https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/09/01/more-election-ad-deceit-in-nh/

More Election Ad Deceit in NH
September 1, 2024 / Jack Marshall

Former Senator Kelly Ayotte is the GOP candidate for Governor of New
Hampshire. She is also one of the long-time Roe v. Wade opponents who is
being targeted by pro-abortion groups in attack ads. If you listen
closely, some of the ads reveal the dark and ominous heart of the ‘We
Love Abortion!’ movement.

I have had to watch one such ad repeatedly while following the Boston
Red Sox as they are just-barely contending for a wild card berth. A
sad-eyed mother reveals that when she was pregnant, a doctor who checked
out the embryo (that was well past the usual legal abortion period in
many states including New Hampshire) told the mother that “my baby would
not survive.” She goes on to say that Ayotte is so cruel that she would
make a mother like me “carry” a baby for months knowing that “it would
not survive.” Ayotte supports the current 24 week limit on abortions.

There is so much that is intellectually dishonest about the ad and its
implied argument. Because of this mother’s unusual dilemma with an
unhealthy unborn child, mothers should be allowed to abort healthy, even
viable unborn children if they awake one morning and decide, “Eh, this
is too much trouble. Time to kill the thing. Thank goodness I hadn’t
named her yet!” Is this part of what Ayotte is “cruel” for opposing?

More ethically suspicious is the ad’s careful use of the word “survive.”
What did the doctor say, exactly? That the baby wouldn’t survive birth?
That it wouldn’t survive a month? That it wouldn’t survive childhood, or
adolescence? None of us “survive” eventually. What is the difference
ethically from aborting a living unborn child because it won’t survive
some minimum period of time after it is born, and wanting to kill a
child who is diagnosed after birth with a fatal condition?

I don’t see any. The mother, meanwhile, frames the issue with her
inconvenience and misfortune, as if the life of the unborn child is
irrelevant. The doctor might be wrong. I believe that a shot at life,
however short, is preferable to no life at all.

The anti-Ayotte ad confuses and obscures the real issues in the abortion
controversy rather than clarifying them.

HeartDoc Andrewabout 14 hours ago
> ReplyPermalink
> ...
> The only godly way to convince a pregnant woman to not kill their
> unborn child is by loving (John 15:12) them as GOD loves (Malachi
> 1:2-3) us by convincing us to stop being profane (Hebrews 12:16) like
> https://bit.ly/BiblicalEsau and be http://WonderfullyHungry.org
> instead, like our LORD Jesus, Who has proven His greater (John 15:13)
> love for us.
>
> See:
> https://biblehub.com/hebrews/12-16.htm
>
> Thus, I am indeed wonderfully hungry for food right now (Luke 6:21a)
> and hope you, Michael, and others reading this, also have a healthy
> appetite for food right now too.
>
> So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 7 hours ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sun, 1 Sep 2024 18:25:24 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
> Post by Michael Ejercito
>> https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/09/01/more-election-ad-deceit-in-nh/
>> More Election Ad Deceit in NH
>> September 1, 2024 / Jack Marshall
> THAT g-ddam coon again?
> LOL
Mangina, as Bill pointed out years ago, you are like a survivor of
partial-birth abortion- hyou know, the one where rthe baby's brains are
sucked out?

And you are also on record as wanting to strangle babies!

Michael

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)4 days ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Mon, 2 Sep 2024 18:28:44 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito

>> Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 7 hours ago
>>> ReplyPermalinkOn Sun, 1 Sep 2024 18:25:24 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>>>> https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/09/01/more-election-ad-deceit-in-nh/
>>>> More Election Ad Deceit in NH
>>>> September 1, 2024 / Jack Marshall
>>> THAT g-ddam coon again?
>>> LOL
>> Mangina, as Bill pointed out years ago, you are like a survivor of
>> partial-birth abortion- hyou know, the one where rthe baby's brains are
?> sucked out?
> Needledick, as I pointed out years ago, Levinstein is the one who
> survived an abortion. Some asshole left the lid off the abortion
> bucket and Levinstein's foetus slithered out.
Nithing, Bill is better than you!

>> And you are also on record as wanting to strangle babies!
> And YOU are also on record as marketing/promoting bestiality between
> Humans and gooks and encouraging the subhuman sub-babies that are
> excreted as a result!
You keep calling people gooks because of superficial characteristics
like skin color and eye shape.

How can you want to strangle the baby in this picture?

https://www.instagram.com/p/LPhfEoipsf/

> Strip away the jewloving,

There is nothing wrong with loving Jews the way Christ loved his
mother, St. Mary.

>the ainlungus,
There is none.

>the rabid 'pro-semitism'®™,
Better than Judenhass.

> the 'holocaust'®™ marketing/promotion,
I share and defend Holocaust truth.

> the depravity,
I am not depraved.

>the underage
> sibling sodomy,
There is no sodomy.

>the daily two-fingered needledick masturbation,
There is nothing needledicked about me.

> the
> denial of rape beneficiaries,
There are no beneficiaries.

