Garvey's Ghost TV: Another Trump Verdict

 Rumble:

Bitchute:

"There Was No Place Called Palestine"

 One of the arguments put forth by Pro-Israel persons and groups is that there was no Palestine. The land area was just some place that England had control over. Israel was the first time any of that land mass was recognized. Of course those of us who know that history exists prior to 1947, know that argument is bunk. Matter of fact, Palestine was so well known that it made an appearance in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Hey, what's that piece of land between the sea and "Jordan" 

They flew right over it.

Is Lucasfilm anti-semitic?

Is Paramount engaging in "pro-Hamas" propaganda?

 Or is the truth that Palestine existed and was wiped out from the river to the sea" and given to [mostly] outsiders?

Dexter Taylor And The Rogue State Of NY

 Viva updates us on the conviction of Dexter Taylor:

Dexter Taylor @futureradiocast sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing "unlicensed weapons".

Can confirm the judge said in Court "Do not bring the 2nd Amendment into this court room. There is no 2nd Amendment here. This is Nw York" (paraphrasing from what was told to me).… pic.twitter.com/h0lUoZr1IB

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) May 15, 2024

I obliquely referenced this case in an earlier post where I asserted that the judge should have been, and should be, removed from the bench for stating that the second doesn't apply in NY state.

NYS has been a rogue state for a long time.  It was a failure of the Trump administration to not send the DOJ into NYC when they declared themselves a sanctuary city and started providing illegal aliens with IDs and other things. Fed law explicitly prohibits the harboring and providing services to illegal aliens and/or inducing them to stay. The govt of NY blatantly violated the law and because multiple people were involved (city council) they should have been prosecuted with RICO enhancements. Exactly what Dems are doing to Trump in Georgia.

Let the mayor and city council members make their immunity claims from a jail cell. 

NYC further disgraced itself with the medical segregation it imposed with nary a peep from the civil rights organizations and those who like to talk about who they marched with. It was surreal to walk along Queens Blvd and seeing signs in the door harking back to "Whites only" while seeing a smattering of folks sitting inside.  Or being stopped at the entrance to a casino by a black person no less, on some show me your papers shit.

Same people who have been saying that no person is illegal, walls don't work, etc. Like I said in my last post, they really don't mean it.

But back to Dexter. Dexter ordered gun parts online using his bank/credit card info. Had those delivered directly to his place of residence rather than an out of state address (wink...wink) and bringing it home. He then assembled these firearms for his own personal entertainment. As far as I know, those arms never left his apartment. I don't even know if they had been fired. They were not sold, nor advertised for sale. None of them were used in the commission of any crime.

The state of NY decided to raid his home because he had an "unlicensed firearm".  There is nothing in the constitution that says that you only have the right to bear "licensed" arms. I have said this before and I'll say it again, SCOTUS erred in a major fashion when it completely made up this "state interest" excuse to infringe on the right to bear arms.  It is a loophole large enough for an elephant standing on a T-Rex could get through. In essence Dexter was convicted of a crime against the state, not the people.

NYC said they got "guns off the streets". These guns were never "on the streets ".

NYS acted all indignant because he had 'an arsenal". 

And?

2A doesn't say the right to have a single arm. it says the right to bear Arms. Plural.

We the people can own as many arms (fire or otherwise) as we please.

This is why I have become a 2A absolutist. The scales have fallen from my eyes. 

NYS has become a rogue state. James got into office by promising to abuse the office. She is carrying out that promise and clearly has other accomplices.  But before we lay too much blame on James et al,  we need to hold the voters in NYC (who drive these elections) for this. Clearly Dexter's neighbors are good with the conviction, they handed it down.

COVID-19 And The End Of Innocence

 Below is RFK Jr. Discussing his change of heart in regards to abortion.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains What Led Him to Reconsider His Position on Abortion

"My presumption was that no woman is going to deliberately carry a child for nine months and then two days before it's born, abort it. Who would do that? It could only be in instances where the… pic.twitter.com/4JnaM16j7R

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) May 14, 2024

I found this to be significant because I think it reflects a similar "realization"  I had come to due to the response to Covid: They never meant it.

