29% Of Dems Would Be Happy To See Trump Assasinated, 59% Want A Milatary Coup, But The GOP Is Extreme

 https://x.com/stratpolitics/status/2102089038790357099?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 "We polled five routes for Trump to leave office before the end of his term. A plurality of Dems support four of them, including a military coup and death by natural causes. The only one underwater, an assassination, is still supported by 29%."

 

     

   

 

NY Goes After The Amish

 https://open.substack.com/pub/jennamccarthy/p/new-york-declares-war-on-the-amish?r=28q7xt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Why not just leave them alone?   

Lots Of BOT

 https://x.com/kentuckygirl1/status/2102107160389792199?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

How vile, this is what unrestricted abortion and a culture that devalues life has wrought.  

 https://x.com/karol/status/2101706933380006179?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

This is absolutely freaking hilarious.  

 https://x.com/seanmdav/status/2102079564407009567?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" There are some incredible self-owns in that entire screed from Jones that a smarter writer and thinker would never have made. NHJ writes that she was shocked to learn her child couldn’t do long division. Probably because NHJ also can’t do long division. Or was so lazy and inattentive as to have no clue what her kid actually knew. She deliberately sent her daughter to a “poor” and “segregated” school, which receives $45,000 in state funding per student, and then blamed the garbage education on the fact that all the teachers and students were black. That alone is a shocking, eye-popping admission from a race huckster line NHJ. But it gets better! She later sent her daughter to a school with far better educational results. What caused the differences in outcomes? That school was majority white and screened for students based on aptitude and ability. At no point did these revelations lead NHJ to remotely grapple with her ridiculous worldview. In fact, she is so dumb she doesn’t even understand how it undermines her ideology. The woman is just shockingly stupid."

 This is why, it's so hilarious.  

 https://www.instagram.com/p/DdhGVt6kfTE/?img_index=4&stkn=MXYzZm1xNjU4Z3h4dw%3D%3D

Shocking, Talarico is more extreme that he portrays himself.  

 https://x.com/kstp/status/2101337286281486616?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Well, he's technically not a "St Paul man"...

 https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2102102049890431419?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

That it is culturally acceptable to film a horrific, violent crime to post on social media instead of intervening or calling the police is despicable. 

 https://x.com/storm1news/status/2101848482797461650?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

We need a wholesale purge of judges.  We know because of the DATA that we could lower crime significantly by removing a tiny percentage of people from society.  Yet too many judges seem to want to increase the amount of crime by releasing these scum.

 

 https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2102005169424658678?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

A double standard when it comes to crime, who would have thought.

 https://x.com/__0hour1_/status/2102120183477510406?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/dapper_det/status/2101040055737307479?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Let's add some governors to our purge of those increasing the crime rate.  

 https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/2101738662849364144?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Who's shocked by this? 

 https://x.com/andrewcfollett/status/2101655075219247121?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Or this?

 https://x.com/sarahiscensored/status/2101768278519812561?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" Ericka Lomick, the Democratic candidate for Texas House District 93, has a documented federal criminal history tied to a mortgage-fraud case. Federal court records identify her as Ericka L. Flood, also known as Ericka Lomick, and show that she pleaded guilty in a case involving mortgage-fraud conspiracy, bank fraud and money-laundering conspiracy. She was ultimately sentenced to concurrent federal prison terms, including a 63-month sentence. Now fast-forward to August 20, 2026. Lomick submitted her application to appear on the ballot for Texas House District 93. Lomick is running against Republican Alan Blaylock for the open Texas House District 93 seat. There are actually two elections happening there on November 3 - the regular general election and a special election to fill the remainder of former Rep. Nate Schatzline’s term after he resigned from the House in July. Gov. Greg Abbott formally ordered that special election after Schatzline’s resignation created the vacancy. Under the section labeled “Felony Conviction Status,” Ericka checked the box stating, “I have not been finally convicted of a felony.” The Texas Secretary of State says a candidate must indicate either that they have not been finally convicted of a felony or, if they have, that they were pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disabilities. A person who has been convicted is supposed to provide proof of that pardon or release. The same state guidance says knowingly providing false information on a candidate application about final felony-conviction status is a Class B misdemeanor. Texas law specifically requires this disclosure and specifically warns candidates that knowingly giving false information about their felony-conviction status is a Class B misdemeanor. I have obtained 144 pages of her federal record, and it’s not good. The material surrounding this case includes the guilty plea, sentencing information and later litigation involving the conviction. And there is more: A separate background report I obtained shows a $300,000 federal lien under the name Ericka Flood recorded in Tarrant County on January 31, 2024. The report ties that lien to federal case identifier DNCW3:10CR124 - the same federal criminal matter associated with her mortgage-fraud prosecution. The report also turns up additional North Carolina criminal and traffic records under the names Ericka Flood and Ericka Lomick. One involves a 2002 simple worthless-check misdemeanor charge that was filed in 2003. That case was ultimately dismissed without leave by the district attorney. Another possible match from 1996 also involves a simple worthless-check misdemeanor and likewise shows a dismissal. There are additional North Carolina case entries from later years, but several do not identify the underlying offense, so I am continuing to pull the original records before saying more about those. And then there are her business records. The report identifies Lomick as both the managing member and registered agent of Pro-Etiq Solutions LLC, a Texas company whose status is listed as “Forfeited Existence.” The company was filed in December 2024, with the report showing that forfeited status verified in June 2026. The same report links her, under the name Ericka Flood, to two North Carolina companies - The Kashmir Group LLC and The Lenzi Group LLC - both of which are listed as having undergone administrative dissolution. So between the federal felony case, a guilty plea, a 63-month federal prison sentence, a $300,000 federal lien recorded in Tarrant County in 2024, additional historical court records, and a Texas business listed as having forfeited its existence… I think Ericka owes Texans some answers."

