Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary to kill means:
- to deprive of life; cause the death of; slay.
- to destroy; do away with; extinguish.
And life means:
- (n.)the general condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, a means of reproduction, and internal regulation in response to the environment.
Who decides when it is appropriate to end the life of a being? In a civilized society it is a matter for those who are responsible for enforcing the law, to decide if the crime a person has committed rises to the level of ceding their lives for their crimes. We are no longer living in a civilized society!!!
Somehow we have passed beyond the thin veil of civilization into a degenerate and lawless society where death is appropriated simply on the whim of those doing the killing. And these degenerate ideas spawn the infantile excuse that somehow, just for the fact that you are born a woman, you have some greater empathetic knowledge on who is justified to live or die. All on the very thin excuse that a woman should be able to decide what is best for their own welfare, body and future.
It is simply such a stupid argument, I wonder at the intelligence of those who state it and those who accept it as if it must be true. If a woman was that intelligent, she would never have gotten to the place where she has the choice to make. After all, she is the one who invited the action in which she became pregnant. I am not talking about rape and incest here. I am talking about the women who think that they can sleep with any man who comes along and either not get pregnant, or rid themselves of the product of their carelessness by simply disposing of it like it is so much waste to be flushed down the toilet or tossed with the trash. And yet these are the same people who tell us that they have the right to decide what to do with their body. They seem to think that this is a sign of intelligence. If these same women were foolish enough to get an arm cut off or a permanent mark on their body, these things they would have to live with and explain how foolish they were in their actions.
So how did we get here? We got here by a Supreme Court that made a foolish decision, and gave every woman that comes along and makes a bad mistake, the opportunity to kill. Shall we start saying at some point that these women now have the right to decide that their children don’t have the right to exist if they are handicapped or if in someway they are just a burden to them? Should we give men this same right? If not why not? If you come down to it, the life that begins in a woman’s womb would not be possible without the input from the man. Should that not give them just a much right in the decision? If they decide that a baby is not in their interests, should they not have the right to make that decision?
Or is the woman somehow so much more intelligent and caring? Again I say, for most of them, they wouldn’t be in the position they were in if these were the deciding factors. So since we can say these are not applicable, we take away their reasoning for them to be in the position to make that decision , don’t we?
Abortion is not about the life of the woman, it is about the death of the baby and the denying of the responsibility of the woman for her own actions. Truly, if you follow this argument through, what you will find is that the woman if displaying a lack of intelligence and therefore cedes the very responsibility that she argues gives her the right to make a life and death decision.
I read this the other day and it haunted me:
“Can it be that women know something very deep inside, even deeper than fear and shame? Can it be that women know it is their responsibility to decide when to bring new life into this world? Women are not the enemies of our children–even those we decide not to bring into the world.”
– Quoted in “Good Women have Abortions,” which appeared on the pro-abortion sitewww.rhrealitycheck.org/node/21883
Truly sad, and yet this is the argument that they use!!!! Do they think that they know more than God then? Are they somehow so smart and empathetic that they just somehow know? If this sounds foolish, it is because it is foolish. As foolish as your child telling you that it isn’t their fault that they did something wrong, somebody else started it. Because that is the real excuse this woman is using, it isn’t her fault because some man impregnated her. She was just minding her own business. When do we stop listening to the excuses our children and hold them accountable for their actions?
We must quit letting women murder their own children in order to escape the responsibility of their own actions…
Whether you believe Mr. Romney or not, he is the first Presidential hopeful in some time who has had the courage to make this statement. It would be a big step in turning this country in the right direction. We have spent the last four years with a pro death culture in control of this country. It is time to choose life!
In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, once again, that he wants the Supreme Court to overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that has paved the way for 55 million abortions.
Romney wants states to be able to protect unborn children and, in his interview with the newspaper, indicated overturning Roe was more possible in the current political climate than a Human Life Amendment.
