119 Comments
User's avatar
steven t koenig's avatar

The ICE protestors are wrong in their message and wrong in their tactics. These guys are right in their message but still wrong in their tactics

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

I agree, up to a point. It's hardly fair to equate the group's tactics. I didn't see any psychical altercations, object throwing or use of vehicles to impede traffic or used as weapons. It's still illegal to block the entrance and it appeared arrests were made, as was appropriate, without the violent resistance and politician grandstanding, so common with the ICE encounters.

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

It is so unnerving to watch this again. I am antiabortion and thought the Dodd ruling struck the right balance. This is interference in the rights of others to make their own decisions. The 25 feet rule made sense and didn’t interfere with anyone’s rights.

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

I didn’t see physical alterations but I heard from the female leader the that was part of what Rescue involved.

Expand full comment
Dave Osborne's avatar

Ok, the US has over 2 million illegal immigrants let in over 4 years by the previous administration. Over that time, they’ve embedded themselves within communities so until they commit a crime, they are very difficult to find. What tactics would you suggest since ICE is being asked to do a very difficult task?

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

Arrest more protestors and check in more often with the local roofing contractors.

I think you mis-read my comment

Expand full comment
Richard Fahrner's avatar

Dave O

try 20 million illegals of all stripes and colors. All who crossed our border came in illegally so they are criminals. it will take time to find them, but ICE is doing what they can despite all the riadblocks in their way.

Expand full comment
Evans W's avatar

You misspelled 30 million.

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

I don't think he did. Biden flew in 30,000 a month for 3.5 years. They did not cross our borders, they were flown as asylum seekers.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

And the figure is 10-12m during the Biden Administration. Supposedly some 2m of these have self-deported YTD. But prior immigrants without papers number at least another 10m. We really need to update immigration law to address prior, current and future migrants. Congress does nothing, year after year.

Expand full comment
Brian Howard's avatar

That's not true. In 2023/24, a Republican immigration reform bill got bipartisan support and would have gotten passed had Trump not squashed it because he wanted to deny any change in law.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

What that I said above is “not true” Brian?

If you have one supporter from both parties, that makes it “bipartisan “ but that doesn’t make it good legislation. That particular proposal focused on resourcing asylum claims and illegal immigrant intake. It failed because it did not address border security. That’s like hiring firefighters to deal with a wave of arson.

Expand full comment
Brian Howard's avatar

You said Congress wouldn't pass anything, and I think what happened here is a very notable exception...but I hear you

Expand full comment
Michelle Dostie's avatar

I was responding to the article about revitalizing the 1980’s OPERATION RESCUE. Illegal immigrants? Local law enforcement is needed to protect the ICE RAIDS.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

I have stated here before that I have never been a feminist. Perhaps because I have a good mind and a good education.

I find that the women who are and were easily led tended to fall for that mind-control trap that the Neo-Marxist feminists pushed. Or women whose vanity was tweaked when they were told that a feminist outlook made them superior.

Those are the oldest con tricks in the book. And they fell for this. Beginning mostly with the early Baby Boomers in their youth. Then the social contagion spread.

I have known since I was a girl that feminism was a narrative implanted to control minds. When you look at those gleeful women marching in hordes celebrating that a law somewhere gave them the right to kill their unborn children....you have to realize there is something seriously wrong with their belief systems.

They were moulded into being a whole army of Manchurian Candidates, against their own children. As a eugenics tactic, to assist in destroying society. How bad is that?

Expand full comment
Turd_Ferguson's avatar

I mean... we have 2 entire generations now that believe that if you believe that there are differences between men and women, you are a fascist. This isn't new, there is an 8 year old video out there of the University of Portland where a panel discusses the "scientific" facts that men are on average taller, and stronger, and other differences between the biological sexes, and they had to carry screaming enraged children out of the room because they were screaming Fascist, and Nazi at the horror of science.

These same people scream that the science is settled on medicine and climate change. We live in a society of dumb people. They get dumber every generation in SPITE of the level of education and knowledge available.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

This is the result of mind-control. The Soviets knew it and used it with aplomb. The Communist Chinese are even better. And any dark personality with a Cluster-B Disorder can mind-control without ever having to learn it; comes naturally.

