Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 01/08/2008 1:27:00 PM PST by rhema
ping
ping
One of the consolations that I had when Mom passed was she would get to spend time with her other daughter.
I’m sure our reunion will be joyous .
Nor does she mention when the Golden Age of pro abortion films allegedly was.
I think they know it; they just don't care.
The US government knows it, too, and doesn't care - since they have made abortion legal.
Inexplicably, though, the woman has the abortion.
It was necessary in order to show a religious woman being a hypocrite by going against her own pro-life views. And, of course, House wouldn't be condescending in this instance. The superiority of his position would be shown by NOT being condescending. All very subtle (and not so subtle) mind games from the writers. [I'm glad they're still on strike. I hope they never go back to work.]
“Praise be to God that more people are repenting from such a horrible, evil practice.”
Yes.
The 10th A. seemingly stood in the way of FDR's establishment of constitutionally unauthorized federal spending programs like Social Security.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.FDR should have upheld his oath to defend the Constitution with respect to establishing his New Deal programs. He could have done so by rallying the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add SS and other New Deal federal programs to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment. Instead, FDR essentially talked the Supreme Court into ignoring the 10th A. protected powers of the states. It's almost as if FDR did not understand the Founder's requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal powers, particularly where federal spending programs are concerned.
To compound constitutional problems related to FDR's federal spending shenanigans, corrupt FDR era justices later used FDR's politically correct license to ignore the 10th A. to unconstitutionally limit our 10th A. protected religious freedoms. More specifically...
Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87cThe problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dAnd after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent John Bingham's ideas about the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR nominated justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation."No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.
Are we having fun yet? :^)
As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs seem to be the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. In fact, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion is silent about the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).
And since we're talking about the Supreme Court's "profound insight" into what the federal Constitution says about abortion - the Constitution actually says nothing about abortion; beware of judges who legislate from the bench - given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter to help justify applying the establishment clause to the states, certainly the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment. After all, Jefferson could just as easily have written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently chose to reflect the belief of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception.
What a mess!
Abraham Lincoln warned us about corrupt lawmakers and judges.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.The bottom line is that the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of widespread federal government corruption, a consequence of FDR era politics, particularly where the ignoring of 10th A. protected state powers to address religious issues is concerned. The people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
The critics didn't like this star-studded movie. Hmmmmm.
The article is right. Moviegoers identify with the difficult, but heroic choices the characters make. There is no planet on which your 99% are making an herioc choice.
I always liked Tarantino.
But some people are, and some of those people are apparently in Hollywood.
Let's not forget that the laws of this country are not "pro choice" but very much pro abortion.
If I didn't think abortion was immoral I would still oppose Roe simply because it is an insult to the Constitution.
Of course, if I thought abortion was moral, or if I though abortion might be a necessary solution to a problem I might one day find myself facing due to other behavior I felt was not immoral -- despite traditionally being considered so -- I would fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Another thing to ask: why would a "small government" Republican not be wildly opposed to funding agencies involved in the promotion of abortion even if they should think the act should be legal?
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ping
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I enjoyed Waitress, a very quirky comedy. If you rent it, be sure to watch the DVD extras - the young and talented producer/director was murdered after the movie was made.
The 1960s the subject of abortion was a staple of television drama. While I was still young back them I can remember some story lines (especially medical shows) where the life of the mother to be was threaten because of the prgnancy and the doctors were helpless because abortion were illegal. Or, the woman would have a "back alley" abortion, and they would have to work miracles to save the woman.
There may not have been a "golden age" of abortion in the movies, but there was certainly a pro-abortion agenda in Hollywood and it was reflected on the small screen.
Perhaps they are ready for my ‘Evil Interrupted’ story now. God only knows ...
Ha! Man, that's true.
And especially in relation to abortion as a great "benefit" for poor women. They won't fight to guarantee her right to anything she actually DID want: a reasonably low-interest mortgage, a decent education so she'd be literate and employable at graduation, etc. etc.
But the one thing nobody actually wants ---a dead baby --- that they'll gurantee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.