Constitutional Right To Murder
Apr 18, 2007 Uncategorized
The Supreme Court of the United States today ruled in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions. The SCOTUS stated that the law was indeed Constitutional despite the fact it does not contain language allowing this procedure to save the life of the mother. The Court was divided with the Conservative majority in favor and the Liberal minority against. There are those who believe that this erodes a woman’s Constitutional right, one that does not exist in the Constitution.
For the first time since the court established a woman’s right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents. My Way
First things first. This lays it all out. The court established a woman’s “right” to an abortion. This decision was made by liberals and it was not based on anything tangible in the Constitution. The Justices of 1973 dug around and twisted meaning to allow abortions. The fact of the matter is the word abortion does not appear in the document at all. Interestingly, the words right to keep and bear arms do. The left will fight to murder babies while denying people a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Abortion has been debated for decades and the left and its puppets on the court have upheld it long enough for it to be considered sacred. That is why everyone who supports murder on demand is so upset. These folks started with non-viable as a rationalization and moved all the way up to murdering full term, viable babies with no objections. Now, they no longer have free reign and they do not like it.
For those who are unaware of the procedure, partial birth abortion is a procedure where a FULL TERM infant is allowed to move down the birth canal. A doctor then snips a hole in the base of the child’s skull and sucks its brains out. This is, in essence, no different than waiting until the kid is completely outside the womb and than killing it by sucking its brains out. This is barbaric and gruesome and is murder, plain and simple. I happen to believe that any abortion is murder but even if you are one of these people who claims a blob of cells is not human there is no way in hell you can deny that a child, seconds from being born, is not human. Anyone who has one of these and anyone who performs one should be charged with murder.
Once a sperm and egg meet the resulting “products of conception” have DNA. If this “blob” were given to scientists and they were not told what it was and asked to identify it by DNA it would be identified as human, regardless of what it looks like. Be that as it may, right now abortion is the law of the land but it is not contained in the Constitution. What is contained are the words indicating that anything not contained in the Constitution is granted to the states or to the individuals. I believe that abortion should be decided by individual states and not by federal law. Additionally, I believe that even if abortion is legal, none of them should be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
This takes us to the candidates. The three Republicans agree (though Rudy is pandering) and the Democrats disagree [with the decision]. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton all indicated that this took away the rights of a woman. Hillary indicated this is why she fought having Alito and Roberts on the court. Of course she did. Having liberal activists on the court is what gave us this farce in the first place. Now I am surprised that Hillary actually said anything until a poll came out indicating how people felt but then I remembered that she only needs to pander to the left during the primaries so she is shoring up her liberal wacko baby murder base. Why Hillary even said this was a dramatic departure and that it failed to take the lives and rights of women into account.
Hillary, what about the children? With you libs it is always about the children so tell me where we are taking the lives and rights of the children into account. You see, the kids don’t have much choice in this process. They did not do anything to be conceived, a woman and a man did. The kids struggles for nine months and just before it reaches the phase of life outside the womb, snip/suck, it is over. That is cruel and there is no way that any idiot can tell me that it is not murder. You all got away for years discussing this idea that a “fetus” does not feel pain and it is not a life so you can do what you want. Well, damn it this nearly born child can feel pain and it is a life and there is no way to rationalize that out of the equation.
It is amazing to me that this group of idiots including queen Hillary, would dare discuss this so called erosion of rights. What right is there to murder? It is also amazing to me that these are the same people [liberals] who oppose the death penalty and will protest putting a murderer to death for a crime. Yes, the same people who will kill innocent children will fight to keep a murderer alive. I say that if snipping a hole in an infant’s head and sucking his brains out is not cruel then that is how we should execute those on death row. Can you believe that these moonbats would tell us we need to pull out of Iraq because of the deaths of our service members and the deaths to the Iraqi civilians and then they would cry about action by the court interpreting the Constitution correctly and denying them the “right” to murder? Yes, Hillary can say that without the provision for the health of the mother it is wrong but I say any woman who sucks the brains out of a baby does not deserve to live.
Hillary said this is why she did not want Roberts and Alito on the court. Well listen up Hillary, you moonbat beeyatch idiot, this kind of stupidity is why we do not want Democrats in charge of anything. Kind of sucks to be the majority party but not have the majority of the SCOTUS. You had that and screwed it up.
I can only think what a better world it would have been if these people’s parents had aborted them.
Thank God Roberts’ and Alito’s parents did not.
Sources:
Hillary
Guiliani
Obama
Romney and McCain
Edwards
Tags: Commentary
But They Are Criminals!
Apr 18, 2007 Uncategorized
Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief has stated that he does not like the idea of a wall placed between the US and Mexico and said that it treats people like criminals.
