Search Results

It should have come to no surprise that the George Soros funded Georgia Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who ran on charging former President Donald Trump on fraud related charges involving the 2020 election in GA, ends up being a fraud herself. Georgia whistleblowers lining up to testify against Fulton County DA Fani Willis, state lawmaker says "Republican state Sen. Bill Cowsert opened a meeting of the Senate Special Committee on investigations with a bombshell revelation that multiple whistleblowers from the Fulton County's DA's office have come forward to testify against their boss. He said they allege Willis misused state and federal funds -- allegations that come after the embattled DA admitted to having a relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade that critics have called "improper." Fani Willis called ‘embarrassment’ by Georgia residents after admission of ‘personal relationship’ with Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade: ‘What the hell is going on?’ "Willis has now admitted to having a “personal relationship” with Nathan Wade, who stands accused of spending some of the $654,000 he has earned for his work on the Trump case on lavish gifts and vacations with his boss, court records show. “What the hell is going on? I know you guys write the checks. She is an embarrassment to the board and to the citizens footing the bill,” Kevin Muldowny testified at a Fulton County Board of Commissioners public hearing. “Fani is doing exactly what Fani wants; whether it’s carrying on an adulterous relationship with an underqualified stud she hired or ignoring a direct request from a sitting commissioner for a full audit.” Fani Willis Impeachment Moves One Step Closer "In an interview with Fox News, attorney and legal analyst Phil Holloway said the accusations against Willis could result in Trump's Georgia election interference case being dismissed. "If it can be proven she violated the Constitution in the way of substitute due process claims, that she was fundamentally unfair in how she carried out her prosecutorial duties, then that could result in a dismissal [of the case]," he told anchor Harris Faulkner. "It would be a question if she gets recused, then her whole office has to be recused. If she's got a conflict of interest, everybody who works for her has that same conflict of interest. So the prosecuting attorney's counsel here in Georgia or the attorney general's office may have to sort out who in the state of Georgia, if anyone, wants this." A Reality Check on the Fani Willis Scandal "In a recent appearance before Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, Willis barely addressed the substance of the allegations -- more on those shortly -- but chose instead to frame them largely as a racially motivated attack." Even Jessica Tarlov, the liberal Democrat on 'The Five' calls out Willis for her "race-card" moving being out of line. Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis reports racist threats over Trump case "A Georgie prosecutor has reported receiving racist threats and abuse as she decides wh3ether to charge former President Donald Trump." She pulled the so-called infamous 'race-card' before even filing the charges, and yet everyone knew that is the platform that she ran on. Why Nathan Wade, under fire for alleged affair with Fani Willis, is facing new scrutiny "Accusations that Wade mishandled the jail-deaths investigation in 2020 are adding to questions about Willis’s judgment in hiring him for the sensitive assignment of investigating the former president and alleged co-defendants in their alleged effort to overturn Georgia’s presidential election that year."

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." January 24, 2024, Governor Greg Abott is standing his ground along with 51 Texas counties having declared Texas is facing an invasion of foreign nationals. As a result, he has called upon the Texas National Guard to put up and maintain concertina wire along the open section of the boarder located at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass. In defiance of both the Biden Administration and a recent decision handed down by SCOTUS, in no small thanks to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy C. Barrett joining the three liberal Justices, have ruled CBP under orders of DHS (via Biden/Harris Administration) can remove the wire and allow the flood of illegals to further "invade" Texas, and by extension the United States of America on the whole, Abott wrote and submitted the following official letter: Article IV Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. This invasion is not new, it has been going on since Biden reversed everything President Trump did in upholding the Constitution and Immigration Law, not to mention our National Security and Sovereignty. Texas Sheriff: We are experiencing a 'silent invasion' of military aged men "The “silent invasion,” Coe said, is being committed primarily by single, military age men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are illegally entering the U.S. They’re wearing camouflage and carrying backpacks, according to video captured by cameras placed throughout the county viewed by The Center Square. Many are armed and dangerous, committing robberies and engaging in shootouts with law enforcement, Coe said." Video: Military-age Chinese males entering US through Mexico "The video footage Blue shared of military-age Chinese migrants in Panama coming to the United States adds to a previous video that was released by a reporter in April. The previous footage documented hundreds of Chinese migrants traveling to the southern border." Armed men wearing body armor spotted crossing southern border into Texas "Startling images of the incident obtained by Fox News show the three suspected cartel gunmen, one of whom appears to be outfitted with body armor, making their way through the South Texas scrubland, near Fronton, with rifles at the ready." Military-age males are pouring into America, warns ex-border chief - VIDEO This invasion has been going on for quite some time, as I said, but it became exponentially worse when Biden/Harris took over. Border crisis: Shootouts, pursuits, break-ins surge in rural Texas counties (Dec 31, 2022) "“The type of crimes being committed, the increased violence, the willingness to risk dangerous encounters with law enforcement shows a more sophisticated, hardened criminal who may be higher up on the cartel food chain and doesn’t want to get caught,” Benacci said. “It’s different than others who respond to a social media ad hoping to earn a few thousand dollars to transport people north who get caught and try to get away.” Migrants are showing up at the US southern border in historic numbers. Here's why. Surge of migrants attempt forced entry at Texas border - VIDEO Now the reality: General Flynn: The US Constitution Literally Allows Texas to Engage in War at the Southern Boarder - Here's How "The Supreme Court’s decision this week to order Texas not to protect its border with Mexico will go down in history as one of the court’s most cowardly decisions that could doom our nation — if it is allowed to stand. That decision was not just about razor wire. It was about the role of states in our federal system and the betrayal of the nation — first by a president, and now by two Republican-appointed justices." Tucker Carlson Breaks Down the Ugly Truth Behind Border Crisis with 4 Facts: 'That's What This Is About' “One: According to a recent study from Yale, there are at least 22 million illegal immigrants living in the United States,” he said. That study, available here, was released last September. It’s authors expected to conduct a mere “sanity check” on the generally accepted number of 11.3 illegal immigrants currently in the country, but were surprised when “[e]ven using parameters intentionally aimed at producing an extremely conservative estimate, they found a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants.” Tucker then moved to his second point, which is that the Democratic Party hopes to grant citizenship to every illegal alien currently in the country. He suggested reading the party platform from 2016 as evidence." YALE Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates Show "Generally accepted estimates put the population of undocumented immigrants in the United States at approximately 11.3 million. A new study, using mathematical modeling on a range of demographic and immigration operations data, suggests that the actual undocumented immigrant population may be more than 22 million." Make no mistake, America is being invaded and the Democrats via the Biden/Harris Administration are facilitating it. "Here's some constitutional clarity on Gov Abbott and the Texas National Guard's fight to secure the border: Texas Gov. Abbott and the Texas National Guard are fully backed by the Constitution as they step up to secure the state's borders. The burden falls heavily on Texas, facing a surge in illegal crossings. Over 2 million in 2021 alone! It's not just that Texas is just stepping up. They are filling a gap left by the federal inaction responsible for the invasion. The President's oath to uphold the Constitution includes immigration laws. Yet, current policies crack our border wide open, leaving states like Texas in a tough spot. The Constitution's "Invasion Clause" (Article I, § 10, Clause 3) allows states to act if invaded or in imminent danger. Texas's actions are a direct response to this clause, aimed at protecting its citizens. Texas's robust response, including deploying the National Guard, is a necessary measure to counter the tide of illegal immigration that is putting Texans and American citizens in harm’s way. Again, this isn't just a state initiative; it's a response to federal failure. Texas's right to defend its border is grounded in necessity and constitutional authority. The state's security and people's safety are under attack. Critics of Texas's border defense misunderstand the Constitution and ignore the realities faced by border states. Texas stands firm, justified by law and necessity. Texas's actions reflect the strength of state's rights and a commitment to the rule of law. They stand on the right side of the Constitution and history. Texas's fight is not just about a border; it's about upholding our laws, protecting our people, and ensuring our collective future. A cause every American should support. @SecureAmerica - X Mark Levin: Is Biden going to federalize the National Guard or send in the regular Army to force Texas to open its border to drug cartels, slavers, MS-13, and the rest, even though Biden himself is violating the Constitution by refusing to uphold federal immigration law? Are the 5 justices on the Supreme Court, led by Roberts and his friend Barrett, pleased with what they have caused? The UK/Europe has already been experiencing firsthand for years the crime, bloodshed, chaos, rapes, murders, property destruction, and all the other filth that comes with ungrateful people from Third World countries.

