Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Jonah Goldberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
Good and Evil and Obama
by Jonah Goldberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In the wake of the fascinating forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., everyone is focusing on the contrasts between presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. More interesting are the contrasts between the intellectual-theologian Obama and the political Obama.

"Does evil exist?" Warren asked Obama. "And if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?"

Obama the would-be moral philosopher replied, accurately, that evil is everywhere, in Darfur, in our streets, in our own hearts. We cannot "erase evil from the world. That is God's task. But we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront (evil) when we see it." (Imagine if President Bush called himself a soldier of God in the battle against evil.)

When asked what America's greatest moral failing was, theological Obama said it was our collective failure to "abide by that basic precept in (the Book of) Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."

For Obama the politician, such scriptural quotations often serve as an all-inclusive writ to impose his religious views on others when it comes to fighting poverty, global warming, racism, etc. But when the question turns to abortion, political Obama insists on a policy of moral agnosticism and political laissez-faire. Asked directly when life begins as a legal matter, he punted, saying the answer was "above my pay grade."

Obama, commendably, told Warren that he wants to reduce the number of abortions. After all, he observed gravely, "we've had a president who is opposed to abortions over the last eight years, and abortions have not gone down." Unfortunately, Obama wasn't telling the truth. The abortion rate is the lowest it's been since 1974, partly because of pro-life policies under Bush, but also thanks to those implemented at the state level since the 1990s.

At Saddleback, Obama offered the ritualistic support for Roe v. Wade expected of all Democratic politicians, "not because I'm pro-abortion," but because women "wrestle with these things in profound ways."

This is surely true in many instances. But political Obama won't explain why "wrestling" with a serious moral question is an adequate substitute for deciding it correctly. People wrestle with all sorts of moral quandaries in "profound ways." Many slave owners wrestled with whether they should free their slaves, but that did not obviate the need for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Alas, when it comes to abortion, it's probably silly to expect anything but rote fealty to ideological pieties from a Democrat, just as it's naive to expect anything but the appropriate pro-life talking points from a Republican. But for a self-styled champion of nuance, political Obama's rigidity is spectacular to behold.

In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Obama received a statement from Jill Stanek, a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. She testified that at her Chicago-area hospital, she'd seen a baby accidentally delivered alive during an abortion and then "taken to the soiled-utility room and left alone to die."

I'm no expert on the Christian Gospel, but something tells me that Matthew might consider these wailing creatures the least of our brothers.

Alas, the abandonment of babies to suffer and die on the modern equivalent of a Spartan cliff did not require confronting evil when Obama saw it. Indeed, Obama turned a blind eye, leading the battle to defeat Illinois' version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have treated babies living, albeit briefly, outside the womb as, well, babies. He opposed the bill in 2003 (as he had a similar one in 2001), saying it would undermine Roe v. Wade. But even after Roe-neutral language was included - wording good enough that it won support for the federal version of the bill from abortion-rights stalwart Sen. Barbara Boxer - Obama remained unmoved.

Until this week, Obama denied that he ever took such a position. His campaign now admits that he was, in effect, lying when he said pro-lifers were lying about his record. But simultaneously, Obama defends a position that comes dismayingly close to the layman's understanding of infanticide while claiming any other position would require him to play God.

"A lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil," intellectual-theologian Obama said at Saddleback. And "just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."

Perhaps that theological Obama should wrestle a bit more with political Obama.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jonah Goldberg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
poor guy went incoherent


Yeah, Dave,

Stay cool, tough guy.

I have difficulty decoding your last diatribe, but not because I'm senile. You're confused, I guess.

Didn't you have your big ears pinned back today, by a Geezer? You needed new batteries after I left you on your butt.

Beg me and I'll meet you again tomorrow.

.

dreadnaught
The light has finally gone off. I am not engaging some old senile fool buit rather that former mdoggg crap.

What's wrong. Had to take up a new id from the many times you postings got dropped for the venom you spilled.

So the losing issue of the ambulance chaser daddy and the mother who teaches intollerence has gone from being a black apologist and black wannabe to an aplologist for illegals and a hispanic wannabe.

In any disguise you are still an abject moron and pathetic excuse for a human


and

You have problems, David


You show how badly you were trained; talking big without ever learning anything. You want respect, but you don't give respect. I'm not here to teach you what your parents failed to teach you.

I have better things to do and say. You've tried to make ME the subject of our discussion, instead of staying on-topic. That shows lack of discipline.

You've gone from race-baiting to age-baiting and letting anger overcome you.

It's called killing the messenger because he brings you a letter. He tells you WHAT you need to know! Now you find I won't back off; and all you know how to do is hurl gross accusations.

I explained what my ideology stems from. But you won't let me alone. You spring the La Raza falsehood, the lawless falsehood, the illegal supporter falsehood.

Everything but the truth. All I've done is put the finger on your motives.

Hatred and ethnic defamation out of control. You're filled with hatred. You may not approve of racism as an ideology; but you smell racist, you talk like a racist and it's natural to you. You feel superior because God made you a white American!

Except You AREN'T superior. You only feel superior and your race is WHY.

I'm not interested dave2
Dave the racist:

I couldn't begin to care where your parents come from, or whether they came illegally or legally.

I'm just saying YOU are a lot like the Nazis. I proved it.

THEY savaged an ethnic group without pity; the Jews.

You savage an ethnic group without pity, the Mexican illegals. You refer to these people as TRASH. What did the Nazis incite the people to do?

HATE every Jew! You denigrate and hate Mexicans so much you can't even refer to them as people. To a RACIST, they're Trash and Scum. You use Nazi rhetoric.

You hate like a Nazi, on the basis of bloodlines; race. You and Nazis, then, come cut from the same cloth: racism and HATRED. It's been demonstrated well in every one of your recent posts.

Did I incite hatred against you? No-- I stated the obvious: You're a racist. Your good parents would be ashamed to see their son acting like THEIR OPPRESSORS! You suck, David.

dreadnaught
what's wrong, can't make any more ridiculous charges or use your gutter mouth to hurl more insults.

I guess that when it finally became time to man up you failed the test. But then again I have already pegged you as a hypocrite who will twist himself in knots justifying his pitiful defense of the illegals invading this country.

dreadnaught
is this the best this old senile fool can do. He claims I have more in common with the kkk and hitler than he has for his love of those breaking our laws.

I will now burst you bubble you pathetic old fool. My parents both escaped hitler prior to ww2. They lost many friends and relatives to the person you claim I like.

But unlike the trash you champion, they were fortunate to come here legally. They took classes learned english and became citizens. Just before the war in europe ended my father turned 18 and joined the army hoping to go to europe to fight the germans

I also have a jewish heritage so now you prove you call others anti-semites if they disagree with your sanctimoneous defense of the illegal trash invading this country.

My family worked to become lawful citizens, I doubt you know any illegals who worked through the process to become citizens. Infact how many of your buddies who emigrated legally, if you in fact know any, ever became citizens of this country.

But perhaps you will remain lucky and those illegals who come here and then commit crimes will spare you, that is until they see the opportunity to make you their latest victim. Enabling criminals encourages them to commit further crimes. You obviously have no problem with illegals committing crimes either.

poor dave ran out of crap


Ho-hum . . .

Eat shid and die;

Racists always try to hide their agenda by defaming others. In Nazi Germany, who was always the dirt, the TRASH? Of course; Jews! But when the super race was through killing their Jews, they found out the flower of German youth had been sacrificed all over Europe and Russia for one racist bigot's agenda. A whole generation of blue-eyed, blond German boys was DEAD. YOU'RE a lot like Hitler.

Hate-mongers and white supremacists need an ethnic minority to boost their race's ego. And what's the result? They only destroy themselves.

dreadnaught
so now we see your problem. Another old senile fool who thinks these cute little illegals need his protection and guidance.

But you are also a foul mouthed old fool who thinks that telling people to kiss the place he stores his brains wins his arguments.

Claiming to be a conserv in calif is an oxymoron. We see how calif has voted over various social issues and how welcoming they make the illegal law breakers

But now the old fool thinks that posting his political credentials gives him credibility. But you are far from being a conserv. Looking aside why the laws are broken and telling how you admire hispanics only proves you are an enabler of illegals.

But then again I gather you also have no problem with the growing crime rates that occur in every city invaded by these illegals. Plus your fellow libs in other states want to give them driving licenses that would enable them to vote in out elections.

That you are in fact a bleeding heart lib is evidenced from your postings. But you are exactly a big part of the problem facing this country. Enabling illegals is encouraging others to break out laws. And once here the crimes continue as they never stop stealing the social services the tax payers are footing the bill for





dreadnaught
the la raza hater of whites and enabler and encourager of illegal trash again shows up to spew his idiocy.

Any criminal who breaks the law is trash. Any fool who encourages celebrates and enables those who break the law need to be be put in prison and be forced to pay all the associated costs.

But if these illegals are all so brilliant and hardworking why haven't they converted that third world toilet they come from into a paradise.

But again no conserv actively supports the laws of this country being broken. And you still fail to explain why taxpayers are footing the bills these illegals run up by attending the public schools and using hospital services they don't pay for.

As I have always posted that any who come here legally are welcome. Those who break our laws to come illegally deserve to be prosecuted under the full extent of the law.

