Who is Ray Epps?

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Real Clear Politics Questions mount

The only person we have on video clearly advocating storming the Capitol Building in the days BEFORE Jan 6 is Rays Epps, who was dropped from the FBI’s most wanted list abruptly and who the Jan 6 committee will not discuss. That refusal to acknowledge his presence or even his existence has fueled speculation that he was one of a number of agents provocateurs planted by the FBI to encourage the riot.

I don’t know if that speculation is valid, but the refusal of the committee to investigate and lay the theory to rest, and instead try to ignore it away, is coming close to proof there is something to it.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

134 thoughts on “Who is Ray Epps?”

  1. The FBI did it or was it Antifa?

    “I don’t know if that speculation is valid . . .”

    Milk-out-the-nose funny.

    Doubly so coming from someone who proudly refused to watch the public hearings where mostly Trump appointees layed out the facts under oath.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. “If that doesn’t make you suspicious, you are detached from reality.”

        With all due respect, it is you people desperately promoting whacko conspiracy theories that are divorced from reality – a reality you refuse to accept or even learn about.

        I take it as given that the FBI tries to infiltrate violent militias. This fellow may well be one of those infiltrators who played along with his targets. So what? Answer: So nothing.

        The idea that a cadre of FBI agents instigated the attack on the Congress flies in the face of the evidence. In Congress and in many court proceedings. These massive conspiracies you people are always speculating about are complete nonsense. Impossible to organize, execute, and most importantly, keep secret.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Didn’t watch the video, did you?

          Epps, on Jan 5th, was widely advocating going into the Capitol building and was videoed at least once.

          If it is reasonable to assume he was an FBI plant, then was the intrusion into the Capitol building not an FBI goal?

          What are you going to trust, the DNC talking points or your lying eyes?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I usually follow the links that other posters provide. But, when I see the source and the gist, I may or may not continue. In this case I immediately saw the expression. . .

            “Raskin is on the disgraced Jan 6 Committee”

            and decided then and there that I need go no further. The telltale word is “disgraced.” Besides, I already knew the gist of it – that the FBI instigated January 6th and I knew that this chain of evidence has been thoroughly debunked.

            You choose to not watch historic bipartisan hearings under oath. I choose not to watch mindless horseshit.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “So, because you don’t like who provided the video, you didn’t watch the video itself?
            Wow”

            You can get back to me with your admonitions after you catch up on the authoritative January 6th hearings that you proudly refused to watch.

            In the meantime, I will apply my educated critical thinking skills to any proposed materials. In the internet age, the source of “evidence” is relevant to the value of the “evidence.” And when the “evidence” is in support of a self-evidently outlandish proposition, then even more reason to ignore it. In this case, the claim that the January 6th attack on the Congress was an FBI operation is just such an outlandish proposition.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “Your refusal to watch it I will take as stipulation that my description is accurate.”

            Sure. I accept the fact you stated about him being on video saying the Capitol should be stormed is factual. Besides, we have been down this same road before. The rest is opinion and speculation. That I find far less than compelling. Laughable even.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. This is a bit of a long read, but it tells you who Epps really is. Among other things, he is a member of the Oath Keepers.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2022/01/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-centers-on-baseless-claim-about-ray-epps/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1bqZBhDXARIsANTjCPJgSe55uyxaE261yXO5X5-CJbXe0cIj2hueh9Fmiyy7_aOjxoICLLsaAgZgEALw_wcB

    This is only speculation on my part, but it seems to me, Epps got busted and, just like Stewart Rhodes, he flipped. If he cut a deal, he will not be arrested or exonerated until the value of his information is proven. If it was valuable information, he’ll most likely go free. It he was lying, he’ll go to jail. In the meantime, no one in the justice system will be allowed to speak of him because, if they do, it could prejudice a future jury.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. And you think the FBI had not also infiltrated the Oath Keepers?

      The Committee has not concerned itself with compromising future investigations or prosecutions up until now when there were political points to be made so I see no reason to believe they would do so now.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Okay, it’s Saturday and the groceries are in and I’ve got nothing on the books for the rest of the day, so I’m up for a wild ride. Let’s speculate.

    Let’s say MTG and Matt Gaetz know what they’re talking about. The FBI infiltrated the Oath Keepers and instigated an attack on the Capitol.

    Why? Why would the FBI want to attack the Capitol, waving Trump flags and shouting “hang Mike Pence?” Why would they do that? To make Trump look bad? At that point, everybody with a functioning brain cell knew Trump had lost the election. Why try to make him look worse than he already did?

