Federally mandated legal abortion is dead. New in FrontPage:
Roe v. Wade is dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its burial was signed by Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Even John Roberts signed it. Old Roe v. Wade is as dead as a door-nail. But now what? Will this be the spark that finally touches off the new American civil war that has been simmering for so long?
The long-awaited decision, leaked earlier in hopes of intimidating the Justices into voting to uphold Roe, came at last on Friday morning, when the Supreme Court upheld Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban in Dobbs v. Jackson.
“The Constitution,” declared the majority ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, “does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives….Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion.”
Roe v. Wade was astonishingly bad law from the beginning. It was the Court’s foremost example of contrived reasoning to reach a predetermined conclusion, setting a precedent for many similarly poorly argued decisions later. The Justices who voted to overturn it even likened it to the infamous 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which found a constitutional right to racial segregation. “Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson,” Alito wrote, “Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided….The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”
The decision took the Roe decision to task for ignoring 19-century state laws banning abortion and legislating from the bench: “Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong. Then, after surveying history, the opinion spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee, and did not explain why the sources on which it relied shed light on the meaning of the Constitution.”
But now what? Roe was based on federal overreach and shoddy reasoning, and the adherents of both are still very much with us. On Thursday, alleged Vice President Kamala Harris met with the attorneys general of Wisconsin, Nevada, Illinois, California, Delaware, New York and Washington state at the White House to discuss post-Roe strategies: “I have asked these attorneys general to meet with us,” Harris said, “knowing that they have a pivotal role to play in defending women’s reproductive freedom and their rights to make decisions about their own body. As reproductive rights are being restricted around our country and potentially by the Supreme Court soon, I think we believe, and we’ve started preliminary discussions about how Attorneys General have the power, may have the power at the very least, to issue guidance to ensure that the people of their state know their rights, that they have the power to assess and potentially challenged the constitutionality of laws that are being passed in their states.”
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said before the Dobbs decision came down that “if this happens, one of the things that I can say right now that we will do is call on Congress to restore Roe.”
This could also be the occasion for a revival of Court-packing schemes on the Left. With a few more Justices on the Court, Dobbs could be overturned by a 7-6 vote and federally mandated legal abortion reinstated.
If legal avenues fail, there is always the Left’s other favored weapon of choice: violence. Live Action’s Lila Rose pointed out Thursday that “Since the Dobbs v Jackson draft was leaked, pro-abortion activists have: -Vandalized 16 churches -Vandalized at least 16 pro-life pregnancy centers -Firebombed 4 pro-life pregnancy centers and offices -Attempted to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice Where’s the outrage?” Pro-abortion activists have been threatening violence if Roe was overturned, and even Biden’s Homeland Security department paused from hunting for “white supremacists” for a moment on Friday to warn Catholic churches to prepare for a “night of rage.” The DHS memo tells churches to be ready for “extreme violence.”
That “extreme violence” is likely to target more than just Catholic churches. Indeed, nothing is much less likely than the possibility that Leftists will take Dobbs in stride and concentrate on making sure the individual states allow them to continue their sacrifices to Moloch. Will the Dobbs decision be the Fort Sumter moment that touches off a new civil war? The nation holds its breath.
CogitoErgoSum says
Now what? That’s up to the legislative branch of the government now. The U.S. Congress can choose to do nothing and to let the individual states decide what to do or Congress can come up with a law that defines the point at which a human being becomes a human being who is entitled to all the protections provided to a citizen of the United States. They could have done this at any time since 1973 but chose not to do it. It’ not likely they will do it before the elections coming up this November and as it looks right now it seems unlikely the Democrats will have much say about what passes after the elections. Time is not on the side of the Democrats and today is a great day for all human beings who value human life and human dignity.
somehistory says
As President Reagan said, ‘
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
this ruling will ,at the very least, save some babies from being slaughtered.
raja says
Somehistory,
Beside saving unborn babies economies too can be saved with more manpower, no need to import religious-thugs en masse without vetting. Also means lesser bribe money coming to the elites in the west from Qatar et al ( it donates millions through universities and who knows who else for Islamization). Overall, the negative growth of population / nations can be restricted at least.
somehistory says
that is so true, raja.
mortimer says
United States should replace its own population with people born in USA and grow up loyal to their country being trained in civics to understand how it works and in American history to understand the sacrifices previous generations made to develop the system as it is today.