If it makes me a racist that I expect people to follow the law, so be it. If I expect the government to enforce the laws on the books concerning illegals invading this country so be it.

I could care less how cute they look, how hard working or how skillful or how well they can ride a horse. Breaking the law cannot be tolerated. That applies to illegals, govt officials and citizens.


vulgar little moron


Davey, Brat:

I said before you haven't been called a racist; even when you were prepared to be called one.

I had no reasons to call you racist; but you keep on furnishing proof.

Your repeated reference to illegal aliens as TRASH from Mexico has me wondering. How many illegal immigrants have you personally met? I have known a great number since I was a teenager in New Mexico. Now at 70, I can truthfully say I never met a single one here in America who was trashy. I know they lived in our country without passports. They supported families back in their beloved Mexico.

Culturally, they came from religious homes in towns with beautiful churches and very lovely people.

Even the POOREST ones were hospitable to strangers and quick to do you any favor you asked.

They were excellent mechanics, fine musicians; they love the guitar. One guy I knew in Albuquerque was such a fine artesan he hand-carved redwood doors for a mansion by the Country Club; with a hammer, knife & chisels.

Mexicans paint beautiful pictures, some know how to work leather and silversmith. They're the best farmers on a short budget.

I go to the horseraces here in Calif. Among the greatest jockeys many are Mexicans. Almost all the best grooms are Mexicans. THEY LOVE HORSES! Don't take my word. Go & see it yourself.

In their homeland they become excellent doctors, architects, petrochemical engineers and computer techs.

They aren't in any way TRASH, is what you need to know. Sure-- if they're caught here, they must be deported. I support our laws and a tightened border.

But HATE? Why?

I think you ARE a racist hate-monger. You made me see it! I can't help what YOU made plain as a wart on your nose.

dreadnaught
you remain a total fool. But then again yiou think sall of america should support your love of this scum that steals into this country.

Since we have immigration laws and these people come in the dark of night without the permission of our government they are law breakers.

But I assume that you are nothing more than a la raza troll, another hispanic who thinks we should welcome with open arms all the mexican trash that thinks they have a right to come here and steal from the workers in this country

But we see your type of lib everywhere. As long as it's not your money what do you care. Like all leftists you can't wait for open borders and more socialism so that we cane absorb all the criminal class that mexico enmcourages to leave this country.

But I do see that you are the childish one who resorts to vulgarisms to prove you are some type of tough guy.

Obviously your pals in the dim party think that having more illegals who they can give away our precious gift of citizenship to enlarge their voter base is all that matters to you.

Exactly why do you believe we should grant amnesty to criminals. Your socialist buddy, old swimmer kennedy assured america that the amnesty bill he pushed through congress 20 plus years ago would solve the illegal problem. But today it is even worse.

And still you trolls from the left maintain we need this trash to grow america. Your idea of america is the return of texas, new mexico, arizona and california to mexico.

But my real hope is that the fence is finally put up to keep out this unwanted trash. We have existing immigration laws and all who emigrate to this country legally is welcome. Those who break ourt laws should be given the bums rush. And those like you who give aid and comfort to illegals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You are even worse than the trash coming from mexico

part 3, Dave2 diatribe
" . . . you who is the hater of America."

REPLY to Dave2---->

You, Sir are a hater of Mexico and her people. I LOVE America; yet I hate racism. Is there something wrong about hating racism?

"You obviously have no respect for the laws that bind our society but gladly turn a blind eye to this invasion."

REPLY: When someone tells me that, he is clearly stupid. Full of SHJIT.

Furthermore, Dave Brat; we have had NO INVASIONS. We have unwanted visitors from another country. They come to WORK HERE. You hate them all, because they eat frijoles and speak Spanish.

This blessed "respect for the law" you're crying about is a handy pretext. You surely aren't so law-abiding when it suits you; HYPOCRITE.

" . . . it is you who is the racist. You hate americans who work and pay taxes. You hate americans because they have achieved success while mexico and other third world countries continue to exploit their own citizens. What exactly makes mexico in the slightest bit admirable. But they have discovered their is only two things they export, oil because it brings in wealth and the useless trash they don't want to provide for but then take advantage of from all the billions they send back to relatives who haven't figured out a way to escape their failed society."

Yeah, yeah and you could go on forever! Ask me if I care about your mealy-mouthed disgust. I'm letting you in on a significant discovery: YOUR IDEA of America is total selfishness and greed.

My idea is our great country where people help one another and don't care what color you are. The America that isn't afraid-- XENOPHOBIC, and racist and angry at the poor. MY AMERICA, Pal!

2nd part, Dave2 diatribe
He continues:

" . . . am I a racist because I am disgusted by fools like you that encourage these illegals to break our laws and steal what working citizens must pay for."

REPLY: I never called you a racist. To me you're just an @sshole who can't discuss things in a friendly way with people you feel superior to.

The fact is, you pretend to know all about Mexico & the illegal immigrant. But you repeat hate speech to fill in for your total BLANK on that subject. Just as millions of other nincompoops are doing.

They make up for their ignorance with bluster. You learned your stupid manners at the football games; hollering your brains out. Lol!

"But what gives you the right to tell working Americans they must finance these illegals."

Reply: My rights as an American; freedom of speech.

You aren't "financing" anything. You pretend to, but why not check and see what you've contributed? One forty-millionth of .02 percent out of the total U.S. education budget? Forty cents a year toward the upkeep of our WHAT??? Tortilla factories of America?

You big phony! God's going to call you on all this bitshing and moaning over what the POOR cost you during your lifetime; He'll make you tell Him the truth:

"I was hungry, and you fed me;" _____NOT._____

What a crying BUM!

"Further what of the growing crime rates because you and you fellow enablers turn a blind eye to these criminals who steal from citizens, commit murders, as well as using phony id's and stolen social security numbers and engage in id theft."

REPLY: I want those people in prison. I have no stake in their criminal activity. Nor do WE have any concrete proof that all that crime's being committed by illegal immigrants.


Anne - on Liberal Religious Hypocracy
You compared President Bush's religiousness and the leftist aversion to it with Obama's professions of faith and the liberals' ingoring or embracing it, noting that it is hypocritical.

It most certainly is not hypocritical. The Liberals are right to differentiate the two as are we conservatives, and, actually it's important that we do.

For, you see, Liberals know that while George Bush will actually be GUIDED by those religious moral principles (especially where abortion, homosexuality, and supporting churches' efforts to help the poor are concerned), they know that Obama's "religious principles" are as much just for show as anything else. He's still going to fall in lockstep with them on gays, abortion, atheist government, income redistribution, the moral equivalence between us, Muslim Terrorists, and Communist China and North Korea, and all the other leftist things he believes in.

The fact that Obama supports all those things while expressing a "Christian" faith should give any religious person pause to look before they pull that little lever on November 4th.

Retired Geek
You wrote to me:
"What is your opinion on this:
-----------------------------
Religious doctors can't withhold treatment to gays, state court rules.

By Paul Elias
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — 'California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.'"

Honestly, I think it would depend on the type of help being requested. If we're talking about treating someone for an illness or an injury or giving them a checkup, I'm not sure that ruling is incorrect. A doctor cannot refuse treatment to someone just because they don't agree with their lifestyle. That would be like a Doctor who's a flaming liberal not treating you or me because we're conservatives.

On the other hand, I do believe that the shrink mentioned in another column who refered a lesbian -- who wanted relationship counciling --to a collegue (which collegue performed his duties in an "exemplary" fashion according to the patient) because of the first shrink's religious views had every right to do that. Someone should not be forced to counsel another in a way that the counselor believes to be morally wrong.

But in a general sense, no one should be refused medical treatment based solely on political or religious beliefs or practices.
Especially if they can pay for the treatment.

Bravo Zulu(Well Done) Dylan Sprouse
I'm totally in awe of the way you so deftly handled the person who I have to say is the most totally obnoxious person ever to darken the threads here at TownHall.

And you caught on so quickly to what an arrogant, condescending, and self centered BS artist he is. Like you say, he only thinks he knows so much.

His secret is that he's perfected the arts of Googling for information, then cutting and pasting it into his posts here.

Again, Congratulations.

Dylan Sprouse
You seem to think that I needed correcting as to the status of an embryo's rights. I agree completely, just in case that wasn't clear in my post. For what it's worth. If you're 15, not bad. But I wouldn't trade insults with people, it just makes both look silly.

The thread is dead, time to go to bed. Best to you all!

You debate "people like me anyway?"
That's a good one. If you look at how I just handed you your butt on a platter, I'd say that it's you who isn't able to deal with reality, or the realities of politics. Or life for that matter.
You Ranger29/Robert, couldn't outwit a pissant, on your best day.

If that BS you just posted, and calling me a loser is the best you can do, then you should stay banned.

You're pathetic. I'm only 15 and I just kicked yourass all over this thread. You're just too stupid to know it.

I've noticed that too Ranger
But what I've noticed most of all is that the ones who think they know the most, are usually the ones who know the least.
They make up for it most often by saying things that make absoluely no sense at all. Or, failing that they change the subject altogether, or attacking people who they're envious of.
In otherwords, people like that, people like you, Ranger29, are nothing but big, arrogant windbags, so full of themselves and hot air that they have to be the center of attention.

