Hog-Tied In Texas

Is it still OK to wave a white flag to call a truce, or is that racist and chock full of privileges and stuff?

It never ceases to amaze me how much cognitive dissonance a Bumbledick can hold in xis/xer/their head without exploding.  I suspect this capacity alone necessitates the crying rooms popping up on campuses around the Western hemisphere.

Here's the deal: Texas passed a law making abortion illegal in most cases after the first month and a half of pregnancy.  I seems that a woman (no, biological males cannot get pregnant) wants to have absolute control over her body and the choice whether to have a baby.  It is not enough that she had the choice not to have sex, or whether to use birth control, or even to have a full 45 days after conception to think about it.

I know women have difficulties making decisions, but come on.  Perhaps this is why there aren't more high-powered female executives?

Anyway, a bunch of people who make a tidy living selling aborted fetuses to medical science took the matter to the US Supreme Court in hopes of stopping the law taking effect.  The Supremes took one whiff of the case and shoved it back across the table.

Well, as even the corner palm reader could have predicted, the Bumbledicks are losing their minds.  How could the government tell anyone what to do with their body?  It's unconstitutional, they screech.  It's unnamaerican, they holler.  It will deprive a bunch of cloning researchers and vaccine makers of their grant money, they opined.  It's anti-capitalist!  Oh OK, I added that one myself.

All of this righteous indignation is coming from - get this - people who have spent the past two years berating, spraying, shunning, brow beating, attacking, molesting, and just plain being nasty to a lot of folks who don't want to be forced to wear masks, get injected with toxic waste and sit alone in their caves because of a wholly manufactured medical emergency.

Now wait a minute.  You say the government has no right to reach its grubby fingers into your uterus, but by golly it has every right to tell you what to wear, and what potions and how many times to inject into your sacred temple.

Maybe I'm a dying breed, and I often feel that way, but I perceive a direct connection between these two issues, where Bumbledicks don't seem to even allow them into the same part of the shambles they pass off as brains.

Though I personally find backing off my revulsion towards infanticide in order to prevent genocide is a grotesque Solomon's Choice, it does seem there is an oppotunity for Bumbledicks to make common cause with rational people.  It's not pretty, but it's a start into more expansive dialog.

Getting government all the way off our backs would be a tremendous victory for everyone involved.

Here's my offer: I would be willing to allow women the ability to abort a pregnancy up to the end of the second trimester, provided there is ZERO government funding (your choice, your cost) and the aborted fetus is immediately and thoroughly incinerated to stop the vile, nay evil trade in body parts.  If a woman can't make her choice in180 days, then there are bigger issues than just an unwanted pregnancy.

In  exchange, Bumbledicks will immediately begin opposing mandatory tests, masks, injections, and medical procesdures of any kind.

We'll call a truce on the cornucopia of other issues until this cease fire sticks.

Despite this purely rational and equitable solution, I know what the Bumbledicks will do.  They will want revenge and will start pushing their assault on everyone else's body integrity rights even harder.  I cut them a little slack, because what's left of their minds is fogged over from vaccines and carbon dioxide poinsoning. 

But hey, it's worth a shot to save the human race.

Behind The Q Ball

Previous posts:
Deep Throat v. Q
Q The Conspiracy - A Phenomenon
The Gospel According To Q
A-Marketing We Will Q
The Name Of The Q
Q The LARP Carp
Spe-Q-lating On Q
In The Twilight Of The Q
Jonesing For Q
Analyzing Q-Analysis

The Silence of the Q

The Q Prophesy
To Q Or Not To Q
A Quantum Of Q-Bit
Surfing the Q Wave
CQ CQ CQ
Q Tips And Quislings
Some Quick Q
The Voice Of Q
The Q Treason
Q The Endgame
Right On Q?
Q The God-Emperor
Who Is Q?
Behold The Qult
Notre Dame du Q
The Q Genesis

READER NOTE: be sure to listen to the Rense Radio interviews on Q.  It should also be said I do not edit or censor ANY comments unless they are blatant attempts to profit off my work without sharing, or contain private contact information like phone numbers or email (may be an attempt to flame someone).