“That’s not where America is now,” he said. “I would love us to be in a situation where the American people decide let’s not have abortion. But that’s not where we are. That’s why I think the most effective next step is to have the court return the decision with regards to abortion to the American people and their elected representatives.”
“And it is my preference that would return to the states and to the people and their elected representatives the issue of abortion as opposed to having the federal government impose, the Supreme Court impose its view on a one-vote majority. But that’s something that will be up to the court. That’s not something I can decide as president, that’s something which the court would have to decide,” Romney continued. Read the rest at Life News.com
This is the kind of nonsense that we have to look forward to if we let the liberals who want globalism to rule, decide to give our freedom to an international court, instead of relying on on own Supreme Court system.
This is an insane principle that will lead to the inmates ruling the country.
In his State of the Union Address, JANUARY 25, 1984, President Ronald Reagan stated: “Each day your members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every school room across this land?” A month later in a radio address, February 25, 1984, President Reagan stated: “The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people from religion; that amendment was written to protect religion from government tyranny…But now we’re told our children have no right to pray in school. Nonsense. The pendulum has swung too far toward intolerance against genuine religious freedom. It is time to redress the balance.” President Reagan continued: “Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage…Refusal to permit religious exercises is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”
I am afraid that perhaps a censorship of ideas is being by-passed by corruption of a more devious kind. The arbiter that we have relied on, the Supreme Court, is being undermined with a subtle change of wording on records that changes the very meaning of the decisions that were made. This is not obvious by changing modern decisions, instead the record keepers, an org. called Justia, is changing decision that are relied on, to make it look as if government is the power instead of the people. They say that this is an error in the record keeping, but is that true? It seems that all these "errors" add up to changing our history and changing the meaning of who is the real power of this country. If changing the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court to make it seem as if they have ruled that in all cases, or even in most cases, that government is the power instead of the people, they take control away from the people and establish that government is the final power. It takes away the ability of the people to affect change by appealing decisions. It makes it so that those decisions appear to favor government over people, when in some cases, it is quite the opposite. This goes beyond censoring, this is changing the very facts that people rely on, therefore the decisions that they make are made with the error already built in to get the results that they want. It makes actual censoring un-needed for the most part. Law abiding people rely on laws and yet here the laws are being change in such subtle ways that even the most educated and honest people have missed it. Where does that leave us? Related story
JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia.(via Natural Born Citizen)
This is an important story my friends. Mr. Donofrio has been covering this story for sometime. Whether you have an opinion about the validity of Barack Obama’s eligibility or not, the documentation that he provides in regard the Justia changing and altering records is stunning. It doesn’t matter whether they did this to help Mr. Obama or to help Mr. McCain, who also had questions raised about his eligibility, is beside the point. The point that someone who represents Justice would manipulate the facts in order to obtain a result that is favorable to them, is frightening. What other situations have they done this in? Is this the first time they have manipulated data? How can we trust the facts that they have represented previously? Have people lost their right to appeal based on what results they have gotten from Justia? This is anarchy and lawlessness on the part of the very system that purports to represent truth and justice. From the response by the CEO of this organization, you have to wonder if this is fraud from the very top. Are they working for themselves or are they working for someone else? These are questions that need to be answered and this is something that we as bloggers need to be sure is spread around and pressure put on the media as well as the company itself, for answers. We need to know what the results of this action were and what they would have been without this manipulation. Please pass this on, this is not just a question of eligibility, this is a question of trust, truth, and justice!
JustiaGate: CEO Tim Stanley Claims Innocense After Blocking Access To Wayback Machine Snapshots Of All Supreme Court Cases Published By Justia
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Yesterday, in a stunning development, Justia CEO Tim Stanley blocked Wayback Machine access to all US Supreme Court cases published by Justia.com. This is the epitome – the textbook definition even – of hypocrisy. As Dianna Cotter previously reported:
“Justia founder Tim Stanley has for years prided himself and his companies on principles of ‘freedom of information’. On June 19th, 2008, Stanley addressed the Legislative Council Committee at the Oregon State Legislature with the following…
‘In the end, we both recognize the importance of providing the public with online access to our nation’s laws because such actions promote understanding, participation in and respect for our democratic institutions and legal system.’
