How Could this Possibly have Happened? Easy. Pro-Choice Movement, Look in the Mirror

Dr. Naomi Wolf has some interesting comments on the recent SCOTUS decision. Here is ONE aspect in her article that deserves further thought and discussion:

"...the Roe decision is being used as a pretext for a campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. This anti-SCOTUS campaign fits in as part of the larger war on our democratic institutions, about which I have been writing in The Bodies of Others, and elsewhere.

Members of the Court are being abused, intimidated and threatened in ways that are the definition of “un-American.”

Before the ruling, protestors “doxxed” members of the Court (exposed their personal information) and picketed their homes. In May, 2022, the then-White House Spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, refused to condemn those who disclosed the private information of the Justices. [https://www.foxnews.com/media/psaki-disturbs-twitter-her-d********g-response-l*****ts-doxxing-supreme-court-justices]

This past week, after the Dobbs decision, the DNC chairman, Jaime Harrison, sounding just like an opposition leader in a full-on pre-1989 Soviet-satellite nation, called the Supreme Court “illegitimate”. [https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dnc-chair-attacks-illegitimate-supreme-court-over-ruling-overturning-roe/.]

On Twitter, the Justices who decided in favor of overturning Roe are being doxxed again, this time along with posted instructions for making pipe bombs.

JUST IN: Tik Tok users are posting Supreme Court Justice Addresses online, with the most popular comment about pipe bombs. pic.twitter.com/fIkMvm0lTS

— BNN Newsroom (@BNNBreaking) June 26, 2022"

Whether it's packing the Supreme Court, verbally abusing and harassing members of the court, ignoring laws against intimidation of Justices, or neglecting the security of its members; these are the tactics used by the LEFT. Winning at any cost, regardless of whether those tactics are illegal, immoral, or unethical, is how they play the game.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/06/no_author/on-losing-roe/

Another Yuge Day for MAGA: Boebert Wins, as J****** 6th Testimony Gets WRECKED:

My question is this. What was/is so wrong about the Make America Great again philosophy? When we had President Trump pushing the America first option rather than dealing with all of our allies and or our rivals on the world stage, so many within the progressive left which included RINOS were very angry about it. I really do not understand why these individuals were so angry about it. The only thing I can possibly come up with is that there was going to be a lot of people in government positions were most likely did lose a ton of personal fortune as a result. So, what is the actual reason as to why a president wanting nothing but the very best for our country?
Mike

https://youtu.be/87iVC7H-IWA

Event Was Not Organized Despite Ongoing Narrative

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pulitzer-prize-winning-new-york-times-reporter-january-6-media-coverage/

NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, contradicts his own J****** 6 reporting: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

Rosenberg: “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [J****** 6] outside and we were just having fun!”

Rosenberg: “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”

Rosenberg: “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”

Rosenberg: “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”

Rosenberg: "They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”

Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”

[NEW YORK – Mar. 8, 2022] Project Veritas published a bombshell video on Tuesday showing Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, speaking about the events of J****** 6, 2021, in a way that contradicts his own reporting.

video

Rosenberg, who covers national security matters for the Times says on the undercover video that “there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”

This revelation is a break from Rosenberg’s reporting on the matter where he characterized such a notion of FBI informants in the crowd as a “reimagining of J*** 6.”

This was not the only time Rosenberg’s commentary to Project Veritas’ undercover reporter directly contradicted his own published words. Despite telling a Veritas journalist that J****** 6 was “no big deal,” his article says that downplaying the events of that day was “the next big lie.”

Soundbites of Rosenberg published Tuesday show him saying, “It’s not a big deal as they [media] are making it, because they were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”

Project Veritas founder and CEO James O’Keefe revealed that Rosenberg’s article titled, “The Next Big Lies: J** 6 was No Big Deal, or A Left-Wing Plot,” was written around the same time as he was making contradictory statements to a Project Veritas undercover reporter.

In the video, Rosenberg also revealed that J****** 6 was “fun,” a contradiction to his reporting that J****** 6 was “a violent interruption to the t***sition of power in American history.”

Rosenberg said, “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there outside and we were just having fun.”

He even appears to make fun of his New York Times colleagues in one soundbite saying, “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building, and are like, ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’ I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’” He adds, “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”

Rosenberg concludes, “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”

It's defined as manslaughter, negligent or accidental...and murder meaning that was the intent, there being shades of planned or incidental.

Assaulting someone, punching them, has shades of prosecution. An unprovoked attack on someone minding their own business at the time of being punched or assaulted is profoundly different than being punched in response to being provoked.

A punch that was unprovoked that resulted in the inadvertent death would likely be seen as a murder, the inadvertent death of someone who provoked being punched in the first place could be seen as an accidental and unintended consequence. Within that context of to what degree it was provoked in the first place is part of it as well. Racial slurs on one hand should be seen as a crime in the first place because they can understandably incite and bring on violence.

When a black person is called a (spade) or worse, we are seeing videos that tell the story. When I'm seeing someone blatantly call someone by a racial slur, and that person asks "what did you just call me?", or "tell me I did not hear you call me a (spade)"...and the person doubles down and repeats it in a worse way, they leave no option but to get punched. If they are so frigging r****t and mentally r****ded that they don't have the sense to back down if not apologize, they deserve to get punched, and then charged with racial crimes on top of that.

Unfortunately the person doing the punching should be charged with assault as well, but people can't go around punching people, it works both ways.

Our dead old man in the donut store had his chances to back it down and stop the insults, and he actually deserved to be punched, the dying was not the intended consequence.