KILLERS IN AMERICA WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK

More Americans die of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (20,294) every year than all murders combined (16,259), including murders by guns (11,078). More than twice, in fact, 2.3 times as many Americans die by merely falling down (26,009) than by murder by gun (11,078).

Executives of CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo, HuffPo, USA Today, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times pick and choose the juiciest murder stories from among the 30 gun murders that happen each day in America to sensationalize in their unquenchable thirst for profit. The more eyeballs they have glued to their TV news shows and their web pages, the higher the rates they can charge advertisers.

These execs want to scare you. They know if they scare you, you will watch.

Pint-sized executives of your local news media copy these heavy-weights, using the same scare tactics by reporting every gun murder that happens around where you live.

But did you know these same titillating execs could choose from among 6,763 deaths that happen every day? However, who would watch news about a stranger's grandmother dying in her sleep, peacefully, from heart failure after having lived 90 years?

Almost every of the 780,213 deaths caused by cardiovascular disease not including heart attack and heart failure, almost every of the 574,743 deaths caused by cancer, almost every of the 187,336 deaths caused by respiratory diseases, almost every of the 122,071 deaths caused by sudden heart attack, and almost every of the 105,526 deaths caused by Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases never get reported on your local six o'clock news.

There were 54 times as many cardiovascular disease deaths as there were gun murders, 52 times as many cancer deaths, 17 times as many respiratory disease deaths, 11 times as many sudden heart attack deaths, and 10 times as many deaths from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's combined. There were a whopping 188 times as many deaths from diseases of all kinds than there were gun murders.

According to the CDC, based on 2010 data, more people die from alcoholic liver disease (15,990) than from homicide by guns (11,078). For every gun murder almost as many die from a Colstridium difficule (C Diff) infection in a hospital (1 : 0.8)!

Of total gun deaths in 2010, 19,392 were suicides by gun. Suicides by gun are 63.4% of all gun deaths! Most who commit suicide by gun are old white males. For all suicides by any method, there are three times as many suicides as there are gun homicides.

Homicides by guns account for 0.0035056962% of the whole population and a measly 0.44% of all deaths! If you can't read numbers, that first number rounds to four-thousands of one percent and the next number is forty-four hundredths of one percent.

One percent of a dollar is a penny! These numbers are akin to shaving off an edge from a penny. Think about it.

These numbers are so small relative to total deaths and total population as to be rounding errors. Death by homicide by gun is statistically insignificant in the face of all deaths.

The real killers are heart disease and cancer, which together account for more than half of all deaths (54.9%).

How about perspective? Looking at the table, there were 10 gun murders for every 278,702 in the USA in 2010.




And how does the above compare to heart attacks and heart failure?



There were 100 deadly heart attacks for every 252,923 in the USA in 2010. There were 50 heart failure deaths for every 267,280 Americans.

And how do gun murders compare to accidents?



There were 25 deadly car and truck accidents for every 218,460. There were 25 deadly falls for every 296,768. 

And how do gun murders compare to suicides?



There were 25 suicides for every 201,195. 

Now what about a true killer like cancer? 



For every 537 Americans, one died of cancer in 2010. 500 Americans died of cancer for every 268,594 living in 2010.

Maybe that one in one-hundred thousand is a bit abstract for you. Let's see how the death counts stack up against actual cities.



So for every 8.4 million Americans, or roughly one New York City, there were 302 gun murders in 2010. The actual murder count for New York City in 2010 stood at 532. So New York City was 20% more dangerous than elsewhere in America, on average, in comparison.

Now how does the above compare to other ways to die?


Now how about that true killer, cancer — let's have a look.



So for every 8.4 million Americans, or roughly one New York City, while there were 302 murders in 2010, there were 15,648 deaths from the wicked killer cancer.

In the ideal, there shouldn't be murder. Then again, in the ideal, there shouldn't be birth defects nor cancer nor suicide. Sadly, twice as many children die near birth or soon thereafter or from genetic defects as those who fall victim to gun murder.

Sadder still, women had 765,651 legal abortions performed by politician-licensed abortion doctors in 2010. For every 1,000 live births, women had politically-sanctioned murder performed 228 times. In other words, for every four children born, one female decided to have her otherwise soon-to-be born child killed.