Ever since the asinine reaction to the death of George Floyd, the call to defund the police and rescind cash bail has undoubtedly resulted in nothing short of an obvious increase in crime across the entire nation (namely liberal democratic ran cities). Biden's crime crisis is so dangerous, that even Democrats in Congress are not safe. What about you? A list of crime spikes in cities that defunded the police Los Angeles: The city cut $150 million from its LAPD budget last July. As of late November 2020, LA recorded 300 homicides. Killings were reportedly up 25% since 2019, and shootings were up more than 32% Shootings in South LA rose 742% in the first two weeks of January. We’re Underfunding the Police Improving our criminal-justice system means spending the requisite money to address America’s horrific and long-standing problem with criminal violence. 'Defund Police' Fueled crime in mid-sized cities. Did Defunding Police Cause Oakland's "Crime Wave?" Los Angeles has been officially designated a ‘third world country’ status according to a public audit of the crumbling city. Newsom grapples with his 'third world country' At least 13 cities are defunding their police force “This experience should be a lesson to state and local leaders about the real costs of irresponsible proposals to defund the police,” wrote U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr of Best’s resignation." As violent crime leaps, liberal cities rethink cutting police budgets "City councils in Oakland and Portland, Oregon, among other cities across America, approved budgets that cut police funding. That trend has reversed. Portland and Oakland increased police funding to hire more officers. The Los Angeles Police Department’s budget will get a 12% boost. Last month Ms. Breed vowed to “take steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement” and “less tolerant of all the bullshit that has destroyed our city”. Why such a stark reversal, and what does it mean for the future of criminal-justice reform?" Illegal Immigrants attack NYC Police in broad daylight "‘Violence — of any kind, and no less against our officers — is unacceptable and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,’ a representative of Mayor Adams tells the Sun." DA lets migrants who attacked NYC Officers go despite video evidence claiming video isn't enough "Controversy surrounding the case has heaped pressure on Bragg after it was revealed that only one of the 14 migrant youths accused of attacking the officers near Times Square last weekend remained in custody on Rikers Island, while the others were released without bond." Illegals who fled NYC after beating down cops may have gotten taxpayer-funded getaway: report "At least four of the criminal illegal alien thugs who recently beat up two New York City police officers have likely fled to California with taxpayer funds after being released without bail. Cops believe the group could have hopped on a bus bound for California on Wednesday after giving phony names to a church-affiliated nonprofit group that helps migrants get rides out of the city,” the New York Post reported, citing law enforcement sources. But where did the nonprofit get the tickets/vouchers for the illegals to flee the city? From the city itself, it appears." The city paid for criminals to flee the jurisdiction. That is aiding and abetting right there. NYC is complicit in criminal activity, and those officers assaulted should sue the city for everything in its coffers. Everything. The Origins of ‘Defund the Police’ The academic theories that have given rise to the new movement are dangerously flawed. This article doesn't even mention the historical lack of funding for police in NYC, specifically for Times Square in the 70s and 80s. Talk about repeating history post-2020 Burn Loot Murder riots. I bet one, maybe two people reading this blog will even know what I am talking about here. The Torso Killer. Richard Cottingham was capable of murdering women between NYC and New Jersey for two reasons: (1) lack of policing, and (2) lack of communication between police departments. The deeper history of "defund": How the "get tough" polices of the '70s and '80s led to disaster Worth the read. Too much information to breakdown here. It is scholarly. Bottom line, claiming policing and criminal justice is racist is self-defeating. Blacks and browns commit a disproportionate amount of crime given their small % of the overall % of the total population. Fact is that black and brown people commit so much crime in disproportionate numbers to the % of their population juxtaposed to that of the total population, but people are too scared to address that reality for fear of being labeled a racist. Well, I say fuck them. Minorities in America are the problem, especially those who will not assimilate and conform to American cultural values, norms, and law and order. The Democrats do not care about keeping America, America. They just want to remain in power, as evidenced by senile Joe Biden and his policies on illegal immigration that have now turned into illegal legalization of those illegal immigrants falsely claiming "asylum." America is dead if former President Donald Trump doesn't win the 2024 election. Even then, if he does, the alphabet mafia and other mental basket cases, namely those on the Democratic Plantation (ignorant black folk, Negroes, N***ers) have already announced they will be attacking Conservatives as a result. Be warned. Be aware. Be prepared. Post November 7th 2024 is a wake up call.

14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Nowhere in that Section does it include the Office of the President of the United States of America (i.e., The Executive Branch), let's get that straight right from the onset. First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government. Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued. The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court. What does Aid and Comfort to the Enemy mean? "The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions." "The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government." "...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power." President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I. emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riot and/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol. "The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials." No insurrection, as such no rebellion either. No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned. And the following should go without saying, since 14/3 was specifically written after the Civil War to bar/forbid anyone in the Confederacy from holding any office (specifically named therein) that "engaged in" OR "gave aid and comfort" to the enemy during said Civil War. 14/3 has absolutely no relevance to any era thereafter. But more importantly is Section 5 of this Amendment: Section 5 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Congress, not the judiciary or any Secretary of State has the authority to enforce Section 3 of this Amendment, let alone any other provision therein. And Congress, through an impeachment proceeding, acquitted President Trump of inciting an insurrection. Donald J. Trump can and will likely serve another term as POTUS. March 4, 2024 UPDATE: SCOTUS rules unanimously 9-0 against the Colorado Supreme Court improperly using the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to remove former President Donald J. Trump from the ballot. "The justices unanimously overturned a Dec. 19 decision by Colorado's top court to kick the former president off the state's Tuesday Republican primary ballot after finding that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment disqualified him from again holding public office. The Colorado court had found that Trump took part in an insurrection for inciting and supporting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters. The justices determined that only Congress can enforce the constitutional provision against federal officeholders and candidates." And let me remind everyone, there was NO insurrection. Even the FBI admitted same; but more importantly, no one to this date has ever been charged and convicted for criminal insurrection. There is a reason for that, obviously.

