Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election. I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation. Praise God! I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read. My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment. Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.
I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices. They showed great courage. They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life. I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened. I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.
Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas. I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion. Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either. He wrote (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”
Obergefell decided same sex marriage. The court passed that on the same basis as Roe. On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.
The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone. The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion. The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein. The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion. Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none. It was unconstitutional.
Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey. Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right. Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.
The minority of three wrote:
Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.
The Court did not say that. These three Supreme Court justices lied. The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion. It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion. The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have. It does decide constitutional rights. Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution? The majority said, no.
Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one. Everyone knows this. The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.
As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?” Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning. Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?
Feminists could support the Dobbs decision. It establishes the existence of women. For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women. What does that mean for transgender rights? The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.
Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor. Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority. Three for three. Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.
Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did? I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.
The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020. This includes John Piper and David French. I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.
So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022
George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts. Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs. This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.
Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:
Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.
No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.
Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.
If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing. He wrote like words meant something. No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture. Your truth is your truth. Your liberty is your liberty. That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.
The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman. Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision. Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy. The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.
The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator. It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page. Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too. It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook. This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.” You think I’m joking.
In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article: “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” This entity (person, whatever) says: “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work. Let’s stop. It didn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, killing.” Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.” So here we have it. Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis. Exhilarating truthfulness.
When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture. They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property. This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence. Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself. They don’t see themselves as accountable to God. The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey. Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality. They define their own essence.
Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.” That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition. Their liberty allows for murder. A baby may exist but cannot define his essence. A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.
Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface. At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.” Many women call it the best decision they ever made. Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco. Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life. Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good. The war, however, is just begun. Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.
What do you think of the fact that Rapey Brett and Amy the Handmaid committed perjury when they said they would respect precedent? What do you make of the Texas law being enforced via lawsuits from neighborhood busybodies instead of actual law enforcement? What do you make of the fact women could be prosecuted for miscarriages? Do you think the people in power are motivated by a good faith belief in the extreme wrongness of abortion just because you are? If the emerging fascist theocracy in this country turns out to be headed up by dirty Roman Catholics(who may outlaw regular birth control and such) would you still approve?
Matt,
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett said they respected precedent, but in the concurring opinion Kavanaugh wrote about precedent, that would explain it to anyone who cared. I haven’t heard anything that shows he or her perjured themselves. Lots of settled precedent has been overturned. Both of those justices agreed that Roe was settled precedent, but that didn’t mean it couldn’t be overturned. Why not argue their decision with legal arguments? You would find Roe was a terrible legal decision, based on politics, not on constitutional law.
I didn’t hear evidence of rape in those hearings, but would you join me and be supportive of the death penalty against rapists, like was done in early American history. You need to be more clear on the Texas law to which you refer. There isn’t a state that prosecutes for miscarriages. There hasn’t been a state that prosecutes for abortion and the laws prosecute doctors, providers. Maybe you can give an example. I’m happy if Roman Catholics oppose abortion. This is far from a theocracy. It’s easy to see that there is a religious state, but it is a secularist, naturalist religion that punishes righteousness and rewards evil. You sound like you’re part of that religious state.
I am indeed thankful that Trump appointed Federalist Society judges to the Supreme Court, fulfilling his campaign pledge. That was probably the best and most important thing he did in his entire presidency. His pledge here was what got my vote.
I am very, very glad that Roe v. Wade is overturned. It is almost unbelievably wonderful.
I am not convinced that Romney would have appointed weaker judges; he voted for all of Trump’s ones, after all. I would be concerned because Romney also used to be the pro-abortion governor of Massachusetts–but, on the other hand, Trump also said that he was “very pro-choice” but flipped his position.
Mitch McConnell also deserves a great deal of praise for refusing to seat Garland.
Note as well that Bush, Reagan, etc. all had to work with a Democrat controlled Senate. Trump had a Republican Senate. That was a huge difference, and it illustrates how important it is to control the Senate, making me wish that Trump had not, in all likelihood, very strongly contributed to Georgia having two Democrat senators instead of two Republican ones.