“We agree that public policy demands that state laws remain in the public domain. To otherwise permit the State of Oregon or any other governmental body to restrict access to the laws that govern all of us would make a mockery of the legal doctrine that all persons have presumed knowledge of the law. “
Does Tim Stanley believe that his publication of Supreme Court cases should be held to the same open standard? Not so much.
Stanley is blocking access to Justia’s previous publications of US Supreme Court cases which are in the Public Domain. Nothing being blocked is owned by Justia… other than the evidence our nation needs to have an open dialogue. Stanley’s blockage makes a mockery of his prior statements concerning free legal information. Past versions of SCOTUS cases which were – until yesterday – open to the public, exhibit with absolute clarity the changes made by Justia to these cases between the years 2006 and 2011. Read the rest at Natural Born Citizen
Things are getting ready to break wide open in the next few weeks. You may already be aware of Overruled, the new 30-minute docudrama about parental rights scheduled for release on November 1. But there are also developments in Congress that should lead to some big news very soon.
In the meantime, here are some quotes and stories to consider and pass along. Every American should care about parental rights. Those who don’t simply aren’t paying attention to some of the things going on in our country. Consider:
In 2005, the U.S. Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] that theMeyer-Pierce [fundamental parental] right does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” They also held that “[p]arents…have no constitutional right…to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”1
In 2007, the federal District Court for the district of Massachusetts held that “Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required toabandon that responsibility to the state. [They] may send their children to a private school…. They may also educate their children at home.”2 So, sending a child to public school is in this paragraph equated to “abandoning your parental rights to the state.”
In 2008, the Maryland Board of Education announced, “While we recognize the right of parents to direct the education of their children, we must bend their willto the state’s obligation to educate its citizens.”
Nor do such problems exist only for parents with kids in public schools.
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), and in Graham v. Floridaand Sullivan v. Florida (2010), the Supreme Court overthrew the laws of Texas and of Florida, writing, “the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to the international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the [U.S. Constitution].”3 In both instances, they applied the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to United States law, though we have not yet ratified this dangerous treaty.
Last year, a judge in Philadelphia cited the concept of “Customary International Law” in applying an optional protocol to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child to a federal court case. And the number of judges applying international standards in our courts seems to be increasing.
Daytime curfews around the country threaten the right of home-schooled and private-schooled children to move freely in public without harassment from law officers during public school hours. California just passed a law allowing children as young as 12 to consent to the Gardasil vaccine without parental knowledge or consent. Minnesota already allows the same thing. In Virginia, the vaccine is even mandated by law, the state having made the decision in parents’ stead.
It seems every week brings more violations of parents’ liberty to make decisions for the good of their children. It almost makes President Reagan’s words sound prophetic: “We will spend our twilight years telling our grandchildren what it was like to live in America when men were free.”
But we are not doomed to that yet. In fact, I expect to bring very good news next week, news of our efforts to turn back the tide by adopting the Parental Rights Amendment.
Until then, pass the word, sound the alarm, and urge your friends to sign up atparentalrights.org/petition.
Dir. of Communications & Research
1. Fields v. Palmdale, 427 F.3d 1197 (2005).
2. Parker v. Hurley, 474 F.Supp. 2d 261 (D Mass 2007).
3. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Also Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).