"The Republican Party...and being a party of progress they determined to incorporate into the Constitution of the United States an amendment, that should define American citizenship - white and black, native and foreign born, in unmistakable terms, and for all time. That was the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Let us look at the language of that amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Mark you then: "all person," no matter what their color, black or white, blonde or brunette - no matter where born, native or naturalized: The Constitution says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens thereof, and of the States wherein they reside." That is the affirmative part of the amendment." ... "Fellow-citizens, that amendment was passed in Congress by the Republican vote, with every Democratic vote opposed. It was passed in three-fourths of the State Legislatures, with every Republican vote in every Legislature in favor of it, and every Democratic vote in every Legislature opposed to it, and to this hour there has never been in any convention of the Democratic party, National, State, county, or district, a single declaration so far as I have seen agreeing to abide by and enforce that amendment." - pg. 141 "...in a Republic where suffrage is universal, we cannot permit a large immigration of people who are to be forbidden the elective franchise." - pg. 235 Political Discussions Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886, James G. Blaine, printed 1887. "This Amendment was proposed by Congress, June 16th, 1866, and was declared to be a part of the Constitution, July 21st, 1868, by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. ... According to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Swayne, as already quoted, the emancipation of a slave removes the obstacle to his citizenship. Aliens become citizens by naturalization; slaves, by emancipation." - pg. 254 "The act passed Congress in April, 1866, known as the Civil Rights Bill, gave expression to this opinion. It declared all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, to be citizens of the United States." - pg. 255 "Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Every person born in the country is, from time of birth, prima facie a citizen. An alien can become a citizen only by compliance with the rule of naturalization prescribed by Congress. ... In 1790, Congress passed an act requiring two years' residence before a foreigner could become a citizen. In 1795, the time was extended to five years, and in 1798 it was extended to fourteen years. But in 1802, it was reduced to five years, which is the time now required. ... "...a declaration, on oath, of his purpose to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or state;..." - pg. 88 "The children of persons duly naturalized, who were under twenty-one at the date of such naturalization, shall be considered citizens, if residing in the United States." - pg. 89 Andrews Manual to the Constitution - Revised Edition, Isreal Ward Andrews, D.D., L.L.D, printed 1887 Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment | The Heritage Foundation KEY TAKEAWAYS Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution. "The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship. Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment. This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." (emphasis added) Trump Renews Pledge to End Birthright Citizenship for Children of Immigrants | National News | U.S. News (usnews.com) "Most legal scholars say such a move would directly contradict the 14th Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” ~ Those legal scholars would be wrong, as equally as wrong as previous lower court and SCOTUS decisions have been in the distant past (many before the 14th was even passed), as outlined in this article: Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship | The Hill The fact remains that the US Government (via democrats/liberals) have been purposely misinterpreting the 14th in created an illegitimate "birthright citizenship" whereas illegal aliens are concerned. The legislative intent, discussions, and final agreements between the states in passing and ratification of said amendment make it crystal clear. Whoever becomes the next POTUS, I do hope they end this corruption where illegal aliens and their popping out anchor babies are concerned. They have no right to citizenship without going through the naturalization process. NOTE: the two cited books at the beginning of this post cannot be linked to online (at least I did not look), because I own the books. The ―originalist argument is that the legislative debates and (to a lesser extent) the overall history of American citizenship and political theory show a ―clear intent‖ that birthright citizenship should extend only to children of American citizens and perhaps of lawful permanent residents, but not reach the children of foreign nationals temporarily resident in the United States, whether legally or illegally. The historical background cited by Dean Eastman is that sketched by Professors Schuck and Smith in their work on the theory of citizenship in Anglo-American legal theory. The thesis of this work, and of subsequent work relied upon by restrictionists, is that modern, as opposed to feudal, citizenship requires consent of the citizen and a willingness to subject herself to the complete dominance of the nation. Thus, children of temporary sojourners—and, for that matter, any persons retaining citizenship in more than one country at the same time—cannot be viewed as fulfilling the conditions for citizenship under a proper modern definition. In particular, the authors suggest that children of illegal immigrants did not at the time of Framing, do not now, and should not fall within the meaning of ―subject to the jurisdiction.‖ This is because the children carry at birth the taint of their parents‘ criminality: ―The parents of such children are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law. They [the parents] are manifestly individuals, therefore, to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership. The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History" Additional research papers: A Critical Guide t A Critical Guide to Using the Legislativ o Using the Legislative History Of The F y Of The Fourteenth Amendment to Determine The Amendment's Original Meaning

There very much is a popular ideology called Transgenderism. And it's becoming militant. ideology: Meaning "systematic set of ideas, doctrines through which the world is interpreted" was in use in English by 1907, earliest in socialist and communist writing, with reference to class; from 1918 it came to be used of socialism and communism themselves (along with fascism) and later more broadly still. Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument. [D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970] Idée fixe (1836) is from French, literally "fixed idea." -logy : word-forming element meaning "a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Greek -logia (often via French -logie or Medieval Latin -logia), from -log-, combining form of legein "to speak, tell;" thus, "the character or deportment of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);" Ideology: a : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture b : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program c : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture Transgenderism [is] an ideology. Liberal progressives will continue to bitch and argue logical fallacies in order to divert due attention from a very serious problem afflicting humanity. That denialism will NEVER change the FACT that transgenderism IS an ideology. Exposing transgenderism for what it is: A lie (washingtonexaminer.com) "That crime belongs to the gender ideologues who are pushing an ideology that is politically regressive in every way. Indeed, “transgenderism” destroys the equality that women have achieved and actually enshrines harmful sex stereotypes in law, medicine, academia, and throughout all of society." Against Transgenderism by National Association of Scholars | NAS "The ideology of transgenderism is so pronounced and so widespread that there is no need to describe it in detail. What occasions a statement from the National Association of Scholars on it are several of the ways that that ideology has disrupted American education at all levels. These include: Vitriolic attacks on faculty members and medical professionals who dissent from the transgender orthodoxy2 Insisting that faculty members and students divulge their “preferred pronouns” and that others address and refer to people by these pronouns.3 The readiness of competitive sports to permit individuals of one sex to compete in single-sex contests of the opposite sex.4 The designation of gender-inclusive restrooms on campus. Yale, for example, has 332 such designated restrooms created at the reported cost of $8.3 million.5 The insistence that archaeologists and forensic anthropologists cease classifying human skeletal remains as male or female, since we do not know the “gender identification” of the individuals.6 Distortion of the medical school curriculum and consequences for healthcare.7 Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones. | The Heritage Foundation "Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause." I supported trans ideology until I couldn’t anymore (feministcurrent.com) "It was at that point — when I was told challenges to and questions about gender identity ideology in defense of women’s rights were equal to the lead up towards one of the worst genocides in human history — that I had my “WTF?” moment, and I began to tip." Transgenderism is 'ideology masquerading as science': doctor | U.S. News (christianpost.com) "Van Mol called the trans movement “ideology masquerading as science, reinforced with emotional blackmail — ‘You have to support them or they’re going to kill themselves' — which is also not true.”" Who Are the Rich, White Men Institutionalizing Transgender Ideology? (thefederalist.com) "Some of the organizations Jennifer owns and funds are especially noteworthy to examining the rapid induction of transgender ideology into medical, legal and educational institutions." How public schools brainwash young kids with harmful transgender ideology (nypost.com) "Militant transgender advocates are imposing their agenda with uncompromising zeal on schoolchildren." The Disturbing History of Research into Transgender Identity - Scientific American "Research into the determinants of gender identity may do more harm than good" TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY | Peak Trans Why transgenderism is a political ideology and not 'gender identity' - American Thinker https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/big-lie-transgender-ideology Transgender ideology - FeministWiki As of late this ideology has become quite militant and even violent. LIBBY EMMONS: The 'Trans Vengeance' movement has led to a series of assaults and now the murder of Christian children | Human Events | humanevents.com WATCH: Riley Gaines Assaulted, Held Hostage by Militant Transgender Activists After Speech – RedState Viral 'Transgender Shooter' Claims After Nashville Mass Shooting Lacked Context | Snopes.com Who Is Kayla Denker? Militant Transgender Activist Posing With Assault Rifle (msn.com) The egregious overreach of transgender activism | The Week Perverse Media Narrative Incites Trans-Identifying Activists to Violence (washingtonstand.com) Trans activist who boasted of her violence is rejected by the Women's Institute | Daily Mail Online VIDEO: https://www.hagmannpi.com/ep-4451-urgent-special-report-dr-rima-laibow-the-nefarious-plans-of-the-world-health-organization-the-hagmann-report-may-26-2023/ JFC! I am watching this video, listening to it, and the evil plans that began with the Rockefellers to present day with W.H.O., the U.N. and UNESCO is just madness!!!!! New UN report advocates for decriminalizing sex with minors | Human Events | humanevents.com "In March, UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), two agencies within the United Nations, along with the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) published a group of "new legal principles" that would advance "decriminalization efforts" globally, and principal 16 stated "sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual." United Nations Is Calling For The Decriminalization Of Pedophilia, Underage Sex, And Trafficking – winepressnews.com "“With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage,” the United Nations says."" There is more, but the underlining goal is a movement, one of many plans, to reduce the world's population by 90%. Targeting children with all this hyper-sexualization from birth to pre-teen years in order to have a full grab hold on controlling the population. Screwing up kids psychologically through the gender and transgender ideology indoctrination and pushing the decriminalization of pedophilia and a push to sexualize kids in practice is insanity! Going beyond this brainwashing and destroying the minds of tomorrow's adults via today's children, the W.H.O. is gearing up their end game goal to control literally everything: you, food, water, plants, pets, animals...it's called ONE HEALTH. All of this evil doctrine begins with the Fabian Socialists. Huxley's bools BRAVE NEW WORLD was the plan that laid the foundation for all this corruption. Ever hear of Rockefeller's "operation lockstep"? Looking back over the past 5 decades, it is clear this evil plan has been in motion long before us...as such things takes time, it cannot be done overnight. Each operation has been achieved in lock step for sure. I knew for sure that once gay marriage was granted, the transgender clowns would come out of the woodworks like cockroaches. Sure as shit they did. When that happened, I knew pedophilia would be next. It's on the verge of being pushed as acceptable. This shit the woman talks about in the cited video is coming to fruition, has been proven to be true with the historical events she mentioned, and it will only get worse before it gets better. Thoughts? PREVENT GENOCIDE 2030 Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones.