I don’t recall the sources on this, but I believe Trump said that the Supreme Court did not go along with his election fraud claims because they wanted to be accepted at Washington cocktail parties and so on. These are the same Supreme Court justices that have displayed a very strong will to withstand death threats, dangerous protestors outside of their private residences contrary to law, and overt attempts to influence them to not do the right thing and keep Roe v. Wade out of fear. I don’t think they valued the cocktail parties the way Trump said they did.
I hope that the Republicans are not so divided that they are unable to ascribe appropriate praise to both Trump and McConnell in this situation. I hope that they can thank Trump very much for his Supreme Court nominees, and they can then nominate someone else in 2024 who will do as well on judges but will not have such a disagreeable mouth, such poor character, such unreliability that he turns on his extremely loyal Vice President for refusing to unilaterally overturn state-certified election results, and someone who will not result in endless video re-runs of the January 6 riot, if the Rapture has not yet taken place–that is, if VP Harris does not decide that she agrees with Trump and Harris then decides to unilaterally reject the election results if the Republican candidate wins.
I also do not agree that the Constitution says nothing about abortion. Since preborn children are persons, something the writers of the Constitution believed and which all the original states believed, and which the states also all believed when they ratified the 14th amendment, the unborn child’s right to life is actually protected the constitutional guarantee that one cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. Therefore, the Constitution outlaws all abortion. To make abortion legal would require a constitutional amendment. Overturning Roe actually does not go far enough, although it is likely as far as the Supreme Court will go.
Hi Thomas,
Trump gave his list of justices before the election in 2016. Romney didn’t do that when he ran. Romney was one of three Republicans who voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson, and he was the only Republican to stay and stand to applaud her. Silence from you on that. You seem softer on Romney than you are Trump. I don’t hear anything from you against the several year Russian hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop. The Zuckerbucks. The lack of voter verification. Swing states violating their voting laws. Mass ballot harvesting.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/28/new_peer-reviewed_research_finds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html
https://thefederalist.com/2022/06/17/jan-6-committee-ignores-clear-evidence-of-mass-illegal-voting-systematically-broken-election-laws/
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/ballot-bombshells-20-episodes-exposing-fraud-illegalities-and
Historian, Hoover Institute fellow, Victor David Hansen, I’ve heard in several interviews say the same thing as shown in this article, where his comments are transcribed:
https://www.lyleshelton.com.au/just_how_baseless_are_trump_s_claims_of_electoral_fraud
Instead, I hear from you again and again, Trump’s questioning of Georgia election practices led to Democrat Senators there. Most conservatives go a different direction than you are taking on this. Maybe it did suppress some Georgia vote, but your expectation is for Trump to stay silent. If he doesn’t stay silent, you blame him for voter suppression. I don’t agree the outcome would have changed, because the corruption would have met whatever was necessary in Georgia to sneak by. More conservatives believe that than your blaming of Trump. Your criticism could be taken more seriously if you showed concern about the many anomalies and illegalities in the election and the circumstances leading up to it.
With the Trump credit is the stronger backhanded slap across the face from you. Trump wanted Supreme Court Justices and his Vice President to do everything they could do in light of what was obvious a fraudulent election. He laid himself on the line. He wanted something from others. I really would rather keep this on Roe v. Wade, but you took my one Trump support paragraph and turned into another Trump bash actually. It diminishes what happened.
I agree the Supreme Court could be stronger too. I don’t think this may have been the case to protect unborn life on a national basis. They could have all taken the Thomas position and overturned substantive due process, which reads into the Constitution rights not there with a loose construction of liberty.
Hi Matt!
Could you please give the source where the two justices who you are disrespecting, contrary to Scripture which commands us to respect people in authority, swore under oath ahead of time how they would rule in a specific case if it came up? Prospective judges never do that because they would them have to recuse themselves. If you are referring to them saying they would respect precedent, if you think that means they must never, ever overrule precedent then you don’t know what you are talking about. Please give the exact words of their alleged perjury. Thanks.
