Jennifer Rubin Should Chill
Stop accusing your political opponents of wanting to murder children.

Jennifer Rubin is a columnist for The Washington Post and commentator for MSNBC. Once upon a time she was considered a conservative writer—indeed, her hiring by The Post in 2010 was met with controversy specifically because the establishment liberal paper had hired a right-leaning blogger. In 2013, WaPo's former ombudsman wrote an open letter calling on Jeff Bezos, who had then just bought the newspaper, to fire her for being too pro-Romney and anti-Obama.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
Times have certainly changed. Ever since Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Rubin has become a prolific Never Trump writer and commentator; if the dictionary had an entry for Never Trump, her picture would appear next to it. She inveighs constantly against Trump, along with everyone and everything that helps to normalize him. She recently called for people to boycott MSNBC, one of her employers, as a result of Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski deciding to meet with Trump. Needless to say, she no longer identifies as a conservative.
In a recent episode of her podcast, she offered some provocative—some would say alarming—advice to Democrats to improve their messaging. She instructed them to make pithy statements like "Republicans want to kill your kids."
"Republicans want to kill your kids. It's actually true." – Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post columnist
Absolutely unhinged. ????
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) November 19, 2024
That clip went viral on social media for obvious reasons. It's never wise to place automatic faith in short, viral video clips, and so I went looking for the rest of the video. It's available here; the "Republicans want to kill your kids" part starts at around the 4:20 mark.
It sounds like she really means it!
Rubin provides two examples to justify her blanket statement that "Republicans want to kill your kids": conservative views on funding for medical research and gun control. On that latter front, she flatly states that Republicans want to "allow minors and all sorts of people to get semi-automatic weapons that they use to shoot up schools."
It is flatly untrue that supporters of gun rights want minors to get their hands on semiautomatic weapons. Moreover, gun control advocates have to grapple with a number of complicating details: Easily obtainable handguns rather than semiautomatics are the cause of most gun deaths in the U.S., and mass disarmament would involve vastly increasing the number of police interactions with citizens. Is every individual who balks at the idea of police stopping, detaining, and arresting many more people complicit in child murder? Obviously not.
When far-right commentators make blanket, hyperbolic statements that Democrats are all trying to kill, mutilate, or otherwise harm children, they usually earn mockery from the mainstream media. Rubin operates as a Mirror Universe version of this same phenomenon, and does so from a plum perch at The Washington Post. She shouldn't be fired or otherwise disciplined—but she should, please, chill out.
This Week on Free Media
I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss Morning Joe's trip to Trump world, the president-elect's views on the media, Democrats agreeing with Elon Musk to eliminate government waste, and the latest meltdown on The View.
Worth Watching
I have finally finished The Boys, which I started watching three months ago. While I was initially enthralled by the premise—a squad of vigilantes teams up to take down a bunch of secretly evil superheroes—the show goes considerably off the rails in its later seasons. And while The Boys' moral compass was always somewhat left-leaning, the fourth season is over-the-top in terms of the level of contempt for nonliberal viewpoints. There's parody, and then there's this (Jennifer Rubin would fit right in.) Even so, Antony Starr's portrayal of the main antagonist, Homelander, deserves unending praise.
Next up: I plan to watch either Penguin, Dune: Prophecy, or Agatha All Along.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A Rubin sheep’s clothing.
Oh look what Democrats did. That means it’ll be ok when Republicans do the same thing. Oh wait. This one is like chicken vs egg (the answer is the rooster).
Ideas™ !
You realize you're the Jenifer Rubin of the comment board right?
You routinely claim that anyone who doesn’t support Trump want to sexually mutilate children or murder them in the womb. You prove my point. Can’t tell which tribe of cunts accused the other of wanting to murder children first.
Can you cite him saying that about anybody who does not support Trump? He seems to be a lot more targeted in critiques than that, but you could prove me wrong.
I don't say that shit. But like Jennifer rubin he has this weird caricature of his enemies he has to visualize to defend his own views.
Well, Sarc does have a list...