So the pertinent part of JFKs comment was that he never thought that women would actually abort a none month old baby just days away from being born for reasons other than their health. That is, they would be dead otherwise. He said that data was brought to his attention that this DOES in fact happen. There are apparently not a few women who are having late term abortions when the baby is actually able to live outside the womb, just because.

Yeah, that's murder.

The issue here, for this post, isn't that this new information changed his mind, it is that he, along with many people who prior to 2020 could be said to be center left, didn't really understand or know that The Left really had some nasty things behind the mask. In 2020 they felt powerful enough to drop the mask and a lot of things were laid bare.

Like JFK, I was pro choice for only one reason, I did not believe the government should be involved in medical decisions of people. I assumed that was the position of the DNC. No. Actually these women in the DNC, and their male simps, really just meant they wanted to be able to murder their babies and fuck the rest of us.  When the jabs dropped, they quickly decided that the government dictating medicine was A-fucking-O-K.

I have not been pro choice since.

Similarly, I became a 2a absolutist. After all, once you realize the state would force you to take a medical treatment against your will and treat you like chattel. Then any reason it has to restrict arms of any kind being held by the public, is, in my opinion, null and void. It becomes very clear that the reason they want the public disarmed is so that they can aggress against them at will without fear of [armed] resistance.

Indeed much of the abuse seen since 2020 has been directly because none of the aggressing partied fear any consequences at all. 

Similarly we have seen what started out as "leave the gays alone." To now the state trying to tell citizens how they must address mentally ill people who think they are something they are not. The state has realized it can aggress against citizens at will and the order followers from the police on down, will do their bidding.

There are a lot of people saying that the 2024 election is going to be the decisive one and that the Republic is gone if Biden wins. While I agree that another Biden term would have grave consequences, any non-Biden term that does not severely punish those who have aggressed against the citizens since 2020, will not being doing what is needed.

The innocence is gone. The scales are off the eyes. The mask is off and broken.  Time to adjust accordingly, as JFK apparently has.

You Will Not Resist

 Not that I'm trying to make this the Tran Report, but this issue is perhaps the most blatant abuse of government authority since COVID. At least with the COVID nonsense you could see how someone could believe the propaganda. Most people don't know about viruses. They don't know about medicine and they implicitly trust their doctors. The tranny nonsense has none of these characteristics. Here the government is literally punishing people to enforce something that is obviously not true. 

In my last post I laid out the scheme and in this one I'm going to show The Stick. From Newsweek

More and more girls are refusing to play against boys (and men) and so the authorities have to make examples of them. Sure you can object to them playing, but you *will not defy us publicly*!

Five West Virginia middle-school track athletes who protested the participation of a transgender student in a recent competition have been barred from future meets and are now engaged in a legal battle with their school district that could end up at the Supreme Court.

On April 18, during the 2024 Harrison County Middle School Championships, the student athletes — all girls — made local headlines by stepping out of the shot-put circle, choosing to forfeit rather than compete against a 13-year-old transgender female. The silent protest came after a federal appeals court struck down part of West Virginia's transgender sports ban, allowing the 13-year-old in question to compete at her team's events.

First, per my rule, there is no such thing as a "transgender female". There is a man/male who thinks (or wants us to think) he is a female. In sports this is often a ploy for a under performing male to become a winner by competing against lesser competition. 

Note again that is was the "federal appeals court" that is setting the precedent.

"The students' protest, lasting about 10 seconds, was aimed at expressing their disagreement with the decision last month from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state "Save Women's Sports Act" was a violation of the 13-year-old's Title IX protections, which ban sex-discrimination in schools.

Their protest has cost them a chance to compete in future events — a move that has now triggered a state lawsuit alleging infringement on their rights to free speech."

Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [My underlines]

The 14th amendment brings these down to the state level, meaning the punishment of these girls by the [public] school is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. Whatever the court thinks about Title IX, it does not supersede 1A.  

""The only thing this decision does is teach these children to keep their mouths shut and not disagree with what they saw as unfairness,"

 Exactly. They are using the power of the state to literally oppress girls.

"The ACLU of West Virginia, which was among the plaintiffs who filed the original suit when the Save Women's Sports Act was signed into law in 2021, has come out in support of last month's appellate court decision."

Yes, of course they did.