At 765,651 killed by abortion, by far, abortion was the leading cause of death in the USA in 2010, besting cardiovascular diseases not counting heart stoppage (600,385), cancers (574,743), heart stoppage (179,828), and all accidents (120,859).







There were 69 times as many abortion deaths as there were gun murders. Think about it. Women and their henchmen, abortion doctors, are America's most lethal killers.




To put it into perspective, for every 8.4 million Americans, or roughly one New York City, while there were 302 murders in 2010, and 15,648 deaths from the wicked killer cancer, there were 20,845 politically-sanctioned murders done at the behest of American females.

Children murdered by at the behest of Adolph Hitler and the NAZI German regime during World War Two stands at 1.1 million, an often claimed estimate. Workers for the Centers for Disease Control of the Department of Health and Human Services of the United States report that women hired politician-licensed abortion doctors to perform 42,537,798 contract killings since 1970. American women had 39 times more as-yet-to-live children killed than once-loving, children the NAZI Germans killed during the one of the world's most acknowledged evils, ever, the Holocaust. Said another way, American women have done the equivalent killing as 39 Holocausts against children since those at the CDC have collected data on abortion.

Since the start of the new millennium, politician-licensed abortion hit-men have killed 8,275,472 could-have-lived children at the behest of American females. In 14 years, American women held the equivalent of eight Holocausts against children.

If there is any bright spot in all of this death, American females and their penchant for murdering their would-be sons and daughters has fallen in the new millennium, -10.3%, falling at annual rate of -1.1%. 

There are far fewer would-be gun murderers. Murder by guns has dropped a healthy -13.4% since 2006, falling at annual rate of -2.8%, or better than twice the rate of annual fall for American females killing off their undesirable as-yet-to-be-born children.

Unless otherwise noted, all data derives from 2010. The Centers for Disease Control is the source of the data.

Read more ...

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Most Americans favor living by liberty over totalitarianism. Most Americans want to live within their own sphere of activity in which the law is content to leave them alone. Most Americans would much rather live this way than live by having government in every aspect of their lives, which we know as totalitarianism. 

The Libertarian Party is a tiny political party in the USA having been around for decades. The members of this party claim to be for liberty rather than totalitarianism. To most Americans that should sound pretty good since the Democrats and the Republicans seem to pass ever more laws, which looks ever more like American-branded totalitarianism. 

Yet it is little wonder why most Americans ignore the Libertarian Party? Big "L" LPers seem quite confused about liberty — the absence of law in the presence of government — and right — diminished liberty of others on one's behalf. 

Libertarians pride themselves on what they call the non-aggression principle (the NAP) though some call it the zero aggression principle (the ZAP). To them, the initiation of force against persons or property is illegitimate. Who could disagree?

A review of official Libertarian Party platform reveals a muddled mess and incoherency. Early on in the platform one can read this bit of Libertarian Party comedy  gold:

We believe ... that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships...

How do they propose to banish? Banishing requires force, that which is against the NAP / ZAP! To banish means to proclaim as outlaw, to forbid. It's late 1300s Old French into English.

What good anyone can find in the Libertarian Party platform is merely a re-wording of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, but a re-wording that lacks clarity. A deeper reading of the platform reveals troubling Libertarian Party thought.

Under the heading titled 3.5 Rights and Discrimination, the Libertarian Party reveals contradiction. In the second sentence, the party platform is:

"We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right.""

which follows the first sentence: 

"Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights."

There can be no right without duty. That is the reality of more than 799 years of Anglo-Norman and American jurisprudence. 

Obligation means duty. One must fulfill duty by either doing X or not doing X so that another can exercise one's right. That is jurisprudence.

The right to life is a natural right. The right to life imposes the duty on everyone else to not violate that right of anyone. The natural right to one's life imposes a duty upon all others to not murder.

Doing one's duty of not violating another's right fulfills one's duty. One can only enjoy the right of living, of not being murdered if everyone does his or her duty, fulfills his or her duty of not killing. 

If a right is inherent, it is natural. That which is natural is by birth. That which is inherent is closely connected as with those qualities arising from being born and alive.

Claiming that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right and then claiming that people have inherent (natural) rights is contradiction. There can not be right without duty. It's impossibility.