Infidel says
Watching the demonstration outside SCOTUS, there is no separation b/w pro- and anti-abortion groups, nor any attempt by police to separate them. I think it’s just a matter of time before this gets violent, despite the police presence there growing
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, I think the day will most likely end in violence which is what the Democrats and the leftists want to happen and they will claim that they were forced into it by the tyrannical Christian nationalists. It will be a “reimagining” of the old story about the Christians burning Rome while the emperor fiddles (in this case Joe Biden putting a lid on his day early and leaving for Delaware to play with his dogs). Old Joe and Nancy P. (devout Catholics that they are, ha!) are just so distraught over this Supreme Court decision that they will do all they can to “mostly peacefully” fight against it … but first they will take a time out for some ice cream on a hot summer day after giving the leftist a nod and a wink
Infidel says
I think Joe and Nancy are secret founders of the fringe group ‘Catholics for Abortion’, which was one of the demonstrators outside SCOTUS today
gravenimage says
I don’t think even at the time that many took the idea seriously that it was Christians who burned down Rome.
Infidel says
I wonder whether all the congresspeople raging over January 6th will be just as mad at Jane’s Revenge and other abortion promo groups who are threatening SCOTUS, St Patrick’s Cathedral and other ‘pro life monuments’. I saw that President Obama has already weighed in, and now the Dem hordes can do a rerun of 2020
Infidel says
Actually, John Roberts didn’t sign it. What he signed was the other decision – Dobbs vs Jackson, which passed 6-3. But he did claim in his decision that Roe didn’t have to be overturned to uphold the Dobbs v Jackson ruling, and that’s a decision where Alan Dershowitz praised him, while Ben Shapiro pilloried him
Are there any outstanding cases left for SCOTUS to rule on by next week, while the rioting starts? I’d hope that there’s nothing left, and that they can return to their homes in middle America
somehistory says
I had read that this was the final one to be released so they could get out quickly. but it’s the internet, and some things are posted that are wrong.
Wellington says
Arguably, Infidel, John Roberts is the greatest weasel to ever sit on the highest court in America. He sometimes stumbles into the truth but he has no guts and every Supreme Court Justice, whatever their political persuasion, should be possessed of not only knowledge of the law but plenty of guts.
Roberts fails here. Abysmally. I don’t trust the man. Why should I? Why should anyone?
Hoi Polloi says
Roberts is a mystery to me. I got busy with something and looked away; when I turned back around, he was Chief Justice. How did that happen?
He’s spent years now weaseling out on important decisions. Perfect word to describe him, W.
Infidel says
I was surprised when after Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed, that President W named Roberts – at the time his most recent judge – as Chief Justice, as opposed to Scalia or Thomas. And as time has passed, he turns out to be one of the worst judges appointed by a Republican
Hoi Polloi says
Infidel, the unusual way the position came to him, so quickly and over the heads of more experienced judges has always made me wonder.
somehistory says
Perhaps because of the Justice he was replacing; replacing his position.
somehistory says
Yesterday, there were FBI/police raids on three churches…two in GA and one in TX. They won’t say why, except to say they had warrants.
Why don’t they investigate those groups…”jane’s revenge” and “ruth sent us” and others who have been engaging in arson and making threats to innocent people, besides the threats to several Justices?
‘Are the Justices gonna’ have to hide out for a while due to the violence promised by these terrorists?
This decision was the right one. Correct on all points. It’s just too bad it doesn’t extend to the States as so much does; and too bad that the left…including the one who threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh…old schumer…won’t be kept from making new laws and packing the court to get their murderous way fully restored…and worse.
Infidel says
I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Jane’s Revenge’ and ‘Ruth sent us’ are now extensions of Merrick Garland’s Justice department
somehistory says
I wouldn’t either. Nothing is being done to stop them; nor even any condemnation from him.
they should worry though, wanting to kill off all the little babies can lead to not having any kids to indoctrinate with their evil ideas
Infidel says
Just now heard from James Rosen on Newsmax that Merrick Garland, aside from protecting entries to abortion clinics in states where it is still legal, has also stated that states don’t have the right to ban methycrystone (sp?), an abortificant whose safety certifications by the FDA may be contested
Nothing about protecting pro-life women’s counseling offices or churches, though
somehistory says
thanks for that. Not surprising, since he won’t even have those arrested who protested in places that he law spec defines as off limits. No arrest of schumer and pelosi for their early threats, and then going after parents at school board meetings…who were not breaking any laws…he’s as crooked as a pretzel and no good can come from him.