Even if you only invest a mild curiosity about the Q Phenomenon, you've likely heard the phrase, "Future Proves Past."  In the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Q's triumphant return after battling Nancy Pelosi's best efforts to block it (Q3370), you are going to hear this phrase a lot more.

Q virtually vanished on 26 May 2019, with just 3 Drops between then and 8 July, but roared to life on 8 July 2019, with 80 Drops in 7 days, and counting.  This is going to be fun.

Fair warning to the reader: there is a lot of jargon in the Qniverse, and I've written a couple of dozen articles on topic this past year.  You might feel a bit lost if you don't go back and catch up.  Probably the best summary I have, concerning what Q is and how it operates, is Who Is Q?

Where we stand as of this moment is that Jeffrey Epstein is the key to unraveling the Deep State.  Jeff Sessions was actually working on this particular case when all the world thought he was soaking up a free paycheck at the DOJ.  Sara Carter, John Solomon and Sean Hannity are Deep Q plants who've been under Super Secret Surveillance - until Q recently shut it down.  JFK Jr. is really dead.  And Q predicted all of this a year ago.

So the story goes...hang on for the ride.

Let's try to sort this bowl of spaghetti out.  We'll get back to Epstein in a bit, but for the rest:

Former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a strange history with Q.  Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and was widely seen as completely useless and ineffective.  Within the Qniverse, Sessions alternated between White Hat and Black Hat.  Q Drops occasionally hinted that he was working behind the scenes to bring down Hillary Clinton.  Later, Sessions was doing nothing and the Trump Team really needed a bulldog in the position.  The Qvians by turn praised him and reviled him.  At the point of his resignation, Trump tweet-bashed Sessions and the Qvians turned their backs on him.  Lo and behold!  He's back in the Qniverse and this time he was secretly investigating Epstein.

Note that the confusion is not on the part of the Qvians.  They've just been following whatever cryptic clues Q has given them.  Of course, none of the Qvians mention the bad times, Sessions is once again a hero.  The Q Memory Hole is truly amazing to watch.

Sara Carter is an independent journalist attached to Fox News through Sean Hannity.  Her articles are widely credited within the Qniverse with exposing key activity within the Trump Administration and the Deep State.  Think of her as Bob Woodward to John Solomon's Carl Berstein, with Q playing the part of Deep Throat (see Watergate if these names are a complete mystery to you).

John Solomon writes for The Hill and is also a staple on Sean Hannity's program.  Both he a Carter have formed an unofficial team investigating all the shenanigans behind the scenes in Washington DC.  Both are also widely thought to be following Qlues to help expose the corruption.

Sean Hannity of Fox News appears to be Trump's favorite talking head.  The president often calls his show and Hannity seems to have a line on major announcements just slightly before anyone else.  He is also seen in the Qniverse as being a Acolyte.  Hannity makes certain comments that are interpreted to be "signals" of Q Solidarity.  Most recently, Hannity gave the "follow the pen" signal, and if you don't know what that is, I covered it some time back.  Essentially, it is a Q Signal of upcoming Executive Orders to address the Issue du jour.

The Storm is everything we see going on in US domestic and geopolitics.  The Storm is a military intel operation, conceived in the Obama years and launched with the election of Trump - or more importantly the loss of Clinton.  It is a "4-D" chess game of hidden messages, Autistic Anons, Trump tweets, Q Drops, and a swirling wind of chaos.

"The Patriots are in control" is the Qniverse equivalent of a secret handshake.  No matter how out of control and insane things appear, the Qvians repeat the phrase to themselves and it alleviates fear and apprehention.  When Q is wrong, when Trump looks like a fool, when North Korea and Iran look like they are on the verge of war with the US, we just calmly repeat the mantra and all is well.

And just how accurate and helpful has Q been?

We've got Julian Assange and Tommy Robinson in jail.  Trump's Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned due to Jeffrey Epstein blow-back.  The US federal deficit is wildly ballooning.  The Persian Gulf is teetering on war, with the UK and Iran hot at each other's heels.  The southern US border is a joke from any perspective.  Trump just gave up the fight to get a citizenship question on the 2020 census after activating his base to fight for it.  In fact, the entire geopolitical theater seems on the verge of spinning into oblivion, but fear not.

The Patriots Are In Control.  It's all part of The Plan.