POST THE LIST SARCASMIC!
I'm off his list =( but promoted to ambassador of mean girls.
He’s just plain frightened of me. Although I know for a fact I’m not muted.
He does that to me quite often, and saying Trump is less evil than Biden/Harris does not make me a supporter except in the eyes of TDS sufferers.
Can you cite him saying that about anybody who does not support Trump?
If someone doesn’t support Trump then he declares that they’re a Democrat, and all Democrats are the same. So anyone who doesn’t support Trump supports abortion as well as every controversial gender dysphoria treatment ie they want to murder and mutilate children.
No. That’s not what Jesse says.
That’s the stupid little strawman you pull out of your ass whenever you want attention and decide to start trolling.
Exactly. Jesse and I have our differences, obvious to any regular reader, and he has never called me a Democrat, nor I him.
Sarc is just an idiot with zero original thoughts.
Maybe Jesse and I should fulfill sarc's dream.
Hey, Jesse -- call me a Democrat, will you? I'll call you one in return, and sarc will die from a heart attack.
While I vehemently disagree with your views on IP, I’ve never seen you support state abuses or takings or defend the left.
Best I can do is call you a bernie bro.
What's hilarious is sarc is literally in the thread we are disagreeing.
Yeah, I think he must have had blinders surgically added.
His brain has literally shrink from decades of severe alcohol abuse. Thats a medical fact. In addition to his other deficits, he is almost certainly a confabulist. So he believes a lot of the bullshit accusations he pukes up at us.
Sarc needs some pamphlets on Canada’s socialized euthanasia programs, and a one way bus ticket to the closest execution centre. Perhaps ML can assist in directing him.
Do you take pride in being stupid? I never said anything about disagreeing about anything other than Trump. On that you agree. Trump is the best. You’re clansmen. On that you can unite against anyone who doesn't say he's the best.
If I was to have voted I would have pulled on Chase’s Oliver. That joke was better when the guy’s last name was Johnson.
"Do you take pride in being stupid?"
Remember how I'm always telling you self-awareness isn't your super-power, Sarckles?
Jesse and Sandra don't agree. Never seen him refer to Sandra as a Democrat.
Where the fuck does Jesse claim that, dipshit? You got any citations and/or links to comments?
Put up or shut up, dingbat.
Asking for links to someone’s past comments? That’s fucking creepy man!
/s in case it wasn’t obvious
Thanks for proving the point lol.
You got me. Both halves of the looter Kleptocracy are only distinguishable when you compare them to Hitler and Stalin. Hitler wanted sacrifice and initiation of force for Jesus and innate racial altruism and against selfish Jewry. Stalin, on the other hand, wanted altruist sacrifice and initiation of force for historical determinism and the Workers' Struggle against selfish egotistical mercantilism (which his groupies renamed capitalism). See the difference?
Jesus loves you, Hank, even though you're a goat-sacrificing neo-pagan just like Hitler.
Ah... Chumpy is the one aptly-named Orangopox brainwashee to be wasting breath on fer shoor. See the Mute Lewser button...
Apple gas page yearbook kingdom...
Shots fired at sarc from the headline. Damn.
Rubin has married and reproduced. Maybe he got confused and thought it was the actress, but otherwise there's no excuse for this and men have to simply do better.
The penguin.
Democrats would like it if you killed your own clumps.
At the risk of engaging in the "dual loyalty smear," one might suspect Rubin (like Frum and Kristol) was never conservative beyond being pro-Israel and pro-war.
Next up: I plan to watch either Penguin, Dune: Prophecy, or Agatha All Along.
The Penguin was good.
Might start the Dune show next.
Seems I made the right call never starting The Boys.
Doubt that as she decided that, after Trump did it, moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem was a bad idea.
After years of advocating for it.
She's just a grifter. A less attractive Rick Wilson.
What are the odds that Rubin, David French and David Frum are all the same person?
Robby watches girl shows?
Why would that not surprise me in the least?
How do you think he cares for the hair? It's like singing to plants.
