https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/03/14/ethics-alarms-points-out-how-terrible-rfk-jr-s-vp-short-list-is-kamala-harris-says-hold-my-beer/

Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL

What a shameless demagogue.

I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:

“These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”

Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
“Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?

And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”

Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
autonomy too?

The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
hard choices that create an ethical society.

Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?

“We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.

A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”

An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.

Michael Ejercito wrote:

>https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/03/14/ethics-alarms-points-out-how-terrible-rfk-jr-s-vp-short-list-is-kamala-harris-says-hold-my-beer/
>
>
>Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
>Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
>MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL
>
>
>What a shameless demagogue.
>
>I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
>utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
>has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
>inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
>Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
>of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
>one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
>clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
>death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:
>
>“These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
>their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
>immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
>are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
>what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”
>
>Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
>the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
>striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
>didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
>on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
>state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
>humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
>world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
>weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
>“Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
>weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
>old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?
>
>
>And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
>it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
>concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
>an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
>since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
>dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
>Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
>measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
>their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
>stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
>that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”
>
>Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
>autonomy too?
>
>The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
>isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
>conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
>being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
>disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
>spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
>But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
>hard choices that create an ethical society.
>
>Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?
>
>“We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
>means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
>trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
>thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
>respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
>not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
>a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
>borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
>women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
>trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
>guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.
>
>A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
>examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
>Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
>appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”
>
>An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.

In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).

Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
"convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
longer effective.

Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.

So how are you ?

HeartDoc Andrew wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>> https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/03/14/ethics-alarms-points-out-how-terrible-rfk-jr-s-vp-short-list-is-kamala-harris-says-hold-my-beer/
>>
>>
>> Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
>> Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
>> MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL
>>
>>
>> What a shameless demagogue.
>>
>> I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
>> utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
>> has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
>> inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
>> Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
>> of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
>> one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
>> clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
>> death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:
>>
>> “These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
>> their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
>> immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
>> are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
>> what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”
>>
>> Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
>> the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
>> striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
>> didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
>> on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
>> state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
>> humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
>> world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
>> weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
>> “Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
>> weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
>> old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?
>>
>>
>> And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
>> it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
>> concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
>> an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
>> since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
>> dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
>> Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
>> measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
>> their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
>> stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
>> that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”
>>
>> Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
>> autonomy too?
>>
>> The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
>> isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
>> conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
>> being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
>> disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
>> spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
>> But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
>> hard choices that create an ethical society.
>>
>> Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?
>>
>> “We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
>> means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
>> trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
>> thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
>> respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
>> not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
>> a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
>> borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
>> women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
>> trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
>> guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.
>>
>> A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
>> examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
>> Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
>> appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”
>>
>> An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.
>
> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>
> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
> longer effective.
>
> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>
> So how are you ?
>
I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael

Michael Ejercito wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>
>>> https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/03/14/ethics-alarms-points-out-how-terrible-rfk-jr-s-vp-short-list-is-kamala-harris-says-hold-my-beer/
>>>
>>>
>>> Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
>>> Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
>>> MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL
>>>
>>>
>>> What a shameless demagogue.
>>>
>>> I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
>>> utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
>>> has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
>>> inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
>>> Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
>>> of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
>>> one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
>>> clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
>>> death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:
>>>
>>> “These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
>>> their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
>>> immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
>>> are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
>>> what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”
>>>
>>> Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
>>> the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
>>> striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
>>> didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
>>> on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
>>> state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
>>> humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
>>> world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
>>> weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
>>> “Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
>>> weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
>>> old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?
>>>
>>>
>>> And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
>>> it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
>>> concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
>>> an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
>>> since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
>>> dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
>>> Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
>>> measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
>>> their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
>>> stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
>>> that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”
>>>
>>> Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
>>> autonomy too?
>>>
>>> The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
>>> isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
>>> conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
>>> being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
>>> disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
>>> spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
>>> But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
>>> hard choices that create an ethical society.
>>>
>>> Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?
>>>
>>> “We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
>>> means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
>>> trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
>>> thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
>>> respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
>>> not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
>>> a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
>>> borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
>>> women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
>>> trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
>>> guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.
>>>
>>> A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
>>> examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
>>> Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
>>> appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”
>>>
>>> An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.
>>
>> In the interim, we are 100% prepared/protected in the "full armor of
>> GOD" (Ephesians 6:11) which we put on as soon as we use Apostle Paul's
>> secret (Philippians 4:12). Though masking is less protective, it helps
>> us avoid the appearance of doing the evil of spreading airborne
>> pathogens while there are people getting sick because of not being
>> 100% protected. It is written that we're to "abstain from **all**
>> appearance of doing evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22 w/**emphasis**).
>>
>> Meanwhile, the only *perfect* (Matt 5:47-8 ) way to eradicate the
>> COVID-19 virus, thereby saving lives, in the US & elsewhere is by
>> rapidly (i.e. use the "Rapid COVID-19 Test" ) finding out at any given
>> moment, including even while on-line, who among us are unwittingly
>> contagious (i.e pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to
>> "convince it forward" (John 15:12) for them to call their doctor and
>> self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes of stopping this pandemic.
>> Thus, we're hoping for the best while preparing for the worse-case
>> scenario of the Alpha lineage mutations and others like the Omicron,
>> Gamma, Beta, Epsilon, Iota, Lambda, Mu & Delta lineage mutations
>> combining via slip-RNA-replication to form hybrids like "Deltamicron"
>> that may render current COVID vaccines/monoclonals/medicines/pills no
>> longer effective.
>>
>> Indeed, I am wonderfully hungry (
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/6ZoE95d-VKc/m/14vVZoyOBgAJ
>> ) and hope you, Michael, also have a healthy appetite too.
>>
>> So how are you ?
>
> I am wonderfully hungry!

While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, are rapture ready (Luke
17:37 means no COVID just as eagles circling over their food have no
COVID) and pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6)
Father in Heaven continues to give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy
Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so that we'd have much more of His Help to
always say/write that we're "wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways
including especially caring to "convince it forward" (John 15:12) with
all glory (Psalm112:1) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in
the name (John 16:23) of LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Amen.

Laus DEO !

Quack Andrew B. Chung
>> I am wonderfully hungry!
> LIE.
>
> You are anything BUTT hungry, you morbidly obese Asiatic slug!
> https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy3sTCuxtlf/?hl=en
Great picture.

>You are a gook.
Mangina, try being wonderfully hungry.

Then you can be rapture ready!

You are a Nazi.

As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.

You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know you
can not measure up.

You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.

You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.

You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of National
Socialism.

Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you… which is why you choose minor children
as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent adults in a
consensually sexual way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a
helpless victim, be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a mental
hospital.

That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or honest
about it.

Michael

(Kamala) 03/15/24 Again praying w/ Michael here ...

https://narkive.com/3k1eAxtP.4

(Kamala) 03/15/24 Again, behold ...

Being unkind to "wonderfully hungry" Michael Ejercito is sin ...

.... just as being unkind to "wonderfully hungry" (i.e. longing to eat
at the rich man's table) Lazarus was the rich man's sin that he wanted
Father Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers not to commit.

Just as this sinning against "wonderfully hungry" Lazarus caused the
rich man to lose his salvation despite being a "son of Abraham," we
are in danger of losing our salvation and automatically going to Hell
for being unkind to Michael Ejercito.

Source:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/JaC_fVym8fA/m/yClWTlaVAAAJ

<Kamala> 03/15/24 Again ever more cursed by GOD ...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/euYDQU1X4Fo/m/C4REuDM-AAAJ

<Kamala> 03/15/24 AgainX2 ever more cursed by GOD ...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.med.cardiology/c/euYDQU1X4Fo/m/C4REuDM-AAAJ

<Kamala 03/15/24 Again being hangry is tragic ...

https://narkive.com/Ppueoy6R.17

Quack Andrew B. Chung
> Post by Michael Ejercito
>> Then you can be rapture ready!
> You have been ready for rapture by the ICE Five-0 for YEARS!
Nithing, there you go again with your deportation fantasies.

You are a nithing- homo sapiens by birth, subhuman BY CHOICE. The
key word is CHOICE. You were born with the same human nature as the
rest of us. Your CHOICES made you a nithing.

Bill explains what nithings are.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446

Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as
stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to
Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence
against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or
refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity.
Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful
harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings

Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian
culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.

A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.

The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

The actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”

"Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’
destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and
“unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.

The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.

This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic
supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.

In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.