I can’t get eye meds from my one doctor because of his specialty, so I have to go to another for those meds, but women can go online and get meds without actually having an exam. to kill an innocent baby. If they suffer from this, I can’t really say I have any sympathy.
somehistory says
“Garland added the Department of Justice “strongly disagrees” with the court’s ruling and will “work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.””
he also said he will be working to make sure women in states where it is still legal, can get the killing done. he didn’t say anything about protecting those people in stats where it will not be legal from the mobs that seek to firebomb and make them ‘not safe.”
“drug Mifespristone, which is employed to induce abortion safely at home, and said states cannot ban the drug “based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”
Perhaps smart attorneys in moral states can find a way to keep this drug out.
“”The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom,” Garland said. “And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”
Except, of course, those opposing baby-killing and the unborn children.
cnbc source
Infidel says
If the CDC/FDA can ban pharmacies from providing prescribed medications like Hydroxychloroquin sulfate and Ivermectine, then why can’t states ban pharmacies within their borders from carrying or providing Mifespristone? This looks like a Tenth Amendment issue begging to be litigated
Question is: will pro-abortion lawyers be up for yet another debacle in SCOTUS which won’t even be on Roe v Wade (since John Roberts didn’t vote to overturn Roe) but on the Tenth Amendment, whether a federal body like the FDA or CDC can ban states from doing anything?
somehistory says
I would bet, if I gambled, that some good attorney can write a law that says they can keep women from getting the pills.
I read that roberts did vote with the other five to overturn, though he didn’t want to get rid of it in one fell swoop, but wanted to chip away a little at a time.
CogitoErgoSum says
To talk about defending reproductive freedom is to play with the meaning of words. Defending abortion is to defend a woman’s preference not to reproduce. When a woman engages in the act of human reproduction with a man she is exercising her reproductive freedom. The conception and birth of another human being is the primary purpose of the act of human reproduction. It seems very odd to me to refer to abortion as a human reproductive right. In my opinion the only time to speak of “reproductive freedom” and what constitutes taking that freedom away would be in cases of rape. And in those cases, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, the rapist should also be executed for not only the crime of rape but also for the additional crime of murder (of the aborted child).
somehistory says
I agree with the idea of executing the rapist, esp if the woman has someone execute a child as a result of rape.
I saw video where a man in court, hearing how another male had murdered the mother of the first man ‘s child, and threw the baby of the first man in the Ohio river, tried to take care of some justice. He was restrained and handcuffed, but he still kept trying. so, far, no charges against him.
People need to stand up for the unborn and the little kids who face the worst dangers of all.
Infidel says
Well, CES, it’s just that a lot of people wanna rock the bed w/o procreating or conceiving, and that’s where things get thorny. Since abstinence is a relationship killer, people sometimes try things like birth control while having sex, but that doesn’t always work. Then one has sometimes the woman, and sometimes the man as well, wanting an abortion
Note that even the states that have restricted it have put restrictions like 15 weeks or so, and that’s plenty of time to get this done while it is unviable. In the meantime, particularly over the last 10 years, abortion has gone from being an ‘difficult choice’ to something being celebrated, as seen w/ the likes of Chelsea Handler, who wished that she could get pregnant just to have an abortion
By any strict definition, I am pro-choice, but I’m one of those thrilled by both of today’s rulings. I too support the rape/incest exceptions, but within the viability window of heartbeat/pain-capable, not after that
Also what’s all this screaming about ‘courts off my uterus’? We now know that even men can have uteri, so this is no longer men trying to control women’s bodies 😈
gravenimage says
Good post at 4:51 pm, Infidel.
Hoi Polloi says
Just read of the threat to build abortion clinics on federal property in states with abortion laws more restrictive than BH0 3.0 deems acceptable.
PMK says
somehistory,
What do you mean when you say it’s too bad it doesn’t extend to the States? This decision RETURNS to the states the power and authority that Roe took away from them. It upheld the right of a state to set reasonable limits on when an abortion could be performed. No state law has been invalidated. New York and California can have their own rules as well, which is as it should be in a republic.
somehistory says
I mean that I wish there could be no provision for the States to allow women to murder their children.
and please, don’t shout at me with all caps. I understand the Law. I know it “returns” to the States to decide, but I wish none of them could decide. I wish the Constitution had clearly said that the “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” had included in **actual** words, infants and the unborn. It does speak to “our progeny” but this isn’t applied equally to the unborn.