Some of them even continually come back illegally after being banned and having their posts deleted on a daily basis.

Does any of this souind the least bit familiar, Ranger29?

Dylan Sprouse
I must say your posts to "Ranger" are very good. Nevertheless, I feel you should be warned.

You have questioned "Ranger WD-40"'s street cred!! He will no doubt try to tangle you up with some Wikipedia cut-and-paste post. DO NOT LET IT GET TO YOU!! Everyone here knows his modus operandi (c'mon Robert...you know what it means!). Just scroll on by....

"Ranger WD-40" will feel the need to be avenged. Just sit back, and have a good hearty laugh at his expense.

Works for everyone!!

Steve in PA
A three day old fetus is every bit as human as you or I are, and has, and should have, every bit of the same "Human rights" as you or I have. Especially the right to life.

That is one of the biggest things I dislkie about Obama. He refused to vote for saving the lives of babies that survived abortions so he is as bad as any cold blooded murderer or mother who had an abortion in my book.

And Ranger29's post comparing Terry Schiavo to a cat, or defending the poosition that a fetus of any age doesn't deserve to live make him the equal to Obama in my book. A waste of huiman flesh.

I'm also noticing that just like he does with others who ask him questions he can't, or doesn't want to answer, Ranger29 seems to be ignoring my questions to him. Maybe he even left the thread to avoid answering.

dylan
I for one have no tolerance for the trolls and even less patience with their posted stupidity and rarely fail to point out their mistatements

Ranger:
Welcome back. I leave for a few hours and folks here are posting like crazy.

You say some true things and some silly things. Yes, crime requires intent. I'm not quite sure why you go on this tangent, but you may be referring to people who have or commit abortions doing so "without intent" to commit a crime of murder. Could do some philosophy here, but instead I'll just say that I think there would be very little support from pro-lifers to prosecute ex post facto (which is unconstitutional) or otherwise those who have abortions. We want it stopped, with or without the government's imprimatur. We could care less about prosecuting those who have bought the lie. So this is a red herring.

You also talk about how law is all we have. Well, kinda.

You're talking about positive law, which may or may not be "just" depending on its conformity to what we Christians and many non-Christians call natural law. It is the law which is on the books. As a Christian, you should be able to make this distinction.

And your Terri Schiavo/Titus the cat (?) comparison is also a human being who was in and out of what is called a vegetative state. She knew what her fate was.

And, no, there is no consensus that a three-day-old fetus is not human. At least not in the science community, or in the pro-life community. What is it, a tree fetus? A badger fetus? It is human and, under the right circumstances, may even become a Ranger in the armed forces. If so, God bless him or her.

And you have no Christian basis for saying that gays are going to hell (qua gays). Homosexuality is not a sin, the condition is unchosen, but the act is chosen. The act is the sin. One who has homosexual attraction can live chastely like any single person and live a good life and go to heaven. But let's let God figure that out either way, okay?

I can think of a few people
Whose posts I've seen on here that are blatantly envious, and hateful of others. One of them thinks himself to be better than all the other posters on Townhall combined, and constantly puts a few certain people down.

What do you think of the type of person who does that Ranger29? Is that type of person a sinner who deserves to go to hell?

Dylan Sprouse
We have two of our premiere nut jobs on line right now. That is assuming that dreadnaught is off. Just wait until Hal arrives. Then, there's Modmark.

Caveat: Trying to carry on any discussion with them has the same value as stepping on hot gum on the sidewalk.

Anne
Sugary Sweet is our old acquaintance with the multiple personalities.

Dylan Sprouse writes:
Thank you Anne
I'm not sure which of my posts you're referring to, but I don't like having someone who wants to be president saying that they'll pick when and which charities I have to donate to.

I also hate judgemental people like Ranger29. What business is it of his how others live their lives? Or to condemn them for it?

It's his business, because he thinks he is better than anyone else here, and thus has a right to judge his "inferiors." Stay here long enough and you will that he is roundly destested by most people here. Also, he usually gets baned when the monitors return in the morning.

So Ranger29
If you think people who knowingly sin and don't seek forgiveness are going to Hell, does that include only the sin of Homosexuality or other sins too? Like the sin of envy? or the sin of bearing false witness? Or how about the sin of worshipping false Gods over HIM who created us?

Thank you Anne
I'm not sure which of my posts you're referring to, but I don't like having someone who wants to be president saying that they'll pick when and which charities I have to donate to.

I also hate judgemental people like Ranger29. What business is it of his how others live their lives? Or to condemn them for it?

Dylan Sprouse: I think you nailed it....

on BOTH points. Good call!



Pretty Judgmental of you
To say that you think all gays are going to hell, Ranger29.

So who died and made you God?

If you ask me
There's nothing good about Obama.The more I see or hear him the more he scares me.

But to those of you commenting on "Sugary Sweet," whoevrer it is sounds like a real mental case.

Retired Geek
Your experience with God explains your dedication to get the word out.

You have a calling and now I understand why. God calls all of us. Many do not listen until some tragedy occurs and some not even then.

God bless you for your faithfulness.



Ret. Geek: I wish I could be as

magnanimous as you with regard to Comrade Obama.

However, after hearing Jill Staneck's interview on H&C just now, I'm afraid that I cannot simply say Obama is "confused."

As far as I can tell, Obama is manipulating, lying, dangerous and EVIL!

Should we be afraid? YES, we should be VERY afraid, and we cannot let this man become our president and the leader of the free world.





Obama is a Confused Individual

Obama seems confused about what he is religiously and what he wants to be religiously.

Confusion and not remembering what people were like "Thats not the Mentor Wright I remember" and I listened to Mentor Wright 23 years and didn't know 'what he was teaching' or thats not the 'Tony Rezco' I knew or not the 'Bill Ayers' I knew.

Either Mentor Wright is a poor mentor or Obama is a poor student - he has no experience and will be learning on the job - Obama better get a better Mentor or someone needs to teach Obama how to learn - QUICK - without a teleprompter he seems confused and lost.

All of this seems to make Obama either playing with truth and having a convenient memory or one dazed confused individual.

And, obviously Coulter hasn't read

any of "Robert's" posts either.

And the list could (and will) go one! :-)


Curtal Friar et al

I meant to say in the last post that 'Sugary Sweet' seems 2 or 3 times more intelligent than Sophie and much more thoughtful and courteous.

Cry baby Obama slammed Fox for

interviewing Jerome Corsi about his book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality."

Heads-up here.... Corsi is about to appear on H&C to defend the whiner's complaints.

Should be good. Ha Ha Ha Ha....


Curtal Friar

Good evening.

How do you know Sugary Sweet is Sophie?

I just read Coulter's column on a

different site... she says.....

“Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically – because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.

“I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say.”

Yeah? Well obviously, Coulter hasn’t read many, or MOST of the liberals posts on TH, and CLEARLY Coulter hasn't read slutty-Sophie's posts!


Anne et al

Sugary Sweet wrote: "Libertarianism" simply means free will to do as you please as long as no one else is harmed."

Retired Geek Wrote: "I am NOT interested in legalizing selling myself into slavery."

Sugary Sweet response: "No one is suggesting you "sell yourself into slavery", and I don't even know what that means, anyways."
------------------------------------------------

Someone or a group of people by 'Free Will' could sell themselves into slavery as long as no one else is harmed.

This lines up with Sugary Sweet and its rules.

Anne et al

Sugary Sweet claims to be a Libertarian - some say it is sophie.
------------------------------------------------
Here is my post that started it all to it.

I am NOT against a limited government.

Libertarian principle 3 states: "Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

Firemen, Policeman, FDA, Military for protecting National Security all are a part of government which you would abolish.

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most crazy).

I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. I’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

I was an Humanist/Atheist Marxist until age 32 and have heard all that Libertarians proclaim
as freedom when I was a humanist.

The concept that all that is good is only that which is freely chosen simply means that there is NO inherent good or evil - I strongly disagree with that.

That a man can choose to spend his life playing games on the internet has lived as worthy a life as Dr King or Billy Grahm is abhorrent to me.

I am NOT interested in debating Libertarian Nonsense with you - I am more interested in defeating Obama and his brand of Marxism.

The 'things' I listed earlier:
1) Legalized pornography.
2) Legalized prostitution.
3) Legalized drugs.
4) Selling oneself into slavery.

Are all permissable by Libertarians because if someone doesn’t like it, they can choose not to participate in it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by those things.

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics are usually the Libertarians.

Anne, and everyone:
Sugary Sweet is Sophie.

Anne about 'Sugary Sweet' Aug 15, 2008

Retired Geek: "Firemen, Policeman, FDA, Military for protecting National Security all are a part of government which you would abolish."
------------------------------------------------
SS: "See, for YOU, govt agents are "heroes", but for US they're simply folks who are parasites on the working man's wages."

Firemen might be the least detestable, but they're still living quite well on the public dime (w/o really doing anything most of the time) and the job could be done by the private sector.

What purpose do police serve? To impose the govt's arbitrary edicts on us. Stopping the horrible crimes of driving w/o seatbelts, recreational drug use, smoking in bars, and children not wearing helmets. I've nothing against Justices of the Peace who enforce our rights to not be infringed upon by others, but Nazi-Police I can do w/o.