Since Roe v Wade was decided, everyone learned how and why SCOTUS ruled in favor of allowing women to obtain an abortion. That decision hinged on women's right to privacy. Despite the precedence standing for nearly 50 years, SCOTUS got it wrong. There is no right to "privacy" in the 14th Amendment. However, there is a clause within that amendment that directly applies to "personal liberty." "Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason." The legal definition of liberty is the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)." A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not [a] person. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean, is as follows: 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or "extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.) What the 14th Amendment does in fact state regarding the legal rights, privileges and equal protections of the law for persons is ... that they are only bestowed upon [a] person once they are either born or naturalized. Since this topic involves abortion, being born is the only legal standard clearly demarcated within the 14th Amendment that establishes those rights, privileges and equal protection of the law upon a person. States restricting or outlawing abortion is an "unjustified intrusion on personal security." If children are protected from "wrongfully or excessively administered corporal punishment, whether or not such interest was protected by statute," then girls and women impregnated, either against their will, willingly, or ignorantly are likewise protected in their preserved liberty from deprivation of their personal liberty without due process for the very same reasons cited in Ingraham v. Wright. "The Court also appeared to have expanded the notion of “liberty” to include the right to be free of official stigmatization, and found that such threatened stigmatization could in and of itself require due process.4 Thus, in Wisconsin v. Constantineau,5 the Court invalidated a statutory scheme in which persons could be labeled “excessive drinkers,” without any opportunity for a hearing and rebuttal, and could then be barred from places where alcohol was served. The Court, without discussing the source of the entitlement, noted that the governmental action impugned the individual’s reputation, honor, and integrity." 6 The very same application could, and can still be, directly applied to pregnant girls and women who are neither wed or ready, for whatever reason they provide, for a pregnancy and the 18 years of legal responsibility they have upon birth of their child. They do not deserve stigmatization let alone ostracization for merely being pregnant, and/or choosing to have an abortion precisely because they are not ready to become a responsible mother. The fact remains that the pregnant girl or woman is [a] person, who possesses "personal liberty," and is endowed with all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law. A pregnancy has none of these things. None. So how can anyone argue that which has no protections = to that of an actual person with agency and personal liberty, has far more protections that she? It's insane. It's absurd. It's illogical. It is illegal. It's unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't cover a lot of things, but they are implied. Personal Liberty rights does cover abortion, and I showed how by the very language used in its definition and the law. Example: right to travel, it is not expressly written thereof in the US Constitution, but it is implied AND has been ruled a right of personal liberty, one's freedom of movement. Kent v Dulles (1958) Example: Right to marry other races (interracial marriage) isn't expressly written in the US Constitution either, but via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (EPC), it was inferred/implied via personal liberty rights that people had the right to marry outside of their own race. Loving v Virginia (1967) Need I go on with more examples? SCOTUS screwed the pooch claiming there was a right of privacy implied within the 14th, when there was not. What they needed to do was infer upon personal liberty, the freedom to live and do as they please, especially with their own body, that doesn't violate law or impede a legally legit social or governmental purpose. Had they ruled in Roe v Wade as they did in Lawrence v Texas (2003), overturning Texas' 'anti-sodomy law,' "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," and the law violated the same EPC of the 14th. The obvious conclusion here is that SCOTUS should have defaulted to personal liberty, which is in the Constitution as well as state and federal statutory law. Personal liberty is sacrosanct. That liberty, that freedom needs to be restored for all girls and women faced with life altering circumstances that pregnancy thrusts upon them. It's her body, it's her life, it's her choice. Period.

Liberals are destroying society... and anyone that disagrees with them. Liberals do not believe in the freedom of speech, except their own, while playing the victim card as they attack anyone who disagrees with them. Liberals do not believe in the freedom of religion, except their own interpretation and application of it upon dissenters. Liberals make every effort to coerce others into their ideological agenda by getting their dissenters to say words they do not want to say. Liberals are willing and able to take your children away if you do not acquiesce their sexual agenda of grooming your children into the alphabet soup mental disorders of the LGBTQ+-&! lifestyle choices. Liberals only refer to science when it is convenient for them, but quickly dismiss it when it doesn't fit their narrative. Liberals see Christians as the world's terrorists more than the obvious threat that Islam has been and continues to be present day. Liberals are committed to destroying anyone's life who is outspoken in disagreeing with them. "Progressivism is poisonous." Progressivism is Destroying Liberalism How the left became so intolerant How Liberals are Poisoning the Minds of Young Americans Toxic Liberalism and Poison Politics Perfect example involves Dr. Chuck Mcllhenny who was a pastor at the First Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He won a lawsuit regarding the church's right to dismiss their organist for being gay. This, of course, happened pre-1980s, but it demonstrates the intolerance of the leftists who hypocritically demand tolerance. As a result of Mcllhenny prevailing in that lawsuit, his home and church were firebombed. When his home was firebombed, his family was asleep inside. No one was every prosecuted for the arson attack. For a few years his household received numerous threats and harassing phone calls on end. Some threatening to sexually assault and kill his three young daughters. In the documentary film, A Nation Adrift, "chronicles the outrageous events that took place during the Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot in 1992. An angry group of homosexuals and lesbians, who objected to the speaker for that service, vandalized church property, assaulted church members, terrorized congregants, screamed profanity, threw rocks, harassed and frightened children, and disrupted the service. Rioters pounded on church doors and attempted to break through. When the rioters saw church children standing in the lobby, they shouted, “We want your children. Give us your children!”" How Leftists' Critical Race Theory Poisons Our Discussion of Racism 10 Ways White Liberals Perpetuate Racism Denial Shame & Hurt Narcolepsy & Ignorance Masochism Apology & Faux Compassion Defensiveness The Pain Game Racial Resume White Guilt Intellectualization Toxic Progressivism in Public Schools and at the Chicago Tribune In recent studies and conversations being driven by CDC research, a not-so-new mental health crisis has been upon humanity, namely young high school aged girls, being far more depressed than previous generations. So much so that 1 in 3 girls of this age have seriously considered suicide. This decline in mental health of not only young girls, but boys as well, has been driven primarily by the invention and unfettered usage of smart phones and social medial. Matt Yglesias: Progressives are incentivized to catastrophize (aka the special snowflake problem) – HotAir Troubled youth turned adults in college leads to even more troubled minds to the point that they have been demanding safety and protection from words, ideas and facts that they do not like. How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus - The Atlantic "Get enough snowflakes together, and they can wreak havoc, they're a force to be reckoned with." The Truth About 'Liberal Snowflakes' | HuffPost Latest News The snowflake phenomena isn't isolated to the United States either. How The Self-Hating "Liberal Snowflake" Agenda Overtook Canadian Society (capforcanada.com) Wokeism is destroying the Left from the inside out (washingtonexaminer.com) Wokeness Means Forcing Everyone Inside The Prison Of Mental Illness (thefederalist.com) "Wokeism’s natural logic is to destroy the lives of people of both genders, of all races, and—if need be—those of every age, all to leverage an otherwise unworkable ideological agenda. It is nihilist and destroys everything it touches. It tears apart foes and friends alike, whether by fueling media-driven hatred of Donald Trump or faux-deification of the disaster that is now Joe Biden." Wokeism: The Cruel Destruction Of Society To Make Way For 'Build Back Better' (technocracy.news) "Then-French Minister of Education Jean-Michel Blanquer echoed Macron’s sentiments. He warned , “There’s a battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities.” They were referring to the toxic wokeness that originated inside the hallowed halls of America’s finest universities. But this menace, even at the time these remarks were uttered, had spread its tentacles well beyond academia and had begun to alter the very essence of American culture. It was also starting to take root in Europe. Macron and Blanquer were right about the threat, but they’d arrived at this realization too late." Wokeism threatens to destroy America's foundation. We must not let it (washingtonexaminer.com) HANSON: End wokeism now before it destroys America | Toronto Sun Europe’s War on Woke | The Nation Can Britain survive the woke wave? - UnHerd Why the ideologies behind 'Woke' and Cancel Culture are putting our democracy in jeopardy | View | Euronews Wokeism through so-called progressivism is also destroying the United States Armed Forces as well. 