PMK says
I’m sorry if one word in caps offended you. I didn’t mean to shout. The problem is you can’t have it both ways. It sounded to me like you wanted the Supreme Court in this decision to outlaw abortion, when that was not the issue they were called on to decide.
somehistory says
No, my wish was that the founders had written a safety for the unborn when they were writing all about the freedoms we should have here. the freedom not to be murdered before having a chance at life, and without having committed a crime.
It seems they could have done and I believe they should have done, but it’s hard to imagine that they could imagine where this country is now regarding the most vulnerable.
and, I’m not “offended” by all caps. I just don’t like it. thank you. 🙂
Infidel says
Maybe they simply didn’t anticipate that the killing of unborn babies w/o killing the mothers was possible. What if one day someone wishes that they had written in a law preventing AI from taking human jobs?
somehistory says
You are most likely right. No one can see that far into the future, and esp not something so evil to be developed on purpose. Unless one’s brain is evil. and the Founders seemed to be moral, ethical, stand-up guys.
gravenimage says
I don’t blame the Founding Fathers. Abortion at the time was rare, didn’t always work, and was not administered by any kind of political authority.–and I doubt they envisioned that it ever might be. They were prescient in many ways, but hardly clairvoyant.
somehistory says
I didn’t use some of your words, g, but basically saying the same thing. and I’m not “blaming” the framers of the Constitution …just wishing they had thought to put something about the unborn. Many wills are written with unborn children included in the inheritance, so it would have been great, and no one could quibble back and forth about it now…or even fifty years ago.
there is the word “progeny” in the Constitution. so they didn’t leave them out entirely.
gravenimage says
I take your point, Somehistory. But is was certainly absurd to claim–as Leftists do–that abortion was protected by the Constitution.
somehistory says
Yes, g, it was and is absurd to make those claims. I just wish the document mentioned the unborn…so it couldn’t be taken wrong as they want to do with everything that they see as their “right.” they would still have fought to kill babies without facing a penalty, but perhaps the Court would never have said they had the *right* to do so.
I am absolutely sure that if they could have foreseen the future as it is, they would have made it clear that the unborn have the same rights as an adult male…life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” as well as “due process.”
somehistory says
How quickly they turn on their own…but she’s dead now, so like mozlums’ ”prophet’ she knows not what is said about her.
FOX
“Roe v. Wade overturned: Liberal journalists rage at Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring”
Infidel says
And yet, they have a group called ‘Ruth sent us’ carrying out rampages of pregnancy counseling centers in her name
somehistory says
yep. it’s the have it both ways, have their cake and edith too, I mean eat it too.
Infidel says
This brings back some old memories of Seinfeld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgcKoYwsg-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lXjA7lxj_E
somehistory says
I’m with Poppy and the “so good-looking guy.” I never liked elaine.
Infidel says
I loved the look on Elaine’s face when the “good looking” would-(not)-be boyfriend wished that a day would come when there would be enough justices on SCOTUS to pull down this law
Had this guy not been fictional, today he’d be celebrating. So would Poppy, unless he was busy barricading his restaurant w/ plywood
somehistory says
Yes, the look was worth the watch. Just shows what was more important to her…love or killing. and that is true for all those setting fires and threatening and making lying claims.
gravenimage says
So true, Somehistory. I didn’t agree with Ginsberg on all matters, but claiming that “Ruth Sent Us” is acting in her name is *quite* false.
“‘Ruth Sent Us’ group hinted at targeting Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s children, church”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ruth-sent-us-targeting-supreme-court-barrett-church
somehistory says
‘Violence by extremists could occur ‘for weeks’ in wake of SCOTUS decision: DHS’
ABC
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/violence-by-extremists-could-occur-for-weeks-in-wake-of-scotus-decision-dhs/ar-AAYQkWW?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=
this article quotes the dhs on the fact they will be looking to stop any self=defense measures. agains the mobs of jane or ruth..
“. “On 22 June, an unidentified social media user posted content encouraging violence in response to the “night of rage” and told followers to “prepare to defend” themselves and “don’t lock and load either. Load then lock,” according to US Capitol Police.””
Infidel says
The Babylon Bee has now weighed in on the repercussions of this decision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4_rXOkBSOM
somehistory says
thanks for that link.