FDA: a clearly unconstitutional and unnecessary agency that benefits large food manufacturers and pharmaceutical corporations (while making life for independent producers very difficult) more than us.

Military: when they serve a proper role of defending against invasion, I've no problem w/them. Since they've become an imperial force of hired killers, consuming the wealth of the citizenry (at huge benefit to the Military Industrial Complex) I'm not such a big fan.

You are a poster-child for the hypocrisy and confusion of the typical "conservative".

Anne yes
Anne that was the one I was talking about - thanks!

You always come through.

WHO IS this Sugary Sweet person???

Obviously the adult supervision that was assigned to her (assuming it's person and a she) must be taking a break....

Obviously she has NO clue what she's posting about!

Actually, Sugary Sweet is sounding a LOT like mrbmrb... Yikes!








Anne
The liberals may well hold the Mayan prediction of the end of times or Nostradamus in high regard. Or, maybe they just rely on their friends from Wicca, such as the living dead who just appeared. Then, again, there are always Ouija boards or seer stones. Extreme liberalism is a cult.

Off now!

Were Politicans Aborted?
Has anyone ever wanted how many politicians, educators, pastors, celebrities and so on have been aborted before they were allowed to take their first breath out of millions aborted every year? The fact is that in the 60's, the rate of abortions and out of wedlock pregnancies was so low that the thought of not committing to marriage and family or killing one's unborn baby was not even a matter of concern except in rare instances. So, to state that the abortion rate is down is riduclous when the numbers are overwhelmingly shocking. Maybe, the one man or woman who would have been the world's most loved and intelligent and moral leader was aborted, but I guess we'll never know, so we'll have to wait until today's politicians get a pay raise in order to raise their knowledge about the issue on abortion before we'll know the answer regarding the right to take one's first breath.

Anne, RG, Dave 2
One of the vilest, most evil pieces of human trash just got flushed in. Sophie's back in her latest personality disorder persona.

I am off to get some things done. What better timing than when the brain dead and living dead show up?

http://www.usillegalaliens.com

Ret. Geek: Is THIS the one...?

"The American people will never knowingly
adopt Socialism. But under the name of
'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of
the Socialist program, until one day
America will be a Socialist nation,
without knowing how it happened."

~ Norman Thomas, leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.


Of course, this hypocrisy would NEVER

occur to any limited liberal ....

Pres. Bush prays, and believes that his strength comes through God.

Liberals go NUTS, and make fun of that.


Comrade Obama, on the other hand says,

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama"


And the liberals don't find that STRANGE???


What's wrong with this picture?????


Taft and Anne

I must try and explain where that logic breaks down.

An attack of war - is different from an attack from inside that seems non physically threatining.

Anne has a quote that explains it better than I, if she can find and share it.

abortion
the fight about abortion is over. only dolts continue to beat their heads against stone walls. but thats ok after all the constitution specifically mentions dolts and gives them the right to beat their heads against whatever wall they choose. so beat away. it doesnt hurt the wall. . . if you are wise you will try to get what you can from what pro choicers will give you. take a ban on late term abortions and an agreement that youll stop beating against that wall. its the best you are going to get.

Summers: Yes, I did see that (painful!)

But, we all knew.... at least those intelligent enough to see through Comrade Obama, were "really worry about his past and present relationships."

And apparently there actually ARE some dems who have become somewhat concerned since Comrade Obama has dropped twelve [12] points in some of his liberal base.... and the young base...

Good news? Hope so, but there's still a long way before the election.


Original intent of the 14th Amend. cont.
“Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

“In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’
“This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

‘[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word...’

“The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.”



dreadnaught
no one can be a conservative and turn their back on the laws that are being broken by this illegal trash.

You still have failed to justify how these illegals who have broken our laws to invade this country and then steal our social services.

I doubt you are a lawyer but just another bleeding heart lib who thinks they fully understand the constitution.

Exactly why am I a racist because I am disgusted by fools like you that encourage these illegals to break our laws and steal what working citizens must pay for.

But what gives you the right to tell working americans they must finance these illegals.

Further what of the growing crime rates because you and you fellow enablers turn a blind eye to these criminals who steal from citizens, commit murders, as well as using phony id's and stolen social security numbers and engage in id theft.

But it is you who is the hater of america. You obviously have no respect for the laws that bind our society but gladly turn a blind eye to this invasion.

That I want to see the laws of this country obeyed and see an end to this illegal invasion and an end to this third world trash looting this country.

But in the end it is you who is the racist. You hate americans who work and pay taxes. You hate americans because they have achieved success while mexico and other third world countries continue to exploit their own citizens. What exactly makes mexico in the slightest bit admirable. But they have discovered their is only two things they export, oil because it brings in wealth and the useless trash they don't want to provide for but then take advantage of from all the billions they send back to relatives who haven't figured out a way to escape their failed society.

dreadnaught two questions please?

In order to understand your positions better, would you answer these two questions please?

Do you believe that every United States Citizen should have the same rights and protections under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights - no more - no less?

Do you believe that those living in the United States illegally, should have the same rights and protections under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights that an American Citizen has - no more - no less?

Retired Geek
I had the distinct privilege (?) of being on that thread while he chased his tail. I remember it well.

Paco a/k/a deadenough
We have done this more than once, moron. I quoted studies, giving the persons who conducted them and when, and you would deny any of it was true despite the fact that you had no facts or figures to back up your sophomoric insanity. I devoted about an hour just addressing you, you liar. You are an idiot and a liar.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com

Read and refute that, stupid.

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original _intent.html

“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.’

“Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

“The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

“The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified." Cont.

Good for your dog


I have a dog. He's not bad-tempered like you.

You only hate anchor babies on account of their Mexican origins; not the legal aspect. I must've made some "assumption" by saying they're born American citizens, Right?

NO; unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. If I didn't, it wouldn't be here in your face.

Viva la Toon Hall!

Summers et al
I must tell you a story about Left Angle.

LA was describing various conspiracies by whites to destroy blacks when he suddenly blurted.

Left Angle wrote: "...but therin lies another problem..in urban situations alchohol is readily available on just about any neighborhood corner..in white suburban neighborhoods, this is hardly the case. you tell me why?..."

LA said that zoning boards and other government officials were destroying black communities with liquor.

I explained in as simple terms as I could, supply and demand.

Here is an excerpt of my reply:
Supply and Demand dictates that that the price of a good reaches equilibrium when the demand for the good matches the supply.

If there is more demand than supply, the price goes up and the number of suppliers usually increase.

If supply exceeds demand, the price goes down and the number of suppliers usually decrease.

No matter how large the supply - NO one has to partake, that is a personal decision.

I asked LA to explain why a Black controlled city like Detroit has the same problem he had described?

LA said I was merely explaining away the issue.

Paco a/k/a deadenough
Anchor babies are not citizens if the Amendment is properly read and put in context as to the purpose of its passage. Legislation from the bench is the cause of the confusion. You know less law than my dog Pinkie Lou. I would have said my dog Badlee, but he thinks illegals are chew toys.

no time or patience?

Or guts? Answer this, Summers.
[HE, moi,] falls all over himself to support illegal aliens."

NO I DON'T.

"When I say support, that
He has his one view and one argument which he repeats ad nauseum daily. As I said, he makes gross, incorrect and unsupported assumptions,"

NAME SOME, SUMMERS. BE HONEST and name a few of my gross assumptions. Don't expect to lie, blowhard; without backing it up.

My ONE VIEW is that racists hate Mexicans and never pass a chance to denigrate them.

"while lying in the face of facts contrary to his argument."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If I lied; show us my lies. Put up or shut up.


Dave 2
You see! You can't transplant gray matter. The guy is proof that stupidity has no bottom limit. Now, he will scream racist; but, he is a racist when it comes to blacks.

http://www.usillegalaliens.com

Obama and Evil
Bravo! Excellent article. You show Obama's two faces very clearly.
Zane

dave 2 meets dreadnaught
Dear Dave, what sharp teeth you have!

"another troll who fails to understand the law,"

I understand the law. I'm not a troll; I'm a conservative Republican. AND I know what racism is.

It's YOU who don't understand racists, or you'd shut your trap.

"Legal scholars have argued that babies born of illegals are not legal citizens and it is time the congress address this matter."

REPLY: They're American citizens LEGALLY. What is it about legal you fail to understand?

"The mexican govt is a corrupt oligarchy that actively encourages is low class trash to invade america so they can keep their wealth in the hands of the few who own and run the country."

REPLY: MORE racist anger? More speculation on what you hate but don't know crap about; based on your racist point of view?

Why am I NOT surprised?

Legal scholars ! ! Hahaa! In a pig's eye. You make me laugh, Dave!


Taft
The men in my family actually fought in WWII. NONE OF THEM WERE LIBERALS.

Rowly my friend

I take absolutely NO CREDIT for my conversion from Humanism/Atheism and Marxism.

My conversion was the result of an intervention.

There were only two at that intervention - me and God.

God introduced Himself to me one day and I found out He had my name and address.

I did run from Him but I could not hide.

God 'touched' me physically, spiritually and mentally. All old things passed away and my new life life started September 6, 1972.