'Wokeism' destroying the military (afn.net) Then the US Government via the Executive branch overreaches with wokeness mandates and policy changes within the federal government. Citizens for Sanity Ad Exposes How Democrat's RACIST 'Equity Mandates' Are Destroying America - Dr. Rich Swier (drrichswier.com) Then there are the flagrant lies (misinformation and disinformation) being put out by Disney among other false prophets with a race baiting agenda) per black activists that try to blackwash history with their propaganda in order to push false narratives that will get them financial favors in the end. 'Blatant anti-white propaganda': Disney+ cartoon pushes 'reparations,' says America 'built on slavery' (bizpacreview.com) The false narrative of reparations (plorenzi1.wixsite.com) ‘The 1619 Project’ Tells a False Story About Capitalism, Too - WSJ Worst of all is the flip-flop on police and criminals, where police are castigated, and criminals are celebrated. This is the most mindboggling of all the woke crap in this world. Woke culture has hit our police hard and now it threatens our safety | Fox News Celebrity-backed woke bail fund has closed after being sued for freeing a serial criminal – HotAir Police, lawmakers slam Illinois criminal justice reform bill that eliminates cash bail | Fox News Some Experts Warn That Joe Biden’s Cashless Bail Policy Is A Prescription For More Anarchy (forbes.com) 'Recipe for increases in crime': Chicago cops warn IL Sup Ct cash bail abolition tramples courts, cops, favors criminals | Cook County Record But thankfully it appears that the anti-woke revolution may very well be beginning. The Ben Shapiro Show: Chris Rock Leads The Anti-Woke Revolution on Apple Podcasts One can only hope so. I simply want my 70s-90s back before all this degradation and de-evolution to human society began.

https://youtu.be/InsuRkKCdFE - SHE LIED about POLICE and I CAN PROVE IT by former Officer Brandon Tatum. Everything Mr. Tatum says in this video is 100% factually accurate in discrediting the black woman speaking during an interview on a MSM show. Prove him wrong.

8 Facts you should know about racial injustice in the criminal justice system: Racial discrimination has been ingrained in the criminal legal system from its earliest days and persists today. "The legacy of slavery, racist Jim Crow laws, and hateful lynchings has translated into modern-day mass incarceration and the disproportionate imprisonment of Black people." 1. More than half of death row exonerees are Black. Of the 185 people exonerated from death row since 1973, about 53% are Black, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Historically the death penalty has been disproportionately applied to Black people in the U.S., and they are still overrepresented on death row. FACT: Black or African American commit over 50% (53%) of the homicides for the entire country. FACT: Black or African American are 58% of the homicide victims (with over 90% being killed by other blacks or African American). 2. Nearly half the people currently on death row are Black In 2020, about 42% of people on death row were Black...though Black people make up just 13% of the U.S. population overall. The death penalty is more likely to be used in cases in which a white person is killed... When less than 0.5% of the 6% black population of 13% total black or African American population are committing over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crime, it stands to reason that blacks would be overrepresented on death row for the homicides they commit. Every year blacks or African Americans kill more whites than vice versa. So, it stands to reason that the death penalty would be "more likely" used in such cases, versus when a white killing a black, which are significantly fewer. 3. Half of the 2,947 people exonerated since 1989 are Black. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 1,471 Black people have been exonerated since 1989. Clearly for a multitude of differing reasons on a case-by-case basis. 4. Innocent Black people are seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder than innocent white people. Among Black people exonerated from murder convictions, approximately 31% were wrongly convicted of killing white people, though just 15% of homicides by Black people involved white victims... They need to define "wrongly," as there are a multitude of differing reasons; and the other 85% of homicides by black people involved black victims. Intraracial violence is grossly excessive within the black community. 5. It takes longer to exonerate an innocent Black person. Black people wrongly convicted of murder spend an average of three more years in prison than white people — four if they are on death row. Innocent Black people spend an average of 16 years on death row before they are exonerated. The appeals process and filing of motions by the innocence project takes time. No legitimate exoneration happens overnight. 6. Police misconduct occurred in more than half of all wrongful murder conviction cases involving innocent Black people. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, cases of Black people exonerated from wrongful murder convictions were 22% more likely to involve police misconduct than similar cases involving white defendants. Vague. Misconduct needs to be defined here; and white defendants sure as shit have been railroaded by police "misconduct" as well. 7. About one-third of unarmed people killed by police are Black. Of the more than 149 unarmed people killed by the police in 2017, 49 were Black, according to Mapping Police Violence. And? It is common knowledge that since then (and even prior to), blacks have become ever more brazen with law enforcement encounters where they immediately become defiant, verbally accosting, resist arrest, flee, fight and even try to harm the police. As such, 90-95% of all shootings are ruled legally justified. Cops are approximately 19x more likely to be shot and killed by an armed black person, than an unarmed black person being shot (and not necessarily killed) by police at approximately 2.5-3x. In the aggregate, whites and Hispanics are shot more by police, not blacks. A Washington State University study has conclusively shown that law enforcement are less likely to pull the trigger on a black suspect than any other race. "Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects." ‘Deadly force’ lab finds racial disparities in shootings – WSU Insider This study found race matters in police shootings, but the results may surprise you | CAS in the Media | Washington State University (wsu.edu) 8. Black people are more likely to be stopped and searched. Studies have shown that Black people, Latinx people, and communities of color are more likely to be stopped, searched, and suspected of a crime — even when no crime has occurred. FACT: Black and brown people commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country. Law enforcement go where the crime is, not where it is not. FACT: Majority of crimes in the NYC subway system were being committed by black and brown people; Guliani's Stop n Frisk program WORKED! Racial bias in policing contributes to the wrongful incarceration and conviction of innocent Black people and is also seen in arrest quotas, the use of surveillance technologies like facial recognition software to identify suspects, predictive policing tools, and gang databases. FACT: Criminological data conclusively demonstrates that black and brown people commit a disproportionate number of certain crimes, so law enforcement, in being proactive, will target those demographics committing the most crime in order to prevent that crime. Bottom line, this article by the Innocence Project is nothing short of misinformation and disinformation. It's part of the reason why many on the left carry and parrot the wrong ideas about law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