I used to read the Washington Post in the break room back when Rubin was hired on. I hated the paper's bias, but since I didn't have a cellphone yet there were only so many things to do for an hour on campus. Rubin has always been a pro-war democrat who routinely showed contempt for conservative personalities and principles.
That does not make any sense.
Obama was very much pro-Iran, to the point of giving them tons of money, and probably the most anti-Israel president we have had. Biden too was pro-Iran, and for that matter, pro-Houthi, un-designating them as terrorists (which Trump had done).
Yet being friendly to these groups did not make them any friendlier to us, nor did it contribute to peace in the middle east. Instead, they were emboldened and pretty much directly let to Oct 7th.
Trump might hobnob with Putin and other dictators, but he actually hit Syria after they used chemical weapons, killed that Iranian General, and we actually killed probably 200 Russians after they attacked one of our bases in Syria, whereas they probably would have fled if Obama/Biden were in charge.
Trump is very much an Iran hawk, far more than probably any president we've had.
Agatha sucked. It wasn’t super woke or anything. It was just mostly boring.
My wife and I enjoyed it, but I’m easily entertained.
I have enjoyed Marvel delving into a lot of the mental health stuff through the various characters too.
Conservative is what nazis call themselves out of shame and cowardice. Way worse is the tendency of communists to refer to themselves as liberals, socialists and anarchists--again out of shame and cowardice. But libertarians parroting both lies--out of projected or empathic shame and cowardice--lack the stupidity defense.
I suspect that you're correct about Rubin.
Statists are utterly lost; they sincerely don't know where they belong or what they should do, thus all the yelling and screaming.
Yup. Both the Christian National Socialist Prohibitionist girl-bulliers and the Misanthropic Climate Sharknado Warmunists have this same problem. Libertarians have become the straight men in the circus of ordure-splattering socialist looters. Phew!
^ yelling and screaming
Is she a new Rosanne Rosanadana character for the late Gilda Radner to play?
She sounds like a nasty woman down the street from every person's childhood.
"In a recent episode of her podcast, she offered some provocative—some would say alarming—advice to Democrats to improve their messaging. She instructed them to make pithy statements like "Republicans want to kill your kids."
Is this supposed to be a hot take for democrats? They've been doing that for as long as I can remember and it's almost always regarding gun control (and now, lately, abortion).
This is like when all the media was taken aback by Charlemange calling Trump a fascist, as if they hadn't been doing that for years already.
So what part of the Christian National Socialist platform do the Trumpanzistas and God's Own Prohibitionists NOT copy? https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/are-major-us-parties-nazi/
Nobody gives a fuck about your kook far left website, you dried up senile sack of crap.
The Nazis were goat-sacrificing neo-pagan just like you who banned Christmas.
LOL.. Summary for everyone who won't read it.
"They took my illegal drugs so they're [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s]."
Maybe socialism has a definition a little more complete than just government took my illegal drugs. I think the drug war is BS but your BS indoctrination is even worse than that.
Uh oh ...
I don't agree with that point of view, I bet Robby doesn't either judging from this quote, but to leave it out to make BOAF SIDEZ seem equivalent is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I really want to start a tally of Reason's use of the terms "far-right" and "far-left" after that article where they somewhat acknowledge that it is the left that has gone extreme.
I thought it was Rubin that wanted to kill everyone's kids by being a neocon and cheerleading for more wars.
I think when Trump became a public figure she looked down the road and expected the left-media, and maybe all media, to purge Trump supporters after he’s out of office. Four years isn’t that long, and she certainly never expected him to be re-elected. So she was protecting her future job prospects.
As for her being so extreme it might be a problem I think you have to realize who she’s appealing to. She speaks just like the typical DC leftist. I don’t think most people realize how extreme and vengeful large swaths of the left are.
I do. It’s why I openly advocate for the elimination of the democrat party. And a long term strategy to purge Marxism from America. We cannot survive as a constitutional republic with so many free range Marxists allowed to exist.
I don't even like Trump, but this is getting ridiculous. Jennifer Rubin and many deranged anti-trumpers deserve to be found guilty of libel.