There are reasons that an individual or a society becomes vulnerable to this. As in 1930s Germany. Or the 2020s of the West in general.

Expand full comment
Jeff Keener's avatar

A demoralized people will believe anything.

Expand full comment
Turd_Ferguson's avatar

It's the Chinese that are mostly doing it here.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Yes. They know the western weaknesses. Which most people here do not recognize themselves.

Expand full comment
Timothy G McKenna's avatar

Wait - so, I think that this situation screams out for male “birthing people” to boldly cross these pickets, shouting “Our Bodies Our Selves!”

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Heh, heh....a bit dated now Timothy, but I recall the battle cry from my girlhood. The silly slogans were great indoctrination chants.

Expand full comment
PaxAlto's avatar

I agree entirely. It's part of a multi-pronged effort to dismantle the nuclear family and society strengthening institutions that produce healthy, confident, capable, and morally sound men and women with unshakable critical thinking skills and a positive sense of purpose--the most potent weapon against the globalists' efforts to herd humanity into their techno-feudalist shangri-la.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Yes, indeed. I realized this decades ago. That we were being managed, towards someone else's agenda.

Jung called their skewed utopian dream the Archetype of the Apocalypse.

Expand full comment
Karen's avatar

So you really liked Jim Crow laws. And wife-beating. And constant child abuse. And murdering queer people or driving them to suicide.

Because that’s the world those male-headed nuclear families you praise created.

Read a history book.

Expand full comment
PaxAlto's avatar

Thanks to your lack of self awareness, you've made my point beautifully.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Here is a suggestion. If you want to get the Pro-Life word out there, do not necessarily frame it in religious terms.

Frame it as feminists being not-too-aware and easily bamboozled. Like the children following the Pied Piper. The feminists are one branch of the Useful Idiots of the Neo-Marxists. Though they think they are just the opposite.

They fell for the big scam of feminism. So shame them a bit. Look at what their fall has done to all those unborn children.

Expand full comment
Han's avatar
4dEdited

It is, like virtually all great questions, exceedingly simple.

Conservative women have children.

Liberal women have abortions.

The democrats are becoming extinct, thus they deliberately open the borders and let in millions of replacements for their own children.

Expand full comment
craazyman's avatar

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that every narrative has as its principal purpose to control minds.

It’s almost as if narratives, not photons, not electrons, not quarks, not gluons, underly “reality’. After all, aren’t those so-called particles also narratives, mathematical narratives? But don’t they have an objective, concrete physical reality? YES! OF COURS THE DO. But perceiving it requires the acceptance of the narrative of the measurement process itself and the math, as a kind of narrative.

So is there any reality outside the narrative? Hmmm. You have to think about that. Yes. The reality is the very thing that perceives the narrative and judges if the narrative is ‘true’. Wow. This is Philip K Dick territory. Well. He was right! Hahah.

All true reality is perception a priori to the narrative. All the narrative does is confirm your sense or your sense invalidates the narrative. That’s weird. You have that sense even before the narrative. That sense of what is and what should be.

You were born with it and you spend your whole life trying to understand it. That’s weird. Why would it be like that? It reminds me of a quote i read once of the American poet Charles Bukowski ‘I guess God meant it all like locks on doors.’

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Well, yes, Crazyman. Although I try to keep my explanations within certain limited frameworks or I would not be taken seriously. I am good at seeing behind the curtain however.

So far I have managed to explain it with reference to Depth Psychology, Evolutionary Science, Anthropology, and Family Systems Theory. Peter Fonagy's Mentalization concept is a good filter too.

Cheers!

Expand full comment
Justsum Guy's avatar

I think of it as neo-feminism vs paleo-feminism.

I'm very supportive of paleo-feminism, but neo-feminism is a mental disorder masquerading as misandry.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Yes, I know the whole argument about the different "waves" of feminism and the issues of women getting the vote years ago and so on. But my opinion is that the net benefit was not on the side of feminism. That ideology caused far more damage than good, if any. It was a blight on Western civilization.

Even those supporting the older suffragette notions have cooked their goose by adding support to the Marxist scam. Though I realize that sometimes people have to inch their way out of damaging belief systems, the same way they were slowly normalized into them. A bit of plausible deniability to hide behind if full exposure all at once is too much to bear.