I have been searching ever since to try and understand why God chose me.

Anne, RG
If you saw the special on Obama night before last, you would really worry about his past and present relationships.

Anne
Hello!

I saw that on the news earlier today. She, apparently, had a stroke while she was driving her car.

Ret. Geek: I've seen your list before...

What is absolutely stunning is that even after having a chance to ponder that list and some of Comrade Obama's quotes that the Comrade Obama followers don't even at least question his past and current "associations" and "friendships."

I also find it outrageous that Comrade Obama would have said, "... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama."

Who and what does he think he is?

Sounds too much like David Koresh and Jim Jones.



Dave 2
If you want to read an excellent, documented study on the cost of illegal aliens to every facet of our country - education, crime, disease, cost due to nonpayment of taxes - please read

http://www.usillegalaliens.com

Not only is it an eye-opener, it will be something that you pass on to others. It draws no conclusions; it simply sets forth facts from studies.

The corrupt Mexican government loves for their human trash to come here due to the amount of money (untaxed income) they send back to Mexico. As far as I am concerned, before someone wires money to Mexico, they should have to present a verifiable social security card.

Further, Congress needs to correct the idea of anchor babies being citizens. My brother, who is in the medical field, was offered an excellent job in San Diego. He declined it after seeing that his primary duties would be in the delivery of illegals' babies. Next thing he knew, the hospitals (two) that he would be working in had closed due to financial losses.

News Flash: Stephanie Tubbs-Jones

has passed away...

May God bless her and have mercy on her soul...

Condolences to her family.

RG
An annoying, but necessary class I once had to take was Chinese History. Believe me, I know communism stinks. And, I suppose your right about what the communist think in regard to democrats but they are fools as you know. Who cares. I'm reading a very good book right now, about the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler foolishly too, underestimated liberals and FDR. He thought the "feeble democratic
Americans didn't have the will to win." They showed him.

Obama Fact in His Own Words

Obama can not be held responsible for anyone supporting him. Obama can be questioned as to why those people support him.

Obama can be questioned about the friends he chose or chooses.

Dr King said Americans should judge by character and NOT color.

"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)
------------------------------------------------

Obama chose these friends.

Marxist Professors
Structural Feminists (anti capitalists)
Activist Black Students
Mentor Wright
James Cone
Saul Alinsky
William Ayers
Fr.Pfleger
Louis Farrakhan
Tony Rezco
Frank Marshall

Obama then faces one of two charges or both.

Obama was lying when he stated, he carefully chooses friends or Obama is so NAIVE he cannot tell when the people he associates with have a 'Bad Character'.

Either way Obama tells us he is capable of meeting with those like Ahminajead and protecting America.

I can understand why Obama will do or say anything for political expediency - I do NOT agree with that - what I cannot understand is how the Obama followers can believe Obama.

A once famous 'Cult Leader' said 'I do not really believe I am God, I just like for my followers to believe I am God'.

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

Steve
dreadnaught is an idiot. He doesn't have sudden onset idiocy; he has been displaying it for a while. He is highly critical of American youth but falls all over himself to support illegal aliens. When I say support, that support does not extend to financial support. He has his one view and one argument which he repeats ad nauseum daily. As I said, he makes gross, incorrect and unsupported assumptions while lying in the face of facts contrary to his argument.

I have no time nor patience with a jerk who so dislikes our culture and our children. It appears that there is something more to fire his passion about illegals and hatred for this country.

dreadnaught
typically another troll who fails to understand the law and the motives of the illegals who break out laws and steal out social services.

Legal scholars have argued that babies born of illegals are not legal citizens and it is time the congress address this matter.

The mexican govt is a corrupt oligarchy that actively encourages is low class trash to invade america so they can keep their wealth in the hands of the few who own and run the country.

But exactly how do semi illiterate non english speaking people benefit this country. They have the equivilent of a 7th grade education education and explain how lettuce pickers and lawn cutters benefit this society.

Plus once here they try to maintain their own culture and make little effort to assimilate. Economists estimate that the average illegal contributes some $7000. to our economy while stealing some $20,000. in social services that the workers in this country pay for. Why are taxpayers footing the bill to educate and provide emergency medical services for this trash that steals across our border.

But what happens when they stop fully tapping into the already soon to be bankrupt social security and medicare systems

The single best solution is to round up this worthless trash and the vermin they have given birth and ship them back to their countries of origin

Obviously you are either an illegal yourself or one of these bleeding heart libs who have no clue as to the damage these illegals cause or the high cost to our society. Or better yet start footing the bill for the illegals you seem to be in love with.

Besides what gives you the right to tell the workers in this country and the taxpayers they they must foot the bill to take care of this criminal trash

Taft et al

The Communist Party USA and other communists around the world that want a Democratic Landslide along with Obama being elected have NOTHING to do with Democrats and Obama except they know they are easier to dupe and they are 'Useful Idiots' according to the Communists.

The Communist Party believes it is easier to move from Liberal policies than Conservative policies.

Marx and Engels always advocated the country being 'Socialist' first, before the Communist revolution occurs.

The Communist believe that Obama and the Democrats will institute more Socialism and McCain and Conservatives will push back against Socialism rather than push forward.

Taft you remind me of a Ronald Regean quote.

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Ronald Reagan

Retired Geek
Don't ask Loon a question that requires admitting a proveable fact. You know he will avoid the answer or lie. He does the same thing day after day.

Taft and dread:
(can't and won't claim to speak for RGeek, but...)
Taft: You're right to point out that support for a candidate does not equate to a group's ideological conformity with that candidate. There are many reasons a group supports a candidate versus his opponent.

It's obvious why Duke "supports" McCain, if that's even true. He doesn't like black people and doesn't want Obama in power. Duke also hated Bush for his support of Israel and was strongly anti-war, but that doesn't make Bush critics or peaceniks racists.

But I would challenge you to look for conformity between groups' and candidates' ideas. There is a logical and historical connection between the views of the communist party on the state, and Obama's. It doesn't make Obama explicitly a communist, but please show me how his policies and his record differ. He has spent lots of time with known marxists and communists. It's not at all illogical.

And dread: How is it at all improbable that a pregnant woman from a third world country would want to risk her own safety to have a child in the most affluent country she can get to, especially when it means she automatically gains asylum as well? This seems eminently logical and probable, and being from AZ I know for a fact that this is indeed common reasoning among illegal immigrants. Repeating "NO" and calling someone hateful doesn't make a case, it makes you look like an idiot who shouts and calls names rather than making an argument.

Left Angle et al

Left Angle wrote: "...Only a person who looks at his fellow americans who have a different political philosophy as the "enemy within" would post this nonsensical gibberish:..."

Are you aware that the members of the 'Communist Party USA' are fellow Americans?


big toe Joe
Your last two sentences sum it up.

dreadnaught
Well, someone flushed a toilet and the contents are pouring in here.

My grandfather didn't live in Texas, fartface. You make a world of stupid assumptions and lie about facts right in your face. Your reading comprehension is sub-basement as you pick up on one thing without reading all of the posts.

You have contempt for the children in this country but live and die to promote illegal aliens. For your information, numbnutz, I mentioned more than the Mexicans in my posts here.

Do I believe your cr@p about illegals coming here and all working and paying taxes? Are you on medical marijuana or do you have another form of substance abuse that so clouds your single digit IQ?

Do I welcome the illegals who come here. NO. Go do something anatomically difficult to yourself.

Unbelievable
So Obama thinks America should abide more by the precept in the Book of Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, huh? Well that would include the unborn then, wouldn't it? I mean, who better fits the description, "least of my brothers" than the living, breathing unborn? If Obama really meant what he said in bringing up that passage, he'd be against abortion. Furthermore, he'd be out there saying what pro-life conservatives do: Roe v Wade is bad law. But no, what Obama actually had in mind when he brought the passage up was that evil rich greedy corporate bastards should be made to by government force do for the least of their brothers. And we all know what that means. Socialist collectivism and redistribution of wealth.

Left Angle and mrb
Lefty: Why is it that leftists don't distinguish between the real excesses of McCarthy, the exaggerated claims of irrational fear sweeping the country, and outright falsehoods about McCarthy. There were communists infiltrating government--that's a fact. Communists were very active and gaining greater influence in Hollywood, also a fact. Unless you're a communist, you should be able to admit that McCarthy both performed a great and unpopular service to America, and went too far in several cases. To limit his accomplishments to only a narrative of exaggeration is disingenuous or stupid, depending on your actual level of knowledge.

And mrb: your post is practically unintelligible, please step away from the bong. But if you are suggesting that a compromise that does away with partial birth abortion but allows all other abortion will bring the debate to a close, you are a fool. Any mother knows that the baby is alive before it is born. Killing her in a graphic and clearly violent way is no better or worse than killing the same baby in a less visible but still violent way. IF you limited abortion to only cases of rape, much of the protest would go away and at least you'd be consistent about "choice". But it is still a human being, a person, that is being destroyed.

summers in texas
At one point your angle of sight is skewed. The anchor baby "bone" you & others are picking.

Your false impressions are clear.

You think Mexico's government is so rotten it encourages its peons' illegal actions and advises them on illegal strategy. NOT SO.

You believe Mexicans deliberately come to bear a child in the U.S., making him an "anchor" by which to plead surrogate citizenship in our country.