One can't be "found guilty" of libel in the USA, because libel is not a CRIME. Libel is only a civil cause of action. I defy you to identify a single libel written by Rubin about Trump. In fact, since Trump is a public figure, legally he CAN'T be libeled. Let's leave the discussion of legal subjects to those having legal knowledge, eh?
Public figures can be libeled. You flunk.
Only by proof of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, which is an impossible standard. Name a president who ever sued for libel, much less sued successfully, eh? Every word written by Rubin is vetted by libel lawyers, so the chance that she could libel Trump is zero.
So they can still sue for libel. Glad that’s settled. Makes your first comment look pretty retarded though.
By the way. Some courts are starting to look at the sullivan standard as wrong. Ready for a review.
I think the last 8 years shows plenty of evidence of actual malice against Trump and his supporters.
Public figures can still sue for libel if they prove malicious intent.. lol. Talk about leaving legality to those with legal knowledge. Hilarious.
False. See, e.g., Section 45-8-212, Montana Code Annotated (reciting the elements of criminal defamation and establishing a prison term of up to six months and a fine of up to $500).
Yet another advantage of mass deportation: Once the illegals are gone, we will have facilities to house the insane.
She recently called for people to boycott MSNBC
MSNBC executives have been working on this for years.
Leftists are doing that all on their own after the Scarboroughs sucked up to Trump this week.
What a couple of shitweasels. They will say absolutely anything, and without principle.
Minors should learn gun safety. There used to be a path where kids would have a BB gun, then pellet gun, then real gun. You'd see this in old comic books ads, telling kids to be responsible so their parents (well, father) will buy them a BB gun.
OTOH, when you have a child who had threatened to shoot up a school, you shouldn't buy him one.
The school sent a notice home that they were teaching kids about gun safety. I took that opportunity to go over the rules of handling one with her orbeez gun (designed as a glock clone). I'm hoping to get her disciplined enough to use a bb gun in the next year and hoping to teach her on my dad's old .22 revolver in a couple more years.
"Easily obtainable handguns" may be the cause of most gun deaths, the majority of which are suicides + accidents. They are NOT the cause of most MASS killings, or indeed ANY MASS killings. It is the MASS school killings that Rubin is speaking of. If anyone should speak relevantly, a magazine named "Reason" should be that one.
What is supposed to be special about schools?
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Do you even take time to research the shit you write?
… Easily obtainable handguns rather than semiautomatics…
Semi-automatics are not some special class of firearm separate and distinct from handguns. “Semi-automatic” refers to how the action of a firearm cycles to the next round into the chamber.
Four of the five best selling handguns in 2023 were semi-automatic. https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/by-the-numbers-best-selling-handguns-of-2023/
+1 Like an Native American afraid that the camera is going to steal their soul, Robby is still confusing the tool for the act.
It is flatly untrue that supporters of gun rights want minors to get their hands on semiautomatic weapons.
That's weird, I put a semi-automatic in each one of my kids' hands when they were 10 yrs. old so they could learn the rules of firearm safety and how to shoot. The Scouts and various other youth organizations have done the exact same for the exact same purpose.
It is flatly untrue that supporters of gun rights want minors to access guns illegally with the intent to kill other humans or children. But then, that also puts supporters of gun rights in league with people who don't want minors to access knives or bats illegally and/or with the intent to kill humans or other children. You know, normal people.
Like an Native American afraid that the camera is going to steal their soul, Robby is still confusing the tool for the act.
Not to give Robby too hard a time, he still seems pretty oriented towards the "They aren't actually hurting anybody, there's no need to demonize them." position, even if he is absolutely murdering the vocabulary and/or understanding of the culture.
I put a semi-automatic in each one of my kids’ hands when they were 10 yrs. old
Good thing kids have only two hands apiece, huh?
So is this supposed to mean that a rifle is a handgun?
Go back and read it a few more times. If you don’t understand the subject matter, get educated.
So Robby knows less about firearms than I did when I was seven years old.