“A wall that separates one country from another is not something that I like or that the European Union members like,” Solana said at a news conference in Mexico City. “We don’t think walls are reasonable instruments to stop people from crossing into a country.”
The EU believes immigrants should be treated “like people, not like criminals,” he said Breitbart
Well Javvy, I really don’t care what you or the European Union likes. We do not like people sneaking into our country and pilfering from us. I don’t know what you call this kind of behavior in your sophisticated, EU but here in America we call it criminal. Yes, we call people who break our laws criminals and if you are sneaking across the border you are breaking the law.
Now you limp wristed Europeans might like the idea of having your borders open so people can wander around but that is not something we take too kindly to. Perhaps if you tightened up over there you would not have so many Muslims infiltrating and causing trouble like they have been in France. Perhaps if you all worried about your own borders instead of ours then you might not have terror cells blowing up train stations or subways. Maybe you would not have terrorist killers slithering around killing your people.
This is the problem with the rest of the world. They feel comfortable telling us how we should be doing things. They have all been telling us how our guns laws need to be changed in light of the VT murders and now they want to tell us how we should run our borders. As screwed up as the EU is they should worry about themselves and leave us alone. There would be no EU without the US but, to be fair, I think we will be willing to listen to them instead of them to us, when they liberate and save us.
Until then they can STFU…
Tags: Commentary
Off the Record, Sharpton is a Racist
Apr 18, 2007 Uncategorized
Al Sharptongue was on Bill Maher’s show the other night via satellite where he confirmed to me that he is a bigger idiot than any other race baiting poverty pimp. It is not bad enough that Sharptongue said over the weekend (on one of the talking head shows) that the reason he has not apologized for the Tawana Brawley case is because he still believes her. I imagine that the fact she admitted to lying about the rape has not changed the mind of the hapless Al who needs to get a clue. Last night though, he showed what a racist pig he is.
The discussion was about Imus and Sharptongue said that the black journalists were responsible for bringing this to light. media Matters sent an email to the black journalists who reported on it. Sharptongue made it appear as if he was a bit player. He indicated that it was not he (or the others) who got Imus fired but it was the advertisers who started pulling out. That is true in essence but the advertisers were very nervous about the threats of boycotts and protests from Sharptongue. They should be afraid, when Al starts protesting, people die. Maher asked Al about a double standard with Jackson and his use of “Hymietown” (interestingly, Maher did not ask about Al’s use of cracker, white interloper, or diamond merchant or his condemnation of the Duke players who happen to be innocent of raping that, what is the word, Ho) and Al said there was no double standard, surprise, surprise.
Al indicated that what Jesse said was supposed to be off the record. I guess that makes it OK to use racial terms and denigrate people. So long as you are off the record. Al then said this thing with Imus was part of a pattern and that 60 Minutes was going to have a compilation of Imus remarks and there was talk about when Imus said he hired someone (producer maybe) to be the guy who told nigger jokes. I seem to remember reading that Imus said this as an off the cuff response when he thought it was off the record. I don’t think that makes it any better but according to Al it should not be held against him because it was OFF THE RECORD. Sharptongue will dismiss any form of racism that is committed by him or Jackson and generally any other black person. He will pretend to go after rappers but that is a game. Until he boycotts and protests and demands sponsors to leave the artist it is all window dressing.
One other thing. Sharptongue said that Maher was one of the good ones. Admittedly, Maher started it by saying, hey I’m one of the good ones. But Al had to be a bit racist by saying Bill is one of the good ones. Imagine if someone said “You can trust Obama, he’s one of the good ones.” Sharptongue would be losing his mind trying to get the racist offender fired while having innocent people stabbed to death and businesses burned down.
We would be a lot better off without these race baiting poverty pimps stirring up the pot. But, it lets me call Al names and that is always fun. I would like to meet him in person so I can put my carbon footprint on his ass.
Just for the record, Maher was pretty fair to Imus and to Sharptongue (and zinged him good at the end).
Tags: Commentary
Elitism is what Hurt NJ Governor Corzine
Apr 17, 2007 Uncategorized
By now most people know that NJ Governor Jon S. Corzine was involved in a serious vehicle accident and is in very bad shape in the hospital. It will be months before he recovers from this accident. Corzine was on his way to the Governor’s Mansion to meet with Don Imus and the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. That meeting was not an emergency and there is no reason that the Governor needed to treat getting there as if the world was ending.
An yet, Corzine’s police driven vehicle was traveling 91 miles an hour in a 65 mph zone with the emergency lights flashing. Corzine was also not wearing a seat belt. There is no reason that Corzine needed to be going this fast. The police officer driving him had no reason to be speeding nearly 30 miles above the posted limit. No reason except this elected official and his police officer driver decided that the rules that apply to the others on the road do not apply to them. One sees this all the time with police officers who sped down the highway going well over the limit. These are the same people who will write you a ticket for speeding.