If one supports the LP belief that a natural right cannot ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that right, then one must support the the idea of murdering anyone on a whim for any reason, any time in the absence of government and criminal law. From the LPs own manifesto, they reject natural rights because they reject natural duties.


If one supports 3.5 of the LP manifesto, that no one has duty to fulfill the natural right of another, then one supports anarchy. In anarchy, no one has duty not to kill another. Thus, no one has a natural right to life. Only under anarchy, does anyone not have any rights as no one has duties. 

Before there is government, there is society and before society, only individuals. If there were but one individual on earth, that one would be free to go and roam wherever, live wherever, eat whatever. He would be free even to kill himself. He would be right to do all of those acts.

Anyone can conceive of there being the best land on earth, the most productive, yielding the best food and the best climate.

As soon as two exist, there can be contention for that best land. As both have equal rights in themselves as described in the foregoing, both can not occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit. 

One fix for this is for one to murder the other. As both have the right to live, with the advent of both, both have the duty to not murder the other. So while murder would solve one guy's problem, he could not do so without failing in his duty while at the same time violating the right of another in an egregious manner.

The only failing of this, of course, is that if only two existed, there would be no one left to punish the murderer, in any manner including banishment (ostracism) from those in society of property.

So rather than resort to murder, they could agree that one would take the next best land and the one taking the best land would compensate the one taking the second best.

Now we can see this scenario happening as more individuals arise on the earth. As each cannot occupy the same land at the same time and derive the same benefit, each succeeding one could agree with all others occupying better land to be compensated. The alternative is murder and the more who exist, the greater the scale of that murder.

However, if one murders another with better land, rejecting compensation, the rest who are in this society of property, where property means right of ownership and never the thing owned, could impose upon the one disrupting harmony, banishment at minimum or death at maximum.

It seems that some libertarians reject the belief that fulfilling duty means not doing an act as well as doing an act. One can fulfill a duty by not doing X.

You have a duty to not trespass on my land. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from trespassing. You have a duty to not steal the fruit growing upon my trees. You fulfill that duty every day you refrain from stealing my fruit.

I have the right to have my land free from trespassers. I have the right to have my fruit not stolen by others.

My property, that is my right of ownership in my land and my fruit, makes it so, whether I live with others in society of property under customary law or in conjunction with others in society, also with government, which establishes civil law and criminal law.

Civil law requires court in administration of justice. It is a creature of legislators. Customary law, or law of society, that which proceeds government is a creature of agreed upon custom of persons. Where there is law, whether civil law or customary law, and where there are rights, there must be duties.

It's impossible to support natural rights and then reject natural duties. To do so is to be muddled in mind, to live illogically, to live absurdly.

LPers are free to reject reality and jurisprudence. Who should stop them? Who should violate their NAP/ZAP? 

It's no wonder why they can't make headway in America. Stupid is as stupid does or so said Forrest Gump. 

Read more ...

GUNS, DISEASE AND THE WIZARD OF OZ. WHY ARE AMERICANS WASTING TIME AND MONEY WITH OBAMACARE AND CRIME?

Ask anyone at random how many deaths happen in America each year and even what is the head count of Americans. Likely, you will fail to hear numbers that come close to the ballpark.

It's rare when a legal gun owner uses a legal firearm in the commission of a crime. It's so rare, that it isn't even worth mentioning statistically.

As well, murder by any kind of gun is so small relative to deaths in America that talking about guns and death isn't even worthy of discourse (6/10 of 1%)

Yet, 24% of all Americans who die each year die of cancer and another 24% die of heart disease. 30% die of heart disease or strokes.

It's safe to claim that about 32% of all deaths each year have habitual cigarette smoking, lack of exercise and poor diet as causal factors.

Using 2012 figures, with  313.9 million Americans producing a GDP of $15,680 BILLION, Americans spend $2,728.3 BILLION on medicine, of which politicians tax and spend $1,705.18 BILLION by force of law. With the number of deaths near 2,309,212 Americans, Americans spend $1,181,493 PER DISEASE DEATH!

This number alone shocks, considering that life expectancy improved a scant 4% over time in 22 years! What a waste of money.

It gets even worse when looking at spending on policing and justice relative to crime deaths. Using 2006 spending of $214.5 billion, a whopping $14,292,600 has been spent PER CRIME DEATH!