Rather than confident control of the situation, the world appears to be a bunch of ad hoc foolishness with no one in control and Trump little more than a trickster randomly pulling strings to see what falls out.

Into this swirling global bathwater we throw the entity and phenomenon of Q.  The Qvians are absolutely convinced that Q imparts wisdom and truth on behalf of their Qult leader, Donald Trump.  Even while Q constantly exalts "logic" and "reason," the Qvians (for the most part) abandon such things for blind adherence to Q's Drops and proclamations.

While the Qvians (and Q) rail against the GeezerMedia setting and controlling the public narrative for any given situation, they fail to notice that they are simply being fed an alternative narrative.  That Q/Trump proclaim it does not make it any more true than the corporate-controlled viewpoints.  It is simply establishing an alternative narrative that counters, but does not prove.

In the recent slurry of Q Drops, the two primary focuses have been the Jeffrey Epstein affair and Abortion via an attack on Planned Parenthood.  To listen to the Commentators (all across YouTube), the ideas of mutual criminality, blackmail and well-laundered slush funds controlled by NGOs and foundations are sudden and jolting revelations.  The "evidence" for these things is little more than subtle interpretations of Q Drops, a great many links to publicly available articles and tweets, and a vast array of implications and suggestions that the Qvians are expected to "research" for themselves.

Perhaps the Q Phenomenon is more an indictment of government-run education, than revelation of anything new.  The use of "mutual criminality" and "blackmail" are ancient and rife.  It has been used for political ends by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese, the mafia, street gangs, and all manner of secret societies and organizations.  That anyone could be so naive as to think that every political system on the planet is not rotten with such things is inexcusable denial, at worst.

One of the most common excuses that Q uses to explain away the glacial pace with which its predictions are "fulfilled" is that the world is not ready to see how corrupt their governments have been.  Q either assumes that we are all ignorant beasts, or has no other means to wave away criticism for its failed prognostications.  We are quickly approaching two years since Q stated unequivocal that Hillary Clinton would be arrested and that troops were being stationed across the US to quell civil unrest, and yet...

Ask a Qvian to list Q's most successful prediction, and they will invariably mention the death of John McCain.  If one points out that the best way to know exactly when someone will die is to murder them, they wave it away as a "good thing" because Q told them McCain was a traitor without any solid evidence to the assertion.  In a sense, this makes all Qvians accessories after the fact to Murder One, and not a one of them bats an eye at this.  The ends justify the means.  The Storm is War, they tell us.

The Commentators sound as if they have been let in on some Great Secret of the Ages to learn of child kidnapping, abuse and murder.  In fact, the abuse of children in ritual sacrifices is nearly as old as humanity.  The use of bloody sacrifice   to seal covenants is a primary feature of the Big Three Religions.  Drinking the blood of children was a central part of Aztec, Maya, Inca, Mongol, Kazak, and many other aristocracies.

The Qvians might respond that Q/Trump are trying to end this practice and bring the perpetrators to justice, but that is a huge and magnificent claim that will take years to unwind.  In fact, it could also be interpreted as a form of blackmail itself to allow one faction of the global elite to subdue another.  Arrest a few key players and put out the narrative that this will lead to thousands of arrests and convictions, and the opposing side may offer up a great many concessions to protect themselves.

Related to the Epstein matter is the other Q focus of late on abortion, particularly as it relates to Planned Parenthood.  Here we find what may be proof of Q using Fake News in its narrative.

Q posted a photo (Q3405) of someone sorting through tubs of dead infants that was implied to be what goes on behind the scenes at Planned Parenthood.  One researcher, Patrick Mack at IPOT channel, was able to trace the photo to a story about a family in Vietnam that collected aborted fetuses there and gave them proper burials.  If true, this is the first time Q has been caught openly using "re-tasked" information to rally the troops.  Q did not give any indication that the photo was representative or unrelated to the assertions of criminality at Planned Parenthood.  It was presented as implied evidence, and if the story uncovered by Mack is correct, the photo has nothing to do at all with any organization in the US.  In fact, it may be a violation of IP laws, since no citation or link was given to the original.

Ironically, Q admonishes its followers for being kept passive by the GeezerMedia while doing the exact same thing.