    If the attack on the Capitol wasn’t just a bunch of deluded cult members attempting to install their great leader into the office of President, what was it?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. If we’re going to speculate…

      Having flipped the election against Trump, who they had tried to get for 5 years already. by concealing Biden’s family corruption until after the vote, they then sought to taint his supporters for future elections.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Okay, say that’s true. Let’s say the FBI was trying to get Trump.

        Define “trying to get.” What did the FBI do, other than investigate Trump’s connections to Russia? Are you saying the FBI has no obligation to investigate a President’s connections to a hostile power? Surely you wanted Biden and Hillary investigated. Why not Trump?

        Trump called the rally himself. He and his sycophants coordinated everything that happened that day. (See latest news below about the White House switchboard on Jan 6.) It wasn’t the FBI. It was Trump and his cult that turned Jan 6 into a disaster.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. RE: “If the attack on the Capitol wasn’t just a bunch of deluded cult members attempting to install their great leader into the office of President, what was it?”

      If we’re speculating…

      My favorite conspiracy theory is that the Jan. 6 riot was a standard-issue false flag operation like the one the U.S. instigated in Ukraine in 2014. The objective was to create a “Reichstag fire” moment that would lead to fascist tyranny under Democratic Party rule.

      The operation was clearly successful as psyops go. At least half the country has been duped into believing that Jan. 6 was an attempted coup and the other half is unrelentingly demonized for it. See Stumble Joe’s hellish speech in front of Independence Hall a few weeks back. Somehow we have arrived at the place where our president tries to motivate his political base by yelling at the people.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Okay, if the rally was a false flag operation, why did Trump call the rally? Was he part of the Reichstag fire moment too? And if it wasn’t going as planned, why didn’t he call it off?

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      1. Here’s the gist of the story: “On Friday [Sept. 17, 2022], 60 Minutes revealed that Denver Riggleman, a key staffer for the House Select Committee on January 6, discovered the White House switchboard patched through to the phone of a Capitol rioter — while the attack was in progress.”

        The story doesn’t tell us who placed the call or who received it, or what was said, or where the recipient was located and when. In other words, the story provides no basis for any claim that Trump or his staff were orchestrating the riot.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “In other words, the story provides no basis for any claim that Trump or his staff were orchestrating the riot.”

          Sure, it is not all of the evidence needed for a prosecution, but it is SOME of the evidence. And more to the point, this is a work in progress. Mr.Spiegler did not name the person receiving the call, but he did say that they knew who it was. In other words a significant lead that has been or will be followed up.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

  6. Don, I have no idea whether or not the FBI has infiltrated the Oath Keepers. I sincerely hope they have. I do not believe an FBI agent would do the things Epps has done. And if they did, they would be outed and fired immediately. I do know it is DOJ policy not to comment on witnesses who have flipped. I would expect the Jan 6 committee to honor DOJ policy.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. So, you don’t believe and FBI would do something far less compromising than other things we already know they did, like burying the Laptop until after the election, we should just assume that THIS TIME they did they right thing???

      Like

      Reply

      1. “like burying the Laptop”

        They did not do that.

        You never give up your LIES do you? The laptop may be embarrassing in some respects but embarassing is not a crime. The full contents of that laptop have been in the hands of Biden’s political enemies since early in 2020. That is about three years now. If there is any evidence on it of any serious crime then why have they been sitting on it? Such evidence would have been a dandy October surprise but they had to settle for the existence of the laptop as the best they could do. You should be prosecuted for cruelty to animals for constantly dragging out a dead dog and beating him to hunt.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. Uh, “former intelligence officials”

            The provenance of the laptop was – and is – very, very squirrelly. So some former intelligence officers without any other evidence but the NYP story opined that it might well be some sort of plant. So, in your view the FBI should have broken its rules and precedents and issued a press release just before the election stating that it was not a plant? In the midst of an investigation that found no prosecutable crimes? Kind of like they did for Hillary Clinton? Is that what your constant whining is about – they helped Trump in 2016 but not in 2020?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The likelihood that a candidate for President is corrupt is not something the FBI should conceal from voters, or when brought out by the press, dismiss as Russian disinformation while knowing full well it is true.

            Like

          3. “The likelihood that a candidate for President is corrupt is not something the FBI should conceal from voters”

            So, now you are saying that the FBI grievously erred when it hid the fact of its many investigations into Trump-Russia collusion until after the 2016 election. You may be on to something.

            And, your whining does not change the fact that there is nothing on the laptop that is evidence that Biden is corrupt. If there was, it would have been publicized by his enemies in 2020.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. So, the Big Guy didn’t get his cut?

            Even if he didn’t, Hunter was clearly shielded from prosecution for the firearm purchase as well as selling access to the then VP.

            Like

          5. “So, the Big Guy didn’t get his cut?”
            The “Big Guy” reference you love so much occurred AFTER Biden was out of office. It is not a crime to try to organize business transactions as a private citizen. Meanwhile you were dead silent while Trump and his children were wheeling and dealing around the world WHILE he was President.