I am not the first to discuss this case and that sham organization, as Candace Owens has been all over it. Her NEW documentary, "The Greatest LIE ever sold: George Floyd and the Rise of BLM." The truth, which the media and democrats have fought hard to hide is that George Floyd killed himself with a lethal dose of fentanyl & meth, that Derrick Chauvin's knee was on his shoulder and NOT on his neck; and all the money made by BLM was spent in one of two ways: (1) to Patrice Cullors and her cronies' buying mansions in white neighborhoods, and (2) to gender ideology organizations. All of which Candace covers in her documentary. Bottom line, not a single penny actually went to a black business, black organization, black school, or even a black neighborhood. Not a cent. Everyone knows the inherent imminent danger that fentanyl poses, it's not rocket science. And the toxicology report of George Floyd proves beyond any doubt that he died of an overdose and not any knee on a shoulder or the spuriously claimed neck. The initial coroner's report substantiates the toxicology report AND denotes NO trauma to the neck, absolutely none. George Floyd had hypertension, an enlarged heart, and was grossly overdosed with fentanyl. The fentanyl and Police departments, cities, etc. always "settle" with families in racially charged cases due to the racial nature of the case. Why? Because of the black assailant, perp, suspect, violent offender, whoever is found at fault and the city, cops, or whomever was not...then there will be violent unrest and rioting, pillaging, burning and killing by black folk. That's just a fact of life in this country because blacks are not being held accountable for their actions. "Fentanyl overdoses become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45: 'A national emergency' Fentanyl: Here's how it kills you | CBC News Police show how much fentanyl it takes to kill you (nbc4i.com) Fentanyl Facts (cdc.gov) Facts about Fentanyl (dea.gov) How much fentanyl will kill you? - Harm Reduction Ohio Floyd killed himself. Period. No knee on his neck, shoulder, butt, or anywhere else would have killed him given the FACT that he was ALREADY in respiratory distress before cops arrived on scene. The audio of the bodycam proves that as they approach Floyd's car. Floyd admitted to consuming too much narcotics too. Chauvin is a race based political prisoner. Period. Effects of Fentanyl "Fentanyl’s mechanism of action is believed to primarily involve its ability to act as an opioid agonist, which means that the drug readily attaches to neurons in the central nervous system that are specialized for neurotransmitters like enkephalins and endorphins. These substances are often referred to as endogenous opiates because they have a similar chemical structure to opiate drugs. Because the neurons in the brain that are specialized for these endogenous opiates substances are ready-made for synthetic drugs like fentanyl, these drugs are very efficient at controlling pain, reducing stress, increasing sedation, and lessening anxiety. They slow down the actions of the neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Because the brain is the control center for nearly every important bodily function, slowing the functioning of the brain also results in slowing the actions of other organs, such as the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc., as well as reducing the ability to engage in voluntary actions, such as walking, talking, and even thinking." (emphasis mine) Fentanyl Overdose Symptoms The signs and symptoms that occur in individuals who have overdosed on fentanyl can consist of: Extreme drowsiness, lethargy, lightheadedness, or dizziness. Marked difficulty with balance, difficulty with walking, and decreased motor coordination. Complaints of nausea and vomiting. Significant mental status changes that often include slurred speech, decreased speed of thought (that can be observed by extremely slow rates of speech), confusion, irrational actions, and/or aggressiveness. Pinpoint eye pupils and/or bluish or purplish lips, hands, feet, fingernails, and/or toenails. Noticeably slowed or shallow breathing (In some cases, people may stop breathing or produce gurgling noises.). A marked reduction in blood pressure and heart rate. Becoming unconscious or comatose. The lethal effects that occur because of fentanyl overdose are most often due to significant respiratory suppression or the complete halting of breathing as a result of the central nervous system depressant effects of the drug. (NOTE: George Floyd was exhibiting all the above bolded symptoms easily seen in various videos recorded of the incident) The Deadly Effects of Mixing Meth and Fentanyl "Some people believe that the stimulant effects of meth and the opioid effects of fentanyl would cancel each other out, creating a strong high without the side effects that can lead to a deadly overdose. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Drugs don’t all have the same effects on every user, and their side effects do not counteract one another as if there is some simple, chemistry equation behind their use. Instead, what winds up happening is the use of two very powerful drugs at once puts an inordinate strain on the user’s body and brain. In addition, many people who are taking meth and fentanyl together do not realize they are doing so. Often, individuals who take meth or cocaine laced with fentanyl have a low tolerance for opioids and are at risk of overdose (NIDA). Essentially, these are two of the most dangerous drugs one could take alone but especially in combination when it comes to overdose." The Dangers of Combining Meth With Fentanyl The effects of fentanyl and methamphetamine on the body and central nervous system are oppositional, so when taken together, one substance can dull the effects of another. When meth is laced with fentanyl, this can cause the meth user to take more doses, increasing the amount of fentanyl in the system and leading to overdose and overdose death. When the two substances are being taken together intentionally, whichever product is being dulled by the other will result in increasing doses, posing a risk of overdose or at the very least overload in the body, which can have catastrophic results. In short, combining fentanyl and meth can lead to: Dulling the effects of one substance or the other Overtaking one substance or the other Not experiencing overdose symptoms Delayed symptoms of overdose Meth Overdose: Trouble breathing Heart attack Stroke Chest pain Seizures High blood pressure High body temperature Intense hyperactivity or aggression Fentanyl Overdose: Very small pupils Severe respiratory depression Cold clammy skin Gray, blue, or pale skin Blue or purple lips and nails Complete stop in breathing Loss of consciousness Unresponsiveness, even to pain Vomiting Choking or gurgling sounds (NOTE: Bolded points Floyd was obviously experiencing as seen in the various videos of the event) Then there is this: "Cardiopulmonary arrest is simply when the heart stops beating and lungs stop moving, which other medical examiners The Times reporter spoke with often do not include on their reports, as this happens in all deaths." ~ Forensic Pathologist: If We Found George Floyd at Home with That Amount of Fentanyl and Meth, It Could Be an Overdose (westernjournal.com) It is odd that medical examiners do not note that medical fact since it is an obvious occurrence in ALL manners of death. In other words, it is of absolutely no clinical significance as to the actual "manner of death," since it is an end result "in all deaths." "“A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens: “1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL” That’s just the first few words of the “Toxicology” section. Also listed are norfentanyl, 4-ANPP, methamphetamine, cannabinoids, amphetamines, morphine and so on. But the 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl is rather important, inasmuch as the chief medical examiner called this “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances,” saying, “deaths have been certified with levels of 3.” Three. But George Floyd went up to 11. Fentanyl Facts (cdc.gov) Facts about Fentanyl (dea.gov) How much fentanyl will kill you? - Harm Reduction Ohio T. Thao Bates #14164-22944 - excluding codefendants personnel records.pdf (mncourts.gov) BATES #8131 - 14163.pdf (mncourts.gov) Medical examiner: George Floyd had 'fatal level of fentanyl' in his system, but is 'not saying this killed him' | Fox News George Floyd’s death, specifically the illicit drugs he consumed prior to the initial contact with police and the excited delirium that followed during his apprehension that lead to his cardiac arrest and respiratory failure. Two common results of an overdose when one is “speedballing.” In other words, when one is taking/consuming a strong stimulant like meth that staves off the effects of depressants like fentanyl and amphetamines, when the stimulant(s) wears off, fatality more often than not occurs (unless medical intervention is immediate upon noticing the symptoms of an overdose). As in the case of Mr. George Floyd. An individual addicted to illicit drugs like fentanyl, amphetamines, morphine, marijuana and methamphetamines. However, pseudo