The women who consider themselves feminist were the great big dupes of the Neo-Marxist con-artists. It was a very successful scam.

However, most of these women will go to their graves in old age believing that they were high-minded and progressive. Simply because facing the truth of what you have done to your own life and your unborn children's lives, and perhaps your marriage and your male-female relationships...would crush them. When it comes to facing the fallout, these women will be very weak. Not the "mighty progressive warriors" at all. It's a pretty daunting truth to face....all that human and social destruction which the feminists played a large part in.

You might even compare it to all the true believers in 1930s Germany, whose bubble was burst in 1945. When facing the truth and their part in the damage was forced on most of them. Those who still refused to face this unpalatable truth often retreated into psychosis or dementia. There were still some "old Nazis" around even into recent decades. But society no longer took them seriously....they became fringe-dwellers.

Expand full comment
K Andrew Serum's avatar

I have this allergic reaction to the most common pro-abortion slogan, that "It's a woman's right to choose." I'm willing to consider a lot of different arguments in favor of abortion, but I have a really hard time swallowing the idea that anyone can have a "right" that involves removing someone else's right to life. My understanding of rights means they cannot infringe upon the rights of others, and that slogan just completely jumps over top of it like it's not a thing.

That doesn't make an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy any easier, but I don't think the healthy solution for society is on-demand abortion in which it's merely a question of the woman's "right" to choose.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
3dEdited

Andrew, I agree. I am a woman, and a mother. I simply cannot understand how any normal human woman can kill her own unborn child. I find it heinous. Of course they have sematic tricks for distracting themselves from what they are really doing, as you describe. Just like Orwellian Newspeak.

I had one woman tell me that aborting did not bother her at all (she had had four by her early 30s). She continued that she thought of it as no more than pulling a weed out of a garden. I think I wanted to be sick at that point.

These women are brainwashed. Literally They are mind-controlled by their adherence to the dark herds which are running under the dark side of the Collective Unconscious. Jung explained that well, so if you want to follow the idea, I will leave you to his work.

I am very well educated, but I have no problem speaking in terms of good and evil. What else can we call this, but evil? The hordes of modern Western women were lured into it just as the once-modern Germans of the 1930s were lured into the evil of Nazism.

It breaks my heart for those children. That the person they were meant to love and trust most is actually their murderer. When she could have arranged adoption if need be.

In Canada, we have no abortion law. It is unlimited, to the moment of birth. There are full term children born still living after botched abortions. What kind of a world does this?

Expand full comment
Robert Hunter's avatar

True but you too are a product of the finest indoctrination system the world has ever known. You, like ALL Homo sapiens are born programmed to believe anything. The only defense is recognizing the genetic flaw and making the assumption that everything you have ever been exposed to, knowingly or unknowingly by the people was designed to control you.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

The flaw is not genetic, actually, and I was born with a very fine sense of discrimination anyway. By adulthood I can see their sordid little manipulations at ten paces.

The Truman Show....aka Management of Reality.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

I recommend to you the very good Substack of former UPENN Anthropologist Francisco Gil-White. We are in competition for insights, but he's a good fellow and at least 90% of what he says is most likely to be true.

Anthropology is one of those underestimated disciplines. French Anthropologist of the early 20th century, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, is also one of my academic heart-throbs 😍.

Expand full comment
BDKay's avatar

I am most curious on what basis you deem this gentleman to be “good”. What moral standard are you judging him by? On what basis are you ascribing truth to his work?

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

By what standards? By my own perspectives. Born out my education and experience. It is generally known as one's opinion.

I think that Francisco Gil-White offers an excellent explanation, for instance, as to how and why the split in the Middle Eastern peoples occurred, whereby the Jews and early Christians advanced but those who remained tribal did not.

Expand full comment
Karen's avatar

So you believe that women are inferior to men and should be confined to the home, helplessly and hopelessly dependent on male approval to continue eating and living indoors. That’s the ONLY choice. You’re either a feminist or you think women are too stupid be allowed out of doors. Which one is it?

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Well I am NOT a feminist. Good Lord, I have always had higher aspirations in life. Don't lump me with that lot.

The feminist hordes have been mind-controlled to serve Neo-Marxist fantasies just as the Germans of the 1930s were mind-controlled to serve Nazism.