            As for prosecuting a drug-addled and suicidal Hunter Biden for his denying his use of drugs on a gun purchase application – given his mental state it would have been very unlikely to be a successful prosecution. Proceeding with non-winnable cases against mentally ill people is something that prosecutors rarely do. You think an exception should have been made in HB’s case. THAT would be a political decision not the decision to treat him like others would be treated in similar circumstances.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Drug addicts are prosecuted for gun crimes every day.”

            Laughable. The “crime” in this case is perjury. Not a gun crime. Perjury is very hard to prosecute since the intent and the mental state of the “criminal” is relevant to guilt.

            Like

          9. “Addicts and felons are prosecuted for false 4473 forms every day.”

            Wow! How many times have I heard you argue that the problem is that the prosecutions that should follow from lying on these forms doesn’t happen? Too many to count.

            I would guess that most of the prosecutions for perjury that do happen are part of a broader case involving criminal use of the gun in question.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Last figures I read, there were 81,000 violations reported to the FBI by dealers in one year, and 298 prosecutions. That’s not many prosecuted, but it’s still prosecutions every day the courts are open. Of course, they probably aren’t all drug lies, still, Hunter committed a felony and it was concealed instead of prosecuted.

            Like

  7. Don, Google Denver Riggleman. The news is full of his testimony today. Everybody from CNN to FOX is covering the story. It was a 60 Minutes special The gist of the story is, Riggleman, an ex-military intelligence officer and former Republican congressman from Virginia, oversaw a data-driven operation for the January 6 committee, pursuing phone records and other digital clues tied to the attack on the Capitol. Riggleman said he saw a connection between the White House and a phone belonging to one of the rioters on January 6 during the time the riot was happening. He knows who the rioter is. He does not know who was personally on the phone inside the White House. But there is now an established connection between the White House and someone inside the riot as it was happening. If they know the rioter, I’d guess it won’t be too hard to get him to flip on whoever he was talking to.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  8. “”RE: “Was he [Trump] part of the Reichstag fire moment too?”
    I doubt it.”

    Okay, if Trump called the rally, and he wasn’t part of a false flag movement, why didn’t he call off the rally when he saw it had turned violent?

    Why did Trump let the FBI get away with making him look so bad?

    Why did he wait until so late to tell the rioters to go home? He was watching the whole thing on FOX News. He knew the FBI was wrecking the Capitol, why didn’t he try to stop it?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  9. If anything might spoil the Pelosi Jan 7 narrative she wrote and directed the committee to find just before midterms, it won’t see the light of day. This guy, any other evidence or lack of evidence won’t matter to the “Trump did it” unselected committee. Good to see this is what Dmocrats hung their hats on but it won’t make any difference in the GOP take over of the House and Senate in November.

    Like

    Reply

  10. Haven’t been paying much attention to the news lately have you Bob? The Democrats won’t be hanging any hats on Trump. They won’t need to. Have you heard of a little movement called “Roe Roe Roe Your Vote?”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Considering how little effect Dobbs actually has, I am baffled as to why many women would care about that as much as inflation and shortages that really affect their families.

      Like

      Reply

      1. You are baffled why so many women are incensed at being turned into second class citizens? Of course you are. “Tyranny” only happens when you think YOUR rights are threatened.

        My daughters live in NY and NJ and my daughters-in-law live in IL and PA . Their access to abortion if needed is not likely to be unreasonably restricted any time soon. But, they are nevertheless as mad as Hell about this fundamental right being taken away from them. Nobody likes being told that they are not capable nor allowed to have dominion over their own bodies. The recent vote in Kansas shows that the are not alone in their anger.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. “So, you speak for women now?”

            How lame is that!

            I reported on what the women in my life feel about their being legally defined as second-class citizens. If that is “speaking for women” then so be it.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Keep wishing upon a star. Biden and democrats have way too much dirty laundry with out of control spending, hyperinflation, border chaos, gas prices, collapse of the DOW, massive debt and lots more for a one issue dream to have any real effect like Luria and apparently you think. But roe your boat all you want…

      Like

      Reply

  11. Apparently you aren’t the only white, male, conservative who is “baffled” as to why many women would care about losing the right to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies. After all these years conservatives finally delivered on allowing state legislatures to ban abortions and women are upset about it. Who’d a’knowed? It is literally a life or death matter for a lot of women, but I’m sure I can’t explain it to you in a way you’d understand. Suffice it to say it a LOT of women will be voting in November.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Well, I am a Libertarian, not a conservative but still, I don’t get it.

      The effect of Dobbs in Virginia is zero.