Or this?  

 https://x.com/foxnews/status/2101664253186818110?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Or this? Maybe we should be thinking about retaking MI.  

 

Abortion Question Corrolary

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CVZxeqQHd/?mibextid=wwXIfr

" 

There's one question abortion advocates can NOT answer without completely contradicting themselves.

I’ve been thinking for a long time about what the perfect question is in this debate, and it finally came to me today.

Here it is: "Do you oppose the government's regulation of Accutane?"

Let me explain why it works so well...

Accutane is a widely prescribed acne medication. Millions of teenagers take it. It's safe enough that dermatologists prescribe it routinely.

But you can't just get it.

The FDA runs a mandatory program called iPLEDGE. The patient, the doctor, and the pharmacy all register with the federal government. A woman needs two negative pregnancy tests before her first pill, the first one done in a clinic. Then a documented negative test every month, or the pharmacy legally cannot fill her prescription. And she has to use two forms of birth control the entire time.

Pregnant women cannot get this medication at any point during their pregnancy. Period. The government won't allow it because it harms the baby.

But here's what makes it even more devastating to their position…

Those rules don't just apply to pregnant women. They apply to women who aren't pregnant and have no intention of getting pregnant. The government is restricting what a non-pregnant woman can do with her own body on behalf of a baby that doesn't even exist yet.

And here's the part that should end this debate entirely...

Even if a woman tells her doctor "if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion," she STILL can't opt out of iPLEDGE. The government protects the fetus from harm regardless of whether the mother intends to keep it or kill it (and regardless of whether it even exists yet).

So the government's position is: we won't let you give this child a birth defect even if you plan to end its life entirely. The protection applies no matter what.

If you’re fine with this regulation (and everyone I’ve asked is), then you’ve already conceded that:

A. This entity, even if you refuse to call it a person, deserves protection even before viability.

B. The government can step in and restrict a woman's choices and bodily autonomy to provide that protection.

C. Medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are not sacrosanct.

It destroys their privacy argument.

It destroys their "it's between a woman and her doctor" argument.

It destroys their "my body, my choice" argument, because the government is blocking her choice to get acne medication even though she wants it.

It destroys the healthcare argument (what if her severe acne is causing depression, anxiety, and social isolation? Doesn't matter. The baby comes first).

It destroys the "potential person" argument, because what are we protecting here if not the person growing inside her (and in many cases the potential person she hasn’t even conceived yet)?

Almost nobody objects to regulation.

Dermatologists don't call it government overreach. Patients don't call it an assault on bodily autonomy.

Which demonstrates their absurd position:

Giving this entity a birth defect = wrong, government should intervene to prevent it.

Killing this entity entirely = fine, government has no business intervening.

If the possibility of a birth defect justifies the government standing between a woman and her prescription, I need someone to explain why intentionally killing that same child doesn't."