Also, please give the exact words of the opinion by Alito about prosecuting women who have miscarriages, or if you can’t, the exact source where prominent conservatives say something like “Now that Roe is gone, let’s put women who have miscarriages in prison!” We will be waiting.
If you can’t do this, maybe you are violating what Scripture says about honest speech, or are just trusting hysterical leftist sources misinterpreting the judicial opinion. (And, yes, conservatives, especially those who are not truly born again, can also sometimes misinterpret and act hysterically.)
Thanks.
Also, Hitler wanted to eventually eliminate Christianity, and fascism, or national SOCIALISM, is a leftist, big government movement, so are you talking about the leftist opposition to overturning Roe when you warn about fascism? Thanks again.
I am also listening through the opinion (I cut and pasted it into a document). So far, very good, a devastating critique of Roe.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I am against the ridiculous attacks made by the left on the Supreme Court justices who care about the Constitution.
I am also against ridiculous attacks made by Trump on his own Supreme Court nominees, stating, for example, that Kavanaugh and other conservative justices ruled against him in connection with the January 6 investigation because: “Kavanaugh … I believe he’s afraid, I believe he’s afraid to do the right thing. I really do. … Please don’t impeach me [Kavanaugh is saying,] Don’t impeach me, please, for being with women I’ve never heard of before … The [Supreme Court justices] have to gain new courage … they can no longer be afraid of the radical left.” Kavanaugh was unwilling to reverse his vote against Roe despite credible death threats and actual intimidation. Trump saying Kavanaugh voted against him in connection with his election claims and January 6 because Kavanaugh was afraid to get impeached over his (now Trump endorsed but clearly fake) sexual harassment claims is ridiculous.
I have said before and I say again that all actual evidence of voter fraud should be taken seriously and prosecuted. Leftist attempts to weaken election integrity are very bad, and I am against them.
I am also against non-leftist attempts to overturn elections. When Trump in his pre-riot January 6 speech, which I read carefully, said the Vice President could overturn the election and reject electors in swing states (that all had Republican legislative majorities, by the way), Trump was arguing for an egregious kind of voter fraud. I am against leftist attempts to overturn elections and also against Trump’s attempt to overturn the election. I hope Kamela Harris doesn’t decide in 2024 that Trump was right about the VP having the power to unilaterally reject election results. Trump’s claim in his January 6 speech was not that there was enough voter fraud so that he barely won, but that he won in a landslide, “everyone knows it” (including Pence, for example, and the literally dozens of courts that ruled against Trump, and the Republican legislatures that supported the election results in swing states), and Pence did not unilaterally attempt to overturn the state-certified results because Pence is a coward. (The same Pence who refused to flee the Capitol building while protestors, some of whom were chanting death threats against him, got within 40 feet of him.) I have difficulty seeing how Trump’s claims are not the claims of either a known liar or someone who is delusional (or both).
In Georgia special elections, Republicans have always gained a higher percentage of the vote than in general elections, because Democrat voters are more likely to be lazy. That was the case for election after election after election in Georgia. The only exception in recent history was this most recent election, where Trump actively contributed to suppressing turnout instead of encouraging people to turn out. Trump very possibly also cost himself reelection by discouraging Republicans from mail-in voting. Mail-in voting is a bad idea that should not happen except in rare circumstances such as someone who is bed-ridden or with the military, but if one side does it and the other side does not, there is a huge advantage to the side that does it. 1% of Republicans failing to vote on election day by getting sick or having to work extra hours or forgetting or whatever that would have voted by mail if Trump had not discouraged it would have swung the election to him.
It is off topic, but of course the Russia collusion is a hoax created by the corrupt Clinton campaign. There is good evidence that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are both corrupt.
