That’s not a woman…
I am honoured to be Australia’s new Ambassador for Gender Equality.
I look forward to promoting ??’s commitment to gender equality and the human rights of women and girls, and persons of diverse gender identities. pic.twitter.com/DNF50XXeM7
— Australian Ambassador for Gender Equality (@AusAmbGender) February 8, 2023
That’s a lizard in a skin suit.
Normal humans do not have eyes that function like that.
The smile is also off.
Something is not right here.
Are doctors engaged in malicious compliance to create martyrs?
I saw this in my Twitter feed:
Jill Biden Is Bringing Texas Woman Who Almost Died from Miscarriage to State of the Union https://t.co/BosexrcPKx pic.twitter.com/V9BssNAmIT
— Jezebel (@Jezebel) February 7, 2023
That seems like something bullshit, so I read the article.
In August, Amanda’s water broke when she was 18 weeks pregnant, long before a fetus can survive outside the uterus. But doctors didn’t intervene in her miscarriage because the treatment is an abortion, which the state had outlawed. They sent her home to watch for signs of infection, including sepsis. Three days later her fever spiked to 103 degrees and the hospital decided she was now sick enough to be induced (which is considered an abortion when done before viability). But hours after the procedure, and even with antibiotics, her infection got worse. She developed symptoms of sepsis and was moved to the ICU, and her family members were preparing to say their goodbyes. Zurawski survived, but the infection scarred her uterus, and it’s not clear if she will be able to conceive again.
Even the ACLU of Texas acknowledges that:
Texas bans abortions at all stages of pregnancy, unless you have a life-threatening medical emergency.
I’m not a medical doctor, but it seems like a miscarriage that would lead to a life threatening infection is exactly the type of medical emergency that is exempted by the Texas law.
Malicious Compliance is defined as:
Malicious compliance is the behavior of strictly following the orders of a superior despite knowing that compliance with the orders will have an unintended or negative result.
So, I have to ask…
Did these doctors deliberately give this woman bad medical care to maliciously comply with the state’s abortion law for the purposes of creating a martyr for their cause?
Pre-COVID that might seem utterly insane.
After COVID, with just how political and partisan and distrustful the medical establishment has proven to be, I don’t know.
Would doctors harm patients for political credit?
Some are mutilating children’s bodies in the advancement of the Transgender movement.
So who the fuck knows.
But it doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibilities.
If your cause is Righteous, why Lie?: Never Trust what an Anti claims
From VERY long time blog reader Royko a nice and short dismantling of BS. Properly stolen, of course.
O’Keefe is out of Project Veritas.
Coup de Etat in progress?
James O’Keefe, the founder and chairman of Project Veritas, has taken a paid leave from the conservative nonprofit media organization as its board considers whether to remove him from his leadership position, according to current and former employees of the organization.
James O’Keefe Is on Paid Leave From Project Veritas (nymag.com)
The Medellin Cartel had the infamous “Plomo o Plata” (Lead or silver) to obtain peoples’ silence or cooperation. I believe that after the latest attack on Pfizer, they may have been issue the Amrican verison of that: Law or Cash.
What is the threat of a couple dozen local Federal raids to assorted PV homes among high-powered fiends?
California police come after Project Veritas journalist. This is INSANE. pic.twitter.com/D7tMRVz8WO
— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) February 9, 2023
O’Keefe may be getting a lounge chair next to Matt Drudge wherever he is hiding. Then again, I would not be surprised if he is suddenly found dead of an “accidental ” OD with a needle up his arm and tons of child porn in his electronic devices. It would make for a nice ending for some corporations and politicians, don’t you think?
A Couple of interesting cases
18 USC §922(g) is the prohibited person section of US federal law. It has 9 different sections, each one addressing one class of people to be denied their rights.
The Constitution says that “The People” is all of the people. The question being asked again and again is who belongs to the class “The People”.
It is clear that a US Citizen is part of “The People”. That implies to me that felons are also part of “The People”.
Do you lose your citizenship if you are wanted by the law? Nope.
Do you lose your citizenship if you partake in the “devil’s lettuce?” Nope.
Do you lose your citizenship if you have ever been in a mental institution? Nope.
Do you lose your citizenship if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military? Nope.
You lose your citizenship when you renounce it.
If you are imprisoned, you lose access to many things. They don’t allow drugs, weapons and many other things. Doesn’t mean those things aren’t getting into prisons, it just means it is against the rules and a prisoner can be punished if they are found breaking those rules.
In addition, we have the question of being an alien. Are the legal aliens living here part of “The People”? How about illegal aliens? Are they?