>> She shouldn't be fired or otherwise disciplined
No, actually, she should be fired, because of the specific characteristics of her job.
See, in most jobs, most political opinions are fundamentally irrelevant to job performance. Most jobs do not screen for political opinions in hiring. And for most jobs, hiring the employee does not constitute a statement on the part of the employer that anyone should pay any attention to the employee's political opinions.
But expressing political opinions is the core of Jennifer Rubin's job as an opinion columnist, The Washington Post absolutely considers the political views that are going to be expressed when making hiring decisions about opinion columnists, and publishing Jennifer Rubin's column in The Washington Post is absolutely a statement by The Washington Post that people should pay attention to her political opinions.
+1
This is/was the same idiocy about the counter plagiarism claim from supporters of Claudine Gay against Neri Oxman.
Gay's product was guidance and leadership. Stealing others' messages and passing it off as her own is/was a critical violation of her core job function. Even if only because it's the other person whom she stole from who's actually leading.
Oxman's product was things like novel furniture design, materials, and manufacturing methods. If she used someone else's words to describe them or come up with the idea as long as she didn't directly copy their idea itself, the words were immaterial. She, or her group, were still the ones making the novel designs and manufacturing methods, even if they were stealing someone else's terminology to describe it.
No, actually, she should be fired, because of the specific characteristics of her job.
If they continue to keep her employed and publish her columns, then that is implicit evidence that they are satisfied with her political opinions, even if they have changed from when they originally hired her.
I don't think they hired her explicitly as someone that would stand in support of any and all Republicans. They probably didn't even hire her because she is conservative (or was, if the past tense is correct as Soave assumes). Since she is a writer, they probably hired her for her writing. How well she writes about her political opinions probably relates to whether her columns are viewed positively by Washington Post readers, and probably more so than whether she is conservative or something else.
"Republicans want to kill your kids."
And Democrats want to make sure you don't have kids. I guess that streamlines the process.
Democrats love killing babies. It’s a sacrament to them (remember ‘shout your abortion?). And the ones they don’t kill are to be groomed and/or mutilated.
All on the taxpayer’s dime.
> "Republicans want to kill your kids."
Democrats want to mutilate your kids genital.
Gosh. I seem to remember when FGM (female genital mutilation a.k.a. "female circumcision") was all the media outrage. Now?
The Texas Senate, according to usually reliable sources, has a bill pending to make it mandatory--as in Mali, Gambia or Djibouti.
Sure they do Hank, sure they do.
Times have certainly changed. Ever since Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Rubin has become a prolific Never Trump writer and commentator; if the dictionary had an entry for Never Trump, her picture would appear next to it. She inveighs constantly against Trump, along with everyone and everything that helps to normalize him. She recently called for people to boycott MSNBC, one of her employers, as a result of Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski deciding to meet with Trump. Needless to say, she no longer identifies as a conservative.
Why is it "Needless to say" that she no longer "identifies" as a conservative? Is supporting Trump a part of conservative ideology now? There have been plenty of conservatives just as virulently Never Trump as Rubin, that still call themselves conservative, even if their conversions happened after Jan. 6, 2021 rather than in 2016. I wouldn't have pegged Soave for someone that would view opposition to Trump as being incompatible with being conservative.
Trump isn't conservative and just like left and right the label is meaningless. Only libertarian and liberal mean anything now and Americans always get the true meaning of the latter wrong.
When Robbie learns the meaning of data, imagine his surprise to see that God's Own Prohibitionists literally send men with guns to kill kids over plant leaves (other than tobacco)! https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/09/20/legalize-non-toxic-cannabis/
Republican coercion, luckily for kids, is much more focused on initiating deadly force to kill women insufficiently zealous in the War on Race Suicide! https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/04/24/republican-coercion-kills-american-women/
It’s all Nixon’s fault, right Hank?