Romney should not have voted for Justice Brown. I don’t care if he is polite and claps for her. He is a Mormon who believes in being polite to help earn his salvation. Romney clapping for her is the same sort of thing as in Utah people letting you in when you are on the freeway and you need to merge.
I am not convinced that if Trump had a Democrat controlled Senate and a filibuster rule in place requiring that his Supreme Court nominees get a 60 vote supermajority in a Democrat controlled chamber he would have appointed better judges that Reagan or Bush did in that kind of environment. All of Trump’s good nominees would have been borked. The Senate majority was crucial. Reagan/Bush getting justices like Clarence Thomas through a Democrat controlled Senate was also a significant achievement.
I certainly am sure I can be biased in favor of my own comments, but I believe I have been a lot more generous to Trump than Trump was to McConnell, who was absolutely crucial to the glorious end of Roe v. Wade, and more generous than Trump was to his own Supreme Court nominees. If I wait until Trump retracts his insulting attacks on McConnell and on his own Supreme Court nominees, I will be waiting a long, long time.
Once again, I am very glad that Trump appointed conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and he deserves significant credit for doing that.
I believe I am not going to comment further on this post. Of course, please feel free to respond further yourself if you believe you should do so. Thanks again, and, again, I rejoice greatly with you over Roe v. Wade’s fall.
Thomas, are you saying that Trump now endorses sexual harassment allegations against Justice Kavanaugh? That’s what it sounds like you said above.
As regards to Justice nominations, no insider was ever going to do what Trump did. So far he has proved willing to make his promises good, to the extent the Lord allows. I think for instance he did everything possible to get the wall built, but there were countless artificial roadblocks thrown up; all for the sole intent of handing him a defeat, even if it meant harming the country. And that’s what so much of policy has been ever since 2016. If he says a treatment is effective against a virus, they have to do everything possible to suppress it, and this is regardless of if it really is effective. Because he said so, they absolutely have to do the opposite. When it was his vaccine in 2020, they were against it. Repeat ad nauseam. IOW, Orange man bad.
The reason why they do this is because otherwise, more people might be encouraged to break from the insider’s game. More outsiders might be encouraged and optimistic. They might realize there is a world of possibilities that doesn’t have to include the media’s prescription for the future. The various other people, who might have filled the office of president in recent memory, were all insiders. They would never appoint an uncompromised justice, because they themselves are compromised. But anyone not in that insider’s club loses access to that elite group of legal and media representation that allows them to get out of anything that they do. Most politicians are insiders; and when push comes to shove, they fall in line, on the issues that really matter. That’s the corrupt system – They will evade judgement, at least until they must stand before the one they never expected: the Lord. So it’s important to remember this distinction between political insider and outsider as we come up to 2024, because that turned out to be very important for the cause of truth as we see today.
If you’re watching and being demoralized by endless clips of Jan. 6, that’s a sign you probably should take control of your information diet and find independent news sources, rather than the “old” legacy media. Journalism isn’t dead, just find news sources who are still independent. I am a huge supporter of the Epoch Times. Disclaimer: They didn’t pay me to say that.
As far as overturning elections, I am generally against it, but not categorically. I am categorically against fraudulent elections, such as the ones they held in Venezuela for instance and the illegitimate Maduro regime. I don’t want that here. I’m not categorically against overturning a severely defrauded election, if that fact can be established.
And I don’t need legacy media outlets like AP to declare it so, in order for it to be proved. The AP is not the oracle of truth. They are quite the opposite when it comes to important issues like this. They themselves have argued for abandoning “balanced journalism” (in favor of their brand of hardcore “wokeist” preaching), as we have seen in practice recent years. That’s why I say, turn it off! Watch real news! If you watch a news source that you know has lied to you, what other lies are they telling that you might not have realized?
I came on here once and predicted that they wouldn’t overturn this decision. I was wrong, and this is one of those cases where I’m (so) glad I was wrong. That’s all from me, amen.