      I don’t think either Libertarians or conservatives care what a woman does with her own body,

      It is her passenger’s body which is the issue. Why continually characterize it otherwise?

      And for that passenger, it damn sure is a life or death matter every time.

      Why can’t we ever discuss abortion for what it is instead of making it a man vs woman power issue? It is an issue of at what point that passenger deserves the protection of the Rule of Law.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “The effect of Dobbs in Virginia is zero.”

        So far.

        And here is a shout out to Lindsey Graham for his proposed legislation to ban abortions NATIONWIDE from a very early stage. He helps make it clear what the ultimate agenda is. Here in the Second Congressional District we have a candidate who supports his views (Kiggans) and one who will fight him (Luria). For those who love Liberty, this issue alone makes the choice clear. Roe, Roe, Roe your Vote!

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

          1. “For a guy wo always wails about democracy you sure don’t have much faith in it.”

            We are a Constitutional democracy for a reason and that reason is that fundamental human rights are not up for a vote. If dominion over your own body is not a fundamental human right, then nothing is.

            As Lindsay Graham has made clear, this issue is not settled. The Christofascist agenda is on full display. His bill serves as a reminder that they are not done yet and it serves as a reminder of which party decided that women are second-class citizens whose bodies belong to the state.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. 15 weeks, almost 4 months is “very early”? From a left wing extremist who has no problem cracking the skull and tearing apart a baby piece by piece, murdering it, until just before it might survive outside the womb just because is pretty telling and blood thirsty of you. Kill any babies lately???

          Like

          Reply

  12. Go get yourself a nice drink. This is going to take a while.

    First of all, I am way past the age where I have to worry about pregnancy, so this isn’t about me personally.

    Second of all, Dobbs has an effect on every woman of child-bearing age in the country, including Virginia. For example, suppose you are pregnant and your husband gets transferred to a state where abortion is banned. And suppose during the moving process, you have a miscarriage. In Texas, you might get charged with murder. Suppose you get there and you find out the fetus you carry has a heartbeat but no skull. That heartbeat will stop as soon as the fetus leaves the womb, but you will be forced to carry it full term and go through the labor process, knowing it won’t live. Suppose you get transferred to Texas and your daughter gets raped? Suppose you get transferred to Texas and while you are overseas, your wife gets raped. The possibilities are endless.

    Now, as to that “passenger:”

    That is a totally, 100% religious belief. Some people believe life begins when a sperm touches an egg. Some people believe life begins with the first breath. Some people believe life begins with a heartbeat.

    If you follow the Bible, life begins with “the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7 – Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.)

    In Numbers 5:11-31, God gives Moses instructions on how priests are to perform abortions in the temple. If a man’s wife is pregnant and he doesn’t believe the baby is his, he is to take her to the temple and make his case to the priest. If the priest believes him, he will give the woman “bitter waters” to drink that will “bring on the curse” (aka the menstrual cycle).

    So, according to the Bible, life begins with breath and God is okay with abortions.

    Until the evangelicals needed a way to rally the congregations to vote for candidates who would fund their segregated religious schools, this is what they had to say about when life begins:

    “Life begins with the Breath of Life. To say life begins when a sperm touches an egg is to say that man, not God, has created life. And that is vanity. And vanity is a mortal sin.”

    (You may remember some of the sperm-touching-an-egg arguments from the first days of in vitro fertilization. “Man in his vanity thinks he can create life!” etc.)

    But all that changed when desegregation of the schools became a big issue and white Christians were opening private religious schools so they could choose their own students. They needed government funding for those schools. They needed politicians who would give it to them.

    Catholics and Protestants had never agreed on very much in those days and, at that point, neither was a large enough voting block on their own to sway many politicians. They needed to find a common ground to rally behind. First they tried birth control. But too many husbands enjoyed having sex with their wives without having to put 14 kids through college, so that didn’t work. So next, they tried abortion. Of course they’d have to change a few of their former sermons, but that was a small price to pay to get funding for their private schools.

    Things evolved from there. Abortion stopped being a religious issue and became a political issue.

    Jews still believe the Old Testament version of the law. So, in states that now outlaw abortion, they are violating the religious freedom of the Jews.

    You ask, “Why can’t we ever discuss abortion for what it is instead of making it a man vs woman power issue?” I ask, “Why can’t we ever discuss abortion as a religious freedom issue?”

    You say, “It is an issue of at what point that passenger deserves the protection of the Rule of Law.” And I say, “Exactly.” When does that “passenger” become a living being?

    You’ve heard the arguments. They won’t change anyone’s mind. People will hold their own personal religious beliefs no matter what the argument. And that is fine… so long as no one tries to legislate their religious beliefs onto others.

    Don’t believe in abortions? I will defend to the death your right not to have one.