Jennifer Rubin is your standard Misanthropic Climate Sharknado Warmunism brainwashee--incapable of differentiating a constant or even reciting the physical definition of energy. How Robbie ferreted out this scarecrow for a strawperson is unfathomable. I'd bet money and lay odds Robbie cannot integrate e to the x nor define energy. Why else spill ink or post pixels on parroters of sixties Soviet pseudo-agitprop? https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/soviet-anthropomorphic-climate-change-1960/
Energy is the ability to do work. Now, what is the definition of work?
It sounds like she really means it!
Because she does.
Jennifer Rubin Should Chill
On the contrary, I want her to keep talking. Loudly. To as broad an audience as can be reached. And we should help her reach it. This is one of the many faces of the Progressive Elite. Same with the people posting their mental breakdowns on TikTok. The country should know that THIS IS the Democrat Party.
This is what they really think. This is who they really are. This is how they genuinely feel about everyone who doesn't march in ideological lockstep with them. They hate you. They hate me. They hate America. And they're not ashamed even slightly for it.
They think you're monsters. They think you're nazis. They think you're garbage. They hate your guts, heck they even hate your children's guts because there's a chance they'll grow up like you. And I hope they keep saying it and saying it and saying it.
Same goes with their far-left policy. I want them talking about how eager they are to kill babies. I want them to praise the mutilation of children. I want them telling the women that they have to share a bathroom with a biological man with obvious mental health issues. I want them telling you how much they want to import more criminal alien gang members and murderers. I want them saying, "It's just a few apartment complexes."
I want them saying this as loudly and as often as possible. America got a real good look at the Progressive Left in 2024. And it responded exactly how it should have. Under no circumstances should those hateful, murderous, pedophile-loving, baby-killing SOBs be allowed to hide back in the closet and pretend they're the cultural arm of peace, prosperity, tolerance, and democracy.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Don't let them retreat. Keep them talking. Keep recording and broadcasting and reposting it. Hold up the mirror. Make them choke on their woke. These scumbags will never win another election again.
So Harris supporters are "hateful, murderous, pedophile-loving, baby-killing SOBs?" Tell me, which campaign was based on revenge? Trump advocates the murder of journalists; whose murder does Harris advocate? What's this "pedophile-loving" business? The preposterous "Pizzagate" thing? At least we know what you mean by "baby-killing." You mean choice. Not a choice by the law, but a choice by the person whose own bodily integrity is involved. And you still call public servants "elites," proof that the oligarchs have succeeded in pointing the finger away from their government-subsidized fortunes and toward the liberally educated, tax-PAYING class.
So Harris supporters are “hateful, murderous, pedophile-loving, baby-killing SOBs?”
Ask them, not me.
But I suspect they’ll happily admit it. Let me know what they say (verbatim, if you’ll be so kind).
Tell me, which campaign was based on revenge?
No idea. I want to say the Harris campaign, taking revenge on Biden for letting the mask slip that he’s senile and revealing that Americans had (and still have) no idea who was running the country for four years – but that’s more theory than argument.
Trump advocates the murder of journalists; whose murder does Harris advocate?
Babies.
Jews.
Americans with imported criminal alien populations.
Trump-supporting disaster victims.
Racist nazi traitor garbage magas.
And if it’s not outright murder, then it’s at the very least a intentional and callous indifference to their deaths.
What’s this “pedophile-loving” business?
They love their rainbow people, what else do you want me to say?
At least we know what you mean by “baby-killing.” You mean choice.
Noooo… I mean literally killing babies.
And you still call public servants “elites,”
lol, “public servants.” When’s the last time you can provide demonstrable evidence of how you were served by them – in a way in which they were in no way enriched in any way shape or form.
proof that the oligarchs have succeeded in pointing the finger away from their government-subsidized fortunes and toward the liberally educated, tax-PAYING class.
Are you talking about Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom types?
This is flatly delusional. Cite me ONE statement by Harris, her campaign, or any national Dem officeholder who has ever called for the killing of anyone, or exhibited an "intentional and callous indifference to their deaths." GET SPECIFIC. You cannot.
"Rainbow People" = pedophiles? "Pedophile" is a word with a meaning, and acts of pedophilia are crimes. OK, so exactly who has committed pedophilia? Who has encouraged or tolerated it? Again, you cannot tell us.