Wellington says
Merrick Garland is arguably the worst Attorney General in American history. He even makes Eric Holder look like a man of principle. No mean feat.
The descent continues—of the American government, and of America in general. What a damn shame we have an idiot as President and a rank and cowardly ideologue as Attorney General.
America is in a lot of trouble. And if America is in a lot of trouble, the entire world is in a lot of trouble.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
100% agree.
What adds salt to the wound is the fact that the current administration is there fraudulently.
Formercy says
Have you seen 2000 Mules by Dinesh D’Souza? Good documentary exposing the lies of the 2020 election. Trump won, but there was so much fraud that it gave Biden the lead.
Infidel says
Now, according to our great VP Que Mala “Heels-up” Harris, interracial marriages are now threatened by this ruling. Is she or the second gent now looking for a divorce? 😈
gravenimage says
Yes–this is absurd. Even the Left realizes that many people are conflicted or outright negative about abortion, so they have begun claiming that the Supreme Court is poised to make minority voting, homosexuality, and interracial marriages illegal. Of course, they are just pulling this out of their posteriors.
tgusa says
Fort Sumter? I see it more akin to the Old North Bridge in Concord Massachusetts, April 18-19 1775.
You say you want a revolution…
Well, you know…
gravenimage says
Our Fort Sumter Moment?
…………………………
I am afraid there will be more violence–against conservative judges, and against pro-life organizations.
More:
Roe v. Wade is dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that…
…………………………
Kudos to Robert Spencer’s witty reference of the opening of a Christmas Carol! Much appreciated by this fan of Dickens’ work.
tgusa says
In the realm of the law and justice Men have had no “choice” in this equation. It is as if men don’t exist. Men are viewed as non-persons in the pro-choice movement. It is a form of segregated discrimination that has been going on for a long time. As a man, that is why I’m checking my privilege in this situation. Privilege, ha. You’re on your own pro-choice jackasses.
somehistory says
I have always thought since men contribute half the DNA that becomes a baby, they should be involved. If the baby is born, the father has to pay child support even if he has not married the woman; and if the kid grows up and gets in trouble, the father has to be involved in a lot of cases. Like the crumbles and their son who shot some kids, and are now on trial.
If the guy is pressuring the woman to get rid of the baby and she doesn’t want to, then he can be ignored. It seems the only time these pro-killers want to involve the guy is when he is also a pro-killer. If he is against, they tell him to keep out of their business.
tgusa says
Exactly.
Infidel says
Actually, a few days ago, on Breitbart’s Morning show on Sirius XM Patriot, John Nolte noted that there were 2 things that pro-abortionists used to say which after the last couple of years, they can’t credibly say anymore:
‣ No man has ever become pregnant, so has no say about an abortion;
‣ My body, my choice
On the latter claim, that one has been blown to smithereens over the last 2 years on the Chinavirus vaccines, when people have been forced to take them to preserve any of their rights, such as not masking, which disappear again. ‘My body, my choice’ was totally scoffed at by the Left when it came to these vaccines, so they now lack credibility when they claim that they alone get to decides whether their wombs are filled
On the former claim, they were totally sabotaged by the ‘T’ part of the LGBTQIA+ movement. First, there was the claim that genders are different from sex and interchangable at will, and then, this argument has been pushed further to argue that men can be pregnant – even the Emoji committee has created one for that condition – 🫃. So 2 things: if you, a guy, want your reproductive rights, you can either claim to be a woman, which everybody, including the medical profession, is forced to take seriously, in which case, nobody gets to tell you that you can’t oppose an abortion. Or, maybe some future time, you can get someone’s pregnant womb transplanted into your body to stop her from getting an abortion – I’m sure our woke establishment will find a way
So that claim that men have no say in this is yesterday’s news. After all, as Matt Walsh revealed, “What is a Woman?” is a subject worthy of its own documentary in 2022
somehistory says
+100
tgusa says
I don’t care who it is that is stating that crazy stuff I’m not pretending to be a woman, ever. Not that I have anything against women, I don’t. I actually like real women, a lot.
somehistory says
there were two women in history….one a painter and one a mule-train driver who pretended to be men in order to get work. Most men wouldn’t want to be caught dead pretending to be women.
The Jews were actually told not to dress in the attire of the other sex and I agree with the wisdom of that.