Killing rival drug dealers is competition by other means. It is owing to prohibition of recreational drug use that many murders happen each year in America. Simply, decriminalizing the sale of drugs would cut down an already insignificant number of crime deaths. Yet, many Americans working conjured jobs — cops, judges, jailers — would find themselves clueless as how to earn an honest, real living.

The most expensive medicine comes about because persons are trying to stave off the inevitable, their own deaths. Except, most expect taxpayers pay for their gluttonous, slothful sins by giving them a moral hazard bailout later in life, which all know as Medicare.

As well, Obamacare violates everything about insurance, turning insurance into a credit card for persons who fail to live healthy. Insurance exists to payout on losses. 

Real insurance works like car insurance, people who put themselves at greater risk of loss pay more than people who play at living safely. Mandating the young and fit pay high premiums for the obese, the chronically overweight, the lazy, those who habitually smoke cigarettes, well, that turns insurance into credit cards for people who want to live longer at the expense of everyone else.

Almost all lack valid beliefs about reality on every topic imaginable. For almost all, their beliefs are not their own. Their beliefs come from the idiot box, the boob tube, the great OZ of opinion making.

Read more ...

THE UNREALITY OF JESSE MYERSON, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE'S USEFUL IDIOT OF COMMUNISM

Recently, Rolling Stone magazine published a silly-minded story with a dangling preposition in the title, from one of their writers, Jesse Myerson, Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For

Alas, Jesse suffers from many false beliefs. He seems quite childish and his intellect stands still in arrested development.

Jesse calls for a land tax, a public bank, guaranteed government jobs for anyone who wants one, and guaranteed welfare from cradle to grave.


Debate on the land tax was settled more than 120 years ago! There are numerous works on the scheme of Henry George, all which reveal the silliness of it.

For the same, public banks were discussed and debated and refuted a century ago.

Americans already have "universal basic income" expressed in many programs — TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, SSDI, Section 8.

The entire progress of people from the savage state of tribalism to clans and from clans to feudalism and from feudalism to burghers / bourgeois and thus individualism has been the advent of property (right of ownership) moving from all to the individual. And once property of the individual has been established, the furtherance of progress has arisen solely from the diminution and mitigation of uncertainty in the face of risk.

The entire basis of society, which means friendly association and never a people ruled, a nation, a country is PROPERTY.

Americans don't live in "a society". Americans live in society, in society of property.

Property means ownership, a bundle of rights — Jus Possidendi (right for possession), Jus Utendi (right for using), Jus Abutendi (right for destroying, alienating), Jus Vindicandi (right for recovery when found in the wrongful possession of another. All courts of the Anglo-American world agree to this meaning of property, a meaning first given to humans by the ancient Roman jurists.

Poverty is the default status of humans. All humans live at bare subsistence unless something ratchets them upward.

That thing is property (right of ownership) which gets used in production, which we give another name when doing so. That name is capital. 

And when capital amplifies effort, to produce property, which can be traded in a purchase and sale, we give that kind of property another name. That name is wealth.

Willett said, 

"It seems to be a self evident proposition that no one can assume a risk in economic affairs unless he has something to lose. As it is capital that is exposed to danger it would seem that it must be the owner of the capital that is the capitalist who assumes the possibility of loss.A society in which one class of people owned the capital and another class enjoyed the unrestricted privilege of exposing it to risk would soon suffer economic shipwreck. It is the possessor of capital who is interested in its safety and he seeks to protect it by demanding for its use a return commensurate with the chance of loss to which it is exposed.
In just what sense a man can be said to run a risk of loss who has nothing to start with and who therefore cannot fail to come out from his venture at least as well off as he went in it is not easy to understand. Only those who have capital can suffer the loss of capital."

Without property and persons who put their property at risk in pursuit of profits, how can anyone be responsible enough mitigate risks? Who and by what means would they elevate all humans above bare subsistence.

Trade or commerce or authentic economics means all relevant matters to mankind regarding the purchase and sale of property. Said another way, it's the theory of trading of property for profit.

Trade is about the acquisition of rights to own stuff and production of rights to gain the power of purchasing to acquire stuff.


Politics means anti-trade. Politics is the art of using rhetoric to steal property to gain and maintain power.