That anyone is "suddenly" indignant at the way aborted fetuses are sold for parts, or that Planned Parenthood is just one of a network of organizations that funnel taxpayer money back into political campaigns is a sad indicator of the willful ignorance of the American public.

Political corruption in the US is an open secret.  The use of book sales, foundations and foreign aid as sources of campaign and personal funds is nothing new.  Scandals have flaired up over the decades.  Cursory patches have been applied that shifted the streams, but stopped nothing.  And business has gone on as usual since at least the Tea Pot Dome scandal.  The corruption is obvious, which makes the American public facilitators of it through their willful ignorance and unwillingness to call it out.

One thing that makes me extremely suspicious of Q is something I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this series: Q keeps telling the Qult to "sit back and enjoy the show."  Take no action.  Eat popcorn and be passive, as the masses always have been.  The Patriots will handle this for you.  Your job is "research" and keep busy while military intelligence takes over the Ship of State.

Obligingly, the Qult do just that - sit at their screens diligently reporting whatever Q tells them, or disseminating what the Anons post, but never taking real action.  Their job is to shelter in place and let the Big Boys handle things.  Not one of the Commentators has ever thought to organize a rally to show the extent of their numbers. There have been no calls for Q Marches or Conventions.  In fact, they seem almost afraid to learn the true extent of the Qniverse, as if they are unsure just how powerful they are.

Most of the Commentators I listen to regularly have 100,000-200,000 subscribers.  They regularly get 50,000-60,000 views on their videos.  Why have none of them suggested a show of force?  Are they worried that those numbers are inflated?  Or are they so controlled by Q that they can see no other course of action than to sit passively at their screens and wait for the next Drop?

Most of the Qvians do little more than crow about how much they know, but knowledge implies action.  That none of them have taken the step to turn knowledge into action tells me that Q has such a lock on their thinking that they are incapable of taking initiative outside of Q Commands.

Child Trafficking and Abortion are issues that have been around for centuries.  There have been numerous researchers that have spent lifetimes exposing this issues and the political corruption they engender.  I personally have been aware of the issues since the 1970s, and have gone head to head with them at great personal cost.

I do not see this kind of activism with Q.  Instead, Q has subtly steered its followers into sideline roles, clicking links and making videos explaining how great Q is.  These people do nothing active, nor does Q.

For anyone who has watched the Q Phenomenon closely, it rides on the backs of truly great activists like Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, James O'Keefe at Project Veritas, and the journalists Sara Carter and John Solomon.  Q does nothing more than repackage the work of these good folks, and the Qvians dutifully ascribe credit to Q for simply putting a link in a Drop or two.

Q Activism amounts to little more than trying to smuggle Q Gear past Secret Service at a Trump rally in the hopes of getting the Secret Hand Sign or a gesture in their general direction as "proof' of Q.

For the vast majority of Qvians, the extent of their involvement is limited to watching Commentator videos, where the host reads the Q Drops, shows the links, and perhaps adds a bit of color commentary.  For a group that claims millions of followers worldwide, that's hardly a show of power.
========================================================
Post Scriptum: Here is a typical reaction from Qvians when a little logic and reason is introduced into the conversation.  As you read the invectives to piss off, note that I did not inject myself into the conversation, but was addressed in the initial post.  I simply responded with a few salient points and was viciously attacked right off.  This is a common feature of Personality Cults.  Members cannot stand any assault of reason on their closely held beliefs.  Nor are any of the groups willing to rationalize the Fearless Leader's mistakes.  They simply turn and attack at the mere mention of a weakness.

A View To A Kill

Of late, there's been a lot of slavering nincompoops in the US media, and even a few much higher functioning folks, who keep repeating the line, "Las Vegas is the worst mass shooting in US history."

Apparently, these folks don't read history.

First of all, those US Democrat "leaders" and "authorities" who are whining endlessly about gun violence would, in the exact same breath, defend the "right" to abortion with equal vehemence and passion.

Abortion has killed between half a million and a million and a half humans every year in the US since 1973 (Roe v. Wade decision).  Abortion is licensed, sanctioned and protected by the US government, and in some cases, it even pays for the slaughter.

OK, so some readers' eyes glaze over when the topic of abortion comes up, so how about the US Civil War - the one whose monuments the Left are trying to destroy?  Abraham Lincoln is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 640,000 men, not to mention the horrors inflicted on women and children by Union forces, a true count of which will likely never be known but through family diaries and stories.