"I mean literally killing babies." You can't be serious. Killing babies, meaning those born alive, is illegal in every state and is forbidden by medical ethics codes in every state. Who advocates this? Who condones this? WHO? Again, you can't say, because nobody does!
I am a public servant myself. Strangers tell me I have saved their lives and fortunes. But I didn't cure the ozone hole in time to save the planet from radioactivity death. PUBLIC SERVANTS AT EPA DID THAT. But for them, you wouldn't be around to promulgate these beyond-hyperbolic lies.
This is flatly delusional. Cite me ONE statement by Harris, her campaign, or any national Dem officeholder who has ever called for the killing of anyone, or exhibited an “intentional and callous indifference to their deaths.” GET SPECIFIC. You cannot.
I already gave you a bunch of examples. They like killing babies, supporting terrorists who kill Jews, they are utterly indifferent towards criminal alien crimes against innocent Americans, they think white people should suffer to benefit
You’re trying to force a myopia on the subject by only being willing to accept one form of evidence of this. The reality is, you can pick a Democrat out of a hat. If they support abortion, they want to kill babies. If they ally with Palestine (aka Iran), they want to kill Jews (and Americans). If they support open borders, they’re entirely accepting of their criminal mayhem (up to and including rape and murder) against innocent Americans. For pete’s sake, they were practically giddy when someone took aim at Trump’s head, genuinely upset that he missed – and then essentially declared it was his own fault for being Trump.
The Democrats are – and always have been, all the way back to their days as slavers – a party of Death. There isn’t one iota of political ideology to their party that doesn’t relish in anti-humanism, rebel against human achievement, and encourage death and destruction.
And if you want to get right down to it, it’s because they’re Marxists. And that’s what the core of Marxism is. An outright loathing of humanity and a singular goal to see it destroyed.
“Rainbow People” = pedophiles?
Yep. They’ve even got it in their acronym now.
“Pedophile” is a word with a meaning, and acts of pedophilia are crimes.
For now. But don’t think they’re not actively seeking to normalize it, for the purpose of legalizing it.
OK, so exactly who has committed pedophilia? Who has encouraged or tolerated it? Again, you cannot tell us.
Well, for starters, lets start with the Zulock’s. They were pretty heinous. We could talk about March Sadness. Or the Phoenix Trafficking Case. Or Matt Shaffer. Or better yet, I’m sure you’re familiar with ‘ol Jeff Epstein, right? Let’s talk about the Loudoun County School Board who helped conceal and protect the rape of a female student in the name of protecting the LGBT.
And those are just the criminal cases. Let’s go another step and find all the people, media, celebrities, and corporations who are encouraging this. LOTT has become internet famous for simply reposting hundreds, if not thousands, of self-proclaimed educators who proudly admit their grooming in the classroom. Target is desperately trying to rebrand themselves after their little pride scandal involving transgender policy in kids changing rooms and marketing transgender apparel specifically to young children. Celebrities and progressive elitists can’t wait to go on about how their non-binary/trans kids who are amazingly prevalent among their crowd (because, just like their vegan cats, we know who’s really making the decisions here).
And so on and so on. And all the while, everyone else – except normal sane people (read: conservatives) - are out there affirming it every chance they get. I mean, let’s not kid ourselves, Hick. The slippery slope is VERY real when it comes to this LGBT/gender ideology nonsense – has been for decades – and we all knew where it was headed. And now that it’s here, there’s no pretending anymore.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheLeftCantMeme/comments/v57ug6/the_slippery_slope_is_real/
They told us they were coming for our children. And now they are.
“I mean literally killing babies.” You can’t be serious.
You may prefer to think of it as “reproductive rights,” (death cultists love their euphemisms) but it’s just killing babies. And nobody’s even pretending otherwise at this point.
I am a public servant myself.
Let me guess, garbageman?
