Liberal Commenter Insists the Left is NOT Out to Destroy Kavanaugh – Part Two

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The following is part two of a very lengthy comment someone sent me to a recent World Net Daily article I wrote.

I will not recap part one, although you may review it here.

Once again, my responses to the commenter are indented.

Commenter: Kavanaugh’s conservative views on abortion are not the only reason why the Democrats oppose him. He is an opponent of gay rights and a corporate shill who supports corporate greed over the rights of individual Americans.

Actually I’ve heard Kavanaugh speak of the Bill of Rights – of which he is a supporter. You know the Bill of Rights, which rather nicely delineates the rights of all Americans equally. It is the left who in fact specifies that we need special rights for “special” people or groups.

And yes, he supports corporate greed, as you put it, because he believes, like our silly Founding Fathers, that government should have little authority to regulate business … to death. read more

The Nazis were more Humane than Modern-Day Abortionists

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

In my opinion, there are two types of pro-abortion females. I was going to say pro-choice, but that term gives one a false impression. Fact is there are only two choices. If you are not pro-life, the only other choice is pro-death or pro-abortion, which is the same. There is no other “choice.”

One can just be ignorantly pro-abortion. These females are naturally progressive and have been told often enough that it is a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy, that they believe it. Most have given the subject very little, if any thought, beyond just parroting what they’ve heard their whole lives. No more than, “my body – my choice,” or other such slogans – which is enough to “fit in” with the rest of the progressive crowd. Any contrary stance would be uncool, and of course, all the cool people are pro-abortion.

As I said, this stance is born of ignorance, which can be cured with the proper education. Ignorance, as we know, is merely the lack of knowledge, which is far afield from stupidity. One consciously chooses to be, or remain stupid. This ignorance can almost be excused.

The other type of pro-abortion female is far worse and cannot be excused or explained away. These are the radical feminists who treat abortion like the Holy Sacrament of the religion of leftism. These females lack any moral center and will promote any means to end the life of a baby. read more

Texas strikes back at New York

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

By now everyone, at least the geeks that follow this stuff (like you and me), have heard New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent speech regarding the few conservatives that may still reside in his state.

 

For those who haven’t, here’s a quick recap: The governor stated that, “There is a schism in the Republican Party. They’re searching to define their soul… Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay – if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

 

Now that sounds reasonable, don’t you think? It sure is nice to see the lefts tolerance and acceptance of others viewpoints and beliefs on display.

 

Now rumor is that Rick Perry, Gov. of Texas is preparing a speech to counter Cuomo’s remarks. As luck would have it, I have obtained a draft copy of said speech. Let me reveal it to you now.

 

“Conservatives, unlike liberals, are freethinkers and thus have varying opinions on many subjects. Normally we conservatives do not march in lockstep – but I, as the duly elected speechifier (got that word from “W”) do decree the following to all who reside in the state of Texas.” read more

Confession of a Eugenicist

“A life worth sacrificing”: Salon blogger admits abortion ends life

by:

Many pro-aborts try to flip the label of pro-life on us, calling us anti-abortion or anti-choice. They don’t want the reminder out there that abortion is ending a life. But one pro-abortion blogger at Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams, is going a different route. She readily admits that abortion ends a life… and that’s A-OK.

Her response to the question of abortion ending a life? So what?

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

… When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

… My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause. In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

A life worth sacrificing. An unborn baby is indeed a life…a life which matters only if the mother finds it convenient. If the mother finds the pregnancy inconvenient, then it’s no big deal at all to end that life.

And she calls pro-lifers diabolical.

Of course, there’s something she’s getting wrong. Abortion isn’t sacrificing a life. Sacrificing a life requires willingness, for someone to stand up and say, Yes, I am willing to die for you. A mother absolutely can make a sacrifice to save the life of her unborn child – Chiara Corbella is a heart-breaking example – but an unborn child cannot be “sacrificed” for his or her mother. An unborn baby does not have a say in the decision to have an abortion; an unborn baby does not choose to die. Abortion is not a sacrifice. It’s murder. Let’s get that straight.

While Williams claims she does not want to come across as a “death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm trooper,” that’s exactly what she’s done. Some lives are worth more than others? Said every eugenicist, totalitarian dictator, and murderer who’s ever existed. That is the mindset that says it’s acceptable for parents to euthanize their disabled children, or that the elderly can be killed without their consent. By this same logic, infanticide should be completely acceptable as well. Heck, a mother should be allowed to kill her ten-year-old, too, if the mother decides that that child’s life is worth sacrificing.

It would be interesting to know who exactly gets to decide which lives are worthy to continue living, and which are not, since according to Williams, some lives are worth more than others. Are the disabled worthy of living? The elderly? The poor? Who decides? If not all humans are worthy of life, then who decides which get to live and which are sentenced to die?

I also want to point out the inherent narcissism of Williams’s argument. Not only is it acceptable to kill your unborn child merely out of inconvenience, but to Williams, it’s something worth sacrificing. How self-absorbed and narcissistic must you be to see the murder of your child as a noble, worthy sacrifice? It’s as if she thinks the baby would willingly agree to be slaughtered so Mommy doesn’t have to deal with the hassle of having a baby. That takes a seriously warped mind.

Pro-aborts will surely be cursing this article for drawing back the curtain and exposing the grisly truth about abortion. It doesn’t actually matter what people say regarding whether the unborn baby is a human life. Science has already established that it is. The question is whether or not women should have the right to take that life. And while abortion activists usually try to avoid the truth, Williams has brought it, like maggots festering underneath a rock, unflinchingly to the light for all to see.