Originally, §922(g) was about transferring firearms. Now it is about both transferring and possessing.
The government has defined classes of people that they feel should be excluded from “The People”. The short is that they have said that these classes of people are not “virtuous”.
In Soviet Russia they had mental asylums. People were committed if they were mentally unstable. Unfortunately this turned into a catch all for “enemy of the state.” Since the state was wonderful, anybody that spoke out against the state must be crazy. If they were crazy the were committed. This made society “safer”.
If the government can define what is and is not a virtuous person and also define “The People” as only those that are law abiding and virtuous, they can remove any right at will. They just exclude you from “The People” and your rights evaporate.
We now have multiple cases challenging parts of §922(g). In OK, tenth circuit, a district court has ruled §922(g)(3), drug user, as unconstitutional. The fifth circuit court has ruled that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. A district judge in the western district of KY, sixth circuit, has found §922(g)(8) unconstitutional.
We need to wait to see if the state appeals these cases. It would not surprise me if Texas does appeal. If they appeal and it gets to the Supreme Court it could be a quick case where TX puts in a lackluster performance and parts of §922(g) go away across the entire country.
Other states which are anti-gun might very well not appeal losses at the district or circuit levels in order to keep the case from getting to the Supreme Court.
Over in California, Judge Benitez just dropped the hammer on the state in a number of cases, 3 IIRC.
The State Defendants are directed to file a brief which identifies the best historical regulation that is a proper analogue and relevantly similar to a (statewide prohibition on a firearm with listed features) (statewide prohibition of an ammunition feeding device or a limit on the amount of ammunition) (statewide background check for buying ammunition). The brief shall be limited to 5 pages and shall be filed with the brief currently due 30 days after the filing of the law list.
I tried to find what “filing of the law list”, regardless, the worse it could be is 30 days from now. The best it could be is just a few days because Benitez ordered all briefings be provided to him with in a short period of time once the ninth circuit court kicked these cases back to him.
At the same time we have a number of states attempting to ban assault weapons and magazines because the are exceptionally deadly/dangerous. We have a bunch of states that are attempting to make their entire state a sensitive place via a patchwork of explicit places that are listed as sensitive.
In all cases that are being tracked by me, we are winning. Not as fast as I would like, but we are winning.
Eliminating whiteness
Over on “But HE said it first!”, Crawford mentioned:
Colleges are teaching students that “whiteness must be eliminated”. Granted, they don’t strictly mean white people, but the way they define “whiteness” maps to traditional American values.
I decided that I would see what my Left (and other) friends would say about this. I posted up something on my FB wall, basically asking people why I ought to be embarrassed or upset about being white. I mean, I’m lily white. I have Magyar blood on one side and British on the other. The only thing whiter than me is a Scottish redhead.
Yet I feel no shame over this. I know the media is speaking about how whiteness is some sort of disease we need to get rid of. I don’t see any of my friends saying it, but because of who I am In The Real World [tm], I sort of self select. But I know that a lot of those people read the media that’s presenting this message. So I asked, at noon on Feb 2nd.
And here it is, some 6 days later, and I had a mere handful of responses. Most were of the type to say, “That’s crazy, no one should be saying that.” They all expressed concern over what I was reporting. Because they’re my friends, they all went and checked out the links I sent, and then went off to process what they’d read.
And then there was that one. I’m sure you know the type. Presents as cute, fluffy, innocent… right up until something challenges their world view.
That one wrote a lengthy reply to me, basically saying that if someone had ever accused me of racism, that was obviously my own fault. They couldn’t possibly consider introducing me to people of color after my statements. Apparently, by this person’s commentary, I am responsible for how those OTHER people chose to label me, even though those others don’t know me (and this one person actually does, in person). I was online when it was posted, and went to read it. By the time I tried to reply (about 30 seconds later), the comment had been removed.
I wondered if it was FaceBook, because goodness knows, FB does that sometimes. But nope. Not only was the comment deleted, the person in question felt that my statement required them to unfriend me.
Don’t get me wrong, the person is welcome to unfriend me. After reading what they wrote, I was considering doing the same thing to them. I just found it interesting that they would write something that was victim blaming, and then delete it. I would think they saw the error of their ways, were it not for the unfriending.
So there you have it. I challenged my Left friends as I challenge my Right friends, and got mostly crickets. Those few replies I did get were the type to say, “That’s horrible; I’m not saying that.” I pointed out to them (as I did to people on here) that if they’re standing on the left side of the great divide with those people, then they are literally WITH those people. If they don’t want to be supporting those people, they need to step farther away from them.