Garvey's Ghost TV 9-28-2022: A Political Lynching

Rumble; 

Bitchute:

 

5:24: Cayler Ellingson: A Political Lynching? 

17:00: Trump Should Face Charges for Jan 6? What Charges?

 24:32: COVID "vaccine" mRNA found in Breast Milk.

39:00: Will Medical Agencies Throw Doctors Under The Bus?

Garvey's Ghost TV 9-19-2022: Revelations

 Rumble:

Bitchute:

3:30: Danes halt mass vaccination.

15:19: NYC fires more teachers over Covid jab

22:40: Harvard requires untested booster.

29:10 Killer Ventilators

33:00: Novavax.

40:00: Mucosal Immunity

43:36: Martha's Vineyard, Revealed Preferences and Immigration Law. 

I could run into a burning building.....

 100% what this guy said

"I could run into a burning building for this city but I couldn't eat in a restaurant"

Damn.pic.twitter.com/kpA1enyiUu

— Adam B. Coleman, President of Aintblackistan (@wrong_speak) September 11, 2022

 

I have been calling the current mayor of NYC "Bull Connor" because he is no better than and in many cases WORSE than  Bull Connor at the height of segregation.  When Bill Di Blasio implemented the NYC segregation, his wife should have walked out on him in disgust. One of the first things Eric "Bull Connor" Adams should have done was ended the vax mandate as well as restaurant BS. As a BLACK MAN he should have known better. Black so called leadership should have been front and center to oppose the second class citizenship being imposed on people across the country. To their forever shame, they did not and I have ZERO respect for any of them. 

You hear the rage in that guy's voice? THAT is what the so called "Black leadership" should have been like the minute they caught wind of that second class citizenship.

The New Blasphemy

 In times past when certain superstitions ruled, speech that offended the ruling class and was contrary to the religious mores of the day was punished. Supposedly in The West, such a thing was tossed onto the scrapheap of history and people were free to speak as they felt (with very, very few exceptions) so long as no one was physically harmed.

Alas, now under the new Left Crow, we have the reappearance of blasphemy and the use of the state apparatus to enforce it (again).

Jail.

Now there are those out there who are going to say that he has been jailed for "trespassing" as he was ordered to not to be present at the school. You know and I know that such a technicality is merely the pretext. The source of the jail time is The Blasphemy.

"A teacher who refused to use gender-neutral pronouns for a transgender student has been sent to Mountjoy prison for contempt of court.

Enoch Burke was arrested yesterday morning for breaching a court order not to teach at his Westmeath school, or be physically present there.

After Judge Michael Quinn made his ruling, Mr Burke said: 'It is insanity that I will be led from this courtroom to a place of incarceration, but I will not give up my Christian beliefs.'"

I will say again that such positions ought not have to be raised in a Christian or any other religious light. Refusing to state a non-fact is fundamental to a free society and a free human.  If by speaking a truth I am to be barred from my job then I do not live in a free society.

Period.

"The dispute began over his refusal to address a transitioning student as 'they' rather than 'he', as requested by the student and their parents in May, and agreed to by the Church of Ireland school. "

Agreed to by who?

Ahh, this would be a great time to reference yesterday's post. Why is a "church' agreeing to this nonsense?

"This escalated to his suspension on the day before the start of the autumn term, pending the outcome of a disciplinary process. "

Ahh the "disciplinary process". I am familiar with this term as it was repeatedly used against me when I refused to go along with the COVID bullshit at my place of employment for 20 years.  Children are "disciplined". Criminals are disciplined. This kind of language is the language of dominance.Burke did nothing wrong.  I did nothing wrong. Those in the wrong are those who imposed upon Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke understands this:

"My religious beliefs are not misconduct. They are not gross misconduct. They never will be. They are dear to me. I will never deny them and never betray them, and I will never bow to an order that would require me to do so. It is just not possible for me to do that.'"

You would think a "church" would have had Mr. Burke's back. But as I pointed out yesterday the church is not what it seems to be.

While there was a teacher in the US who won her court case against a school that tried something similar (currently in the US you cannot be jailed for such speech but rest assured that they are, as we live and breath, looking for a way to get around that), The fact that she had to go to court in the first place, with the attendant expenses is a sign of how bad the situation is becoming.

Do not forget that a large percentage of Democrats believe in jailing people for COVID misinformation. Don't think for a minute that they would not put you in jail for the Left Crown Blasphemy laws they are laying out across the country.