    Believe in abortions? I will defend to the death your right to have one.

    I could go on for the rest of the night, but now I need a drink.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks, but I am uninterested in religious definitions.

      My own line is when rudimentary self awareness can be demonstrated, about 18 weeks.

      But my definition isn’t binding, neither is the Popes’, or yours.

      The definition that matters is the consensus of the legislature. How else can we settle a question like that?

      Just bow down and accept your definition?

      Or that of a scared 14 year old girl?

      When life begins can only be determined by the consensus of the legislature.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “My own line is when rudimentary self awareness can be demonstrated, about 18 weeks.”

        Then next time you need an abortion, apply your “own line” to the decision you make.

        Let’s say you are the father of a new-born baby. Sadly, its life is in danger unless you donate some of your unique bone marrow to save it. Do you have a right to choose whether or not to undergo the pain and risk of the procedure? If you choose not to do so, can you be put in jail?

        In case you do not follow along, the law cannot compel you to sacrifice your body in any way for another person. There is no logical reason that says a woman CAN be compelled to sacrifice her body for another person but a man cannot be. It is a matter of choice in which each person should be allowed to apply their “own line” with respect to what is right and wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. A pregnant woman’s passenger is an involuntary stowaway, there through no fault of its own.

          The captain of a ship can’t throw a stowaway overboard even though he consumes the ship’s resources, he must be delivered to the next safe port.

          Like

          Reply

          2. The stowaway scenario is exactly on point.

            If anything, it is too generous. as the baby was INVITED on board by the mother, in all few a few cases. SO it is really more like throwing an invited guest overboard.

            There is a huge difference between declining to help a sick baby and ripping one apart.

            Like

          3. “There is a huge difference between declining to help a sick baby and ripping one apart.”

            Not really. In either case the “person” ends up dead. You have not addressed why you (the father in the hypothetical who also invited the stowaway on board) cannot be compelled to sacrifice for them but the mother can be.

            And, speaking of ripping someone apart, if another “person” was going to do to you what a fetus does to a woman you would shoot them dead and claim self-defense.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Make her a parent?

            Cute.

            But we are talking about the pain, disfigurement, maiming and the risk of death that CHOOSING to be a mother entails. If someone was about to inflict ANY of those on you, you would shoot them dead and claim self-defense.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “The stowaway scenario is exactly on point.”

            You have used that scenario too many ties.

            Here is the BIG difference between the two “passengers” in question. The stowaway is there by CHOICE. The fetus is there by CHANCE.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Motherhood is a normal part of life”

            Women choosing to become mothers is a normal part of life. Forcing women to become mothers is not. It is a barbaric anachronism.

            The overwhelming proportion of abortions cannot be honestly called “infanticide” by any objective or scientific criteria. That is the simple fact of the matter. And, if you look into it, you will find that almost all abortions of a realistically viable fetus are done out of tragic medical necessity – not a murder by a mother who is a killer.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. The KFF article is an advocacy piece and doesn’t really refute my point anyway.

            The best way to avoid the cost of a late term abortion if the child isn’t wanted is to use birth control in the first place, or failing that, acting early.

            But the causes your cite discusses are really just another way to say procrastination.

            Like

          13. “The KFF article is an advocacy piece and doesn’t really refute my point anyway.”

            The KFF is a reliable source of family life statistics. They do not manipulate the data as does your choice of sources.

            You have no point to make when you use a phony definition of what a “late abortion” is. And that is exactly what you are doing. The overwhelming majority of 2nd trimester abortions happen in the first week or two – long before viability. But you treat them like the were the day before the due date. Not honest. In most states – if not all – actual late term abortions are not even legal except in extremis.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “No I want to discuss the limits now being considered . . .”

            Fine, then do not describe anything occurring after these Draconian limits as a “late term abortion” as when you said . . . “The primary cause of late term abortions is procrastination.”

            What you are now saying is that women can live with these Draconian limits because you think they are just dandy. Well, they are not. And there is no good reason to set such tight limits with no reasonable and objective scientific basis.

            What you people constantly ignore is that those seeking abortions are disproportionately young, scared, and ignorant. They are not capable of instantly recognizing their plight and summoning the courage to face it. They are not the mature, informed, rational decision-makers of your imagination.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. They are not Draconian. They are backed by clinical observation demonstrating the awareness of pain and early self awareness, a rational basis for the existence of a separate human life.

            Why is it that you think everyone else is too inferior to you to be responsible for their choices? You assume that young women are responsible enough to be sexually active but not responsible enough to use birth control or failing that, to act before halfway through a pregnancy,

            You seem to want to keep people children forever so they will need your guidance.

            Like

          19. “They are not Draconian.”