The males that say they are women are just full of a lot of hogwash from an immoral brain…or they are severe mental cases that need expert help.
and the same for the females that are pretending they are male. I have noticed that the males who say they are women and the females who say they are men, are all very physically ugly of face. and the ones who have taken hormones, look really weird and misshapen.
tgusa says
“very physically ugly of face. and the ones who have taken hormones, look really weird and misshapen”
IMO, that’s a real turnoff to say the least. Give me a real woman with a real face and body anytime.
somehistory says
It’s great to be normal. Like our Creator meant us to be.
somehistory says
“In an open letter published by USA Today, the female lawmakers, all Democrats in the House of Representatives and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, asked Biden “to use any and all executive authorities to address the public health crisis our nation will face if Roe v. Wade is dismantled.”‘
these twenty women would be the same ones screaming if a White policeman shot a Black criminal in self defense…screaming for ‘justice’ for the Black man, while most babies who are murdered in the abortion mills are Black, and they don’t want it to end.
Glamour source
“Black Congresswomen Are Begging Joe Biden to Declare a National Emergency Regarding Abortion Rights”
truly sickening.
gravenimage says
More ludicrous manipulation of language, positing killing unwanted babies as “public health”.
nicholas tesdorf says
Anyone contemplating an American Civil War, should have a close look at the last American Civil War and its long lasting damages.
tgusa says
The USA, a Republic of individual states agreeing to and signing on to the US Constitution, all parties or individuals must abide by that or secede from the Union. The Civil War was a black mark on the US Republic. The issue should have been resolved in the courts and not hot heads on either side. And I am a descendant of men who fought on opposite side of the Civil War. I would like to believe that as I believe there should be no Civil War but the left seems to be in Civil War mode. Not a lot of options when your adversary gives you no options.
Infidel says
Sometimes, when you have a conflict b/w good and evil, indefinite co-existence is impossible and a war b/w them just can’t be put off forever. Just like in the last Civil War
gravenimage says
I actually think that whole abolition of slavery thing was a good idea…
tgusa says
When I use black mark I’m not talking about the abolition of slavery. I’m talking about a bunch of white Americans killing each other because Africans captured and sold each other in to slavery, which still goes on to this day. To make matters worse blacks in huge numbers joined the party that fought to enslave them, made laws excluding them, created crime and violence ridden neighborhoods where they could live. Its as if blacks enjoy or at least accept being treated badly by democrats.
Lets do an experiment, just for fun. Lets dress a white guy in a Union Army uniform and have him take a walk through any black community in any democrat run city and see what happens.
Andrew Blackadder says
The wonderful peaceful religion of islam is totally against abortion…
When do the demonstrations outside the local mosques start… Im waiting….
Infidel says
Yeah, maybe we can have Dr Oz bring a whole bunch of imams together to declare what the sunnah says about abortion. Even if they’re performing kitman and talking only about muslims
It’ll be priceless to see how the likes of Ilhan, Rashida, Linda et al then react
somehistory says
oz says he’s happy with the Court’s decision and he’ll “work to defend” babies.
gravenimage says
Actually, Islam is *not* categorically anti-abortion.
But you are right–even if they were, Mosques would not be targeted by Leftists for violence as they are threatening against Catholic Churches.
mortimer says
Robert Spencer refers to the potential for a civil war. There is clearly a cultural divide between mainly god-fearing Republicans and the mainly Wokist Dems who do not disguise their hatred of anyone who disagrees with them.
The Dems have concluded that since they possess the truth, they are infallible and thus they are the only ones who are fit to lead.
James Lincoln says
mortimer says,
“The Dems have concluded that since they possess the truth, they are infallible and thus they are the only ones who are fit to lead.”
Sounds an awful lot like the followers of islam.
somehistory says
they are all in the same pot, the same witches brew …hope not offensive to some….just that they call themselves by different names. much like boko haram, al queda, hamas, hezbollah….all of the same makeup, just different monikers…so the “left” might call themselves ‘progressives,’ marxists, or rotten cabbage, they are the same. they could just come right out and say ‘al queda’ in English “the core.” corrupt to the core.
somehistory says
‘Like his father, Donald Trump Jr. is a highly active Twitter user, frequently tweeting about current events from a far-right standpoint. Accordingly, he responded to the June 24 Supreme Court decision by tweeting, “REMINDER: The libs crying today about ‘my body, my choice’ because they’re big mad that they might not be able to kill babies on demand, are the same radicals who wanted a forced nationwide covid vaccine mandate on all Americans to be able to get a job & provide for your family.”
source: The List