A baby was born at 23 weeks to an unwed 18 year old. The baby was born while awaiting the arrival of the doctor who was the abortionist. Prior to the arrival of the doctor, the clinic's co-owner cut the umbilical cord, threw the kid on the floor to bleed out, then sealed the baby in a disposable bio hazard bag and threw the now deceased child in the trash! http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Badly botched abortion?
No. Murder.
Murder, like a partial birth abortion that our President condones and our Speaker Nancy Pelosi grows excited to promote as being necessary to the good health of the . . . mother.
Obama looks at his girls with a loving father's eyes. Yet, he orders the death of untold thousands of the unborn in the U.S. and abroad with the stroke of a pen. How can he in all good conscience reconcile the death of the unborn with his daughters in his presence?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was almost breathless with excitement as she described to the interviewer the need to kill the unborn to save the states . . . money.
My God, what have we done to ourselves that our value of the preservation of life, something our enemies on the battlefield relied upon as our troops would sacrifice themselves to recover the bodies of fallen comrades, has become abhorrent to some Americans. So abhorrent that an American could take a live baby and kill the child without remorse? Worse, without apparent fear of the law in doing so.
A child who by law should have been accorded the full measure of the protection of the Constitution, because by the abortion loving liberals' own declarations, the child was a live birth and, therefore, a "person".
Look at the social agenda on http://www.whitehouse.gov/ .
This is all part of the cheapening of our children by the liberals.
I fully believe that there is an amoral movement, whether planned or just a social devolution, to undermine the family value of life and the worth of the child. To ultimately sexualize the child and desensitize society until all the inhibitions of one's morality, religion, beliefs, character, integrity, and values are compromised to the point that the child becomes . . . a toy for adults to exploit and use until the kid grows up enough to defend his/herself. However, the idea is that then the kid becomes what made him/her, and the cycle will go on and on and on.
Somewhat anti-Christian-Judeo in scope and execution, don't you think?
Ever hear of the North American Man Boy Love Association? NAMBLA openly advocates the use of boys as sexual objects. That this homosexual perversion has been allowed to exist is a credit to the perversity of the ACLU lawyers, many of whom have been indicted and convicted of child sex crimes. Adult males exploiting male children. NAMBLA by any other name.
Ruthie bad girl Ginsberg our Supreme Court Justice and former ACLU and child sex advocate wrote that the age for consensual sex should be lowered to 12 for girls.
What was this 18 year old girl doing in an abortion clinic?
Well, thanks to Planned Parenthood, the hard work of the democrat party, Speaker Pelosi's life long devotion to the cult of killing the unborn for the sake of convenience, National Organization of Women (we hate men, and we don't need any stinking men), NAMBLA, Bill Clinton (I never had sex with that woman and who caused an explosion in the tongue stud industry for young girls and women as a result), and various population control freaks funded by liberal foundations who all have worked hard since the 60s on initiatives to reduce the worth of children, not to forget the media's continual sexualization of our children, is it any wonder that this kid ended up in an abortion clinic instead of an outreach program for unwed mothers?
(How's that for a run on sentence? )
Every time I see an adolescent female with a tongue stud, I wonder just how gullible are the parents, or how envious the mother? There is only one purpose in having such an item installed and it ain't to suck lollipops. Such cheapening accoutrement's send a very clear message to the male population. S-L-U-T.
We parents must not accede to the wishes of young girls who want to emulate manufactured "popular" culture "icons" such as Britney Spears and Hanna Montana. Any parent that lets their female progeny dress inappropriately is a fool and putting their kid in danger. Dad's need to be the judge of his daughter's dress, if mom suffers some sort of sick desire to "live through the kid". Somebody has to act like an adult and care for the kid's safety!
Pastors need to comment to mom and dad if the girls are not dressed appropriately.
Chastity in a girl is something to value, not a derogatory.
No wonder the homosexuals and the socialist left hate Christianity. Morality, once instilled is hard to erase. It can be tarnished, but not erased. Guilt is still there for any act the individual knows is wrong.
Mao Tse Dung had a policy of killing all individuals over 10 years of age when the communist Chinese went into a village to make an example. Why over 10?
At 10 years, the Chicoms believed that the moral character and core beliefs of the individual were ingrained so deeply that no matter what the commies did, that individual could never be trusted.
What do we as Americans, parents, grandparents and Christians do about the assault on our children? Pray. Vote for pro-life candidates. Make our lives an example, and do not remain quiet while our children and our freedoms disappear to the demagoguery of the left. Fight them, challenge the left, force them back into the dark and out of the light. Make organizations NAMBLA cease to exist and the ACLU irrelevant.