            Yes they are. We have had viability as a standard for fifty years now. That is at about 24 weeks. Cutting that perfectly workable and generally accepted standard down to 15 weeks IS Draconian. Your claim that clinical observations of self-awareness and pain is a rational basis for such a change is bullshit. Where do you get this stuff? The cerebral developments that even make self-awareness possible are not present until at least the 24th week. And as I am sure you know a response to a pain stimuli by tissues is not the same as consciousness of pain. There can be no such consciousness without the cerebral structure to create it.

            Click to access 2009_09_whendoesconsciousnessarise.pdf

            As for yet another personal attack on my character, shove it up your ass. This time it is because I recognize the reality of what is often behind “procrastination” and you are pontificating from your high horse casting judgment because YOU would know what to do and act quicker than what actually happens when a teenager gets pregnant.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. The observations I refer to are actually rather old. going back to shortly after Roe.

            Recently aborted fetuses were poked in the eye with a dull probe, At 12 weeks, that produced a flinch, but that could be just a reflex.

            At 18 weeks, the fetus reached up with a hand to push it away.

            That’s not algebra, but it is self awareness. The fetus felt the pain, and took coordinated action against it.

            You are the personification of the soft bigotry of low expectations. No one can be held responsible for their actions, Thus you need the power to rescue them.

            Like

          21. “You are the personification of the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

            Your stupid and baseless insults do not change the facts. I will leave out any further tit for tat although there is PLENTY of material to work with.

            The cerebral structures to support consciousness do not even begin to develop until about the 24th week of gestation. If you read the link about the known science of consciousness you would know that even newborn infants do not have it. It is all stimulus and response as the brain develops. There is no GOOD reason to support this Draconian cut in the time available to consider and make choices. None.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. Consciousness is not a binary event, it is a continuum.

            But what I have based my threshold on rudimentary self-awareness. As in Descartes ‘I think therefore I am. ‘

            But again, it is not MY threshold, or yours, that matters, it is the consensus of the people as expressed through their legislatures. That seems to be coalescing around 15 weeks, a few weeks earlier than mine, but I will accept what the legislature does.

            That seems to be about the same as Europe and most civilized countries.

            Like

          23. “Consciousness is not a binary event, it is a continuum.”

            Sure, but it cannot start before certain necessary structures begin to form – long after 15 weeks.

            I am sure you are happy to accept whatever the legislature decides. YOU will never be getting an abortion. You would be less accepting if the legislature was voting away YOUR fundamental human rights.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. “One of the few government functions I approve of is the protection of innocent life.”

            Except of course the innocent life slaughtered in the thousands every year because you people stop every attempt to well-regulate guns and gun owners. Until you change your attitude on that issue, your pious pomposity on the subject of “innocent life” is a joke.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. “My firearms protect innocent life.”

            Yeah, sure. Until they don’t.

            Your constantly and strongly oppose gun policies that would save innocent life. A lot of innocent life. And policies with no real cost to you and your ability to protect yourself, your family, your home, or your ego.

            So, I say again . . . Until you change your attitude on controlling guns and gun owners, your pious pomposity on the subject of “innocent life” is a joke. Especially in the context of the government infringing on a basic human right of women.

            Like

          28. That’s your opinion, I disagree.

            I see the problem as single parent matriarchal households mass producing sociopaths who don’t care about innocent bystanders getting killed as collateral damage in their wars with each other.

            But it’s much easier to blame a gun than to concede that your party’s policies over the last 50 years have been a societal disaster and produced a generation of predators that cannot be rehabilitated.

            Like

          29. I will point out that the Republican Party has no policies at all anymore. It is more like a giant troll. Needling and insulting from the sidelines, but with no solutions in mind. It could not even muster enough gumption to repair our infrastructure, provide alternatives for affordable and attainable healthcare, help veterans facing serious medical issues, deal with immigration…and the list goes on.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. The list goes on, but the money doesn’t.

            We’ve already spent all of our children’s tax money for the next 50 years and we’re working on our grandchildren’s.

            As Ms Thatcher warned, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

            Actually, that’s not even the biggest problem.

            Like

          31. Republicans have run of the deficit as much as anyone, if not more. Starting with Reagan and ending with Trump “debt is good”. Borrow and spend is the policy.

            We are not a socialist country, never have been and never will be. Period. Just repeating that claptrap over and over does not make it true. Another Big Lie.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. That may be the case. I have concerns about our debt issues also. But the Republicans are not the answer. Or more to the point, they have no policies to change that.

            McCarthy has stated that the first order of business when (or if?) they take the House is to stop the hiring at the IRS. That makes no sense coming from a party that wants to cut deficits and debt.

            To review, that is 87000 new hires over 10 years, with only about 8% being agents or 6500. And very few are armed (10%) to go after cartels and organized crime figureheads.