But none of you seem to realize it. That is the hive-mind.

I know you are badly mind-controlled Karen, so I just humour you here. You will not actually understand this.

Still awake?

Expand full comment
Karen's avatar
3dEdited

You’re a liar and a parasite. You take advantage of the rights feminists won for you and you shit on the women who won those rights for you. #SitDownShutUp.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Did no one ever teach you decency or manners?

Bye.

Expand full comment
Amy J.'s avatar

I don't care what your cause is. It should be illegal to stop the free movement of people from one place to another. Those asshats at LAX blocked cars bringing people to the airport. BLM protests blocked roads, not to mention the climate scolds that like to glue themselves to roadways. ICE protestors are wrong, too. Same goes for blocking abortion clinics. Your protest is no longer a protest when you hold other citizens against their will.

Expand full comment
Ashe's avatar

Yes. Good point. Legal protests are allowed for almost any cause—as they should be. Keeping students from attending classes, shutting down universities, shutting down interstates—this control of other people’s lives isn’t ok. There is a boundary area around abortion clinics, but not for other issues—such as campus speech on some campuses . It seems like not impeding people from moving freely would be a broader guideline for local law enforcement. This should not be a federal issue for abortion clinics as abortion laws were returned to the states. Obviously if you are getting physical with a federal law enforcement official then it becomes a federal crime. This seems kind of obvious that your speech cannot impede someone else’s ability to function.

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

The people in Portland have been blocking all major roads for the last fifteen years. I know, I lived in Salem and the buses that transport flyers from the airport were constantly delayed for hours getting to their final destination.

Expand full comment
Enticing Clay's avatar

And if we allow this tactic it gives (even more) power to money.

It's not illegal to pay protesters.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Not surprised that the greater abortion access was under Clinton. I suspect that he is one of those human beings who has little or no conscience. And his missus has none at all.

I note in the video how he twists his words into Orwellian Newspeak, so that he claims virtue out of what is evil.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

The "new" left, which arose from the movements of the 1960's, have always had to twist and contort language to fit their cockeyed narratives. Put simply, abortion is murder and they can't make a straightforward or logical argument otherwise. As a reminder of how idiotic they are, just remember that these are the same voters that protest and cry about the capital punishment of a convicted murderer. I guess, by their own statements on both issues, it's good to murder an innocent baby, but bad to kill a convicted adult murderer.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

The leftwing WOKE-folks, who began as the youthful Baby Boomers several decades ago, contradict themselves at every turn. I have fun getting them contorted and purple-faced when I unleash real logic on them.

It is as if a major segment of their brains has dissolved.

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

And the rich and powerful succeed in convincing the poor to fight each other over pointless bullshit, to keep them distracted while they rob us blind.

Good job America.

Expand full comment
Turd_Ferguson's avatar

It's more than robbing us at this point. They have most of us blind to what they are actually doing. EVERY single one of them is in process of building a bunker. You can actually tell which ones are truly connected by where they are building those bunkers. Bezos and Musk are building in the rocky mountains (they know), Zuckerberg is building his in Hawaii (he doesn't know). Most of the WEF elite are quite secretive, but are building high in the Alps.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Something worth looking into about Elon Musk is his grandfather from Saskatchewan, Canada. Joshua Haldeman was a Chiropractor and a sometime politician. He believed heavily in the Technocracy Movement of the 1930s-40s. Which was about many things, including hemispheric control of nations under technological powers. Proposed merging Canada, Greenland, Mexico, the US and parts of central America into a single continental unit.

H-m-m-m.....

Expand full comment
Robert Hunter's avatar

BINGO!

Expand full comment
Chilblain Edward Olmos's avatar

Same as it ever was…

Expand full comment
Tim's avatar

You mean like the heralding by Congress of the improvements made to the benefits provided to Medal of Honor winners? What they didn’t mention is that BY LAW, MOH holders must be provided the same benefits as those given office holders in Congress…in other words, by improving the MOH benefits, they improved their own, too! And didn’t have to deal with the outcry of improving their own lot.

Expand full comment
MU2002's avatar

Someone explain to me how that protest warrants incarceration in a federal penitentiary. I have zero doubt that a Democrat administration would pursue these people if they have the opportunity…they already have. It’s a joke.