The number of slave ships operated under the US flag?  It's hard to find an actual number of US-registered slave ships, but it is safe to say a couple of dozen, and how many of those government-sanctioned and licensed ships were directly or indirectly responsible for how many deaths?  We'll never know, because slaves were livestock and accurate numbers weren't kept.

How about the Native Americans?  I disagree with the term "Native American" on several accounts, but that's a different argument.  Most folks know to whom I am referring, but for clarity's sake, this refers to the dozens of original nations that existed in North America before the British - and later the American - invasion.

At the Sand Creek Massacre in December of 1864, US "soldiers" slaughtered several hundred Cheyenne and Arapaho who were peacefully camped near Sand Creek in Colorado.  The majority of the dead and wounded were women and children, and the "soldiers" mutilated some of the bodies and placed various body parts in their hat bands as a sign of "bravery".  This incident was planned and sanctioned by the US government.

In December of 1890, as many as 300 Lakota Sioux were slaughtered by US "soldiers" on the banks of the Wounded Knee Creek for no particular reason.  Again, many of the dead were women and children, and the "soldiers" gleefully scalped and mutilated the bodies (a practice common to US troops).

The atrocities committed by the US government are numerous and egregious.  Sand Creek and Wounded Knee Creek are just two of the more famous incidents.  Slavery is well-know to most folks, though few acknowledge that it was sanctioned and controlled by the US government (see Dred Scott decision).  The Civil War is always justified in a dozen different ways, but if you read the true history of it, you realize that the US government was the aggressor and that its agents committed horrific atrocities in the South.  And regardless of how you justify it, abortion is the killing of a human being, and it is a recognized "right" defended by the US government.

All of this is to say that when the US government and its paid mouthpieces tell us that the Las Vegas massacre is the worst mass killing in US history, we should immediately think of the word, "LIE".

Furthermore, when that same US government is responsible for investigating the massacre, we should be highly suspicious of the findings.  And when folks say that the US government is good and would never do anything that wasn't in the best interests of the American people, folks should back away slowly, realizing they are staring in the face of terrible Evil.

We should have an equal reaction to any "information" put out by the US government and its minions.  Who did the Las Vegas shooting and why; where the shooter(s) was(were); any photos, leaks, notes, audio/video recordings, etc.; these should all be viewed with the highest suspicion.

If one thinks that the US government would never plan and execute such a thing on its own people in order to further an agenda, I invite the gentle reader to scroll back up and reread just the highlights of what the US government has already done.  I won't even begin to reprise the atrocities it has committed in foreign lands (Korea and Vietnam come to mind, not to mention Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan).

Just for good measure, however, I invite the gentle reader to view the declassified documents detailing Operation Northwoods.  If that's not enough, perhaps a review of the Kent State Massacre will help drive home the point.

In any highly publicized and politicized event, such as the Las Vegas massacre, the gentle reader would do well to take every word from the "authorities" with a large dose of salts.  Not only is the US government willing and able to PLAN such an event, it has a long history of EXECUTING such things, as well.

The aware reader must be very wary of anything the US government and its minions (including the Geezer Media) tell us about this incident.  It is far easier to believe that a murderous organization with a long history of atrocities pulled this off, than a millionaire accountant with no history of violence or gun training and an arsenal of illegal military-style guns in a luxury hotel suite - and barely a history at all, for that matter.

This is not conspiracy theory, this is common sense.

The Abortive Debate

Donald Trump, throughout his very public career, has displayed a penchant for taking live wires, stripping back the insulation, and sinking his gleaming pearlies in with unhindered glee.  The most recent example has been his juggling of the abortion issue under fire from Chris Matthews.

Among my many criticisms of Trump is that he is not a very bright or thoughtful man.  You may argue that his vast wealth is proof of his intelligence, but as Bernstein so aptly put it in Citizen Kane, "Well, it's no trick to making a lot of money, if all you want is to make a lot of money."  A survey of the British royals will quickly disavow one of the connection between wealth and intelligence.