Not so, Summers.

Do I find these charges plausible? NO.

Do these things ever happen? Sure, we find scams in improbable places. But not as a rule; no.

You've swallowed some of that hate-speech so common in our racist communities. This mean-spirited attitude existed ages ago in your grandfather's Texas.

The main reason illegals try to enter is, the border's close by. The border is TANTALYZING! And rarely if ever well-guarded.

There's such proximity between the HAVES and the HAVE NOTS that not making an illegal attempt is more absurd for many, than taking their chances. The stakes are sky high!

A MOTHER is someone who gives birth, not always one who CHOOSES the birthplace of her baby. Just because a baby was born here is NO SIGN that the mother knew anything about "anchors."

After all-- racists proclaim this class of Mexican "typical ignorant, uncivilized, bottom of the food-chain peons." Why do you OTOH, take them for scheming, devious and deliberate law-breakers? You can't have it both ways. Plus; they can't ALL be scroungers. All of them look for JOBS.

I suggest an anchor baby is anything BUT an anchor. He/she is an American citizen. Just as much as you are. Until Americans like you overcome class-consciousness & feelings of white supremacy, we can't call ourselves justified morally or legally. I truly believe this.

Retired Geek
How can any group who takes it upon themselves to support so and so president, have anything to do with that presidents character? David Duke supports McCain, so..? Also, AQ supports Bush and McCain, only in Jerome Crosi's twisted world would this make McCain pro-AQ. I would be interested in knowing what group, or populous, absent the Fox News minions are not pro-obama, excepting my 2 examples.

Retired Geek
The exchange on the thread had been quite pleasant until LA showed up. Immediately, he went on to attack you, his sole purpose, it seems, for his sorry appearance. He really has a fixation with you. It is a pity he is not bright enough to chat with or debate.

Left Angle et al

Are you finally reduced to name calling and ad hominem attcks?

Simply refute the facts presented and prove your points.
------------------------------------------------

"This fight is winnable, and there is an actual strategy to win, a strategy that consists of more than playing at revolution and calling for chaos in the streets.

Right now the elections are the most critical form of struggle; this is where we have the best shot of finally breaking the back of the ultra right. Afterwards, we will continue to build a united movement that can work to establish a real electoral alternative, and eventually to challenge the system overall.

Of course, a Democratic victory in 2008 will not solve all the problems caused by so many years of ultra-right domination, or by capitalism in general.

Swells of young people agree and have already stepped up to the challenge in the Democratic primaries, voting in record numbers and refusing to accept the idea that these elections don’t matter. In Iowa alone, the youth turnout rate more than tripled from under 21,000 in 2004 to over 65,000 in 2008, and it quadrupled in Tennessee despite the devastating storms that ripped through on Super Tuesday. Similar situations have occurred in all Democratic primaries to date.

And there is something to be said for the movement of young people that surrounds Barack Obama.

This kind of victory, which would include a total Democratic sweep in November, could set the stage for higher forms of struggle for generations to come."

Revolt with a Vote
Author: Erica Smiley and Dan Margolis Communist Party USA
First published 04/29/2008 16:21

Retired Geek
You are to be commended. You've 'been there',unlike most of us and came away a better person.

We,who have not 'been there' take our beliefs for granted and don't really appreciate their importance. Does that make sense?

You are tireless in trying to educate these people. You see where they are,because you were there once. Thank you for your patriotism.

blurred right and wrong
Banning abortion you believe to be all good as it will save lives, the lives of unwanted children. But will it put and end to deaths? No as abortions do not stop just because they are declared illegal. If there are desperate women and money to pay an abortionist the practice continues. Only this time under dirty conditions and with people who are not trained to do abortions. How many 14- 15 -16 year old girls will die from botched abortions or end up in hospitals from injuries from botched abortions. Countries in South American, catholic countries, are contemplating legalizing abortion. They are debating legalizing it because of the many deaths from botched abortions and the increased strain on their medical system from women and girls injured by self trained abortionist.


Summers et al

I have made more mistakes than probably anyone else - My fanily were Humanists/Atheists and I became a Marixst.

I have been on the iside looking out and mow thanks to God. I am out looking in.

Keep fighting, don't ever quit posting! ! !

finally an agreement on abortion
all you pro lifers out there, make you a deal. we will agree that every law which states that late term abortion is wrong and that the act is ilegal; you in turn must agree that from now on youll keep your mouthse shut and stop yapping about an end to something that a majority of americans believe in. youll get yours and ill get mine. isnt that the way it works.

Summers
Sad to say,we are far down that road,already. Many free-loaders feel they have a right to live off others' hard work. Parasites. They care not one whit if the government owns them,just as long as they get 'theirs'.

R. Geeks McCarthyism
McCarthyism is a term describing the intense anti-communist suspicion in the United States in a period that lasted roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s. This period is also referred to as the Second Red Scare, and coincided with increased fears about communist influence on American institutions.

During this time many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies.

The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[2] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.


Further Comments on 'Noble Goals'

It is very difficult to change the view of someone who holds their 'Goals' as something greater than self.

As a 'Recovered Marxist' I can testify that it took God to change mine.

Marx and Engels were very intelligent and realized that their view needed to be inculcated into the mind, which was much easier than changing the mind.

One of their goals was to take over the educational system of a country and teach the children the Communist ideals, so that their minds would be set.

In 1963 one of the goals of the Communist Party
for America was to: "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural, healthy."

This was perfect timing by the Communist Party, because 'Most thinking Americans' (read conservative) were aghast at the way Black Americans had been treated and were open to tolerance and acceptance.

To present the idea that 'sexual deviation = normalcy' would be much easier if it was presented as 'tolerance and acceptance' towards homosexuals.

Changing the meaning of 'Diversity' from assimilation of diversity (America the Melting Pot) to celebration of diversity, keeping class struggles alive and kicking - 'Class Struggles' are the fuel of Communism.

(perhaps more later, if there is interest)



McCarthyite R. Geek Post Gibberish
Only a person who looks at his fellow americans
who have a different political philosophy as the "enemy within" would post this nonsensical gibberish:

"The Liberal goals are so 'Noble' to them, that the outcome is NEVER a part of the equation.
Liberals are 'Collectivists' who think the government is the 'ONLY' answer to the ills of the world when in fact the government has caused far more problems than it has solved."

what a load of pure hogwash.

Retired Geek, Rowly, Dave 2
A question in parting. If we take away the concept of personal responsibility and increasingly make government the answer, how far down the road is the totalitarian state?

TESTING
TESTING

retired geek and summers
all we can do is continue to do our small part.

I believe that there are many who read these threads but don't post comments. Perhaps in our own small way we are having a positive effect on giving these people a chance to hear a debate they will never hear from the msm.

But like all the others posting from the right, I will help the cause to prevent the messiah from ruining this country and more than the dims/libs/socialists have already done

Rowly
It will come one day. With Bush's insistence on doing nothing about our open borders, the evil doers will have an easy time coming in, if they are not already here. Remember the two Syrian brothers who were brought across the Mexican border and were arrested last year for the planned attack on the N.C. military post?

Lindsey Graham has become a hindrance to setting a reasonable agenda on energy and moving forward. I am more often convinced that those in D.C. do not represent us, or even hear us, once they attain that rarified air in that lofty post. Why can't they be like Jessie Helms and retire after five terms (or less!)?

I will be on and off the post for the remainder of the day. Fight the good fight for me!

Retired Geek
How is it that you can define the problem so easily and describe it so eloquently? You make me want to stop posting and just read.

Aida
How well stated! The only thing I would add is that all people have value, whether they have some great talent or not. A person only loses his or her value when they commit heinous crimes and, thereby, remove themselves from the ranks of civilized society. As to children, there are so many good and loving people who would be thrilled to have the 'burden' (Obama) of raising a child. What a precious burden to have!

The plight of children around the world is a sad one. I am quite familiar with the orphanages in Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. The orphans in Russia need your prayers and the prayers of all. Putin stopped international adoption. I could tell you stories that would haunt you until you are sleep deprived. However, we must look at our own children here where we can have some impact. As we fight for them to be born, we must begin our fight to give them a life worth living.

Dave 2 et al

I know you probably already know this.

Just in case you do not.

Taft is a typical Liberal - good intentions, bad outcomes - in fact Liberals never measure the success or failure of their 'Solutions'.

The reason Liberals never measure outcomes, is quite similar to a Christian who is dedicated to leading others to Christ, but never measures his success or failure.

If 25% of Americans were Christian and every Christian led someone to Christ - 50% of Americans would be Christian - if that 50% led someone to Christ - 100% of Americans would be Christian.

The same logic applies to Conservatives - all each of us need to do is change 2 peoples opinions.

The Liberal goals are so 'Noble' to them, that the outcome is NEVER a part of the equation.

Liberals are 'Collectivists' who think the government is the 'ONLY' answer to the ills of the world when in fact the government has caused far more problems than it has solved.

Summers
The terrorists waited for an administration change in 2001. Will they do a repeat in 2009? Let's hope not.

Ga.s two senators have joined Graham in S.C. to see who can out-liberal the other. GW Bush has wasted his bully pulpit for eight years. No wonder we are floundering around,lost in a sea of insanity.