Expand full comment
Art's avatar

Seems like local and state laws against trespassing would provide for a reasonable response. Would a trespasser blocking access to an emergency room be subject to similar penalties? If not, the FACE Act would seem to be an ideologically driven statute.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

In England, under the Labour govt. of Keir Starmner, police now arrest anyone near an abortion clinic who is praying. Even silently.

Expand full comment
Richard Fahrner's avatar

and those who are "praying to themselves" are only arrested when a cop asks what they are doing

I know what I would say to them

fuck off

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Some of these people are so honest that they do not deny being in prayer when a police officer treats it like a crime.

This is what today's England has fallen to.

Expand full comment
P.S.'s avatar

Really ironic since they have a king anointed by the Church.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Oh...that is a whole story in itself. Elite Globalist King Charles is not really Christian and neither is the present-day Church of England. They both just play at it. The Church could lose those valuable properties otherwise. Unless the law is changed.

Expand full comment
Timothy G McKenna's avatar

….and his brother, Andrew, is a Porn Again Christian

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Hah!

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Charles appears to worship WOKE Climate Change Theology first, and then it's a toss-up whether he worships money or Islam in second place.

Expand full comment
Robert Hunter's avatar

The King is the Head of the English Catholic Church "Anglican"! It's 2025 and the lumpenproletariat still haven't figured it out.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

I attended a high Anglican Church for years. Mainly for family reasons. Rather than sit there fuming, I took notes. Learned a lot. Not about Christianity -- which was scarce on the ground in those premises -- but about mind manipulation.

I take it where I find it.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

If anyone is interested in a really basic primer of mind-control and manipulation. so you know it before it knows you...

"The Ultimate Dark Psychology Blueprint (All-in-1): 150+ Practical Techniques to Protect Against Mind Control, Lies and Manipulation. Master the Art of ... and Persuasion (Critical Thinking Book 2)" by Alex Caldwell

And then if that book whets your appetite, move on to the classic Robert Cialdini books, "Influence" and "Persuasion".

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

On an odd legislative note, in Canada:

"SOUND THE ALARM: Carney’s scary clause in Bill C-15

Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberal government have slipped a clause into Bill C-15 which if passed would grant cabinet ministers the extraordinary power to exempt any person or company from any federal law — except the Criminal Code — for up to six years."

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/wiechnik-sound-the-alarm-carneys-scary-clause-in-bill-c-15/69700

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
4dEdited

Do you see how powerful manipulation tactics are employed?

But I have to say, PM Carney was the federal candidate in Canada who was supported by Trump. Even though Carney is a senior WEF Board member and major WOKE Globalist.

Expand full comment
John Bibish's avatar

The protesters are clearly attempting to prevent what they consider a crime. Regardless, abortions are legal. While the protesters can argue abortions are sinful they cannot argue they are a crime. While being there to pray for the patients WITHOUT intimidating or preventing access is one thing blocking access in any way is breaking the law.

Expand full comment
Jeff Keener's avatar

I'm in favor of a peaceful protest, but I am not in favor of a blockade.

Expand full comment
Hele's avatar
4dEdited

To all Randall Terry’s out there-Go out and teach little kids how to read or volunteer at an orphanage or be big brother or sister ffs. What is your driving fixation , what are you projecting onto this specific issue ? And leave the women and girls who opt for this procedure alone . Leave us alone ffs.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

You don't seem to grasp the larger issues surrounding this "procedure".

Expand full comment
Hele's avatar

you don't seem to grasp its none of your business

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar
3dEdited

Yes is it. This is the business of all of us, when unborn children are being killed.

So according to you, anyone can murder anyone else, and it is none of society's business? THAT is moral insanity. So is abortion. I am glad you are not running the show.

You say in your profile that you want to be free, and you love nature. But you believe in abortion, which is anti-nature and anti-freedom for those innocent unborn children. So...only for you?

If you knew you would not make a good mother, why not arrange adoption?

Expand full comment
steven t koenig's avatar

I don't know why I should leave you alone to murder innocent babies. I guess you also think you should get to treat your slaves any way you want?