In any case, prying the lid off the abortion debate as Trump has done is a fine opportunity to weigh in with our Far Side take on the issue, and as usual, we don't expect that a lot of folks will be happy with it.  I'm sure that if Trump were even slightly more intellectual and educated, he might have put forth the following argument against abortion.

It all begins with the Enlightenment, that quiet little period from the late 1600s to the early 1800s, when Western philosophy caught fire and took a decidedly Libertarian course.  This period, punctuated by intellects like Voltaire, Descartes, Locke, Franklin, and Jefferson, single-handedly brought down the monarchies of Europe and endowed humanity with individual sovereignty and rights.

Before we go any further, it is important to dissect the word "unalienable."  To most folks, the root of this rather important word is "alien," meaning foreign.  That is a mistaken impression.  The root is "lien," meaning to lay claim to or place a debt on some property other than your own.  The prefix "un-" means "reverse" or "not."  The prefix "a-" means "to" or "upon."  The suffix "-able" means "capable of."  Thus, "unaLIENable" means "not able to place a claim or debt on."  It does not mean "not able to be foreign on."  Just wanted to make that clear.

So when we read the immortal words of the US Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," we see that the positive claim here is that Rights are innate property of the individual and may not have claims or debts placed upon them.

This was then, and for the most part still is, a wildly radical claim.  We are born with property that may not be taken away or claimed by anyone else - at least morally and ethically.  In practice, this often fails to hold true without the owner forcefully protecting that property.  Thus the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, but that's an argument for another time.

And so, at long last, we come to the core issue of this rant: abortion.  A great many people say that abortion is included in a woman's right to choose.  I disagree.  There are three individuals involved in the choice: the man, the woman and the child.

Obviously, the child is incapable at this point to verbalize its choice, so under any moral or ethical standard, its guardians must speak for it.  Since all life has an inborn desire to continue, we must default to the child's choice being for Life, and we must protect that implied choice until the child reaches the age of wisdom.

Some people will take issue with calling a fetus a child.  The fetus represents one developmental stage in the mental, biological and/or spiritual growth of a human being.  It is a product of, and carries copious amounts of DNA that can only create a human being.  There is no chance that the fetus might end up a chicken or an elephant.  The DNA also ensures that the fetus is in every way an individual, since its genetics distinguish it from all others.

Thus, from the moment of conception, the zygote (later fetus) has a complete set of human DNA, and is therefore human and entitled to all the rights every other human claims.  It is disingenuous to say that a fetus has no rights because it is not fully independent of its host.  The same argument can be made to randomly kill prisoners because  they are not free and the guards must make choices for them.

When one "chooses" to have an abortion, one is most certainly killing an individual human being that our culture, over many long and painful centuries, has endowed with certain unalienable rights, chief among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  By destroying the fetus, one lays claim to these three key Rights and deprives the fetus of innate property in a way that would be completely unacceptable and a capital offense at nearly every other stage of human development.

To argue that abortion is a right is to say that any individual may deprive any other individual of their basic human Rights, without recourse or due process.  All other considerations aside, this is the core of the matter.  The only way to refute this claim is to deny and unwind centuries of legal and philosophical debate and development.  The conclusion is self-evident, as Thomas Jefferson points out..

The "choice" in this situation is whether or not to have sex where procreation is possible, and to choose methods of birth control, should one so desire.  Once the parents' matched sets of 23 chromosomes combine to make the full compliment of an individual human being, there can no longer be a choice to place a lien on that individual's Rights.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Except that no one is sufficiently educated in history and philosophy any more, I cannot understand why people, 1) cannot articulate this argument, and 2) cannot see the rationality of it.  If we callously strip any class of human beings of their innate and unaLIENable Rights, then it becomes increasingly easy to justify each successive deprivation.

In fact, it may be argued - though not here now - that legalizing abortion has led to rapid degradation of rights in the countries where it has been done.  Mass surveillance, arbitrary police powers, official corruption, and erosion of public discourse seems to follow from the choice to deprive society's most defenseless members of their unaLIENable rights.

In an age when so many options are available to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it seems high time to revisit this most divisive issue, but in a calm and rational manner.  As I have shown here, it is possible to make a clear argument without destructive emotions interfering.  There is no rational justification for placing liens on that which is unalienable, and if we try, we only succeed in eroding our own precious freedom and destroying centuries of human social thought and development.