Breaking The 2022 "Red Wave"?

For those paying attention, ever since the Dobbs decision dropped, the predicted Red Wave has faltered. The extent of which is still unknown but be sure that this decision is a big part of it. We have seen a large surge in women registrations as well as places that are considered "conservative" vote for some form of "abortion rights".

As has been pointed out by not a few online commentators there are a rather large percentage of "Christian" women who have abortions and the fact of the matter is that they will vote for their own interests and what they believe to be the interests of their daughters (that their sons will have their offspring killed before they even know about it,  is not important. I've had these discussions).

This brings me to a report I read that underscores why Dobbs, rather than rallying so called conservatives (who have conserved nothing), may turn out to be their undoing, if not blunt their results in 2022.

The Christian Post has reported the following:

" one-third or more of senior pastors surveyed also believe the Holy Spirit is not a person but rather “a symbol of God’s power." Others said that moral truth is subjective; sexual relations between two unmarried people who love each other is “morally acceptable" and biblical teaching on abortion is “ambiguous.”"

I suppose the whole  Jeremiah 1:5 and that commandment about killing is 'ambiguous". I'm not a Christian and even I know better than that. And mind you these are *leaders*

"After data reported earlier this year found just 37% of Christian pastors have a biblical worldview, the latest CRC report analyzed that research across all major U.S. denominations, and found that a “loss of biblical belief is prevalent among pastors in all denominational groupings.”"

 

I don't quite understand how only 37% of pastors have a biblical world view. 

 "The current report focuses on roughly half of those beliefs, revealing that a shockingly large percentage reject biblical teaching on some of the most basic Christian beliefs."

Not surprised in the least bit.

"Roughly the same percentage (38%) didn't answer in the affirmative when asked if "human life is sacred,""
 

And this is the point of this post. These represent leadership. I do know that membership can hold views that differ from leadership. However; in my experience those with fundamentally different views tend to leave with most going to a church (usually in the same denom) that shares their views. 

Dobbs may have played well to the extremes of both sides. Thing is that most people fall in the middle and they *will* compromise and these kinds of personal "health" decisions will weigh heavily in the voting booth. How much I cannot say for certain but do not be surprised if in November that the Red Wave isn't as large as predicted (absent some other event of course).

Sotomayor For Bodily Autonomy?

 When the Dobbs decision came down, Sonia Sotomayor was among the dissenters. She co-signed a dissent that said in part :

"“Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions,”

First, let me say that I have been saying for some time now, that this whole argument about abortion being based on 'autonomy" that is the sole realm of women should be challenged. Either ALL of us, male and female have bodily autonomy or none of us have bodily autonomy.

Second, please note that they discuss autonomy and substantial choice in "most personal and consequential of all life decisions."

 It would follow that not only do women have the this so called "equal right" but so do men. Not only that, but that people have the right to choose and make decisions that are "personal" and highly "consequential".

I would agree with that statement 100%.

“Today, the Court discards that balance,” the dissent continued. “It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.”

So the dissenting justices, including Sotomayor OBJECT to the idea that THE STATE can force a woman to do something to her body that she doesn't consent to 'at the steepest personal and familial costs".

Sounds to me like Sotomayor agrees that the state has no business coercing citizens to do things and threatening "steep personal and familial" costs.

 I would agree 100%.

 "A State can of course impose criminal penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences. But some States will not stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today’s decision, a state law will criminalize the woman’s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion. And as Texas has recently shown, a State can turn neighbor against neighbor, enlisting fellow citizens in the effort to root out anyone who tries to get an abortion, or to assist another in doing so."

 Again, these justices are against the state penalizing citizens who make medical decisions the state doesn't agree with. 

I agree 100%.

Therefore you would think that when Sotomayor is presented with a case in which the bodily autonomy argument could easily be supported and she could prevent the state from forcing people to make medical decisions under threat of "steep personal and familial cost" she would would take it.

Alas, no.

"Sotomayor denied the emergency application for a writ of injunction, filed on Friday, meaning the court will not reevaluate the city’s worker vaccine rule."

Oh.

So all that about the dangers of the state forcing citizens into medical situations they don't consent to and the whole "autonomy" thing was just....what?

This is why, as of now, I don't want to hear anything about pro-choice. You cannot be pro-vax mandate and then talk about bodily autonomy and how the state needs to have their "hands off your body". If the state can force me to take a shot (that doesn't even prevent the disease it's supposed to prevent), then it can decide whether you can't have an abortion.