know-it-alls, Floyd did not die from what they would consider as a “recreational drug,” but rather from the neck compression (despite the coroner clearly reporting absolutely “no life-threatening injuries [were] identified.” In comments in another formal debate, Mps1213 basically, for a lack of better terms, mouthed off that he knows better than Sir.Lancelot, myself and anyone else on this subject of Floyd’s death who dares say otherwise. So, this forum thread is being created to challenge him on this very subject, and to allow anyone else so interested and inclined to join the debate/discussion, pro or con, may do so. This shall (or rather should/could) provide a learning experience for all involved. So without further adieu… On May 26, 2020, at 9:25am, just 12 hours after Floyd’s pronounced death, the coroner completed the autopsy of George Floyd. “As was released earlier by the medical examiner’s office, Floyd’s cause of death is listed officially as “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” The full autopsy report states further that “no life-threatening injuries [were] identified.” The medical examiner’s office had also previously deemed the manner of Floyd’s death a “homicide.” The report describes Floyd as a “46-year-old man who became unresponsive while being restrained by law enforcement officers; he received emergency medical care in the field and subsequently in the Hennepin HealthCare (HHC) Emergency Department, but could not be resuscitated.” https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/authorities-just-released-george-floyds-complete-autopsy-report-read-it-here/ The above quotes are not only poorly written grammatically and contextually, but they are also self-contradictory. Then there is this: “Critically, the report says Floyd “experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/authorities-declare-george-floyds-death-a-homicide-but-still-contradict-familys-independent-autopsy/ Having provided those two quotes (and sources) to describe the coroners official findings of the manner in which George Floyd died, what I implore upon anyone and everyone reading this thread is the fact that you each have to look at the data and circumstances OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively driven by emotion or otherwise. Nor any absurd appeals to authority either. The people with letters after their name all perjured themselves on the stand regarding the subject matter being discussed herein. To clarify my position on the stated manner of death: “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” The wording of this statement, contextually, directly implies that Floyd’s experiencing a heart attack – in the moment (i.e., excited delirium) – complicated the subdued, restrain, and neck compression” executed by law enforcement. When I read this from a law enforcement perspective, this tells me that while all the officers involved, especially Chauvin, were doing exactly what they were trained to do in order to calm Floyd down and subdue him without increasing the use of force continuum…Floyd’s heart attack “complicated” that effort that required EMS to be called vs routine transport to the county jail for booking. Yet people like Mps1213, BLM (Burn Loot Murder aka Black Lives Matter), and the leftist propaganda machine (MSM) would have everyone believe that Chauvin either broke or compressed his neck so much that it caused damage to his larynx and caused asphyxiation. That couldn’t be further from the truth. As the coroner clearly noted: “no life-threatening injuries [were] identified.” Given the fact that there were “no life-threatening injuries” identified during the initial/original unbiased autopsy by the county coroner, that leaves the question: why/how did George Floyd die. Well, the next place to look is the Toxicology report: https://famous-trials.com/george-floyd/2648-george-floyd-the-toxicology-report for the (in your face) obvious answer. He died of a drug overdose brought on by a lethal concoction of fentanyl, methamphetamines, amphetamines, morphine and marijuana. Stimulants vs depressants. A deadly combination either way you slice and dice it. And when you add comorbidities like hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and a positive test for COVID-19…well, death was certain and imminent. See below: “Underlying Conditions The report says Floyd’s autopsy revealed three “natural diseases:” (1) “arteriosclerotic heart disease,” which it described as “multifocal, severe;” (2) “hypertensive heart disease,” which included a “clinical history of hypertension,” and (3) a left pelvic tumor, which it described as “incidental.” (Incidental tumors are generally benign.) The report elsewhere said that a “cross sections of coronary arteries, though not all ideally oriented, confirm the gross impression of atherosclerotic narrowing.” Then add into that mix the toxicology findings, broken down and sectioned out here (same place the above quote was taken from): https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/authorities-just-released-george-floyds-complete-autopsy-report-read-it-here/ The obvious fact of the matter is Floyd consumed a fatal dose of fentanyl and meth in what is commonly known as “speedballing.” https://www.training.fadaa.org/Speedballing/Speedballing_PPT.pdf The lethal dose of fentanyl is 2mg (but can be less); Floyd had 11ng/mL in his blood as reported in the toxicology report. But when combined with all the other stimulants and depressants he willingly consumed that day, Floyd was “dead man walking.” Which perfectly explains why he can be heard on body-cam footage upon initial and immediately following contact by police (long before the infamous knee) telling them he was having trouble breathing. Respiratory distress and failure is a common result of mixing potent stimulants with deadly depressants. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/george-floyd-told-police-he-was-struggling-breathe-officer-put-n1218556 The risks of combining fentanyl and meth is no secret. Fentanyl is not a new drug, but it is certainly more dangerous than most others, especially when combined with other drugs like methamphetamines, amphetamines, et al. https://www.ashevillerecoverycenter.com/methamphetamine-and-fentanyl/ “Deaths related to methamphetamine cut with fentanyl appear to have spiked in recent years; for instance, a 2022 report from the New York State Department of Health noted that overdose deaths involving methamphetamine notably increased in the state (outside of New York City) from 2016 to 2020, but that the majority of those deaths also involved fentanyl. This suggests that “the potent opioid [fentanyl] has actually been driving the increase.” Part of the reason the combination is particularly dangerous is because it combines an opioid (a depressant) with meth (a stimulant). According to the Florida Alcohol & Drug Abuse Association, the combination of an opioid and stimulant, when taken intentionally, is sometimes called “speed-balling.” The opposing effects of the two types of substances can mask each other, making overdose more likely. For instance, in some cases of overdose, the stimulant’s effects may wear off, and respiratory failure can result—particularly from an opioid as strong as fentanyl.” https://www.webmd.com/connect-to-care/addiction-treatment-recovery/fentanyl-overdose-and-adulterated-methamphetamines https://www.rehabcenter.net/polysubstance-abuse/opiates-amphetamines/ Taking into consideration the multitude of deaths, reported overdoses, and the scientific evidence that explains the ever increasing uptick in deaths related to fentanyl overdoses when mixed (laced) with other illicit drugs, and the fact that the coroner made it perfectly clear in his report that there was absolutely no life threatening injuries to Floyd’s body (e.g. his neck, specifically), the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION is that he died from an overdose complicated by excited delirium during his arrest. That’s all on him and has no bearing on the officers and the manner in which they conducted their arrest per their own departments training guidelines and S.O.P. The ONLY reason the officers were ostracized and Chauvin was tried is it was yet another (among many) distractions the left and Democrats took advantage of (never let a tragedy go to waste) in further dividing this country and gaining or solidifying current democratic voters to continue voting for the Democratic Party. Officer Chauvin is innocent and he is nothing short of being a political prisoner in his win country for which he swore an oath to defend, and that country turned its back on him all in the name of divisive political rhetoric on faux racism and police brutality claims. "Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, asked Tuesday whether Baker was pressured into listing “neck compression” as a factor in his autopsy report. Baker testified that he told prosecutors on the day of Floyd’s autopsy that there was no physical evidence of asphyxia, or insufficient oxygen. Prosecutors put that information in their initial complaint against Chauvin, and listed existing health conditions, police restraint and potential intoxicants as contributing factors."

