vile experiment was done in Finland, but it was funded by “the Lalor Foundation in Boston,” the “New York State Department of Mental Hygiene,” and, get this, the “Association for Aid of Crippled Children,” also located in New York.

My mother was used as a human guinea-pig -- here in America, in the 1930s -- in ways not too different from what the pre-Nazis and Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s. AND, it was funded in large part by the Shriners. Now, I'm confident that the rank-and-file men who were Shriners had no idea that the monies they raised to help crippled children were being put to such perverse ends; but the people at the top, the people making the decisions, the people working hand in glove with the "Progressives" in Indiana's government and its medical corps, knew.

Judge: "Choose life" is "patently offensive"

Wintery Knight: Clinton-appointed judge rules that pro-life license plates are “patently offensive” -- a culture that refuses to choose life has chosen death. And our rulers are certainly intent upon destroying the nation.

We *all* knew this ... all along

The choice before every man, and every society, is, and has always been: choose life or choose death. Whichever you (singular and collective) choose, it *will* be served.


The Telegraph: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

By the way, even if one didn't learn up-front what these (ahem) ethicists were about, the fact that they write 'she' and 'her' when English grammar demands 'he' and 'his', is a red-flag (*) tell that they are up to no good.


(*) Blood-red being the leftists' color, before those in the US media decided to apply it to conservatives.

This is *why* your great-grandmother didn't have the vote

Look at the sign that pro-abortionist is holding up --
Jonah Goldberg: Alito Agrees: Your Birth Control is Not Your Boss' Business

Leftists' creative relationship with truth

Leftists are so damned dishonest: even when they''re saying something that's literally true, they're lying. Consider this --
Michael Egnor has a recent post, Gosnell's Banker, linking to a news report that Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups.

I commented:

"Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups."

It figures.

Well, at least we finally know what he will spend his own money on -- I'm referring to his politicing with the Dems and RINOs to force you and me to pay more in taxes, even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation.

One of the leftists-atheist trolls who infest Egnor's blog 'corrected' me:

Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax. He's on record as stating that it's intrinsically unfair that he pays a lower percentage in tax than many of his employees.

He's a major philanthropist, donating a lot of money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

He's also on record as advocating inheritance tax (I agree - I wonder if that's what senile old fart means when he refers to me as a 'trust fund socialist' as an insult - and neither of which are true).

So, let's deconstruct (as leftists like to do) this "correction":

Reported fact: Warren Buffett has given $1.2 billion to abortion groups.

Me: ... I'm referring to his politicing with the Dems and RINOs to force you and me to pay more in taxes, even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation.

Lying Leftist: Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax.

So, does claiming that "Warren Buffett pays the legally required amount of tax." contradict what I said, "... even as he very aggressively protects his own wealth and income from taxation"?

Of course not: it's another way to say the same thing! This is an example of a rhetorical trick much beloved by leftists (and atheists, and Darwinists), by which they "disprove" some truth one has stated by saying the same thing in a different way.

[more later]

Leftists luuuuuv them some 'Science!'

V J Torley, at Uncommon Descent: Science illiteracy on the liberal left: PZ Myers and Amanda Marcotte can’t face the facts of life

'Free Megan Huntsman!'

Matt Walsh: This woman exercised her right to abort her infants, and now she’s being unjustly persecuted

Libertarianism of the day

Gentle Reader may recall that I have said more than once that any time push comes to shove, almost every libertarian will automatically side with the "liberals" and hard-leftists. This is because most libertarians *are* leftists ... they just don't want to admit it, even to themselves.

They even "reason" excatly like open-leftists do.

This is my response to that OP:

"However, Lockman's sexist, anti-liberty views on women is a perfect example of why I generally hate conservatives or right-wingers motivated by loony religious beliefs."

Are you stupid? No, you're not stupid.

Are you ignorant? I don't see how that can be the case, as you know the quote and its context.

The only other option is that you're intellectually dishonest -- you "don't understand" what he said because you don't want to follow the logic ... therefore, you misrepresent the whole incident.

The man is not advocating rape -- and you *know* that he is not. As you well know, he is performing a reductio ad absurdum on the "logic" of the pro-abortionists.

A case of 'Big Business' takes a hit to the wallet

As we all know, "liberals", with their heartfelt solicitous concern for "the little guy", have a constitutional distrust/hate of "Big Business" (*) -- one of their favorite means of denigrating ideas or arguments they don't like and don't want to deal with is to associate them in some way with "Big Business", a la "Oh, that's just 'Big Oil/Pharma/Ag/etc' speaking ... so it's automatically false (and a lie)" -- so, I'm sure we can expect to see rejoicing from "liberals" all across the land, now that "Big Abort" has taken a hit to its quite ample wallet.

Michael Egnor (quoting Wesley Smith): "If abortion was really only 3% of [Planned Parenthood]..."


(*) except, of course, when they don't

Another 'Hail, Satan!' moment

Gentle Reader may recall the recent incident of the pro-abortionists at the Texas Statehouse chanting "Hail, Satan!" in an attempt to drown-out the anti-abortionists singing Amazing Grace.

Via Brutally Honest, here is another 'Hail, Satan!' by pro-abortionists, this time, by direct physical desecration of a Catholic Cathedral in Santiago de Chile. -- "The partial translation of the graffiti in the picture [of a desecrated altar] reads "I sh*t on God", speaking volumes about the soullessness of the people involved."

Real Satanists Want Nothing To Do With Abortion Supporters

American GLob: HILARIOUS: Real Satanists Want Nothing To Do With Abortion Supporters -- the irony, it burns.

Still, it's nice to have the pro-abortionists openly admit that "womens' health/choice" is really just part of the on-going war against Christ.

A one-liner from Bob Parks

Bob Parks: The B_and_R Monday Skim

He links to this -- Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left
and comments -- "Guns don’t kill people, abortionists do"


======
Mr Parks also links to this --MSNBC Claims Birther Bombshell; Natural-Born Citizen Issue Not Settled (I'm not at a computer/network which allows me to view it)

Of course the issue is settled ... just not in the way the "liberals" (including all the establishment "conservatives") have been pretending lo these many years -- That man is not, and logically cannot be, a natural born US citizen. THEREFORE, he is not legally the US president.