Dave 2
At least we give voice to our values and our concerns. It is our obligation to the generations who follow us. I appreciate you and all others who speak up and who stand against the wrongs being done in the name of political correctness.

Is Barack Husein evil?
This man is serving two gods and thinks that no one notice it. He is a make believe christian, who said a baby is a burden, so you should not force it to women. Only lust pushed her to gamble on not getting pregnant. It's her obligation to take care of that baby or for adoption. There are plenty of people that will love to take her baby and be a real mother to this precious being. Meantime Barack Hussein is in favor of destroying a life that could be future President, a Dr. or
scientist or our Bethoven. Had Barack Hussein ever wonder what if her mother had gone the same procedure he is in favor of? Why had he denied the same opportunity to those that had being aborted, because he vote for this Horrible procedure. Does he know that his hands are full of innocent blood? As I see it there is an evil man behind his smile, so beware of the snakes, you will biten once you get near it.

summers
we remain that small voice in the wilderness hoping that someone will hear us shouting warnings

Dave 2
The lack of an interested and informed public is one of the most discouraging facets of this whole mess, to me. Considering what we now call education, why do I expect a different outcome?

Rowly
Hello, my friend. I think 9% approval is being gracious to those so richly undeserving of any approval. Curiously, Congress behaves no better than a drug-addicted street whore; it has no shame. Sadly, George Bush abdicated being a good and faithful steward for the country. It is a sorry situation on all fronts.

In the middle of all of this self-imposed nonsense, the international front becomes even more tenuous. If you left it to the liberals, they would ignore it all. One day it will be back inside our home. Will there be nothing more than fingers pointed with silly accusations? Whatever happened to statesmen?

rowly
and that rating seems odd since another poll showed 40% of those polled still thought the repubs were in charge of congress.

I wonder how low the numbers would be is the public fully realized the problem is those two bright bulbs, red nazi and old land deal

Summers
Good Afternoon!

I heard today that congress' approval rating had sunk back to a low of 9%,after soaring to 11% earlier.

Rationalizations for BAIPA

The complex process the human mind uses to arrive at decision-making has been the topic of many volumes.

One consensus that is generally held is the human mind can justify any decision and any action that it takes.

Rationalization is the mortal enemy of facts, logic and reason.

Rationalization is in ‘simple’ terms, a defense mechanism that attempts to explain bad decisions or behavior in a rational logical manner.

One can rationalize and 'Prove' to themselves and others that oral sex, anal sex, mastutbation and homosexual sex is not only good but 'normal'.

That being said I will leave that between God and the individual.

Rationalization that a baby who is defenseless, can be born and left to die just because a mother is guaranteed a dead baby - is comparable to NAZI atrocities.

The reason I bring up the NAZI's is because that partial birth abortion is based on experiments conducted by NAZI doctors on Jewish mothers and babies (as best I can determine).

Think long and hard about this: Do you want the same people like the Obamas', who advocate and will not even let a vote come up on BAIPA run our 'Health Care System'?

If you do God forbid that you become seriously ill or are severely injured in an accident or become old and feeble.

When Obama sees funds are low for Universal Health Care and Obama wants to save money - Obama will show the same 'cold' feelings and lack of empathy for YOU or someone YOU love.

daft
the delusion and denial continues.

Claiming that the dims are the best we have going implies the dims have actually accomplished something that has made america a better place.

Since the dims fully embrace govt solutions to everything, have never met a tax increase they fully embrace and have ballooned the deficit in the forty years they controlled congress prior to 1994 which included using the surplus in the social security trust fund to advance their entitlement rpgrams.

But provide a list of any dim successes. Point out the programs the dims have passed that have made life better for the citizens in this country. Point out where the dims have acted in the best interest of this country rather than striving to accrue power. Point out any dim leader who was successful. Finally point out the many successes we saw under the stewardship of dimmy carter or your hero bubba

Michelle Obama on BAIPA

"From: email-list@obamaforillinois.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:41 AM
Subject: A Message from Michelle Obama

"February 17, 2004

Dear Friends:

We have all been concerned lately with the rise of conservatism in this country, especially as it relates to women.

You've read the alarming news about the Justice Department's request for hospitals to turn over the private medical records of dozens of patients.

This cynical ploy is designed to intimidate a group of physicians and force them to drop their lawsuit seeking to have the so-called partial birth abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned.

Attorney General Ashcroft and president bush believe so zealously in their cause that the privacy rights of patients are under assault.

They believe we have no federal right to privacy when it concerns our medical histories.

On March 16th, we have a chance to nominate a candidate who will be tireless in the fight to protect women.

It isn't simply about the right to choose, or privacy rights. It is about pay equity, about ending domestic violence, promoting health care around the world, and letting doctors decide treatment options, not federal judges..."

Michelle Obama"

MD/MG
You may have a point. After all, Nancy Pelosi renamed pork barrel spending as legislatively designated spending. Liberals do seem to be into magical thinking. Maybe, legislatively designated spending does not add to our deficit in her mind.

Constitutional Republic

The framers of the US Constitution feared that the American form of government might turn into a Democracy ruled by mobs instead of by law.

The simple analogy of the difference is a lynch mob - the one being lynched has a vote but the mob has more votes.

America was founded on the rule of law to insure the individual citizen rights and protections under law and as a 'Constitutional Republic'.

Pure Democracy can create rights and take them away based on who is in power.

The long ardous journey towards the ideal of a 'Constitutional Republic' is now being turned around by Democrats by adding rights to selected 'collective groups' with policies like 'Affirmative Action'.

Selected groups are given 'rights' by 'Affirmative Action' that deny 'rights' to other individual citizens - this is 'racism' in its purest form.

This 'racist' approach is deemed necessary for the 'Sacrifice for the Common Good' of society.

The hallmark cry of 'collectivism' and the various strains of Marxism and Barack Obama and his supporters.

Taft, at 12:28am
"[Rush] Limbaugh misrepresented the legislation Obama voted against, a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and that opponents said was unnecessary, as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and posed a threat to abortion rights."

Indeed, and I have corrected others who have made similar assertions. Obama did not vote in favor of "allow[ing] doctors and patients to murder babies who survived abortions." Rather, he voted against prohibiting them from doing so.

And yes, it was already illegal to kill children in Illinois. Duh. But when one of them accidentally survives an abortion and is born alive, is a birth certificate created? In the eyes of the state, does an abortion-gone-wrong without a birth certificate exist? It would seem not, and this legislation, though I admit I haven't read it, appears now to require one.

And certification makes all the difference between a mistake one can "correct" and a child one has to care for.


Charles Martel
Promote me to Abbot?

lol

What did I do to deserve that honor?

Summers et al
Summers wrote: "...The bottom line to the court's decision seems to be that physicians cannot impose any moral judgments in practicing medicine..."

Medical Emergencies in order to save the 'Human Life' of ANY American Citizen should not be given or withheld based on any particular belief system should be 'Against the Law'.

That includes a Medical Emergency that would require an Abortion to save the mothers life - NO ONE has the right to take the life of another human being, unless prescribed by Law and settled in a Court of Law.

America is a 'Constitutional Republic' based on law and NOT on 'Democracy' or mob rule.

Lawyers (I think) are NOT required by law to defend a serial killer, if they think that serial killer will kill again if freed - it is my understanding a Lawyer does NOT have to give a reason.

I am basing this on the opinion of my cousin, who is a Harvard Graduate lawyer and practised now for over 35 years (formerly worked for the ACLU and is still a card carrying member) - he and I DO NOT agree on anything except that we are cousins.

Elective Medical procedures should NOT be required by a Medical Doctor.

Retired Geek
Moral values and judgments are not so readily accepted by all, unfortunately, even in clear cut cases. If you put this same situation in another country, you might hear some outcry from those who would not otherwise agree with you here.

I agree, it is a slaughter of the innocents. We abuse those who are most fragile in our society. At some point we will pay a price for it.

Maybe one solution to abortion
is to rename it. Libs are all for the 'fairness doctrine' and free speech. Contradiction in theory there. So, if you follow their logic, rename abortion as infant capitol punishment and they'll be holding all night candle vigils outside of centers that perform infant capitol punishment. It's hrd to believe their utter hypocrisy. Kill the innocent, yes, kill the guilty, nooooo.

promote the friar!
Curtal Friar for Abbot!


Any American Citizen

Any American Citizen (other than Obama and his followers) should be 100% against infanticide.

Atheists, Religious believers, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Life or any political persuasiom or any other American Citizen, should be against killing babies, for any reason - babies being defined as separated from their mothers, an American Citizen and living on their own in America.

Obama has stated he is NOT against 'Genocide' in Iraq. Is Obama against 'Genocide' in America - we do not know.




Retired Geek
The bottom line to the court's decision seems to be that physicians cannot impose any moral judgments in practicing medicine.

Retired Geek
This is another peculiar ruling. In this case, a lesbian woman wanted to conceive a child. The doctors gave her the fertility drugs but would not perform the artificial insemination. They told her how to do it. During the course of her treatment, she conceived a child three times and carried them to term. She was not denied medical care for the delivery of her children.