Expand full comment
Deadladyofclowntown's avatar

I may be missing something, but how can Trump tell the DOJ not to prosecute one particular group? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law? If blockades are wrong against ICE, they are also wrong against abortion clinics. No matter how you feel about abortion, or about deportation, or about Jews, preventing free and legal movement is wrong. Trump is blowing it very badly right now.

Expand full comment
Ashe's avatar

ICE is clearly a federal issue. Abortion is a state issue. States should be enforcing their abortion laws. The DOJ has to enforce federal crimes, while abortion laws are now under states rights unless it is about federally protected speech. Physically blocking a federal agent is different than physically blocking another person. One is a federal crime, the other could be a local crime or in the case of an abortion clinic—a state crime. At least this is what makes sense to me.

Expand full comment
Deadladyofclowntown's avatar

Right, federal vs. state! Makes sense. But then, can Trump forbid the prosecution of something which is a state issue? Or is blocking legal access to abortion clinics actually a federal, constitutional, issue? I dunno. My head is spinning.

Expand full comment
Ashe's avatar

If it’s a state issue, the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction unless it is affecting something under federal jurisdiction. Speech is protected under the US Bill of Rights, but physically blocking someone can be handled by local police.

Immigration is clearly a federal issue, and attacking an officer will put you in the court of the officer: local, state, or federal.

Expand full comment
Enticing Clay's avatar

Ultimately we allow prosecutors to decide which crimes to prosecute because if we didn't and we prosecuted every law violation, then all the productive output of society would go to prosecuting people until everyone was in prison.

I really don't think it is anything more complicated than that. It would be suicide.

In this case, Trump is just not going to prosecute under a federal law that was aimed exclusively at abortion protests.

Blocking people and preventing movement are all illegal under federal and state law. There was never a need for another federal law to criminalize that behavior. It was really just using the law as advertising and PR for party and issues. Which is inevitable, but nothing to submit to.

Just because Trump is not going to prosecute this law doesn't mean he is not going to prosecute blocking abortion clinics--but it doesn't mean he is either.

I don't support this tactics for any issue, and I think Trump would be extremely foolish to morally justify the exact same tactics that are being used to provoke violence against the Trump administration.

I expect people who block clinics will be prosecuted, just not under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

But who knows.

Expand full comment
Deadladyofclowntown's avatar

Good thoughts. I know a lot of what Trump says is just hot air, that classic Trump bluster. You just never know how serious he is, or if what he might do is legal. It makes for interesting theater, that's for sure.

You're so right: if they prosecuted every violation of every law, we'd all be in prison!

Expand full comment
John Wygertz's avatar

Let's get the band back together...

In the post-Roe world it seems irrelevant.

Expand full comment
Nonurbiz Ness's avatar

The Biden admin used the "FACE" Act to arrest and prosecute the 23 individuals were praying/singing in the hallway. It is my understanding that did not interfere in any way.

Expand full comment
Eileen Thornton Renda's avatar

WOW! Can “Freedom of Speech” be far behind? For both ends of the spectrum …

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

Should I be surprised that Melania Trump is an outspoken abortion supporter?

And here, the VP James David Vance is Pro-Life.

Expand full comment
Eirebridge's avatar

You mean Peter Thiel's (one of the biggest technocrats who reviles humanity) minion? Vance's schtick is a ruse. I definitely believe Vance is anti-abortion, but it's questionable he's a big proponent of happy, secure families. It doesn't at all jibe with the crushing 'utopia' people like Thiel et al. envision for the world.

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

I have heard of the Peter Thiel connection before, but how true is it? Was it in the early years of the Vance career and he has now changed?

I realize that the current and the last Vatican Popes are/were not necessarily Catholic either, but possibly Deep State types. So I keep an open mind.

Expand full comment
Eirebridge's avatar

Huge financial backer and mentor who helped his rise, but the ardor has cooled somewhat recently. Too close for comfort for me when any of the tech billionaires have an overly cozy relationship with our purported 'leaders.'

Expand full comment
A.'s avatar

I'm afraid there is a lot of that going on -- cozy tech billionaire-politco relationships.

Expand full comment
Justsum Guy's avatar

Federal overreach: We don't need a federal law over this, local law enforcement was having no problem arresting these folks when they got out of hand.

Some of the prosecutions under this law have been absolutely absurd - as have the sentences.

Expand full comment