Unfortunately, the new Deputy AG for the U.S. is a guy who fought to keep access to porn unfettered in our public libraries along with a defense of the homosexual, anti-family agenda. Porn and homosexual anything before the safety of our kids. Why, that is free speech to be protected, but conservative talk radio is something to be restricted? That's a good lib for you.
(No, I am not a homophobe, just concerned and aware of the agenda of the politically active homosexual extremists.)
Our forefathers were incredibly prescient in their construction of this social experiment we call the United States. One of the attributes they considered indispensable to the health and welfare of the nation and its people was the idea of morality and a belief in God. Without this foundation, the U.S. would cease to exist, and its people doomed to subjugation by those willing to sacrifice their integrity and morality to gain power.
Pray for the United States.
Showing posts with label Hilliary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hilliary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
First Obama, now Hillary? A Constitutional Crisis?
First came the challenges to Barak Obama's qualifications under Article II of the Constitution regarding the legitimacy of his claim to naturalized birth in Hawaii. Now, it appears that Hilliary Clinton may be in conflict with our Constitution as regards her ability to be appointed as Secretary of State: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87451
The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.
The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.
How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?
By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.
Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?
You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?
The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.
It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.
Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.
What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.
What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.
Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.
Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.
Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.
We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.
If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"
The issue with Hilliary is that she was a Senator who voted on not less than three pay raises for the very office to which she was appointed. This fact should have prohibited her from being appointed as Secretary of State.
The danger in overlooking the restrictions in our Constitution regarding qualifications to hold office or to be appointed to an executive office are profound in their impact. If these restrictions are overlooked, then it can be reasonably argued that they no longer apply by virtue of ignoring them. That's how our law works. Conduct can be as persuasive as a written article in our Constitution. Ignore an article of the Constitution, by acting in violation without obedience, and the courts will consider it moot.
How is the Constitution being subverted and minimized?
By terming provisions out of date, in need of change to reflect changing social and moral values, by ignoring them altogether as alleged in the court challenges to both Obama's citizenship and Hilliary's acts as a Senator impacting the pay in her current appointment.
Therein lies the danger to you and me. Ignore, minimize, and subvert, and our protections and rights have been usurped without our permission. After all, this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people, right? Or is it?
You willing to fight to defend the Constitution, or sit on your fat butt and watch soap operas and allow our heritage and rights to disappear?
The 2d Amendment is an amendment targeted by the Obama regime. The 2d Amendment was the only amendment not named by the new President of United States as being in an individual right. He named the 1st, the 4th, and the 9th in particular as being individual rights. He overlooked the 2d. And, I believe, given the manner in which he answered the question put to him during the debate, that he excluded the 2d Amendment purposefully. Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and look at his legislative priorities. Control and restrictions on firearms is a major initiative according to his agenda.
It was Obama's response in delinating which rights he believed were "personal" and "individual" that caused me to take better notice of what was being said, and not being said on his part. I now listen very closely to what this guy says.
Thus far, it is not much, just fluff and fear mongering.
What is extremely important in this discussion is that Hilliary and Obama both swore an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, both as United States Senators, and then, again upon taking the oath of their respective offices. It is unclear as to whether or not Obama is in violation regarding Art. II, but it is clear that Hilliary's appointment as Secretary of State certainly stands in contravention of the intent of the Constitution. She could not be appointed to any executive office having been a sitting Senator voting on pay raises for that very office to which she was appointed.
What is clear, is that there is an overt attempt to ignore and to circumvent the intent of the Constitution by the democrat political machine.
Our Constitution cannot become a capricious application of law, it must be held inviolate and the supreme law of the land, or it is ineffective and the tool of the oppressor. In which case, one must be that much more distrustful of the intent of the new regime with respect to our rights and upholding the intent and the law that is our Constitution.
Take away the Constitution, and the U.S. becomes like every other oligarchy in the world. The citizens of Commonwealth countries have no free speech, no right to keep and bar arms, no guarantees of any kind, except to due process under certain situations. We have these rights and they should be defended to the death.
Arlington National Cemetary is filled with those who died to uphold and protect our Constitution.
We should be wary of any leader who turns his or her back on any provision of the Constitution, and of any official who purposefully subverts the law to their purpose of attaining power.
If you want to learn more about the Constitution . . . :
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
The Federalist Papers are on-line via Google. Search "Federalist Papers" or "U.S. Constitution"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)