The only U.S. President to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had previously been appointed by President McKinley to be the first governor of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War and was later appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt as Secretary of War. The largest President, weighing 300 lbs, a bathtub was installed for him in the White House big enough to hold four men. His name was William Howard Taft, and he was born SEPTEMBER 15, 1857. On Thanksgiving, November 7, 1912, President Taft proclaimed: “A God-fearing nation, like ours, owes it to its inborn and sincere sense of moral duty to testify its devout gratitude to the All-Giver for the countless benefits its has enjoyed.” Speaking at a missionary conference, 1908, William Howard Taft stated: “No man can study the movement of modern civilization from an impartial standpoint and not realize that Christianity, and the spread of Christianity, are the basis of hope of modern civilization in the growth of popular self government.” Taft concluded: “The spirit of Christianity is pure democracy. It is equality of man before God – the equality of man before the law, which is the most God-like manifestation that man has been able to make.”
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” wrote John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was born SEPTEMBER 24, 1755. No one had a greater impact on U.S. Constitutional Law than John Marshall. Sworn in February 4, 1801, Marshall served 34 years on the bench and helped write over 1,000 decisions, including supporting the Cherokee Indian nation in their effort to stay in Georgia. During the Revolution, John Marshall fought under Washington and endured the terrible winter at Valley Forge. According to tradition, the Liberty Bell cracked tolling at Marshall’s funeral, July 8, 1835. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote to Jasper Adams, May 9, 1833: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.” A hundred years after Marshall’s death, the present Supreme Court Building was completed in 1935. Engraved above the Chief Justice are the Ten Commandments. Moses is included among the great lawgivers in Herman A. MacNeil’s marble relief on the east portico, and every session of the Supreme Court opens with an invocation: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”
I originally wrote this post in Febuary, but I wanted to come back to it and review it. There are more question to be asked, but I wanted to ask something further. Since Barack Obama has been serving as President there have been many questions about whether he actually was legally able to claim “natural citizenship.” I am not a lawyer, but there are many challenges out there that seem to be reasonable. The fact that he put a fake birth certificate out the other day is truly disturbing and just adds to the questions.
It seems as if that is the plan of the Obama administration at times. Why would you put false papers out, knowing they would be challenged? But the pattern of this White House seems to be to stir up controversy on all fronts. They lie to the public in ways that it only takes a few moments to prove that they are lying, but they keep on doing it.
What bothers me even more than the chaos that they are causing, is the question of what would happen if we find out that Barack Obama does not fit the requirement for the President of the United State? What would happen? If the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of those who are challenging him, what happens next? Who makes Barack Obama give up the office that he would not legally be in? Do we really believe that a man and a party, the Democrat Party leaders have to have known, would give up power? Would they just not go to the public and say that the Supreme Court was in the wrong?
Then what would happen? Could we force his own justice department to remove him? Eric Holder? A man that only follows the laws that he likes and ignores the others? A man that is only in the position that he is in because of Barack Obama? And if he wouldn’t, who would? The FBI? What kind of crisis would that cause?
Is that their goal? To cause a Constitutional Crisis and divide this country? That is a truly scary thought, but it seems that with a lot of the policies that they are putting into place, they are pushing us into that direction. They care little about the rule of law. That is obvious from the way all the ABC agencies are pushing their agendas on the American people, the States, and business from small to large. Many of the questions I asked are still relevant so I won’t rewrite the whole post, I will just give you a chance to read it and consider the situation that this President and the actions of the Democrat party have put us in and ask you, my readers, “How In The World Do WE Change A President That May Refuse To Go?”
Where are we headed in this country? Why are the unions telling our President what to do? Or is it the other way around? Is our President the head of the unions? Why does the President or his aides meet with or talk to the unions everyday?Especially when he doesn’t bother to meet with his own cabinet ministers at all.
Does it seem strange to you that a man that is the leader of a great nation with a diverse cabinet, doesn’t even bother to gather them in one place and meet with them once a month, or even once every six months? Why is our President inserting himself into the state governments, while not bothering to make inroads into the massive debts that we have. Which is the job of the President? To take care of the federal government or the state government?
Who is benefiting both from the unrest here in the United States and in the rest of the world? What is the real goal. Is this good against evil? Or is there some agenda being played out that we are not aware of? Why is the press not covering all the things that are going on?