            People cannot get timely answers, if any answers at all, when they contact the IRS regarding tax questions or concerns. Most folks should be able to resolve their issue quickly and over the phone. Today it can take weeks just to get through, then months or years to resolve disputes.

            We have some economic realities to face, no doubt. Instead, we are debating Italian satellites and creating voter fraud Gestapos.

            (BTW, the voter fraud police created in AZ in response to the 2018 election has netted 20 possible cases over 4 years. WTF, the red states have gone nuts to prove nothing but bolster the Big Lie.)

            Liked by 1 person

          34. “The list goes on, but the money doesn’t.”

            Especially when you give it to the wealthiest people in the country without receiving anything of benefit in return.

            Like

          36. “Letting people keep a larger fraction of the wealth they create is not giving them anything.”

            Yes, lets all fall down an worship the uber rich. They are obviously the Übermensch of your fascist fantasies.

            Like

          38. “You are really losing perspective.”

            No, you are. You say there is no money for important programs when, in fact, there is plenty. Duly authorized taxes on income trump “property rights.” See the 16th Amendment.

            Like

          40. “Thou Shalt not steal.”

            Here we are again. You having to pay taxes for a purpose you do not like is “stealing.” Not too childish.

            I refer you to the Constitution and you rebut with the Bible. Interesting! By the way, the Bible totally sanctions abortion if that is going to be our final authority and not the law.

            Like

          41. I don’t consider the Bible an authority, but every religion and ethical system prohibits theft.

            Taking justly earned wealth simply because it is there is theft.

            Like

          43. Of course taxes, in excess of that person’s proportionate share of the cost of providing for defense and the Rule of Law are theft.

            They may be legal theft, but theft nonetheless.

            You just like legal theft.

            Like

          44. “Of course….theft”

            Nonsense. Something you have plenty of on almost every subject.

            There is much more to a functioning society than national defense and law enforcement. It is pointless to try to explain that to someone who does not want to understand.

            Like

          45. Oh, I understand quite a lot.

            Frederic Bastiat had you pegged 150 years ago,

            “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

            It doesn’t matter if you’re stealing for your own consumption, or to buy votes, or just to indulge your Santa Claus fantasy, it’s still stealing. You would just rather rationalize it as some sort of greater good than face that you are in your heart, a thief.

            Like

          47. “That’s your opinion, I disagree.”

            Well, of course you do.

            You see the problem as “single parent matriarchal” households and yet you want to make it much harder for poor women to terminate unwanted pre-viability pregnancies. How does that compute?

            And, by the way, in spite of your hair on fire about sociopaths, the homicide rate now is much lower now than it was decades ago. The homicide (murder and non-negligent manslaughter) rate in 1980 was 10.2 per 100K. Even with the current spike the rate is somewhere around 6. Interestingly, regional analysis prepared by the FBI shows that about 1/2 of all murders occur in the South. So much for the idea that an armed society is a civil society.

            Like

          50. “…the protection of innocent life.”

            Like affordable and attainable healthcare for all Americans.

            Saturating the nation with 400 million guns is not one of the “protecting innocent life” functions. Every nation has hooligans. England is a prime example. But few nations kill each other off the way we do.

            Liked by 1 person

  13. So you can’t answer a simple question but instead go off on some weird half baked babblefest of slim to none what ifs and religious interpretation tainted with Caucasian misandrism. Exactly when does that passenger (baby) have rights to live by law?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Kill any babies lately???”

      Bob, your question is too stupid to deserve an answer. If you can’t understand adult conversations, go back to Inbredistan and leave the civilized world alone.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  14. “Thanks, but I am uninterested in religious definitions.”

    Don, Are you interested in the freedom of religion, because that’s what the Constitution guarantees.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    There are laws being made all over the country that prohibit Jews, and many others, from exercising their religious beliefs. Are you okay with that?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. The law must be neutral regarding religion.

      But what does religion have to do with it?

      There is some point at which there is, for legal purposes, a life deserving the protection of the Rule of Law.

      Determining that point can only be determined by the consensus of the legislature.

      Like

      Reply

      1. When it comes to abortion, the religious right thinks religion has a lot to do with it. They will never rest until abortion is totally banned. They do not want “neutrality.”

        I do see your point about the practicality of a consensus for the purposes of the law. However, that consensus must be decided based on when life begins. And, like it or not, that brings us back to personal beliefs.

        Personally, I don’t believe the law has any place in the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. It doesn’t, but it does have a place in protecting the life of the baby, once there is, for legal purposes, one there, as defined by the legislature.

          It’s not about your body, or about the doctor. It’s about the child.

          Nothing else.