The Trans Precedents Continue Apace

 In a few of my videos I commented on the repeated rulings by judges across the country on "trans" issues. These rulings serve as precedents for future legal squabbles. It doesn't matter how illogical or wrong the rulings are. Once made, they can be referenced by other lawyers and few people or orgaanizations have the will or financial resources to take these up to SCOTUS who may decide not to hear the case. This strategy is obvious to anyone paying attention and it's not just the trans issue. So to be clear the program goes like this.

1) Find a case where the boundary can be pushed. For example, purposely aggravate a known Christian baker.

2) Sue him or her in a friendly venue or get the state itself to sue on your behalf (free to you!).

3) Drain the target of money leading to either their capitulation or loss of business/employment.

4) Set court precedence.

5) Rinse and repeat.

6) If by chance the case gets to SCOTUS and it is likely to be reversed, claim that the point is moot.

With that laid out lets examine the latest.

There is no such thing as "transgender healthcare". There is bodily mutilation at the request of mentally ill people and carried out by profiteering "doctors".

"A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that state health insurance plans must provide coverage for gender-affirming care in North Carolina and West Virginia. Trans advocates say it's a huge victory, especially since bills restricting the rights of transgender people have been on the rise in state legislatures."

Once again we see this at the federal judge level so that they can override the express wishes of the citizens of the state(s).  Also, there is no such thing as "gender affirming care". I'll pause here to once again admonish those of similar mind to reject these euphemisms. At all times and all places, reject this language. These crazy people win, in part, by defining the language and getting you to use it. Once you use it, you have already lost the argument.

"The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., issued its decision about two cases. One was brought by North Carolina state employees and their dependents who are transgender and were unable to get coverage for gender-affirming care."

And this is NPR. They have adopted the language, thereby validating it.  And note, the pattern as discussed above. Find a "victim" to make a case.

"The other lawsuit came from West Virginians who are transgender and on Medicaid. They could get coverage for some treatments — like hormones — but not for surgery."

They should get coverage for neither. If you want to voluntarily mess up your body do so. With your money.

"In oral arguments, the judges asked about mastectomies, as an example. Those are covered for patients with breast cancer, but they were not covered by the health insurance plans for transgender patients."

This is the part that bothered me the most. These judges actually let this argument go. A person with breast cancer has an actual deadly illness. Their body has a problem, not their mind. If untreated the cancer will kill the body regardless of the state of mind of the person. However. these mentally ill people have perfectly functioning bodies. They wish to harm their bodies.  There is no logical universe where these two things are remotely similar.

"In an 8-6 decision, the majority of the 4th circuit decided that these patients were entitled to health insurance coverage for their care. Judge Roger Gregory, writing the majority opinion, called the denial of coverage "obviously discriminatory.""

The only health insurance claim these people are entitled to is mental health coverage as they are mentally ill. That is all. It is not "obviously discriminatory". Each of the 8 judges should be removed from the bench.

"West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had defended his state's decision not to cover gender-affirming surgeries in Medicaid. Morrisey responded to the loss in a statement, saying: "Decisions like this one, from a court dominated by Obama- and Biden-appointees, cannot stand: we'll take this up to the Supreme Court and win.""

 

Just as I laid out earlier, resources wasted having to run up the court system. And be sure, getting SCOTUS to take up the case is not a sure bet. Also note the total fail on the part of Patrick Morrisey. He used the term "gender-affirmig" in his commentary. By embracing the term he is admitting there is some valid medical practice called "gender affirming care". If such a thing exists then you have NO grounds to deny coverage. Patrick SHOULD have rejected the term and called it what it was, bodily mutilation. He should have further stated that the state of West Virginia will not pay for bodily mutilation.

"The policies in question have already changed, Borelli notes. Both state health programs have had to cover transgender health care since lower federal district courts ruled in favor of the patients in 2022, she says.

Now that the appeals court has issued its decision, Borelli says it sets an important precedent and other states across the country should pay close attention."

Like I said. Set the precedent. 

"Lawyers for North Carolina and West Virginia had argued that the coverage denials were based on saving taxpayer money, not bias."

This is a totally dumb argument and why they will fail until they tackle the very concept. Too many so called "conservatives" are afraid of being called an "ist" or "phobe" and so make up ridiculous arguments.