Corzine was going to meet with people who were reconciling a difference. He was not going to an earthquake or another 9/11. He was not going to anything important enough to risk his or anyone else’s life on. Corzine nearly killed himself to get to a meeting and how great would it have been if he had killed someone else on the road just so he could get to a meeting that amounted to nothing more than a photo-op for him?
Elitism, the idea that one is above the rules expected of all others, is what caused Corzine to get injured. They should fire the cop driving him and Corzine should be charged for not wearing his seat belt. Voters there should also consider his blatant disregard for the lives of others when they next go to the polls.
Having said that, I wish him a speedy recovery and pray that he heals quickly.
Source:
Breitbart
Tags: Commentary
The World’s Gun Grabbers Unite Around VT Incident
Apr 17, 2007 Uncategorized
The tragedy of yesterday was just that, a tragedy. The unfortunate thing is that a person, who by current news is here on a Visa, got access to a few guns and killed a lot of people. This has re-sparked the debate over gun control. Those among us who believe that if there were no guns allowed in society this would not have happened seem to forget that there are no guns allowed on the campus of VT. That rule did not stop a crazed individual from exacting terror among those who were unable to protect themselves. News accounts also indicate that the campus security does not carry weapons.
Many news organizations from around the world are chiming in and blaming what happened on the lack of gun control in America. These countries ignore the fact that even though they have strict gun control laws, they have gun crimes and murders. That is, all but Germany:
“Now we will probably begin discussing the overly lax gun laws in the United States. There, buying a machine gun is often easier than getting a driver’s license. And a new ban on violent games and killer videos will also be put back on the agenda. But in the end, nothing is likely to happen. And the next killer already lives somewhere among us. But we have little reason to point an accusing finger at the Americans. Despite strict gun legislation, we (in Germany) have experienced the school shootings in Erfurt and Emsdetten. We have to consider the problems in our society. And we have to take care of our fellow humans.” Spiegel Online
Can someone point out the logic in saying that overly lax gun laws are to blame and then pointing out that STRICT gun control laws in Germany have not stopped gun attacks in two schools there? At least Germany recognizes that gun control does not work and that is because criminals do not obey the law. Once again, the guy who killed everyone yesterday was not allowed to have a gun on campus. Rules are only effective when people obey them. The Germans have it wrong about buying a machine gun but that is because of what they see in the movies and what they are told. Just as I pointed out in my post about the German Army and its idea of blacks in America, the Germans and most other countries only know us by what they see in the movies and read in the news.
I had some soldiers from England here and they were worried about coming because everyone in America walks around with a gun and people are shot all the time. This is what they had been told. They were surprised that people walking down the street did not have guns strapped on their hips. When I went there I was told by one guy that the UK outlawed guns and everyone had to turn them in some years ago. He told me that people believed it stopped the gun violence. I was walking out of the subway and there was a huge poster that read “Stop the Gun Violence.” So I said the the guy with me, if you are not allowed to own guns what gun violence do you need to stop. He said that just because they were not allowed to own guns it did not mean people did not get shot. He said, people get shot all the time in Manchester and I asked how that could be if guns were outlawed. He told me that the law did not stop criminals from getting guns.
This is just a cold hard fact. Responsible people who own guns do not go around shooting people. We have nearly 50 thousand deaths a year from vehicle accidents but we do not demand they take cars away. We demand that people who use cars irresponsibly be denied the right to drive. Maryland has extremely tough gun laws, especially in Baltimore, and yet nearly 300 people are killed there, by gun, each year. In the rural counties where legal gun ownership is more common, there are hardly any gun deaths. If gun laws work, Snoop Dogg would not be arrested over and over for ILLEGALLY carrying a gun. He would not even have a gun. If gun laws worked, the guy who shot and killed the off duty cop in Baltimore would not have had a gun because of his two previous gun arrests.
Laws only work for people who obey them. It is illegal to rob a bank but people rob banks. It is illegal to use cocaine (and it has no use except very limited medical) and yet people use cocaine all the time. That is outlawed so where are they getting it? Same place criminals get guns and will continue to get guns regardless of the number of laws making it illegal.
What happened at VT was a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to he families and friends of the victims but let us focus on the real issue here. It was not a firearm that committed a crime there. It was a person determined to kill people. If guns were not available, he would have found another method. Put the blame where it belongs, on the individual. I know that is hard considering the liberal idea that no one is responsible for anything (except George Bush).
God Bless VT and those affected by this CRIMINAL act.
Tags: Commentary