So, private citizens with zero influence in politics, then. And somehow they are part of some "how warped would you need to be to invent such a conspiracy?" conspiracy. Where's the link? Who endorses or condones any of this?
Evidently you are so deeply locked into an alternate reality that no discussion is possible. Objective fact can't reach your world. Evidently, like Trump and Bannon, you are on a mission to destroy the very concept of demonstrable fact. Aristotelian logic, scientific method, academic discipline, the legal process, etc., are lost on you, which makes discourse impossible.
You used a whole lot of terms you don't know the meaning of.
But you know what? You're exactly like Rubin. Keep talking. Keep being the screaming Karen that is 100% convinced that she's the normal one and that everyone else is crazy. Yours are the voices America needs to hear.
It'll make sure that progressives never win an election again. And maybe - just maybe - it'll snap the spine of their Democrat party and cast them to history's dustbin for the rest of time. It's long past due for those sick degenerates to be shunned from normal society.
"Killing babies, meaning those born alive, is illegal in every state and is forbidden by medical ethics codes in every state."
In 2023, a narrow DFL-only majority in the legislature passed—and Gov. Walz signed—an omnibus bill (SF 2995) that repealed or amended numerous laws relating to abortion, including the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Among the changes: No longer must reasonable measures be taken “to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” Instead, measures must be taken only to “care for the infant who is born alive.” This was repeatedly described by the bill’s House author, Rep. Tina Liebling, as “comfort” care, as opposed to lifesaving care (see the discussion beginning at 1:45:54).
In addition, part of the subdivision's heading was changed from “medical care” to just “care.”
The new version also eliminates the civil penalties for violating the law (see subd. 5 of the old law), and it repeals the previous requirement that cases of born-alive infants—and the measures taken or not taken to care for them—be reported to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH).
https://www.mccl.org/post/here-s-exactly-how-born-alive-infants-were-denied-protection-under-minnesota-law
Stop. You want us broke, dead, our children raped and brainwashed, and you think it's funny.
Isn't the fundamental problem that political spokespeople on all sides make sweeping and unfounded generalizations about others' points of view and morals? And that we've become accustomed to accepting such generalizations at face value when they support our own opinions? Maybe some folks don't agree that we are living in a centuries-old era of enlightenment (although they seem to like Locke a lot) and reason. But we are, and our faculties of reasoned skepticism and critical thinking are gifts to us from the founding fathers' fathers who liberated intellectual life from the medieval to the modern. We shame ourselves when we neglect critical thinking and accept the ideas of others without a skeptical examination of their evidence.
I've heard it said that the critical mind is a tool of the educated elite who use it to keep the lower classes in line. I've just pointed out, however, that we've learned from our forefathers to reject the blind authority of the educated elite--the Vatican is no longer the de facto ruler of most of Europe and controller of Europeans' spiritual and temporal lives. There is no such centralized source of alleged authority that works for the benefit of a select few--unless you count Wall Street, the SBC, and Clarence Thomas. Most people learn how to evaluate what they see and hear without directions from above, and are always free to come to their own conclusions. Many don't do this, of course, when the subject is politically complicated or highly technical, and it's normal to come to rely on a few sources offering reliable information.
There's the rub--reliability. We tend to prefer and rely on sources who agree with our pre-existing views, to such an extent that sources offering different information actually make us double down on what we think we know. We come to view opposite viewpoints as more or less heretical or even demonic. We wake up in an intellectual climate that seems more and more medieval every year. When that happens we realize our lives are controlled by forces and people who aren't really interested in our welfare--only their profits.
Whether it should child or not, it’s probably not going to. In my opinion, letting it engage in hyperbole and frothing-at-the-mouth invective will allow it to backfire on its intended purposes, which is only fair. Meanwhile, trying to stop it from lying in a highly public way would backfire on the would-be censors.
When I first read JRub I wondered how in the world she got the WaPo to print her tripe. Then she made a seamless transition from excoriating Obama to dumping on Trump. I wondered what kind of dirt she had on the management.
I've read where WaPos lost $77 million.
Gee, I wonder if Jennifer Ruben is one reason why?