I really appreciate y’all writing on this blog, and you give me much to think about. It is hard to find this kind of thought-provoking material in this day when people are maybe a little afraid to speak directly. Realizing we need to show love and patience with one another, but also not be afraid to speak up.
I live in Georgia. During the 2016 election, I voted in Fulton County, which has been talked about as being very corrupt during these elections. When I went to vote, after signing in, etc., I was told that I had already voted. Even though I insisted that I had not voted, they kept telling me I had, and to please just go home. My husband, who for several years had been a poll manager in Fulton County, but retired from it, told me what to do. I asked for a provisional ballot. Soon there was another voter being told that he had already voted, and he asked for a provisional ballot. While I waited for this process to be carried out, I mentioned to one of the election officials that I believed someone had used my name to vote somehow. They soon found a way to clear my name and let me vote in the machine. I don’t trust those machines, however. I saw a video of an election official in Georgia demonstrate how easy it was to manipulate votes using a machine.
I would not be prepared to present all of this documentation that is frequently requested, but I have seen a lot and heard a lot of information to convince me that there was a tremendous amount of fraud in Georgia. I believe there was a high turn out for the Republicans, it looked like it to me, but there was a tremendous amount of fraud. Many people have that opinion. I am hoping there will be evidence brought out into the open, and that it is not over. Keep your eye on Georgia. Time will tell.
As far as this beautiful Supreme Court decision, and the amazing movement in many states toward protecting the life of babies, praise the Lord! The way people have talked about this in the past, I thought I’d never see this in my lifetime! I thought it was impossible!
I have been hearing that there is much more about this that angers the pro-abortionist than what they perceive as women’s rights. The outlawing of abortion, if we continue to see progress toward this in the states, will result in the loss of billions of dollars from how they have been using aborted baby tissue in their research labs, the selling of baby parts. Though I don’t understand it all, and do not have this documentation that is often requested here on this blog, what I have heard about it looks legitimate. Of course, documentation is hard to find when there is much effort to deceive and carry out horrible things. The people I have listened to seem to have knowledge. God’s words are always on target. “The love of money is the root of all evil.” This is why you can’t really argue with these people. It is not really about their ideology. They say all kinds of convoluted and outrageous things, as you so clearly demonstrated in your blog, to try to deceive nonthinking people. There is always a scheme to enrich themselves behind their words. That is my opinion. Again, time will tell. There may be some disturbing things to come out into the open with Roe being overturned, and many states working hard to remove abortion.
Look deeper at President Trump, underneath the fact that he is crude at times, and you will find out some day that he is a genius. He has known about the deepness of the swamp, and has made sacrifices to use his knowledge and skills to bring it down. Some of what he does is for optics, I believe, and to prod the swampy people to react and show their true colors so Americans can see who they really are behind their polished facade. He’s a pretty tough character, and has a lot of courage. I don’t really think there is anyone like him that could do what he does. He has also been known to show tremendous kindness to people in need. Look deeper. That is my opinion.
Praise the Lord for this movement toward the protection of the life of precious babies!
Thanks Priscilla! I agree.
Thanks Priscilla! I hope you reported what happened to your attorney general.
Thank you for asking about the attorney general. I wasn’t sure what to do at the time, and not sure how far up corruption goes. I’m hearing that the whole Kemp administration is not willing to look more closely at election fraud hear in GA. Sheriffs may be the answer. The sheriffs have been given broad authority by the U. S. Constitution. I’m hearing that in different states the sheriffs are starting to get ready to be more involved in protecting our elections. Hopefully this is true here in GA.
Dear Andrew,
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H. W. Bush to the Supreme Court. Are Thomas and Bush “insiders” or “outsiders”? How about the majority of Senators that voted for the conservative justices? Are you sure nobody would do what Trump did, or that it was very hard to do what Trump did without a Republican Senate and no filibuster?
Is Pence the only one who can, in the words of Trump on January 6, “do the right thing” so that “we win” by rejecting state-certified electors, or can Kamala Harris do it as well if she doesn’t like the electors the states send?
As for Trump justifying the accusations against his own justice Kavenaugh, you can read his tweets for yourself and come to your own conclusions about his attacks on his own Supreme Court justices (for he does not attack only Kavenaugh, only Pence, only McConnell, etc. but just about everybody).
To your question of: “How about the majority of Senators that voted for the conservative justices?”
It’s one thing to simply vote for something which is already on course to win. And it’s quite another to make the nomination choice. Just because there are malevolent influences doesn’t mean they have absolute control over every compromised person.
But if it’s the person making the nominations, then, absolutely, they will make compromise choices because they have many more options to them than just binary options of voting yes, no or abstain.
By the way, 2000 Mules was a real eye-opener – It’s unbelievable what they did in November. January 6, by contrast is a nothing burger. There’s no “there” there.
I’m glad I was able to answer your questions with regard to these things, KJB1611!
By the way, when I say that January 6 was nothing by contrast, I mean by contrast with what they did in November. With respect to those suffering the fallout of that day, how many people by comparison have died because of the difference in policies that started on Jan. 20, 2021 which are a result of November 2020? Certainly it’s got to be a high number, when you factor in the energy, CDC, OSHA, and foreign policy differences, between 2020 and 2021. There are unknown numbers of victims of these differences, but certainly it’s far higher than the fallout of January 6th.
Here is a separate comparison chart just for reference, in case you were interested in this:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html
That’s about as far into detail as I can get. But, as far as what happened on November 3rd 2020 – the amount of potential collateral damage that could conceivably result from falsification of an election is far worse than this could comprehend. The falsifiers – the ones responsible for doing an end run around state legislatures and making up “covid” drop box voting rules in November – are the ones who always do the exact thing they accuse others of doing. In this case, primarily, being a threat to Democracy, amongst other things. I would also say equally as much so, they are also being a threat to “freedom”, which is something that these individuals have allergic reactions to (does the term “freedom and democracy around the world” sound familiar to anyone; what about “liberty and justice for all”?) Hopefully, that provides a little more depth to my statement above.
Hi,
I’m happy for Kavanaugh voting with the majority in Dobbs, overturning Roe, but I also understand Trump’s frustration with Kavanaugh. I think it is easy to see why. Kavanaugh is to the left of everyone in the majority except for Roberts. I can’t agree with his concurring opinion that argues for the continuation of same sex marriage, distinguishing between Obergefell and Roe on substantive due process. Obviously he’s better than Sotomayor or Kagan, and even Roberts, but that is a very low bar.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Being concerned about Kavanaugh being wishy-washy and a little too open to judicial activism (as in your comment) is rational, as your comment is. Trump’s accusation that he is voting as he is because he is afraid he will be impeached for sexual harassment is not rational–it is, unfortunately, the type of unjustifiable accusation Trump makes with wearying frequency.
Dear Andrew,
Maybe you had a second comment that did not get through–I didn’t see your answers to the questions:
Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H. W. Bush to the Supreme Court. Are Thomas and Bush “insiders” or “outsiders”?
Are you sure nobody would do what Trump did, or that it was very hard to do what Trump did without a Republican Senate and no filibuster?
Is Pence the only one who can, in the words of Trump on January 6, “do the right thing” so that “we win” by rejecting state-certified electors, or can Kamala Harris do it as well if she doesn’t like the electors the states send?
Thanks.
Hi Thomas,
I would be glad to make my best attempt at answering this. I just hope I’m not boring you with how much I’m writing here. I definitely don’t want to leave your questions inadequately answered. For the sake of brevity and clarity, I do try to start with answering the most important things first. I can elaborate, hopefully (as the Lord allows), a bit further now, as we’ve got those things settled, and as I see you have no questions about my answers that I already most recently wrote.
“Maybe you had a second comment that did not get through–I didn’t see your answers to the questions:”
If I had an additional comment, you would surely have been able to see and approve it.
“Are Thomas and Bush ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’?”