Why is it, in the history of humans, that no one living under tribalism of any kind, ever lifted themselves above bare subsistence?

Has everyone forgotten the 20th Century already? How did socialism, the doctrine of collective ownership of everything made, work out for everyone? Have the names Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pol fallen through the memory hole? 



Former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov explains who are the useful idiots, people like Myserson.

Read more ...

TYRANTS BIG AND SMALL. DYSTOPIAN UTOPIANS FORCING SOCIAL COMPACTS UPON YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT

The other day on G+, someone shared this picture into his stream:

Welfare is the means to power. Power must be grabbed first.Once anyone wrests control of power, then that one can achieve one's political goals.

Unless men and women are willing to arm themselves and kill enough others to gain control by violent overthrow, the means to power is welfare doling.

Politicians can not gain power without securing enough votes. Without enough voters, any pol can not gain office and thus do as his financiers bid her or him. The way poles secure votes is through bribing voters with welfare doling. 

Politicians can not exist without your enemies. Welfare recipients are your true great enemy. Likely, your Medicare grandmother is your enemy, your SSDI cousin is your enemy. The Pell Grant recipient college student from down the street is your enemy.


And then this gem of a fellow, Chuck, chimed in:

By Chuck's words, Chuck seems to be unwilling to rob someone directly, so Chuck champions men and women with real balls to rob everyone else, merely so Chuck can get his  kickback crumbs for supporting them.

Likely, Chuck prefers sweet sounding rhetoric like welfare instead of what he seeks, kickback. So, like millions of others, Chuck shall accept the lie that a kickback is welfare.

Under the constraint of his kickback crumbs, Chuck can express his preferences dishonestly rather than making himself valuable and thus exchange worthy in a voluntary fashion, which would let him get his preferences expressed voluntarily.

I  asked Chuck why, exactly, should anyone be forced to pay income taxes or face prison merely because Chuck wants to live at their expenses? What makes Chuck so important and thus so deserving that anyone not related to him and not voluntarily wanting to give to him should be forced to give to him or become imprisoned?

I  asked Chuck where are his relatives? Where are his mommy and daddy? Why didn't Chuck forge better relationships or perhaps any at all with his relatives and neighbors? Why aren't they paying for him voluntarily? However, Chuck failed to answer. 

Ironically, it seems as if Chuck hasn't been living up to the social compact through voluntary action, action he had complete control over doing. 

All contracts are voluntary. There is no such thing in law as an involuntary contract. Imposing action upon another by force while no voluntary contract has been agreed upon has a name. We call that slavery. We call that servitude. We see that one has become the chattel and thus the property of another.

Using "society" is disingenuous to mean a people under rule, or a people living within a defended, bounded area. Yet, all too many do so when trying to justify their Dystopian visions.

Men can attest the word society to the 1530s meaning friendly association with others, entering English from the Old French societe, in turn from Latin societatem in turn from socius meaning companion.

Though he differs in degree, how does Chuck differ in kind to any tyrant in the history of humans who wanted others to use force on his behalf so that he could live without honestly producing something wanted by others and then engaging in honest exchange? 

At day's end, humans want to get their preferences expressed and met. If they can't do so voluntarily, they will seek other means.  

Few humans have bravery. Yet, some do. They will impose their will upon others.  

Most who can't get their preferences expressed and met voluntarily, shall seek the few who have bravery to help them achieve their wants. 

And there you have it. This is what is wrong the earth over with humans. This is why there is suffering as there is. 

Even if Chuck isn't seeking welfare, but merely supporting politicians who dole out welfare in exchange for gaining and locking power, then Chuck is as bad as the ones who accept welfare and thus have revealed your immorality, the same as they do.

It's only a matter of degree, but not different kind, when someone champions politician-doled welfare acquired by involuntary means or when someone champions politician-doled subsidy to bomb makers and farmers.

At least an immoral man of bravery would acknowledge reality and say something like ...but I want stuff and I don't want to earn the buying power to get that stuff through honest exchange by first packaging up my skills through time into something all would call a product, selling that product to the highest bidder, so I am going to use my muscles and willingness to murder to get what I want.

The problem with all of the Chucks of our world is their intellects are insufficient while their greed — their want to get something without giving up something else wanted in a voluntary exchange — is all too sufficient for them not to see reality. They try to justify their immorality, their  inhumane action, their  misanthropic action to get their preferences expressed and met by any means, if necessary. 