BACKGROUND: "Aimee Stephens was a funeral home employee who had presented herself as male up until 2013. On July 31, 2013, she wrote to her employer, the Harris Funeral Homes group, so that they could be prepared for her decision to undergo gender reassignment surgery, telling them that after a vacation, she planned to return dressed in female attire that otherwise followed the employee handbook. She was fired shortly after the letter was sent, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helped to represent Stephens in court. The District Court ruled for the funeral homes, stating Title VII did not cover transgender people and that as a religious organization under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the company had a right to dismiss Stephens for non-conformity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding Title VII did include protection for transgender people, which Harris Funeral Homes petitioned the Supreme Court to review. About a month before the Supreme Court decision, Stephens died from health complications. Representation of her case continued through her estate. The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and transgender people.[2]" ~ R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Wikipedia PURPOSE OF RESEARCHING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND INTENT: Legislative Intent - Legislative History - Research Guides at Emory University Libraries "Legislative intent is the term that the courts have given to their analysis of the historical documents originally generated when the statute in question was under consideration in the Legislature—state or Federal. Whenever the interpretation of a legislative enactment becomes an issue in a case, the courts will commonly resort to the Rules of Statutory Construction to determine the proper application of the statutory language to the facts at hand. " "The Court determines the Legislature’s intention by examining the problem faced by the Legislature when it considered the bill that enacted the language in question, the public policy issues that the problem raised and the drafting solutions that emerged during legislative consideration of the bill." ~ What Is Legislative Intent | Legislative Intent (legintent.com) LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH: The Supreme Court was founded in part to balance the executive and legislative branches of government, and it can help prevent the legislative branch from overstepping its legal obligations by measuring the laws they pass against the U.S. Constitution. "For the Democrats, the courts have long been seen as a bulwark for liberal causes. But this presumption also appears vulnerable. If the courts weaken legal protections related to affirmative action, abortion, and civil liberties, the judiciary’s liberal allies may become alienated as well. In the context of this increased political pressure and scrutiny, being more articulate and clear-thinking about the acceptable contours of judicial power and the judiciary’s role, and the terms under which we can fairly criticize judges and justices, seems essential. To the extent we value a neutral, independent, and effective judiciary, further exploration of legislating from the bench can help us to examine the preconditions and limits of this efficacy." ~ Microsoft Word - LCB_11_1_art9_Peabody.doc (lclark.edu) JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: "The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent." ~ Judicial activism Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal TEXTUALIST JURISPRUDENCE: "Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.[1]" ~ Textualism - Wikipedia CASE INFORMATION VIA LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | LII Supreme Court Bulletin | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) ISSUES: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals, either as a form of sex discrimination or as impermissible “sex stereotyping” under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? MY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RULING GIVEN BY GORSUCH: Justice Gorsuch violated the intent and purpose of legislative history and likewise the rules of statutory construction when he evaluated the case of transgender Aimee Stephens. In effect, he legislated from the bench via judicial activism. He essentially created law where no law existed within the original crafting, intent and purpose of Title VII within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where gender identity and sex stereotypes are concerned. The arguments presented by Stephens are patently illogical. Stephens argued that Title VII "specifically" prohibited transgender discrimination [because] it barred employers from terminating their employees “because of [an] individual’s . . . sex.” Stephens further argued that by terminating someone because they are not conforming with their employer’s view of how that person’s “biological sex” ought to present itself, the employer is using that person’s “sex” as it was determined at birth in order to purposely discriminate against them. When one looks at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "specifically" Title VII, there is absolutely no language or debate involving transgender, gender identity and/or sexual orientation rights given the glaring fact that none were even an issue in 1964 where legal protections were concerned. Issues meaning neither was seen as apparent then as they theoretically are present-day where legal protections were necessarily needing addressed by said Act in 1964. The origins of gender identity did not appear to take a foothold in law until the early 1970s, which had more to do with hermaphroditism and transsexualism than actual transgenderism. The introduction of the dichotomy between anatomical sex and gender identity, then commonly referred to as the psychopathological condition of gender identity disorder, was not introduced into the APAs Diagnostic Statistical Manual until the Third version in 1980, 16 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, there is absolutely no measure by which Stephen's argument that Title VII "specifically" prohibits transgender discrimination in employment, or any other area of employment law either. And what one's perception is of what another's sex "ought" to present themselves as is legally irrelevant. To argue such is to also argue how one "ought" to behave when employed, take for example lawfully vs unlawfully; kind or unkind; professionally or unprofessionally. Each measure is a commonsense expectation of behavior, and for a biological man to present himself as a man for nearly two decades as a man, only to one day abruptly claim they are not what they were born as and wish to live their personal fantasy as the opposite sex is a shock to commonsense and the laws governing fraud. You apply as a man, are hired as a man, work as a man, conduct yourself as a man and then inform your employer you will be coming to work as a woman in appearance and wish to be treated as a biological woman is fraud under the law. An employer is not obligated to facilitate your fraudulent behavior. The Funeral Home had every legal right to terminate employment with Stephens. For Justice Gorsuch to find legal justification for acceptance of transgenderism in Title VII flies in the face of both legislative intent and unquestionably demonstrates judicial activism. Stephens then argues that should the Court exclude transgender discrimination from Title VII, it would add to the only codified exception to Title VII's protections. This exception being the bona fide occupational qualifications exception that HOOTERS prevailed in regarding being sued by male applicants denied employment as waiters. Hooters maintained it was on the right side of the law in asserting a “bona fide occupational qualification” based on the essence of its business model. Hooters states that the “Hooters Girl” is the foundation of its business. Which is precisely why Hooters is allowed to continue this business model. It is also another reason why we see no male centerfolds in Playboy, but rather that of Playgirl, and no female centerfolds in the latter magazine. Stephens continues to argue, and with emphasizes, that it mattered not if Congress understood Title VII to encompass transgender discrimination during its 1964 enactment having no bearing on how the Court should determine the statute’s meaning and application present day of that case. This inherently flies in the intent and purpose of the Court to include legislative history in the laws intent and purpose behind its creating and passing in correcting wrongs that have subsequently been made illegal. Ignoring that history of legislative intent and making up terms, intent and meaning of a historical law to fit a present-day issue far removed from the historical law is nothing but judicial activism (i.e., legislating from the bench). And that is EXACTLY what Justice Gorsuch did. This argument of Stephens is a patent false equivalency fallacy: "Stephens analogizes an employer’s decision to fire employees for their transgender status to the impermissible act of terminating employees because they changed religions." Religion is "specifically" referenced in Title VII, transgenderism is not. Therefore, there is no equal comparison, period. Sex stereotypes do not come into legal argument in this case either, despite the arguments Stephens made employing it. Stephens was born a man. He applied as a man. He was hired as a man. He worked as a man until such day without warning he informed the Funeral Home he wanted to be employed as a woman when in fact he is/was not a woman. That is an act of fraud, but also a change in employment terms that an employee has no authority to make. Only the employer can change terms of employment conditions, not an employee. Therefore, the funeral home terminating Stephens had nothing to do with a sex stereotype as he was not being discriminated as a biological female employee, but rather that of the obvious: a biological male employee making unrealistic expectations upon his employer to change the terms of his employment with the employer for which he had no legal authority to affect or force upon the employer. IMO, Justice Gorsuch legislated from the bench via judicial activism and read into Title VII that which was simply not there, nor supported by the legislative history, intent and purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prove me wrong.