My question is whether a physician is obligated to perform non-life threatening procedures when he/she does not feel comfortable with it. What if the woman had wanted a face lift? Are doctors obligated to perform any and all procedures?

...continuation
Barry tells us a lot about himself all the time -- from throwing his nearest and dearest "under the bus" (a metaphor that should be dedicated to him upon its retirement in November) to his assertion that, should one of his daughters get knocked up, he wouldn't want her "punished" with her own child. I'm sure he'd rather all this hadn't been remembered, but it says even more about him that, should his grandchild accidentally survive the attempt to kill "it", he would turn a blind eye to that helpless infant being left unattended until death.

Anyone who would do that to a child should himself be locked in the soiled linen closet and left unattended until dead.


Steve, at 1:36am
Like many here, I have been following the story of Obama's votes in favor of infanticide, but until your post I had not seen the language that was included in the bills to insulate the sacrosanct unlimited "right" supposedly conveyed by Roe v Wade.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

This struck me as quite generous. First, it acknowledges that the victim is a "member of the species homo sapiens" and not just the mass of tissue that we so often hear about. Second, it acknowledges that this little human could conceivably have rights -- rights that are subject to affirmation, denial, expansion, or contraction at the whim of loving lawyers like Barry, but rights nonetheless. Granted, by implicitly affirming Roe v Wade, the language of the bill is devoted to denying those rights, but it was refreshing to read that such rights must exist: otherwise, why refer to them at all? With progress like this, we can all hope that soon they'll be treating each yet-to-be-born human as 3/5 of a person.

Supporters of abortion, like Clinton and Boxer, and supporters of outright child-murder, like Obama, were correct to be nervous about such a bill. As Justice Scalia once wrote, "the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v Wade, must be dissassembled doorjamb by doorjamb." Bills barring infanticide must look like wrecking balls to the Democrats.

(continued below)

Summers post at 1:58 PM EST

I have come to the conclusion based on facts, logic and reason, the following statement.

'Obama believes and protects, that any woman that contracts for a dead baby, is entitled and deserves a dead baby.'

Happy Jake great post at 2:07 pm

Roe v Wade is an ABSOLUTE violation of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

What is your opinion on this:
-----------------------------
Religious doctors can't withhold treatment to gays, state court rules.

By Paul Elias
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO — "California's highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession."

Retired Geek
I saw and heard the director of the Massachusetts healthcare plan interviewed two weeks ago. The plan is $150,000,000 over budget for the fiscal year. Among the solutions set forth is the cutting back of services rendered. The overrun on healthcare in Massassachusetts is expected to grow, minimally, 10% each year. Now, if you expand that from one state and imagine it on a national level, you have some idea of the problems.

Summers Thank You

You have clearly placed another piece of the puzzle I am trying to complete.

'Obama and other Liberals are agreeable to allowing an American Citizen to die without medical care, as long as it 'fits' their view of what America should be like.'

I am also researching what Obama will do to American Citizens, should medical expenses be larger than what Obama thinks the value of an American Citizens life is, when compared to the success of the Obama 'Universal Heathcare' solution.

Roe v Wade
For those ignorant of Roe v Wade:
Roe v Wade did NOT make abortion legal in the United States. There was no federal law (and never has been to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) with respect to abortion. 46 states had laws restricting abortions, 30 of which forbade it in all cases, the other 16 having restrictions having to do with rape and/or the health of the mother and/or baby. In 4 it was legal on request.

Roe v Wade only discussed abortions up to the point of viability. Laws on partial-birth abortion and parental consent are not covered by that decision.

Roe v Wade is a case of the Supreme Court flatly overturning the laws of the several states without any expressed constitutional basis. On the Federal Bench's jurisdiction, the Constitution says this "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- ... between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Roe v Wade was an intrastate matter involving Texas, and Texas alone. The Federal Court should not have heard the case to begin with, it does not have that authority unless it is a Constitutional matter (Like gun control).

The Constitution of the United States is absolutely silent on abortion, neither requiring that it be forbidden nor requiring that it be allowed.

Steve
I'm not even sure that a huge majority of the Left believes that abortion shouldn't be left up to the states, unless you mean the Left in the political class (Elected Officials, Judges, Attorneys, and politically vocal celebrities.) I think a big part of the average Democrat's resistance to overturning Roe v Wade is that the vast majority of people don't understand what that ruling did, and how it was an example of the federal judiciary severely overstepping its authority.

Retired Geek
I have never understood why, in late term abortions, the child is killed or left to die. Assuming that the mother wanted to have the child, as she did not seek an abortion at an earlier time, after delivering the child, her alleged medical problems should be resolved and, after the child is delivered and is viable, the child should be given medical attention due to any person. The removing of the child's brain or leaving the child on a table to die with no medical attention seems to be a criminal act and a violation of the doctor's oath. Minimally, he/she should be criminally tried and have his/her medical license suspended. The same care should be due that child as due to any child brought into the hospital with critical care problems.

Taft a comment Please

Taft wrote: "There are several things I think the democrats get wrong, don't try to proselytize me though, overall I think they are the best we have going."

What exactly are the several things you think 'Democrats get Wrong'.

well said, John
I'm glad obama chose to appear at Saddleback. I never watch the gossip shows or late night stuff he usually frequents, so this gave me a chance to see him in an honest light.

I thought the questions were fair and Warren's reactions were objective. obama still did not offer anything REAL. Our whole family watched and even the youngest in the room said, "what did he just SAY?" obama's answers were so nebulous I couldn't even translate them into kid-speak. "Basically, dear, he said yes and no, maybe, perhaps..."

The man could not even answer a question. I don't want a friggin philosopher speaking in Socratic fashion and deeply pondering fill-in-the-blank for my President. "What do think the Russians will do? Hmmmm....Ahhh...?"

I think Goldberg brilliantly pegged the two obamas!

Retired Geek
I apologize to both you and Steve for apparently missing your point. I have not had time to read all of the posts here and just picked up on your last question.

It is not a question of whether the baby is a citizen or not. Remember, if you are here illegally and are murdered, the person(s) committing such act can be prosecuted.

Your further inquiry goes into that area of law that is a sticky wicket. In North Carolina, killing a pregnant mother can only constitute the killing of one person; whereas, in other states, the perpetrator may be charged with two murders, that of the mother and the fetus. As the states enact their own criminal laws, we are faced with different outcomes between states. Now, prosecution by the state does not preclude prosecution by the federal government. There is no double jeopardy attached. Remember the prosecutions of Timothy McVea.

The ultimate question is when a fetus is considered a person. The federal government could enact a law that acknowledges that a fetus is a person at the time of conception and regard such a crime against the fetus as a violation of its rights as a person. However, the states have the power to enact their criminal laws and set the penalties therefor. There is no requirement or compact between the states to have a universal definition of when a fetus is a person any more than they agree on the penalties for injuring or killing that person. There is no obligation to recognize criminal acts between states as there is in civil law, courtesy of the 'good faith and credit' clause. The latter is problematic for future recognition of same sex marriages in states that do not recognize it.



Obama's Real Answer
Does evil exist? How can you live in AmeracistKa and ask that question? The white devil is everywhere, destroying black people and invading helpless countries and overthrowing the people's chosen rapist/murderer/dictator. Only when the USA falls on its own sword can the earth be cleansed. Of course, as a typical xtian white devil you couldn't understand that. Next question?

What Exactly is the Difference?

What exactly is the difference between the act of plscing a child and an American Citizen, to be placed in a room to die at a hospital or the parents taking the child home and placing it in a room to die?

What exactly is the difference between ICE arresting the cild at birth and deporting that child back to its parents country or Parents and Doctors placing that child in a room to die?

Retired Lady
If you could be specific, in where my facts where wrong or I misrepresented something, I'd appreciate the chance, when time allows, to debate it. Thanks

Slick and his de-mystification
Rightmindedmom, you got it! I thought Andrea Mitchel was going to collapse in tears when reporting her take on the Saddleback presentation, then, of course, she trots out that cannard---McCain knew the questions beforehand! Isn't it amazing when Slick fails, the media dunces come up with the usual epithets: screeching liars or racists and this is the clown they are in-the-tank for!!!!

Summers et al

Linerals seem to me to be caught in a dialectical conundrum involving when the Civil Rights of an American Citizen begins.

Liberals, despite a Civil Rights law that prohibits 'Discrimination' based on age - want Civil Rights for children based on the 'abusive relationship' with their Parents.

Killing the child would seem to be the ultimate 'abusive relationship' far exceeding such 'heinous acts' like incest or other physical abuse.

When a child is at home and systematic starving or other abuse happens, the Parents can be and should be charged with a heinous crime.

When a child is in a hospital, apparently starving or other abuse is perfectly legal by the Parents or Medical Doctors. huh??????

This seems to me to be NOT only a matter of ethics and morality but a legal infraction.

Thanks for any light you may shed! ! !



Curtal Friar and Rowly
Curtal Friar. Thanks for the clarification, I knew you would have the answers that would help me see the way. I'll have to go back and restudy that topic.

Rowly,
That was my point exactly. God gave us parts that are universally compatible. All we need to do is find the match with our morals and values. Too often now the emphasis is on sex and when the novelty wears off and reality sets in, then there's the big cry of inrreconcilable differences. They were there all along, just masked by lust and passion.