Others be dammed! As long as the Chucks get their way and gets to live their lives, free-to-them, getting their preferences expressed and met under constraint of what robbers shall dole to them for his pledge of loyalty, well screw everyone else who wants to be free, free in mind, body and soul, free in self. 

To support his push for PPACA, Obama argued that in future, a person is going to need medicine and thus a person ought to be compelled by law to buy medical bills paying insurance, now, to cover that alleged actuarial eventually.

If everyone accepts Obama's premise as true and thus his conclusion, it's then easy to apply the same template and logic to other things.

• All persons shall need housing. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy rent / mortgage bills insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food bills insurance.
• All persons shall need electrical energy. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy electric bills paying insurance.
• All persons shall need food. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy food paying insurance.
• All persons shall need new work skills. Sometimes bad things happen, thus all persons should be compelled by law to buy education bills paying insurance.

So I asked Chuck, 

• Why didn't you buy rent / mortgage bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy food bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy clothing bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy electrical energy bills insurance?
• Why didn't you buy higher education, new skills acquisition bills insurance?

The irony is that Chucks fail to honor the social compact and fail at responsibility to themselves and to all others with whom you might have relationship, if any. Instead all Chucks advocate tyranny and violence, forcing and coercing others to behave and comport to their Dystopia vision, that in your vacuous, weak-intellect mind seems to be Utopia.

Read more ...

I NEED TO GET MY NAILS DONE THIS WEEK, SHOP FOR A NEW DRESS, GET AROUND TO GETTING AN ABORTION, FINALLY, OH AND UPGRADE MY SMARTPHONE

Seriously, why does it take more than eight weeks to decide to murder one's alive, growing baby? Who needs even nine weeks, or 10, or 13, or 15, or 18, or even 19?

Who needs more than 20 weeks to getting around to committing murder? Twenty weeks is almost five months! That is almost 40% of a whole year!

Have women become so lazy that not only they can't be bothered with pregnancy control like the pill, an IUD, a diaphragm, a ring, a patch, a cervical cap, but also they can't be bothered with birth control like murder as abortion until late-stage pregnancy really becomes a burden, a hassle, keeping them from hooking up?

American car buyers spend an average of 18-19 hours online while shopping for a car. American house buyers take about 12 weeks to buy their first house and only ten weeks buying again. The average car price is $30,000. The average house price is  $245,100.

Women don't need 20 weeks to decide to abort. They shouldn't even get 10. A ten-week baby is a growing human. And then they need more than eight weeks to figure out what is up and what they should do? Who is kidding whom here?

• 6.7 million pregnancies in the United States each year
• 3.2 million are unintended (49%).
• The proportion of unintended pregnancies  remained stable between 2001 (48%) and 2006 (49%).
• 43% of all unintended pregnancies women happen to women who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly
• 52% of all unintended pregnancies happen to women who do not practice contraception at all 
• 43% of unintended pregnancies end in government-sanctioned murder (abortion) (2006)

Here is the bottom line. When females copulate, they run the risk of getting pregnant.

Everyone who has copulated knows how great copulation feels. It is much like any conscious altering drug. That is why people are obsessed with copulating. They're addicted to it. They will do most anything to do it.

In many ways, all of the artificial structures erected by mankind exist to divvy up who gets to copulate with whom and who doesn't have to trade away anything for that copulation.

Yet, in the end, females living within a bounded region, seeking protection by the efforts of males who protect them, mostly, demand to copulate wildly without experiencing any of the consequences of their copulation.

So, they seek permission to murder others, their unborn babies, the most defenseless of all humans, and they elicit all kinds of rhetorical henchmen to justify why they should be allowed to have someone else murder on their behalfs, the most vulnerable among us, unborn babies.

The problem hinges up this: almost all have pathetically weak intellects, which inhibits them from logical consistency in thought and seeing reality at all, much less seeing greater depth of reality.

Thus, most are prone highly to wily ones talented in persuasion. They get swayed easily with lies like "reproductive health" or privileges masquerading as "rights". They get trained by their handlers, the ones with power to parrot sayings like "you are judging me" and "don't judge me."

Read more ...