Abortion Arguments Day 3

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18UTaoEgNW/

 

"Abortion Arguments Series: Day 3 of 10

"Abortion is healthcare."

I could mock this one by saying "yeah and arson is free home heating," but let me be fair and steelman their argument first:

"Abortion is performed by doctors, in medical settings, using medical procedures. Pregnancy carries real health risks. Some of the same procedures used in abortions are also used to treat miscarriages and emergencies. So if you restrict abortion, you're restricting healthcare."

That's the argument.

And the whole thing depends on the word “abortion” meaning two completely different things.

In medicine, the term "abortion" refers to almost any pregnancy that ends early. A miscarriage is a "spontaneous abortion." Removing remains after a baby has already died is technically an abortion procedure. Delivering early to save a mother's life can be charted as an abortion.

But in the political debate, "abortion" means the intentional killing of a living human being in the womb, usually a healthy child in a healthy pregnancy.

Those are not the same thing. But they share a word, and abortion advocates deliberately collapse them to create confusion.

The difference is intent.

When doctors deliver a baby early to save the mother, the goal is to save both. If the baby doesn't survive, that's a tragedy, but it’s not the objective.

In an elective abortion, the death of the child IS the objective. That's what "success" looks like (death is successful “healthcare” to them in this scenario).

So if this is "healthcare," what disease is being treated?

Pregnancy isn't a disease. The baby isn't a tumor. The procedure isn't curing anything. Its entire purpose is to end a life. Healthcare is supposed to heal, not kill. In an elective abortion, one patient always dies. 100% of the time.

And I want to drive this point home with a heart-wrenching story I heard a couple years ago when a woman called into a podcast and shared what this "healthcare" actually looks like.

She was pregnant and struggling with addiction. Her doctor didn't help her find treatment. He told her "how dare you bring a baby into this world" and pressured her into an abortion. When she asked about detox, he said that was "out of his purview."

The doctor's solution to a treatable addiction wasn't treatment. It was killing the child.

Afterward, she was herded into a waiting room full of young girls. They were all crying. The clinic had pre-positioned boxes of tissues throughout the room.

Think about that.

They knew these women would be devastated. They didn't put up information about alternatives or counseling or adoption. They put out tissues. They anticipated the grief, built it into the workflow, and kept the line moving.

That woman is now in her 50s. She can never have children. She has no grandchildren. Nobody warned her that would be the cost.

That's the "healthcare" we're talking about.

"But pregnancy is dangerous, Tyson"

It can be. The CDC reported 649 maternal deaths in 2024. And yes, every one is a tragedy.

But the mortality rate of pregnancy is 0.018%. The mortality rate of abortion for the child is 100%.

And every law I support protects the mother's life in genuine medical emergencies. There is not a single state in America where a doctor is prohibited from saving a dying woman.

So here's what abortion advocates do...

They share a heartbreaking medical emergency (usually selectively leaving out key details to shape a narrative), and then use it to argue that ALL abortion must remain legal.

But emergencies are already protected. Every law I support protects them.

Using the 1% to justify the 99% isn't an argument for healthcare. It's a red herring to avoid defending what elective abortion actually is.

Tomorrow I’ll address bodily autonomy: "My body, my choice."

Different Fraud

 https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1EuReZhsVz/?mibextid=wwXIfr

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdkZBbdjDH5/

 https://x.com/themainewire/status/2101988360717754605?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

" A church at the center of a $60 million medicaid fraud case wired millions to Rwanda. Prosecutors allege Desire Rusingizwa and Fabrice Mvuyekure used Happy House Behavioral Health LLC to bill taxpayers for patients who were dead, incarcerated or hospitalized, among other false or excessive claims. The 51-count indictment describes a referral operation involving 11 sober-living companies and alleges that Happy House paid $5.5 million to Hope of Life International Church. Its pastor, Theodore Mucuranyana, is accused of helping transfer more than $2 million to an unnamed entity in Rwanda."

 https://x.com/lizcollin/status/2102158935038087598?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/foxnews/status/2102110779059437834?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

If these idiots elect Kolbuchar or Flanagan, they are literally endorsing fraud. 

Define Biblical

 Dan and Art seem to have a difference of opinion of what it means when something is "Biblical".   They both use the term, but seem to use it to mean different things.   I offer this space for the purpose of allowing BOTH of them the opportunity to define "Biblical" with specificity and in detail so that their readers will know what they mean when they use the term.