I certainly do not presume a thing about them. I was only talking about the current situation we find ourselves in today.
“Are you sure nobody would do what Trump did”
I don’t think my comments would suggest this is the case. I was talking very more broadly about the difference between political insiders compared to those who are not. I wasn’t making a comment about all politics ever, because things have definitely sunk to a very poor state over the last number of years in our politically correct, and now very “woke” environment today. Say, the last thirty years or so, since the start of mainstream “political correctness.” Truly good candidates now are usually quickly filtered out by the gatekeepers in legacy media, who are the same ones who have enacted the woke “cancel culture” on us today; the secularists, in other words. Nobody hears about them because corporate media simply targets and blacklists them. I don’t want to say it’s always been this way, though. Yet today a person with the right donors can seemingly run a campaign from their basement. And yet, these same people pull off a seemingly miraculous win.
“or that it was very hard to do what Trump did without a Republican Senate and no filibuster?”
If someone’s compromised then yes barring intervention from God it is impossible for them to do the right things. Contrarily, if you get someone who is authentic, has the right beliefs and has a backbone, then they can do the right things. With a compromise candidate you get compromised nominations. Things then start to go in the wrong direction, people don’t behave the way you wanted or expected them to at the times when it really matters. But that’s exactly what you get with compromised politicians, which I hate to say is too many of them now. We’ve been on it for far too long now. How far back does it go? It’s hard to say. But the damage has been tremendous, and I admit that I have my fair share of the blame for not opposing it sooner & more vociferously myself. I don’t want another insider who is beholden to these alien interests – who does things that they want because they’re compromised.
“Is Pence the only one who can, in the words of Trump on January 6, ‘do the right thing’ so that ‘we win’ by rejecting state-certified electors, or can Kamala Harris do it as well if she doesn’t like the electors the states send?”
I’m not going to attempt to decipher what another man’s words are supposed to mean, or provide my own commentary on what it’s really supposed to mean, and it’s really irrelevant because the transition eighteen months ago was seamless. Yes, I disapprove of not immediately condemning violence, because that was a fault. I’ve said so before. The media however is grasping at straws here, there’s really nothing, it’s a big nothing burger.
People trying to make this into something it’s not because of their already existing political disagreements have much bigger problems. They should look in a mirror, because they in many cases were the ones advocating real violence at one point. You saw the data on the BLM riots. But we should still discuss the main point, which hasn’t gotten enough discussion. The issue which led to that situation is, namely, this: the attack on our democracy by Democrat partisans, which was truly unparalleled; what they did in November 2020, that deserves to be talked about much more than this, and for that reason I understand why the President would not attend the inauguration due to that.
And also, lest you forget – they’re not really attacking one person when they work to falsify an election, in truth, they’re really attacking all of us. They’re assaulting our country as a whole when they work to defraud an election, and give themselves free wins. And I honestly don’t care who it is they’re doing it for. It’s ridiculous, completely without precedent. It’s an unparalleled attack. That’s why the Texas lawsuit was filed on December 8, 2020 against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and it was signed by the Attorneys General of 17 additional States (Montana, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina). And lastly, when that lawsuit was finally shut down (by the Supreme Court) without even getting a hearing, this is the direct reason why a huge crowd of protesters showed up on January 6 in the first place.
The 2020 general election was not a normal election, however much I would have liked it to have been. The Democrats, who were power mad at this point, and willing to break all of the rules if necessary, made sure of that. They were and are the cause, and the legal battles and the fallout from this continues even today.
“or can Kamala Harris do it as well”
Do what, exactly?
Trump in general, I believe, thinks Kavanaugh operates in fear. He thinks he has a judicial belief that he doesn’t hold, because he’s grown up with the cool kids from school. That is represented by impeachment for sexual harassment in Trump-speak, which you have to translate.
Anonymous,
I might agree with you, but I’m not going to publish your two comments, because they were insulting (not to me), and yet you stayed anonymous. Put your name and you can keep those two comments.
KB