          Like

          Reply

          2. That is the issue for the legislature to determine, for legal purposes.

            However, the woman’s DNA is not the same as the fetus. or baby, depending on what side of the line it is on. They are independent lives, each with their own unique identity. The passenger is not part of the mother. Contained and dependent, yes, but an entirely unique person. The placenta transfers oxygen and nutrients, but there is no direct communication between the baby’s half and the mother’s. But very definitely NOT part of the woman’s body.

            It was, from the moment of conception. Perhaps not yet a legal person, as I said, I draw the line at self awareness. but from the DNA standpoint, that life is everything it ever will be.

            Like

          3. Okay, now I can’t even get a “Reply” option under the right comment, so this is a reply to your next comment. “I draw the line at self awareness.”

            (SNARK ALERT)
            If self awareness is your criteria for being alive, Trump has never been born.

            Liked by 2 people

  15. So thus is what Lois wants to murder.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=fetus+5+months+pictures&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&source=android-home&sxsrf=ALiCzsa1_G4R5jPXtNT8nPwXdXHTnhiF8Q%3A1664069973365&source=hp&ei=VbEvY4SXE5Wt5NoPtOyUkAE&oq=&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBABGAMyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyDQguEMcBEK8BEOoCECcyDQguEMcBEK8BEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECcyDQguEMcBEK8BEOoCECcyBwgjEOoCECdQAFgAYNoXaAFwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAsAEP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#imgrc=Gp9pQGuzIwc6aM
    It’s not your body, it’s a child!! Extremist selfish leftist bastards, especially female ones, who desire to kill this are beyond comprehension and you want to call yourself adult?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Extreme selfish bastards (who are, by definition male, not female) want a child (who they do not have to carry) born but they have no interest in seeing that child fed, or given medical attention, or housing. Those post-birth babies are moochers. Welfare spawn. They come here from Mexico and take away your job. Better put ’em in a cage and separate ’em from their mothers. Excuse me while I ignore a Trump supporter’s hypocritical diatribe. Go talk to yourself. You’re the only one who cares what you have to say.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. Um, bastard by definition is an undesirable or despicable person, male or female. Perfect definition of a liberal as well. So instead of refuting that you have no problem killing the pictured child, you go off on some weird babbling about men, Trump and Mexico. You haven’t even responded to the question of when does an unborn child deserve legal rights so your comment that a child is not a human until it is outside the womb and breathing on its own means you have no problem killing an 8 month unborn child which is so far extreme left, despicable and inhuman it isn’t funny. You are the very definition of despicable if that is your answer.

        Like

        Reply

  17. This thread has become so untenable it is no longer possible for me to reply under any comment, so I’m just going to leave this as a footnote.

    If you think a “passenger” has rights to parts of the “ship,” be aware of the precedent you are setting. If women have no body autonomy, neither do men.

    If there is no body autonomy, body parts can be harvested from anyone. Blood donations could become required from everyone. How many people need kidney transplants? You have two. The law could require you to give one up. And things could get much, much worse than that.

    Don’t want to register your gun? You might be required to register your blood type. Your medical records might become government property. You might get a knock on your door telling you your “donation” is required. Maybe you’d be glad to donate. Maybe you’d feel raped.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Well, the laws that are currently being passed make no exceptions for the “uninvited” guests. Nor do they make exceptions for the guests who show up missing essential body parts.

        Invited guests rarely get thrown overboard. Women who want children don’t have abortions.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You’re saying that a million women a year are pregnant as the result of rape?

          Understand that prior to 15 to 18 weeks, I have no problem myself with abortion, though it is a lousy method of regular birth control. Nor do I have a problem with euthanasia for severely deformed babies.

          However, a woman who has been raped knows that before 15 weeks and if she fails to act early, we don’t execute children for their father’s crimes.

          Other than undetected abnormalities and severe health threats to the mother, there is no good reason for abortions after 15 to 18 weeks.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Rape isn’t the only reason for abortion. As a medical professional, you should know that it is highly possible for a million women a year to develop life threatening medical issues.

            And you yourself can feel free to have an abortion any time you choose.

            You are ignoring the dangerous precedent of denying body autonomy. If a woman can be forced to give her body to an unwanted baby, then body autonomy does not exist. You can be forced to give blood or a kidney or bone marrow to a stranger… whether you think they deserve to live or not.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Again, if the woman waits until 15 to 18 weeks, she has a commitment to see it through.

            She could have used birth control.

            She could have aborted before that new life was self aware.

            But if she waits over 4 months, then that new life has rights

            Like

    2. Hysteria noted. What if, what if, what if. You just don’t want to accept that an unborn child is not disposable trash at the whims of a woman at a point much earlier thsn live birth. You bought and ate the steak, you must pay for it.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment