by Anonymous

As someone who has followed the Sandy Hook story and the subsequent push for increased gun control quite closely, imagine my surprise to learn from a June 2013 article published in the literary magazine Harper’s that the hue and cry around having the public’s access to weapons reined in may indeed be an ongoing dog-and-pony show intended for perception management only. The article, written by Dan Baum, titled “How to Make Your Own AR-15: The gun Congress can’t ban,” revealed a regulatory loophole that has made what they want us to believe is a “powerful assault weapon” as easily obtainable as home-baked bread.

We know that as a result of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, several states (including New York and Connecticut) have instituted greater limits on assault weapons, magazine capacity, and licensing/regulation procedures for gun buyers. In spite of individual states tightening up, however, measures discussed by the Senate in April 2013 did not pass. The AWB, a 10-year federal assault weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton in 1994 expired in 2004, and we’re all expecting to see another such ban emerge any day now, particularly in the wake of the mass shootings that continue to occur (somewhat unbelievably) every few weeks.

Quoting the June 2013 article in Harper’s by Dan Baum:

But a federal ban won’t work. Modern firearms like the AR-15 rifle–the type of gun used at Aurora and Sandy Hook–aren’t really stand-alone weapons at all.  They are a collection of integrated components, which makes controlling their proliferation almost impossible. Even if federal gun-control advocates got everything they wanted (already an unlikely scenario), they couldn’t prevent America’s most popular rifle from being made, sold, and used. Understanding why this is true requires an examination of how the firearm is made.

The AR-15 is semiautomatic, meaning that, unlike a machine gun, it fires only one round with every pull of the trigger. (AR is short for ArmaLite, the company that first developed the weapon, not, as many assume, “automatic rifle” or “assault rifle”; the AR-15 is not a true assault rifle because it cannot fire continuously.) Part of the reason the gun is so popular is that it is modular; using only the tip of one of its bullets, you can snap it apart into a dozen pieces, including barrel, stock, bolt, and buttstock. AR-15 owners affectionately call it “Lego for grown-ups.” Shooters endlessly transform their rifles by swapping out components–a new chrome-lined barrel, a more ergonomic tactical grip, a carbon-fiber forward hand guard, laser sights–even to the extent of changing the gun’s caliber.

The only one of the AR-15’s many parts that carries a serial number is the lower receiver, a flat, hollow box a little smaller than a VHS tape. The trigger mechanism fits inside, and everything else attaches to the outside. No ammunition passes through it. Because the lower receiver alone is stamped with a serial number, it is the only part that is considered a firearm under the law and the only part of the weapon whose purchase is subject to background checks and other gun regulations. Everything else that makes the AR-15 a gun–the barrel, grip, stock, magazine, trigger, bolt assembly, and more–can be bought and shipped through the mail without any need for paperwork or government approval. Once a shooter has a single lower receiver, he can build himself an almost infinite variety of guns without anyone knowing what he’s got. […]

The market for the AR-15 is enormously lucrative. There’s always some new accessory to buy, and a gigantic components industry exists to feed the desire. (Another nickname for the rifle is “Barbie for men.”) The AR-15 is popular for the same reason the latest iPhone is popular: it’s the most advanced technology in its field. At a firearms-industry trade show in Las Vegas in January, which filled more exhibition halls than I was able to visit in two days, about two thirds of the booths sold parts and accessories for the AR-15. Visit a rifle range, and it’s pretty much the only gun you’ll see people shoot. Although it’s often portrayed as something that only a mass killer could possibly want, it is practically the whole gun business–a favorite among hunters, sport shooters, and for home defense. One in five guns sold in America last year (and more than half of all rifles) was an AR-15. To the common post-Sandy-Hook question “Who needs a gun like that?” millions of AR-15 owners reply, “Everybody.”

A bit like software for your computer, the AR-15 is modular.  And because it’s modular, it eludes “the radar.” If you make a gun yourself, there is no requirement to bother with licensing, per the federal Gun Control Act if 1968, created at a time when to do so required expensive tools and specific skills (like forging steel).  More from Harper’s:

In November 2012, Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas at Austin, produced a prototype AR-15 receiver, made of plastic, using a 3-D printer. He can legally build himself as many of those as he likes.

In December, Wilson dressed out one of his freshly made plastic receivers with the rest of the AR-15’s components and fired it. The media went wild, breathlessly predicting a day when teenagers hiding in their bedrooms could print out plastic assault rifles. They didn’t quite get it right; the parts of the AR-15 that come in contact with the cartridge–the bolt and barrel–need to be made of metal because of the high pressure generated by ammunition as it fires. Wilson’s receiver fired six shots but cracked–not from the blast pressure, but at the point where the stock attaches. After some modifications to the plastic formula, he achieved a model capable of firing at least 1,000 rounds. Wilson is distributing the design for free on the Web. Anybody with access to a 3-D printer–regardless of age, mental health, or criminal history–can make himself the very piece of an AR-15 that the government nominally controls.

The FireArms Freedom Act, initially passed by the Montana State Legislature in 2009, has been copied by some 32 other states. It’s a “what’s made in our state and stays in our state is exempt from federal regulation” declaration, as the Constitution only gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. And somebody had another idea: the 80% receiver. Continuing from Harper’s:

A home hobbyist who wants to manufacture his own AR-15 doesn’t need an $80,000 CNC [computer numeric control] machine. He doesn’t even need a 3-D printer. Instead, he can visit the website of Richard Celata, who single-handedly runs a company called KT Ordnance out of his home in, yes, Montana.

Celata specializes in something called the “80-percent receiver”–that is, an AR-15 receiver that is 80 percent finished. Several other companies produce them as well. Celata … leaves just enough holes undrilled and sections uncut to keep his receivers from being considered firearms. He doesn’t need a license to make them, buyers don’t need to go through a background check to buy them, and they can be sent through the mail as freely as books. A buyer with a drill press and a hacksaw can finish the job in a couple of hours, and, once he’s assembled the rest of a gun’s components, will legally possess an untraceable semi-automatic rifle. Because an 80-percent receiver is not technically a firearm, no ban can touch it, and once the hobbyist finishes it and builds it into a working gun, he’s protected by the homemade-gun exemption as long as he doesn’t sell it or give it away. On his website, Celata was offering 80 percenters for $250.

How hard it is to finish off such a thingamabob and become a real-live Annie Oakley? Writes Dan Baum in Harper’s:

[Celata] placed an 80-percent receiver in my hands. It took me a moment to discern the ways in which it differed from a completed one. The big difference, I could see, was that it had no hollow in which to fit the trigger mechanism. It came with instructions detailing exactly where and how big a cut should be made there, and where to drill about half a dozen bolt holes. “I’ve sold more than 10,000 of these,” he said. None of them had been reported to the federal government as gun sales, nor did anybody know anything about the people who bought them – although I should note that I’ve never come across a report of a killing in which a homemade AR-15 was mentioned. The federal assault-weapons ban was in effect for six of the years Celata has been making 80-percent receivers. But he might as well have been selling frying pans or shovels for all his business was affected.

“Do you have a drill press?” he asked. I shook my head. “Then you can use mine!” He stood at my shoulder, helping me interpret the instructions and giving me pointers, assiduously complying with the law by making me finish the receiver with my own hands. I drilled half a dozen holes of various sizes, carved out the oval slot through which the trigger would protrude, and used a band saw to remove a section about an inch square to make room for the trigger mechanism. The whole process took about half an hour.

“It’s an American tradition to make your own guns,” Celata said, clapping me on the shoulder. “We’ve always been innovators. Guns are part of America. You can’t get rid of them.”

While it’s true that the AR-15 was the reported weapon of choice at Sandy Hook and Aurora (and if you have been reading this blog, you know that both these stories are very fishy), it is apparently used in only 3 percent of all murders, compared to handguns, which take the cake at 50 percent. The author of the Harper’s article aptly points out that “When it comes to crime, the AR-15’s significance is mainly symbolic.”

We could [ban] the 80-percent receiver–because it’s officially not a gun, it enjoys no Second Amendment protection–but that raises the question: At what percentage completion is an inert piece of metal a potential firearm, and who gets to decide? We could decide that it’s a crime to make one’s own gun or to download digital designs for a receiver or high-capacity magazine, or we could simply outlaw the possession of the AR-15 no matter how one obtains the parts. But any of these measures would face constitutional challenges. More to the point, neither party’s leadership seems tempted to press the issue.

So this is why I call the whole thing a dog and pony show. Realizing that even I (a small woman), if helped by a patient masculine type and not too freaked out by a noisy machine, could legally finish off a thingamabob to make it the main component of a powerful firearm and then simply add all the necessary bits and pieces to complete it–avoiding all the nosy government paperwork–wow! Then what is all the fuss about? Obviously, the dog and pony show (i.e., gun hubbub) is entirely political, intrusive, and ultimately silly if you know anything about what I have just outlined above. It must be just a way to influence public thinking: sheeple people who think you have to get everything at a store.

With the huge hype over Sandy Hook and the soulless eyes of a photoshopped Adam Lanza staring at us from the television screen, guns were finally stamped with permanent Boogieman status in mass-market America. As the parents cried crocodile tears and reiterated cheesy memories of what now seem to be not-at-all-departed children, were they aware that all over America home hobbyists might be passing the word about how to painlessly skip all the B.S.? And what other inflamed issue does it sound like? “At what percentage completion is an inert piece of metal a potential firearm …” You have only one guess and the answer is … (abortion). And yes, who gets to decide?

Leave a Reply

74 thought on “The AR-15 Dog and Pony Show”
  1. “all over America home hobbyists might be passing the word about how to painlessly skip all the B.S.?”

    I have read about this, for both AR-15s and AK-47s and I am sure a very small number of people do something like this. Having actually done professional gunsmithing (many, many years ago) I know that it is not nearly as easy as it sounds to produce something that will be reliable for more than a couple magazines of ammo.

    In any case, the vast majority of people owning an AR-15 want the lower receiver to be stamped with something like “Colt,” “Bushmaster,” or “Stag Arms” to name a few. And the AK guys have their preferences too.

    A lot of people do put together an AR-15 from parts. But to finish that kit they must buy a lower receiver that has a serial number and buying that from a dealer it must go through the FBI NICS check like any other gun. Again, some people may make their own, but as a person deeply ingrained in the gun culture for longer than a lot of people have been alive, I don’t think their number is very large.



    1. Ah, but do you think it will catch on, eventually?

      The amazing thing about 3d printing is that it is hard to imagine that toothpaste being returned to the tube. I think of it like the movie business when Betamax came out. Only the rich and connected even knew about that kind of thing, much less could afford it. Now, every bum in every slum records cable TV routinely, and the movie industry has had to adapt.

      This article skims over the 3d printing element, but for just a moment consider how many of us had conventional-printing printers in our homes in the 1980s? Now, they basically give them away because the money is in the ink. Printing a gun will be as easy in the near future, for practically everyone, as printing this article is for us this day.

      But what the post focuses on is the fact that the “gun” is the part with the serial number on it, which is essentially a nondescript metal sleeve. Who knew? Well, who knew, in 1975, what a microwave oven was?

      The article quoted tells us that the 80% version can be easily completed in no time at all. It says that the law says that you have to do the rest of the work yourself. I wonder how many people will be willing to hire out that service, for small fee, if discretion is guaranteed, come the day that gun control really takes hold? I’m guessing it will look like bootlegging during prohibition.

  2. In my opinion the entire Sandy Hook incident was intended to create a “Port Arthur”, “Dunblane” event which would garner enough public sentiment to politically initiate maximum intrusive gun control laws. This is evident by the New York legislators immediately proposing gun confiscation and Connecticut passing laws that render almost every gun owner in the state as a felon if they do not complete the paperwork.

    All of the reports on the day of the Sandy Hook attack were that only hand guns were found in the school and no reports whatsoever about an AR-15 being used. The NBC Chief Justice correspondent, Pete Williams, reported that multiple Federal and State officials stated that 4 handguns and only handguns were found in the school. The next day however the report changed to the AR-15 being the weapon used. We are also expected to believe that the frail Lanza carried in 300 rounds in 10 thirty round magazines as well as a Glock 10mm and a Sig. 9mm.

    Nancy apparently bought the AR-15 at a store 70 miles away from her house.

    Lanza evidence culpability ? no video, no motive, no pictures, no documentation, no witnesses. He never went to Dick;s to buy a gun that is completely false. As a matter of fact we have no evidence that he ever fired a gun in his life. Did you notice Adam’s college ID picture with his collar turned halfway up and twisted ? He could not even put his jacket on straight and we are to believe that he performed this act with the precision of a SEAL team ? Anyone out there have any evidence on Lanza ?

    Evidence of other assailants? Newtown Bee reported Armed off duty tactical weapons officer from another town was in the woods and his name and explanations for being there is being concealed. Lanza’s neighbor was caught by police running away from the school and his explanation is not corroborated. Multiple reports that the shooter was the son of a kindergarten teacher a detailed report that Sally Cox identified him and knew his mother. Sally Cox’s 911 call is being concealed. Multiple personnel fleeing the police on helicopter video footage with no explanation ? Reports of assailants disguised as clergy with corroborating evidence by the side of the vehicle and police radio transmission. SWAT deployed to a residence on Philo Curtis Rd (the home of an assailant apprehended and taken to the police station at 11:40 am) Why was Roig’s class room spared despite being the first one in the hall and unlocked ? Why would Nancy buy an AR-15 at a store 70 miles away ? What woman anywhere in the country owns a Saiga 12 gage shotgun? Even if Nancy lanza owned an AR-15 would she own 10 thirty round magazines ? How can any intelligent person believe the official story. My world is one of facts and evidence. I am not saying Lanza did not do anything I am saying there is virtually no evidence that he did anything. The evidence points to multiple assailants and the full scope and summary of the extant evidence will remove all doubt as to who is responsible.

    Yes the AR-15 was the target here. Despite that FBI statistics showing that all rifles of any magazine capacity including AR-15s, AK-47s and anything else you can imagine comprised only 3 percent of all gun homicides. All the legislation and political talk is focused on banning the AR-15. Even Biden, as dumb as he is, at least admitted privately that such laws will do nothing.

    1. Why don’t we ask him? Adam is alive and well and living as Ryan Lanza. They (his parents, Peter and Nancy) only had one child who changed his name after their divorce. Unfortunately, he’s not talking which can only lead to the conclusion that he was either in on it, or he is scared out of his mind to talk.

  3. Apparent picture of armed off duty SWAT officer caught in the woods at Sandy Hook. Who would be more likely to have killed 26 and wounded 2 a professional tactical weapons officer or a 20 year old kid with Aspergers who could not tolerate the sound of the weed whacker noise from the lawn maintenance crew. The Newtown Bee and the Newtown Police refused to provide any detail on who this man is and we have yet to receive an adequate explanation as to what he was doing there.

  4. The war on women campaign sickens me. How could our young, intelligent populace possibly fall for this propaganda? How can our tax dollars be used to exterminate our babies and there is no outrage by the citizens? Yes I weep for the unborn babies and also for the would be mothers who are clueless on how painful and regrettable their irreversible decision will be.

      1. Kathy, as I’m sure you know (why else would you post this here), there is a seamless connection between this psychological house of horrors and the nest of lies that Dr. Tracy chronicles here each day. The press, and the schools, systematically reinforce the notion that for a woman to murder her child is an ennobling act, a positive virtue. Then when, on occasion, the hellish reality is simply too glaring to escape reporting, they come as close to lying about it as they can, to maintain the evil paradigm. The girls must be encouraged to keep on believing that executing their young makes them more liberated.

        The conspiracy is vast, and overarching. The visible government lies about everything. The press and the academy conspire to hide the hidden hand of the secret government in the various promotions launched to mould the society into the 1984-world they have planned for us. What they’ve done is to make pretty much all of us participate. When our children are made to grow up believing that a child they produce is no different than a pet hamster, and killing it has the same moral moment, they may not understand it but what they are doing, when they’re fiddling around with human conception and ending it in money-bought blood is, in the end, child sacrifice. One need not know one is involved in a spiritual activity for that to be the case. By corrupting us all, by making us all complicit, while collectively chanting that it is not evil–it’s a positive good–the dark forces of the secret government somehow immunize themselves from criticism. If we all act the same way as they do on a small scale, how can we object when they do it on a culture-wide scale? We become the same as them. Jamie Dimon? Who are YOU to throw stones, when condemning him? The only difference is the scale of the crimes.

        The difference is we all are born knowing what shame is. Much of the game here is the systematic program to eliminate that inborn trait. Whatever our civilization will eventually be called (the West has ceased to exist already–which is what my book is about), it is characterized by shamelessness. That actor-buffoon pretending to be a medical examiner after Sandy Hook. All the fake parents. All the fake “injured” at Boston. Many of the comments here, at root, are asking the question “where is the shame?; Can anyone be this inhuman?” Well, these girls tell that tale in chilling exactitude. But the difference with them is, these girls almost certainly don’t know they are monsters; they were brought up with no moral compass–indeed, the one they were furnished with at birth was systematically suppressed by the post-Western civilization they grew up inside of. But one can only assume that the planners and actors foisting upon us the horrors of the last couple of years know that they have sold their souls. Which is sadder, I can’t say.

        Over the long months I have been writing to those who read my comments on this blog, I have always said that the plot to destroy our way of life has a very long history. Perhaps the first strong mention I made of it, though, started the chronology with the murder of John Kennedy. I think James made that one into a post of its own. In it, I traced the history back some, but my point is that the lies and open murders can be seen to begin at that moment. Well, I’ll stick with that. But I tremble when I see how much is being piled onto us now, this moment in time. They don’t allow us to wait decades, or even years, anymore, to digest the trauma they inflict on us. It’s down, now, to months in-between.

        1. “And what other inflamed issue does it sound like? “At what percentage completion is an inert piece of metal a potential firearm …” You have only one guess and the answer is … (abortion). And yes, who gets to decide?” The author bravely brought the subject up, it is very polarizing and not many can have a civil discussion about the eugenics murdering us today. Would agree there are soulless humanlike replicas among us, have always felt a six sense when their presence is known to me even at a distance. Have befriended too many women who underwent their abortions with little knowledge of how terrible it would be or the sadness they would suffer. One was totally in denial that she was pregnant and went on to give birth to the surviving twin. Lost track of her, but imagine the entire family is devastated at the thought of what could have been. She was a twin herself and it seems that bond is stronger than all others. The evil doers succeed in their goals of demoralizing and destroying any good that they can. Cannot let the sadness overwhelm my spirit, and pray every day for the wavering souls and those with the strength to lift us all up to seeing the evil in the world!

  5. I personally believe that abortion should be mandatory for some persons, but I might be willing to compromise my beliefs if they are willing to compromise theirs. The question is: at what point in the development of a fetus is it a ‘person,’ and who should decide it. A Big Question, and therefore outside the American truth consensus in the media and other truth organs.

    The difficulty of deciding these questions, or even discussing them, is due to the repressive strictures of primitive religion, and the current defensive racism of the White Western tradition. Capitalism developed first among White people and consequently their societies are more developed than most in the world, which are non-White.

    The women of these developed societies have decided to have less children, and consequently the White population is not reproducing itself, and the White population is declining. This has produced the material basis for the moral beliefs of the more religious, who generally are against rational truth, or even its discussion.

    If the USA had a civilized medical system like most other developed countries, its pregnant women could get better pre and post-natal care for their children. However this would include care for non-White women as well, the “bums in the slums” as Patrick refers to non-affluent people.

    However, there is a real philosophical, moral, and ideological question here which in a civilized world would be discussed openly in the media. Since we live in a degenerating society whose power system is becoming increasingly repressive, however, all vital questions in which people are crucially involved is relegated to the margins, and the very ideological and conceptual language is formulated to evade discussing them in a reasonable way.

    1. Could the rise of our “degenerating society” as you say, coincide with the decline of our “primitive religion”? And when exactly do you expect anything to be “discussed openly in the media” that is owned by the power elite? You Mark, are without a doubt retired KGB. I haven’t heard anything like you since my socialist indoctrination in the State University of NY.

  6. I’m not sure what to say here, as this is SUCH a hot button issue, but I find I am not in tune with Kathy’s and Patrick’s comments re: abortion.

    I myself am pro-choice. Why? Not because I like abortion. But I think it should be decided by the woman, her doctor, her family if appropriate. I don’t like to see women who make this choice demonized.

    I certainly do not like the tactics of the pro-life movement. I have really cringed at some of the comments some pro-life politicians have made. I cringe at the harassing of abortion providers and clinics. And I shake my head at the murders of abortion providers. And I don’t recall the pro-life movement condemning Dr. Kervorkian and euthanasia.

    There are other health issues that are also of import! I would like to submit for your consideration: C-Span Book TV had on Kelly Happe, author of “The Material Gene”. She was on with the Southern Festival of Books I think the video is still on their site). She makes points about eugenics and that recent research that tends to focus on individual “adaptation” rather than look at environmental factors. I have not read the book, but her presentation was quite interesting.

    1. Hear, hear Mollie! I wholly agree with you. The whole ‘war on women’ trope is another polarizing wedge issue intended to stoke the flames of divisiveness. Even knowing that, I take it very personally, being a woman. Contraception is not the same thing as abortion (although many believe it is) and individuals have every right to decide whether or not to procreate.

      Not every woman was meant to be a mother, and more people are making the choice to be child free, for a variety of reasons. However, that seems to gall many people. What goes on within a woman’s reproductive system is her business, her partner’s and her doctor’s. It’s nobody else’s concern. I vehemently disagree with the overt natalism of the far right. Frankly, I think we should tend to the already living who are suffering. And further, the elite’s morals (or overt lack thereof) worry me more than the average person just trying to get by.

    2. Kathy and I are not “demonizing” the women who hire contract killers to murder their children, Mollie. We acknowledge that they have been deceived by rhetoric such as yours, and they believe a lie. Our heart breaks for them. It is the saddest thing in the world. We know that if they can recover their conscience later in life, and scrape away the callous that grew around their heart, enabling them to see that they were lied to, they will be heartbroken and forever regretful. Those who never do reattain a conscience are an even sadder case. Only a diabolical culture calls such a gross evil “good.” Can a culture that has abandoned it reacquire the “primitive religion” that once made it great?

      “And I don’t recall the pro-life movement condemning Dr. Kervorkian and euthanasia.”

      What a poor ability to recollect. Google it. Or, better still, read Francis Schaeffer.

      Incidentally, and this is for Mark, ever the one to sniff racism that isn’t there, but who somehow can’t detect it when it is decimating the black community. The founder of Planned Parenthood, the go-to outfit for liquidating your unborn child, was a eugenicist who hated black people. Abortion, for her, was primarily a means to stop blacks from reproducing. Margaret Sanger’s vision has blossomed beyond her wildest dreams: the victims of the vast majority of abortions in this country are black children. But if Mark were to face that, well, he’d have to ask why he himself hates black people so, and finds such a commonality with Hitler, who admired Sanger’s ideas so much he built his regime around them.

      1. Thanks, Eirebridge — and here’s a note to Patrick and Kathy:

        Again, communication tends to be unclear, so I will try to be as clear as I can. I wasn’t accusing either of you of demonizing these women, but it’s a tactic that has been used; I think you know that.

        By referring to abortion providers as contract killers, Patrick, you use such a loaded term. I feel that many of these providers do so in a real desire to help. Ok, you and Kathy may feel it’s NOT helping; that’s your right. but let’s try to not use such loaded rhetoric. I’ll try as well and be thankful that I can edit and think out before I post.

        Poor memory on Pro-Life against Kervorkian? Well, if they were, It went right by me. And I haven’t heard of Frances Shaeffer…. might be interesting to just find out…

        I respect that you feel for those women. Do be aware, however, that a lot of rhetoric from the Pro-Life side has been anti-woman. I don’t think you subscribe to that, but I would hope it would at least raise your eyebrows.

        I’m sorry you think MY rhetoric is in any way deceitful or hurtful; but I still feel as though this is a decision that should not be imposed/unimposed by someone else. It has to be or should be an agonizing decision, and I can’t help but think the flaming rhetoric (on both sides) doesn’t do anyone any good.

        I think one thing Mark said was on point: women need access to good pre/post natal care. I might also add: good sex education – and believe it or not, access to contraception. It just doesn’t make sense to me to hear an uproar against abortion, and then hear calls for “abstinence only” sex ed; and oh my, there’s such a brouhaha if there’s any call to broaden access to contraception!

        BTW, in case either of you are curious if I know anyone who has had an abortion, yes, I know of one lady. There may have been others (acquaintances probably – who just never told…). The lady was my Aunt. She never spoke of it; I never knew until after she passed away. I don’t know any details or circumstances (this was probably in the 1920’s – before my time!).

        And before I hit post – I do thank you for keeping this a civil discussion. I know this is such a touchy, sometimes inflammatory issue, that I was unsure what to expect. Maybe I can end my post on this note: I have been involved in the AAUW – American Association of University Women. The organization has historically been Pro-Choice. Some years ago, I attended a state AAUW conference and the subject of controversial issues came up and of course, abortion was mentioned. The conference leader said in effect this (as I remember): “On the abortion issue, individually we may have to ‘agree to disagree’. We need to recognize that on either side, the stand comes from values. The values might differ, but it would be worse to deal with someone who had no values.” Certainly something to think on.

  7. Wonder how many proabortion folks are aware of how painful it is or of the gruesome details that were reviealed in the Gosnell trial. How can it be legal to kill a baby in the womb and illegal to slit its throat if the poison did not work and it is born alive? The women and the babies are the victims of unthinkable torture. Sterilization is certainly a more humane option for women who choose not to have children.

      1. And their voices were silenced when the agencies in charge failed to take any action on their numerous reports of the horrendous treatment received. Those in charge of monitoring ‘health care’ and failing to do so, are just as guilty of crimes against humanity as Gosnell. It was only his greed and selling of illegal prescription drugs that brought the police to his dungeon. The blood and human excrement soaked butcher shop was treated like a hazardous waste dump!

  8. Most of what I believe to be true in my middle age, is the total opposite of my youth and the reason I seek the truth in sites such as The Memoryhole. Check out the confessions of ex-abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson on how they made up numbers to convince the media, public and the Supreme Court that the majority of the Americans were anti-life, which they are not. Watch the youtube video The Silent Scream, if you dare. There is no doubt in my mind, if we manage to survive, these exterminations of millions of citizens will be viewed with the same distain as the Holocaust victims.

  9. “On the abortion issue, individually we may have to ‘agree to disagree’.”

    This is probably an important point. But to ‘agree to disagree’ here also points to the idea that we need some compromise that perhaps all can live with, at least to some degree.

    Personally I can never agree with those who advocate late term abortions. But I wouldn’t oppose abortion very early in pregnancy. Perhaps we need to come up with a compromise that protects a woman’s right to abortion very early on, but requires a decision before mid to late term where the right of the evolving life is protected.

    Whatever is chosen will ultimately be somewhat arbitrary. But it is probably possible to come up with a compromise.

    From my moral compass abortion always has some negative consequences but the degree of those consequences go up by orders of magnitude as the pregnancy proceeds.

    For those early abortions I am willing to let higher powers judge the individual. For later, and especially late term, I think we have a moral obligation to protect life.



    1. “But it is probably possible to come up with a compromise.”

      This is like a group of people quarreling over what part of the lamb they are going to eat for dinner. One chap insists on chops, another leg of lamb, another thinks the poor fellow should be made into stew. Whatever compromise that hungry bunch comes up with, that lamb won’t make it through the night. Some compromise.

      1. “Whatever compromise that hungry bunch comes up with, that lamb won’t make it through the night.”

        If you came to the conclusion that an absolute ban on all abortions from very early 1st trimester to late term partial abortions in the last trimester are politically impossible, would you support some compromise that banned at least some of the worst ones (assuming you believe that some are worse than others?)?



        1. If you have been reading me here for any length of time, you know the answer to your question already.

          I wrote a book called How the West Was Lost. I believe that we who live in what used to be the West are now residents of a new, as yet unnamed civilization. In many ways, it’s a simulacrum of the civilization the West emerged out of: Rome.

          In Rome, anyone who did not want their newborn child simply left it out in the open field to die of exposure or be eaten by wild animals. Christianity changed all that. It was universally understood, when the West was the West, that you don’t murder your children just because they are “unwanted.” This new civilization has no such moral compass. Sex and convenience, and “lifestyle,” trump all in this new Rome.

          I am, in other words, an observer of the unfolding nightmare. Politics can’t trump culture. It reflects the culture. And this one is inhuman, and growing more so. I advise everyone to prepare for the darkness that is descending upon us, and not compromise morally. Just because the culture is made up of cannibals does not mean we should fight to get the tribal elders to restrict the practice. We should hold that nothing less than abolition can be deemed acceptable. Even if there is no chance of it.

          The fools who presume to rule us are only there because the great unwashed put them there. We are on a a runaway train, and we can’t stop it hitting the mountain. Living in denial is the plan most people have. There is a better choice: prepare for the inevitability. But don’t think you can negotiate a softer crash.

          They call me Mr. Cheerful.


      2. I would like to say that abortion is always wrong morally. But I cannot. I cannot allow myself to rest at that level of simplicity. I cannot immediately identify all abortions with the kind of child sacrifice performed by primitive societies to propitiate their savage gods, because in all those cases the children sacrificed were sentient beings.
        No, that is too simple a way to demonize.

        There is such a thing as freedom for women. But we know that females in our society can be raped and made pregnant. Their lives are thrown off course by strangers who mean them harm or by stronger males in the household. This is not so unusual it does not recur a lot. In my career I have seen enough examples to say that it is actually common.
        In fact, throughout history (with or without the savagery of human sacrifice) women have experienced the status of slaves more often than not, even in great societies like that of ancient Greece. Women were traded like cattle. Their gift to the society was their fertility – whether they wanted to reproduce or not. A quite perusal of the average family tree even in America will show marriages which begin between two equals in age and education, but where the first wife is worn out by childbearing and then, after the almost inevitable death, she is replaced by a younger breeder. The Mormons figured out a way to anticipate this problem and to insure steady supply of offspring to manage the hard agricultural work that was the lot of people until recently. They just added wives before the old ones died.

        But how did women cope with this status? I think we know and remember.

        Things may be bad today, but for some they were even worse yesterday. Power is always trying to gain its sway. The stronger are always going to try to control the weaker. It would be nice to insure each embryo a possibility of flourishing, but we have to understand that the circumstances of the conception do matter to the woman and if she knows she is going into motherhood from a weak position as a slave, someone who conceived against her will, I don’t think we have to call her a worshipper of Moloch when she decides to terminate a pregnancy. At least have the decency to see that. And also to see that an embryo conceived a few days before is not a “child” nor will it even resemble one or have the feelings of a child for several months. There is a vast difference in aborting an early pregnancy and “child sacrifice”, and the reasons are very different, not least of all is the privacy of the abortion and the publicity around the primitive rites of sacrifice, as well as the subjective feelings of the victims (both mother and child).

        I am lucky that I never personally required an abortion, but if I had, I am sure it would not have been in the spirit of worshipping a savage god.

        1. “I don’t think we have to call her a worshipper of Moloch when she decides to terminate a pregnancy. At least have the decency to see that.”

          “I am lucky that I never personally required an abortion, but if I had, I am sure it would not have been in the spirit of worshipping a savage god.”

          In my early comments, I made clear that I am not “demonizing” women who abort their children. I said that they have been deceived, and believe a lie. It is not that they knowingly are acting out a spiritual ritual. They have no idea that that’s what they are doing. But in the spirit realm it serves exactly the same function. Satan accepts the sacrifice whether the sacrificer knows what he/she is doing or not.

          They say that “hard cases make bad law.” The world is full of sin, and there are sadnesses everywhere. And it is good to try to shape society to ameliorate them. Obviously. But our culture has given itself over to darkness, and abortion is the most perfect example of it. By treating it as an empowerment of women is to seal the deal. It is the least empowering thing a woman can do. It is an expression of worship, the worship of “lifestyle.” It is an expression of selfish hedonism; in the case of rape, the hedonist is the man, in which event the choice of abortion absolves him of responsibility for the child he sired. When “free love” is the practice that ends in an unwanted pregnancy, the hedonism is shared by the man and the woman.

          The point is, when the West was the West, that is, Christian in its moral underpinnings, hedonism was not a virtue, and abortion a grave sin. Well, having turned away from God, this culture turned to Satan–whether it thinks so or not. And by giving ourselves over to that darkness that looks like light, we engage in worship we do not recognize or understand. But the spiritual reality does not depend on our knowledge of it.

        2. I must tell you, musings, how much I delight in your comments here, and you tend to be very insightful, seeing past the surface, and offering genuine insights. But I’m afraid this time you reacted out of emotion, uncharacteristically.

          ” And also to see that an embryo conceived a few days before is not a “child” nor will it even resemble one or have the feelings of a child for several months.”

          This is the language of utilitarianism. There are human beings who have no feelings at all, so far as we can ascertain. People who are catatonic, and people who are comatose. They are not to be killed just because they are in that condition. And its not simply because they might one day “wake up.” It is because they are human beings.

          To trace back the human person to the first cell with his DNA might seem absurd in this civilization that replaced the West. But back when the West was the West, we called that “playing God.”

          I am genuinely sad for women who have been victimized by the culture we currently occupy. How many young girls go to college and are practically driven into the “hook-up” culture? How many have no idea who is the father of the child they conceive, because they were drugged, or blind drunk just to get themselves through the ordeal? Very, very, sad. But is the solution to murder the child, or to address the nightmare that is unfolding our culture like the black cloud of Mordor. The culture of selfish hedonism that gives boys full rein to treat girls like living centerfolds, and that makes Sex and the City even conceivable, tells us that these are good things, and must be continued, and that children are not children when children result.

          If saying these truths is “demonizing” the victim of cultural lies, then you’re not the thinker I thought you to be, musings. Another bit of sadness to contemplate.

        3. The day when men are shamed for killing people in battle, where they are regarded as having given in to the dark side, instead of being adored as saviors of various countries and causes is the day when abortion may be taken as an unmitigated evil. As a male, you would surely concur that war is the greater scourge and that its attendant evil is rape (both during and to relieve symptoms of PTSD afterward, such as the crime for which a Sgt. Stebbins of Blackhawk Down fame is serving a life sentence – the victim was his daughter by the way). Rape is an instrument of warfare in fact. That it spills over into cities supposedly at peace is something the males have never quite grappled with successfully. Nor have certain countries like Ireland dealt with the need for therapeutic abortions with mother’s life in danger. All in service of what – another savage god to match Moloch? I think unfortunately that is true.

          As for abortion because of the “hooking up” culture – well, attack hooking up first and don’t deny contraceptives either. The fact is that women do not make as many babies as they once did, and they enter into marriage later. They make choices which haunt them but which should not brand them forever.

          I don’t think utilitarianism is sufficient, but it is partly necessary to live in the world. “The greatest happiness for the greatest number” or misery in the vale of tears until the afterlife ends the bondage to flesh? I dunno but the former aspiration seems better than the latter. Plus, the latter has been done to death, throughout most of human history.

        4. I pretty much agree with you here.

          The world is a damn mess. There’s no fixing it. I hold to the highest principles, knowing full well they can’t be attained. I also hold the view that we re in a new civilization, which is to say that I’m without delusion that my point of view will ever again prevail. We’re stuck with the mess we have. I just don’t have to agree with it.

          My advice to everyone is to refuse to capitulate. To observe, and not agree with the reality we must endure. To be like dissidents under the rule of the monsters that ran Russia and its tyrannical empire. It’s not for everyone, even though I advise it for everyone.

      3. Just a quick note. I find that I’m directly inline with Patrick’s views, at least what I have come to read by him and to appreciate over a short time.

        Despite that and what I suspect is being done to all of us by the hidden hand, I still find myself taking a pass on the abortion issue. I guess I’m still fact finding? That’s a cop-out, I know. I’m leaning toward abortion always being very bad.

        However, (big HOWEVER) the whole issue changed for me the instant I read someone describe abortion as a privacy issue. Hmmmm?! So, despite my position that abortion is wrong it’s fundamentally not my business while the child is still a part of the mother?

        Where I stand presently is, I don’t wish to impose my will on a woman with child but I sure as hell don’t have to go along with the cultural indoctrination and taxation to fund the abortion trend.

        1. I appreciate the difficulty, Derrick. I long felt the same tension. Then, it finally struck me that I was an actor in a play that I didn’t write, and was accepting the improvisational boundaries of a script that is absolutely arbitrary.

          I decided that there are other scripts out there, and the one that is the current paradigm we are born into is not one to which I wish to conform. We don’t have to accept the boundaries of “acceptable” discourse, defined by evil assumptions.

          Then, it became easy. I know that this paradigm can’t be broken, and the West restored. I got comfortable with that. I can observe from the outside, and feel sorry for those who haven’t figured it out. And I can write a book describing it, for all who wish to understand what has happened to us. So I did.

          Now, I can fearlessly state what I believe. I’m not intimidated by political correctness, or whatever they are calling liberalism these days. I feel saddened, is all.

  10. On returning to this blog, I am delighted to see that people can argue vehemently about important questions, and am grateful for James providing a venue for doing so. The important question is: “Is a fetus a person?” And who can decide this?

    In general, my own answer is, for what it’s worth: I don’t know. like most people, I would say no when it is a handful of cells, and the woman can decide whether to procreate or not since it is her body.

    But suppose for example that technology develops in the next century or so to allow a fetus to be raised entirely outside a human womb. This is the current tendency, when younger and younger babies are delivered earlier and earlier. I would tentatively maintain that the technology would make a difference, in the same way that killing a born baby is different from killing a fetus.

    But there may be technical questions involved which I may be unfamiliar with. It’s a difficult moral question, which we don’t discuss in the same way we don’t discuss racial questions. But that’s the advantage of these blogs, to allow such discussion. It allows new moral and ideological ideas to be developed.

    As a trivial example, I have been called many, many things in my lifetime, but I have never been called KGB agent before. See, new ideas.

  11. This is indeed fun, and productive, Mark.

    “The important question is: “Is a fetus a person?” And who can decide this?

    In general, my own answer is, for what it’s worth: I don’t know.”

    Based on these remarks, I’m guessing that you would not be surprised if the “handful of cells,” if allowed to continue developing, would end up a turtle? An aardvark? Would you be surprised if a young black girl wasn’t convinced to hire a hit man to take her child’s life, it would come out looking like a Norwegian?

    This reticence to acknowledge that children are children is a symptom of what is so gravely wrong with the culture we unhappily live within. What once was entirely obvious can now be convincingly argued to be impossible to glean. Well, that’s reality. Most people who pose such questions as genuinely imponderable do indeed find it to be so. They’re not lying. They really can’t see the obvious. The “handful of cells,” though, whatever confusion a person has about them, if not snuffed out, will NOT emerge a panda, or a platypus. It is a person, with a unique DNA set–just at a very early stage of development. But DNA is DNA. It can’t lie.

    As I said in my last comment, we can’t make this bizarre confusion go away; the culture can’t be changed as a whole, because we have undergone a civilizational shift, and this new civilization worships the pursuit of selfish hedonism. But we can face reality, and change ourselves, and hopefully persuade others to do the same. And face the future with clear eyes.

    The memoryholeblog is unique in that it has been able to hold to a standard of truth, and not wackoism, in facing the lies that increasingly pervade the public space. So whatever the participants here think about abortion, those who really belong here all share something in common: we know there is a gravely strange new trend going on, and we don’t like it. And we want to get our fellows to see through the toxic cloud of lies. Most of our chums won’t read these things, hard as we try to bring them on board. We just have to get comfortable with that, because it can’t be changed.

  12. Oh, nad there is this:

    ” and the woman can decide whether to procreate or not since it is her body.”


    It is a completely different person’s body that is being liquidated. That unique bit of DNA deserves a vote as to whether it gets to taste single malt scotch in a few short years. Only a heartless fool would deny them that unique pleasure.

    1. Patrick – I’m sorry but I cannot let this last comment go by unanswered. To characterize Pro Choicers as “heartless fools” is just beyond the pale. Please read over again what the conference lead I referenced above said – we must recognize that both sides come out of values and it would be worse dealing with people with no values.

      By labeling those who disagree with you as heartless fools, what are you saying? They have no values? Your values are superior to theirs?

      Let me tell you this. I, for one am not a heartless fool. My value here is individual choice. I wouldn’t want ANYONE else – the state, or some group telling me what the decision had to be in any such circumstance. I don’t know if this is the case with you, but I too often get the feeling that the ProLifers are way too intent on forcing their idea of morality on everyone.

      As for the idea of compromise – lwk – doesn’t it seem clear that Patrick and others have NO wish to compromise?

      BTW – We have a legal decision in Roe v. Wade. I think that that should continue to be the standard and be honored.

      1. “By labeling those who disagree with you as heartless fools, what are you saying? They have no values? Your values are superior to theirs?”


        The idea that we can select a category of human beings and deny them their humanity, and cheerfully argue that they can be murdered just because it seems like the right thing to do at the time is anathema.

        “As for the idea of compromise – lwk – doesn’t it seem clear that Patrick and others have NO wish to compromise?”

        This is correct.

        “BTW – We have a legal decision in Roe v. Wade. I think that that should continue to be the standard and be honored.”

        We had a legal decision in Dred Scott. But you don’t like THAT one. Dred Scott was far more reasonable than Roe, in terms of legal argumentation. Dred held that because of the way blacks came to this country, they could not, by definition, be American citizens. This problem was duly dealt with by means of a Constitutional amendment. (Incidentally, I am always amazed, because of this, when I hear black people calling themselves “African Americans.” If any group has earned the right to be Americans, it is they; to intentionally hold themselves linguistically as not-quite American, as if we all need to follow the asterisk to the footnote, is, let us say, unhealthy. My ancestors had to do nothing heroic to become citizens of this country. It was as easy as falling off a log, for us. Blacks, in a sense, are more American than the rest of us, in this respect. But that’s just my opinion.)

        The idea that any category of human beings can simply be dehumanized and murdered with impunity is simply unacceptable. It is the logic of slavery. Of cannibalism.

        You seem to imply, Mollie, that one moral system is just as good as the next. Well, if so, you cannot object to slavery or cannibalism. Hitler outlawed Jewishness. You can’t object to his attempt to exterminate that race, any more than you can to Stalin’s starving to death tens of millions of Ukrainians, or Mao’s doing the same to his subjects.

        Think about that. if you can make up your own moral code, and expect everyone else to accept it, you have to extend that same privilege to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro. Do you really think that way? By definition, that would make you a heartless fool. I hope you can see the inexorable logic in what I am saying, and repent of it.

        One man’s moral system is NOT just as good as the next man’s. Murder is wrong, no matter how “legal” a government makes it. Morality stands alone, outside the realm of man. Man can’t alter it. God defines it. That’s all.

        1. Patrick –

          First – Are you SURE you want to bring up slavery? For argument could also be made that since slavery was wrong (by your own acknowledgement) “The North” was certainly justified in wanting it changed, even though you said all “The South” wanted was to be “left alone.

          Actually, I don’t expect anyone to “follow” my moral code. My moral code is my own set of values. In such a complex country such as ours, why do you think we have a framework of laws? To help us navigate the thicket of competing interests, ideas, and yes, even moral codes. Do I agree with all of them? Of course not. I certainly wouldn’t agree with Dred Scott – nor Plessy v. Ferguson – nor Citizens United. I don’t agree with the Patriot Act nor the NDAA which allows for indefinite detention. We may agree on some decisions and laws, not others. That’s why democracy is very messy.

          You state that morals come from God’s definitions. Well, there may be others who have a different faith than you – so their morality may differ. Does that make one set superior to another? I don’t know. I can look at what another faith does and “feel myself superior” but am I really? I don’t know if I have an answer for that. I just know I have to a) follow the laws as they are – or work (nonviolently) to change them and b) follow the guidance of my faith and my heart as much as I can.

        2. “Are you SURE you want to bring up slavery?”

          Of course. I do it all the time. As I’ve always said, slavery is bad. But it does not require mass murder to end. All countries (outside the Moslem world, where it is still practiced) ended it peacefully, around the same time the tyrant destroyed the South. Lincoln was a mass murderer.

          “You state that morals come from God’s definitions. Well, there may be others who have a different faith than you – so their morality may differ. Does that make one set superior to another?”

          When Hernando Cortez arrived in Mexico, the Aztecs were sacrificing tens of thousands of people a year. It was their religion. The priest would hack open a living man’s chest with an obsidian blade, pull out the still beating heart, hold it up to the sky as an offering to the god of the land, and then eat it. The arms and legs were food for the people; the trunk was tossed into a pit full of crocodiles.

          Cortez told Montezuma–the high priest/ruler–that this practice must end. Finally, after a long time and endless, fruitless conversations, Montezuma told Cortez: I have my religion and you have yours; live and let live–or words to that effect. Cortez used force to end it, just as your beloved Yankees did to the American South, with slavery.

          Montezuma’s morality was in fact inferior, and Cortez’ superior.

          “I just know I have to a) follow the laws as they are”

          What if the law says that if a slave escapes and finds his way to your barn you must return him to his owner? Would you do that?

  13. HUSH’D be the camps to-day;
    And, soldiers, let us drape our war-worn weapons;
    And each with musing soul retire, to celebrate,
    Our dear commander’s death.

    No more for him life’s stormy conflicts;
    Nor victory, nor defeat–no more time’s dark events,
    Charging like ceaseless clouds across the sky.

  14. The ideological and moral problem, Mollie, is the right’s conception of Freedom. It includes the freedom to oppress the people. Patrick is advocating the freedom to restrict the freedom of women to decide how and will they will procreate, one of the most important decisions of women’s lives, and he does so under his conception of Freedom. pretending to defend women under the guise of attacking them.

    The oppression of women has been an historical function of religion. including the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The major form of oppression of traditional religion is not the power delusions it instills, but the perverted moral values inherited from previous generations. You cannot defend women effectively without attacking the ideological forms of oppression that enslave them. This can be done by defending those aspects of religion that serve the people, but the forms of religion must legitimate the values of people rather than the oppressive values of anti-people power.

    1. Hi there Mark –

      Interesting thoughts. I am a Christian – Episcopalian, actually, and yes, some of the sexist passages in The Bible have gotten me upset. I have somehow kept faith – one thing is that our Episcopal Church which had a reputation as sort of hidebound is now fairly progressive! We have female Bishops and Minsters and generally I’ve found the climate in the parishes I’ve been a member of or visited to be fairly female-friendly.

      You say: This can be done by defending those aspects of religion that serve the people, but the forms of religion must legitimate the values of people rather than the oppressive values of anti-people power.

      I like that! To me, what speaks the most about Christianity is Jesus’ command to love one another. Boy, if we could just do that – no more wars, no more bullying, we might even start to find some way of working together on the really controversial issues.

  15. Regardless of where you stand on some of these issues, and I stand on the side of abhorring many ideas on the Left, you will not get very far if you insist on demonizing those whom you see as the opposition. No matter how evil you may think they are, it is an absolute certainty that they don’t see themselves that way.

    For many of us the most frustrating aspect of dealing with many on the Left is their absolute assumption of moral superiority and knowledge on all things. But we pretty much have to hide just how much we despise their ideas when dealing with them while trying not to despise the mistaken person behind those ideas. 🙂

    If you want to defeat an enemy the first step is _truly_ trying to understand them and how they see the world.


  16. Let’s consider the miscarriage. This happens to women who ardently wish to give birth, those who do not, and those who don’t know they are pregnant, for a variety of reasons. This is a fact of life. Not all pregnancies are carried to term. Seems rather arbitrary. Now, if a woman does not want to be a parent, and decides to end the pregnancy, she has to face moral outrage. A woman who miscarries gets sympathy and flowers…even if she is secretly glad the miscarriage occurs. Not everyone ought to be a parent, especially those who don’t want to be. Why is it that fate or biology or whatever can end a pregnancy and it’s morally neutral, but someone who knows they don’t have what it takes to raise a child properly & ends the pregnancy is morally wrong?

      1. Another way of saying it is this: imagine an old person who dies of a heart attack, and everyone is very sad. And, then imagine the same person, whose children poison him to obtain his estate.

        1. We aren’t talking about “old people” though are we? This is an embryo inside a host that may or may not survive for a variety of reasons, but one of those reasons cannot be the host is not amenable to an 18+ yr commitment to parenting, right? That is not an acceptable end because…??? That is the question I’m asking.

        2. You can ask that question, but it is not necessary that I regard it as coherent.

          I have argued, earlier in this thread, that DNA is the central issue. People are people, no matter how early or late they are on the spectrum of time on this earth. We are terribly dependent, when we are born. We are even more dependent when we have not yet been born. Many of us are just as terribly dependent in the months before we die. All the time, we are people. No matter how old or young. There should never be “open season” on any category of people.

          “An embryo inside a host.” You are a pretty fellow, to think like that. I hope you don’t go on thinking that way. Ugh.

        3. I guess that where I am coming from, human life is just another part of the web on earth, not the pinnacle thereof. We may like to think so, but it just isn’t the case. We can’t live without vegetation, yet the forests are decimated with impunity. The ocean is being poisoned with radiation that will probably cause many excess deaths and stillbirths, ect. So, while you are pointing out the practice of individual women terminating pregnancies, I can’t help but think of the more widespread, insidious population reduction strategies that are ongoing and dwarf the number of abortions carried out.

          What does DNA have to do with anything?

        4. “What does DNA have to do with anything?”

          I was pointing to my earlier comments; every person has a unique genetic code. It proves that “the embryo inside a host” is a human being.

          I really can’t imagine how you can justify one class of murder by pointing to ongoing “more widespread, insidious population reduction strategies.” I’m not tracking with your logic here.

        5. “I really can’t imagine how you can justify one class of murder by pointing to ongoing “more widespread, insidious population reduction strategies.” I’m not tracking with your logic here”

          That’s Ok Patrick. I’ve always thought lack of imagination accounts for much of our societal dysfunction. Try imagining what it’s like to face an unwanted pregnancy.

  17. If Americans could choose to pay taxes a la carte, some behaviors and choices would survive, some would fall by the wayside for lack of funding. This would most likely reflect the true will of the people, and give the people far more power than voting for one of two candidates who most likely chose politics because they are narcissistic psychopaths. Unfortunately we can’t even be trusted to chose what cable TV stations we want to fund, so I have little hope for ever seeing a resolution to Roe. Whether anyone likes it or not, a lot of us believe we will someday be judged by a higher power, and we know we are going to have to answer as to why we exercised our free will to pay the taxes that funded something of which we do not approve.

      1. My sentiments exactly. There is too much focus on certain issues: for the ‘right’ it’s abortion, for the ‘left’ it’s guns. I’m generalizing to an extent, but that’s the gist.

        I try to be a moderate independent because I find that the illusion of two distinct parties pretty much ends on those two aforementioned issues. Both parties often meld fluidly when it comes to enacting more restrictions on citizens (always in the name of national security, of course), as well as an unabated zeal to engage in police actions all around the world (disguised as ‘promoting freedom and democracy’) mainly to enrich Wall Street, banks and the corporate way of life.

        So if our esteemed elite overlords (snort) actually had a moment of temporary insanity and let citizens decide we could choose what taxes we preferred to pay, I would not deign to allow for any foreign excursions nor new toys for DHS, the Pentagon, etc. to play with. That would be my way of trying to fulfill an old saying from the Vietnam era: “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.”

        With very few exceptions, war is one of the most egregious examples of murder.

        1. Yes, indeed! It would be great indeed if we could stop those toys of war proliferating. I love that old saying and here’s another; “War is not healthy for children and other living things.” What’s troubling me now (oh no, not something else to worry about) – is the possibility now that these drones may start proliferating – and who knows what countries may get them or what they will do with them. We’re bad enough with them – the thought of more of them in more hands – I shudder!

          Am with you (as I think most all readers her will also be) are also tired of the elites enriching themselves and the spying/police actions.

          Keep up the independent spirit!

        2. Right on with the Another Mother for Peace motto, Mollie!

          Some of this may be slightly off topic, but growing up, I was always a big fan of Donna Reed. I was born in the mid-1970’s and became a fan of hers from an endless loop of “It’s a Wonderful Life” as a preteen, as well as exposure to her show in reruns. However, it wasn’t until reading a bio around 10 years or so ago that I learned she was a co-chair of AMP at the height of the Vietnam conflict.

          Your mention of AMP’s saying really clicked with me. My current desktop background is a pic of Reed sitting at a desk in the AMP headquarters, flanked by a mural of the sunflower and the childlike crayon scrawl of their famous logo. I’ve always had the pic saved on file, but it has graced my computer screen since the middle of the summer.

          The constant warmongering by our rotten-to-the-core government in the last few months via Syria, Iran, several African countries, etc. (the list of manufactured enemies seems endless sometimes) just makes me more resolutely against war. Our government is always sniffing out possible conflicts all around the globe, but lately it’s been much more overt and in our faces.

  18. JWK, hiding how much we despise oppressive ideas is precisely the reason that oppressive power can impose them. If you are afraid to frankly oppose oppressive ideas, while the Religious Right are frankly in favor of oppressing women, they will obviously win the historical debate. As they are. They are shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics all over the country, since traditional religion not only opposes abortion, but birth control as well.

    The lack of pre-natal care for women, especially non-White women, is a major reason for the high death rate of American children relative to the more civilized European countries. I suggest that we need to say so frankly in order to oppose the oppression of women and children. It is the lack of intellectual courage of the Educated classes that is largely responsible for the lack of leadership of the American population.

    1. “JWK, hiding how much we despise oppressive ideas is precisely the reason that oppressive power can impose them.”

      You may have meant LWK?

      I have a different theory. We too often shout at people instead of doing the hard, and often tedious work of working to erode the foundations of their belief system (which we have to work a bit to actually understand, a prerequisite to eroding them 🙂 ).



  19. All those who judge prolifers without first or second hand knowledge of what the abortion process is, and the lies the women are told, let me give you a clue on how inhumane it is. It is surgery without any annestectics, it is not at like a DC as the doctors will say. Late term abortions call for the stilling of that wiggly, hiccupping, breathing, kicking baby and then the ‘regular’ birth process, only there is no joy at the end of it. Many PP clinics closed after the Gosnell murder trial as they were also inadequete. How many more should be? In the 24 hours of my life birth labor, a calous nurse just told me to suck it up, I got myself in this condition. I awoke in recover to her pounding my gut with all her might. I jumped right up swearing and was ready to return the punches. She ran, the point is some health care professionals are down right mean, maybe just burnt out from all the screaming people in paid do! I am against wars too and feel this practice of exterminating babies is one part of the police state.

    1. Appoligies for the typos, my computer is on its last lags, hopefully have relayed that abortion is extremely painful for both the mother and child. Both on the physical and emotional level, those making money on this industry could care less.

  20. In reply to Patrick –

    You bring up so much — so I will try to manage a quick reply.

    Re: slavery – could it not be said that at least some slaves were in fact murdered? – i.e., worked to death or beaten to death.

    Re: would I return a fugitive slave during the time of the Fugitive Slave Law. First of all, I have to say I admire the courage of those who were courageous enough to help them. Would I be so courageous? Of course I’d like to think so, but unless confronted with a situation for sure, you don’t know. This brings up the whole idea of civil disobedience. For now I’ll just say it takes GUTS to do so!

    Re: the Aztecs and the Conquistadores ——- hard for me to be too sympathetic to either side there… Now let’s just not forget that the Judeo-Christian tradition (to which I adhere) hasn’t always been perfect. There were human sacrifices in Biblical times (I know of Jepthah’s (sp) daughter). We can’t also forget that Christians did the Spanish Inquisition – not a very pretty doing. As one of my former Church buddies once said – ‘We hope Christianity has grown up…’

    Rather than the idea of ‘superiority/inferiority’ you seem to want to posit – I think it would be much more positive for people to have real, respectful dialogue. This won’t happen if one party is acting ‘superior’. I would much rather see folks work together somehow to start improving things for us humans and our planet.

    1. Oh, but Kathy, some of the commenters here see all this as “empowering” women, and who are we to hold that certain things are absolutely good and others absolutely evil?

      I wonder about those people. It breaks my heart, because they are born with a conscience. It took a lot of work for the left to transform our culture, to the point where so many are systematically trained to proudly proclaim that evil is good, and the defense of good “demonizes” said proclaimers.

      You’ve got to be carefully taught things like this, because no one in their right mind would change that way naturally.

      1. Abortion and the desire to control our own fertility has been around since the beginning of time. If you really think that some evil Liberal Conspiracy has happened to trick Women into aborting a fetus they feel either doesn’t have a chance, or does not want to bring one into the disgusting world people have created for Women and Children, or maybe to save her own life, then you are delusional and need to take a look at Nature and how other animals also react to dangers to their own offspring, and reject those that will not survive. But go ahead and use the force of the STATE to demand all Women breed when raped, and you continue to give me, and other Women who believe we are also in charge of our own destinies and what goes into and out of our vaginas, every reason in the world to need more guns. To protect my right to my body from being raped and forced bred by people like YOU.

  21. ARMagLock is a new patent pending AR-15 fixed magazine solution. It allows New York, Connecticut, California and new potential Rhode Island AR-15 owners to comply with existing and proposed fixed magazine laws, potentially avoiding assault weapon registration within their respective states. Stay compliant with the laws. For more details visit

Leave a Reply