>the exaggerated umbrage at being called
> a gook,
It is immoral for you to call people gooks.

>the idolising of Jeff Kakobsteen and Jack Marshall,
They are better than you!

>the
> constant "wonderfully hungry" lies,
I am wonderfully hungry!

>the online porn portfoliolioliolio
> consisting entirely of WHITE women,
There is nothing wrong with us normal men looking at pictures of
naked White women!
>the failed degree in Arithmetic at
> the California State University Long Beach,
You should have paid attention in school instead of spanking it to
kiddie porn!
the bizarre
> 'homophobia'®™/'paedophobia'®™,
I defend the truth.

> the weekend nights at the Queen Mary
> Parking Lot,
There are no such nights.

>the hideous gob dripping with freshly squeezed jew
> diarrhoea,
Again with the diarrhoea.

> the feasting on dogs and other domestic pets,
No, I usually eat beef, portk, and lamb.

No dog or llama.
the delusions
> of being an American,
I was born an American.

American citizenship is by birthright.
>the sheer adoration of uppity ape Chrissie
> Morton,
You will never measure up to Chris!

>the sheer terror of rapture and deportation by the ICE Five-0,
ICE has no reason to deport me.

I am an American citizen!
> the marketing/promotion of bestiality between Humans and subhuman
> species such as gooks and jews,
I promote heterosexuality!

and the subsequent excretion of
> subhuman sub-babies, and what is left?
There is nothign subhuman about human babies.

> Miguel ("Michael"! LOL) Ejershito: a hideous, gormless, slant eyed
> mongoloid with a BLANK mind.
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.

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about an hour ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:28:44 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> There is nothing wrong with us normal men looking at pictures of
>> naked White women!
> Don't you LIKE subhuman women such as jews, griks, nigras and gooks,
> gook? What about LIZZO?
You sure call women subhuman, as if it would get them to drop their
panties and spread their thighs and lady lips!

The following article explains your pathology.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/11/historys_oldest_hatred/

History's oldest hatred
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 11, 2009
Email|Print|Single Page||Text size – +

ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so
it is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer
"anti-Semitism" - a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm
Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or
Jew-hatred - is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never
had anything to do with Semites or being Semitic.

Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable as anti-Semitism.
"The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan, religious, and secular
societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager in "Why the Jews?,"
their classic study of anti-Semitism. "Fascists have accused them of
being Communists, and Communists have branded them capitalists. Jews who
live in non-Jewish societies have been accused of having dual loyalties,
while Jews who live in the Jewish state have been condemned as
'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied, and rich Jews are resented. Jews have
been branded as both rootless cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews
who assimilate have been called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay
together spark hatred for remaining separate."

There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before
Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This
week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to
read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of
Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage
Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the
empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the king:

"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among . . . all the
provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of
other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no
benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it be
written that they be destroyed."

When the king agrees, Haman makes plans "to annihilate, to kill and
destroy all the Jews, the young and the elderly, children and women, in
one day . . . and to take their property for plunder."

What drives such bloodlust? Haman's indictment accuses the Jews of
lacking national loyalty, of insinuating themselves throughout the
empire, of flouting the king's law. But the Jews of Persia had done
nothing to justify Haman's murderous anti-Semitism - just as Jews in
later ages did nothing that justified their persecution under the Church
or Islam, or their repression at the hands of Russian czars and Soviet
commissars, or their slaughter by Nazi Germany. When the president of
Iran today calls for the extirpation of the Jewish state, when firebombs
are hurled at synagogues in London and Paris and Chicago, it is not
because Jews deserve to be victimized.

Many Jews are no saints, but the paranoid frenzy that is anti-Semitism
is not explained by what Jews do, but by what they are. They are the
object of anti-Semitism, not its cause. That is why the haters'
rationales can be so wildly inconsistent and their agendas so
contradictory. What do those who vilify Jews as greedy bankers have in
common with those who revile them as fiendish Bolsheviks? Nothing, save
an irrational obsession with Jews.

At one point, Haman lets the mask slip. He boasts to his friends and
family of "the glory of his riches, and the great number of his sons,
and everything in which the king had promoted him and elevated him."
Still, he seethes with rage and frustration: "Yet all this is worthless
to me so long as I see Mordechai the Jew sitting at the king's gate."
That is the unforgivable offense: "Mordechai the Jew" refuses to blend
in, to be just like everyone else. He goes on sitting there -
undigested, unassimilated, and therefore unbearable.

Of course Haman had his ostensible reasons for targeting Jews. So did
Hitler and Arafat, so does Ahmadinejad. Sometimes the anti-Semite
focuses on the Jew's religion, sometimes on his laws and lifestyle,
sometimes on his professional achievements. Under it all, however, it is
the Jew's Jewishness that the anti-Semite cannot abide.

With all their flaws and failings, the Jewish people endure, their role
in history not yet finished. So the world's oldest hatred endures too,
as obsessive and indestructible - and deadly - as ever.