Attribution: Marty

Quick Hits

Government Hires Most

(CNSNews.com) – Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, Find-Government-Jobsincluding 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.

By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.

In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.

Attribution:  Terence P. Jeffrey

Choose Life…or Death

RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers similar plates supporting abortion rights.

U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox ruled on Friday that North Carolina cannot produce or distribute the “Choose Life” plate.

Judge Fox concluded, “The State’s offering of a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice plate constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Sept. 2011 on behalf of North Carolinians seeking a specialty license plate that supports a woman’s right to reproductive freedom.NC License Plate

“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU-NCLF.

Brook said the government cannot create an avenue to express one side of a political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with an opposing view.

Judge Fox granted a preliminary injunction in Nov. 2011 that temporarily blocked production of the “Choose Life” plate; that injunction is now permanent.

During the 2011 legislative session, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289, which authorized the issuance of a “Choose Life” license plate.

However, officials say the legislature repeatedly refused to authorize a plate that supported the countervailing position in favor of reproductive freedom.

Six amendments were proposed in the legislature to authorize an additional new plate that stated either, “Trust Women. Respect Choice,” or simply “Respect Choice.” The legislature rejected all six amendments.

Attribution:

FL Senate President Laughs At Constitutionalist

Republican Florida State Senate President Don Gaetz showed the true face of tyrannical RINOs in the Republican Party when he openly laughed and mocked the Constitutional principles espoused by KrisAnne Hall, an attorney and former prosecutor, who supports the Tenth Amendment and the right of the States to nullify unconstitutional laws implemented by the federal government. However, it appears that Mr. Gaetz also indicated his support of the tactic of the seventh President of the United States Andrew Jackson in how he would deal with “nullifiers.” He would have them shot and hanged.

According to Mrs. Hall, she not only spoke to Gaetz, but even wrote him and explained the positions of men like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton on State sovereignty. She then received what can only be explained as a violence threatening email from Gaetz to anyone that would support nullification. Here’s what Sen. Gaetz wrote:

Thank you for your email and for your passionate views.

Like you, I believe Obamacare is unconstitutional and wrong-headed policy. I have consistently voted in the Florida Legislature for legislation that affirms our state’s options, Nullificationobligations and sovereignty under the United States Constitution. I am working every day to ensure the election of national candidates who will repeal and replace this extraordinarily bad policy.

As to nullification, I tend to favor the approach used by Florida’s first Governor, Andrew Jackson:

It is said that one evening, while he was president, General Jackson was interrupted in his reading in his bedroom by an alarmed military aide who breathlessly reported, “Mr. President, the “nullifiers” are in front of the Executive Mansion with torches and guns. They are screaming that each state has the right to decide for itself which federal laws to follow. They threaten to burn us down if you will not agree with them.”

Without lifting his head from his reading, Andrew Jackson said, “Shoot the first nullifier who touches the Flag. And hang the rest.

Chaplain, I have sworn an oath on my father’s Bible before Almighty God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Count me with Andrew Jackson.

Senator Don Gaetz

Attribution:

Just Say NO, to Ron Paul

Federal Reserve:

I absolutely agree with Ron Paul. Shut down the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson created it. I need to consider nothing more. Anything enacted by the Wilson administration is de facto, bad for the country.

Abortion:

Mr. Paul has stated he is firmly pro-life. I believe him. He also says it is not the purview of the Federal Government. The congressman believes life begins at conception but reluctantly says it is a States Rights issue, citing the Tenth Amendment.

I wasn’t aware that the murder of innocents was an issue at all. Who but a psycho would be in favor of murdering innocent people? If you believe life begins at conception, and when else would it begin, you can’t also believe that a State has the right to pass it’s own law condoning murder. It’s kind of a Ten Commandment issue, which trumps even our Constitution.

Death Penalty:

Ron Paul admits he was pro-death penalty & is now opposed to the death penalty, chiefly out of fear than an innocent person may be sentenced to death.

Michael Moore, He's right on every Issue!

I am pro-death penalty personally. I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. Could a mistake be made? Absolutely! Humans are not perfect. Overwhelmingly the evidence against a death row inmate is so compelling as to prevent the mistake. Many have said my position is inconsistent. How could anyone be pro-life & pro-death penalty? What about the whole, “Thou shall not murder [kill]”? Abortion is the taking of an innocent life. The death penalty is not.

Illegal Immigration:

I agree with Paul, that illegal immigration should be attacked economically first. Stop all federal funding for illegals. No welfare, food stamps, free hospital care, etc. If you give things away, you’ll have more people lining up for the giveaways. Take away the incentive to stay here & they’ll leave.

He is against amnesty. I agree with that.

He does not support deportation. I support deportation. The Congressmen stated, “Sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home–isn’t going to happen and shouldn’t happen”. I disagree. By taking away the financial incentives, that number would be reduced greatly.

Foreign Policy:

This is the biggie. I am not at all a fan of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s not only flawed, but also dangerous. I concur that troops should come home, but not for the same reasons. I also think our troops should leave Afghanistan immediately.

He states, “There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture … This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods … Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control.”

I agree with him that most of the conflicts we’ve become entangled in are useless and unconstitutional. If however, the cause is Constitutionally justified, the cost should be immaterial. I hope he would agree.

Regardless of my agreement with him on a lot of domestic spending issues, his isolationism and stance on Iran and Israel absolutely disqualifies him for any consideration as the nominee.

While the President and Congress, together, control domestic issues, foreign policy is much more the authority of the Executive Branch and the Commander in Chief.

I could agree with Ron Paul’s stance on every domestic issue, but when I cannot trust the judgment of our Commander in Chief, he is eliminated from consideration, period.