Why is the President so determined to abandon Israel? It does seem as if the President has much more respect for the Muslim religion than he does for the Christian, and he seems to have a literal hatred of Judism and Israel. Why? Is it his upbringing. Is this why our founders wanted to make sure that a President was a natural born citizen? Did they understand that only a natural born citizen would love this country enough to keep it safe?
Where does that leave the American people when the leader of the country does not share their love for the country? What are our options? If a President is trying to bring the country down from within, what can we do? We were asleep at the wheel when this President was elected. We didn’t think that someone could hate this country, and yet pretend to love it and want to make it better. We didn’t know that this country was vulnerable to someone who was determined to destroy it by using some of the laws and ignoring any that didn’t serve their purpose.
We are in a Constitutional Crisis and yet it seems as if most of our leaders are simply ignoring the fact and pretending that everything is normal. We have a leader, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who is actively violating the constitution of the United States. Whether you like Mr. Obama or not, whether you agree with him or not, he is the President of the country.
As a leader, he has the obligation to not only obey the laws, he has the obligation to enforce and to make sure that those under him,obey the laws of the country. He took an oath when he was sworn in, to obey the laws of the country, and to protect the country. He has shown over and over that he does not believe that the laws apply to him and if he does get a judgement that goes against him, he either ignores them or pretends that they say something else.
- By U.S. Senate’s Definition, Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Constitution 101 (pjh95811.wordpress.com)
- The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work (wtpotus.wordpress.com)
- Does Obama’s long form birth certificate clear him or prove he’s not a natural born citizen? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Does Obama’s long form birth certificate clear him or prove he’s not a natural born citizen? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
Bombshell: U.S. government questioned Obama citizenship ……Said it lacked documents to determine birth country
May 2nd, 2011, 2:57 pm · 60 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Does it end? Does it no longer apply? Is the President bound by the Constitution? Or is it simply a roadmap that he can follow if he chooses?
John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
What did he mean by that? Perhaps what he meant was that if our leaders no longer had any morals and did not feel that they were someday going to have to answer to a higher authority for their actions, they would not feel themselves bound to obey something that they did not agree with.
Mr. Obama and his administration have made it perfectly clear that they do not feel that any law of the country that they do not agree with, that they are not obligated to either obey, or defend it in the courts. They do not even seem to feel that they should obey the courts if they are directed to.
None of this is Constitutional, so perhaps Mr. Adams was right. Perhaps that means that the next person who is elected to the office of the President must at the very least prove to the American people that they have some morals. Let us make sure that they are not just striving to gain power over the people in order to “Fundamentally Change” both America and the Constitution in order to suit what ever agenda that they may have. Let us instead listen to the words of Thomas Jefferson who said “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Our President wouldn’t be the first to act extra-constitutionally; the pattern goes far back into U.S. history. The famous slippery slope describes that history; earlier events made smaller blips on the power horizon and later ones loom larger. Sometimes, the Supreme Court has stepped in, as exemplified by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman.
President Obama though, may have outdone any of his predecessors in exerting such powers and in avoiding much juridical or public reaction in so doing. In effect, if that observation is correct, the Constitution might be decreasingly interesting history.
Some of the actions we’ll examine have occurred with the formal support of a compliant Democratic Congress; others have been done by the President or his officers on their own.
The Constitution provides the President these powers:
- To command the military (but not to declare war).
- With Senate consent, to appoint U.S. officials and judges.
- To appoint officials created in law as the law provides and to commission officers.
- With Senate ratification, to make treaties.
- To fill vacancies during Senate recess and to receive ambassadors.
- To pardon convicts and convene or adjourn Congress in certain cases.
- To demand formal opinions from department heads.
- To faithfully execute the laws.
- Has the President Read the Constitution? (khassy2010.wordpress.com)
- The Vanishing Constitution (gds44.wordpress.com)