Posted on 08/30/2011 3:00:44 PM PDT by topher
WINNIPEG, Manitoba August 30, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young man who admitted to downloading explicit pornographic images since he was 12, has been sentenced to two years supervised probation after he was charged for possessing photos and videos of children as young as 4 being sexually abused.
Dr. Judith Reisman, a researcher on pedophilia and an expert on the insidious effects of pornography, told LSN that she is unsurprised that such a young man would be involved in child pornography. “Our government leaders allow pornography to pollute our once great nations and act surprised that we are breeding inhuman men, women and children unlike any that have existed before,” she said.
In a 2008 international sting against child pornographers Austrian police followed an IP address to a 15-year-old boy in Winnipeg, MB.
When Winnipeg police came knocking at his door, the boy readily admitted his involvement, said Crown attorney Terry McComb to Winnipeg Sun.
The police confiscated the boy’s laptop and discovered images and videos featuring girls as young as 4 being sexually abused by adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
I do not. You better be able to provide links to the "dozens of questions".
I ask her one, simple, non-insulting question 20 times,
Provide links to this also.
Well there you have it. In a society where some (not you, fortunately) condone the killing of Marine Corps veterans while stating that they are so pro-life, is it any wonder that we are in a mess of trouble?
Okay.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence "We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." -- Article VI, Section 3, the United States Constitution"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence, Nov. 20, 1772
You see, I'm not alone on the boards. I could name at least 8 people, if asked, that are members of FreeRepublic and share my views of the folly of the War on Drugs. Just because we advocate for the end of this war doesn't mean we condone drug use. We simply recognize that it is unconstitutional, and a government big enough to give you everything you want (like a failed War on Drugs), is big enough to take all you have. That's a paraphrase of a Thomas Jefferson quote, by the way.
When you talk about someone, it’s common courtesy to ping them. Especially if you’re bad-mouthing them.
Your logic (and I’m using that word loosely) is flawed, because it’s based on falsehoods.
How many dozens of questions did she ask you?
Where did you hide your answers to those questions?
What question did you ask her that wasn’t insulting?
How did she dodge it 20 times without anyone but you noticing?
Maybe she doesn’t want to answer it. I’d have to see some facts to back that up before making such a conclusion.
You are not the arbiter of what constitutes conservatism. You can’t even decide what you think that is. Whether she says “yes” or “no” you think that proves she’s not conservative. News flash! DJ MacWoW has proven herself over the long haul. She doesn’t have to prove herself to a n00b who has quickly proven to be a troll. She’s not going to say anything in one post that negates eleven years of conservative posts.
Your family’s purpose to increase your income by 1500% does NOT grant you the authority to either print your own or rob someone. Sure, it sounds good, but whatever else, you may not exceed your legitimate authority to act.
Likewise, my oath to protect and defend the Constitution does not grant me one iota of authority to to do anything but that. I do have authority to, and will, if necessary, act to restore the Constitution to its rightful place as supreme law of the land. But that still does not give me or anyone Carte Blanche to do things not enumerated. I mean to RESTORE the Constitution, not change it around.
By the way, I agree with you pretty much completely about Terri Schiavo and her murder, but that MUST fall under State purview, not federal. That it was NOT a criminal act is a failure of Florida, not fedgov.
Yes. Because you lied.
Simple question:
Do you think the Constitution gives the federal government the power to wage a War on Drugs?
You can answer it too, if you dare. Dj MacWow is apparently afraid to answer it.
Okay, well , I refuse. Should I be sentenced to death or merely caned?
Yes, the failure to save Terry Schiavo was a failure of the state of Florida. It was no business of the federal government. Jeb Bush is responsible. People should blame him for it.
The result of telling a lie is that you are not believed or trusted.
"[T]he first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society.Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.
The Legislative [branch] cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed...for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."
-- Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence, Nov. 20, 1772
Check this link out:
FreeRepublic Statement of Principles
"We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people."
"Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people."
"We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended."
I don’t debate dishonest young people that are more liberal than conservative. It is an exercise in futility.
You didn’t believe or trust me before, however, so is that really a material loss? Those on here who trusted me before I made that statement still trust me, and those who didn’t trust me... well, they still don’t.
What does that have to do with #404?
A man is only as good as his word.
There are certain duties that are shared by all officers of government, at every level, in every branch. At the very top of that list is the equal protection of the unalienable right to life of the innocent person.
When all the officers of the government of the state of Florida failed in their sworn duty to enforce the Florida and U.S. Constitutions, the officers of the national government had a duty to protect her.
Do they not teach about the intended checks and balances in our form of government in school any more?
Probably not, I guess.
Perhaps you should give it a bit more thought.
Actually, they do teach about checks and balances. They also teach us that FDR saved us from the Great Depression and that World War II got us out of the depression, among other lies. I had to learn about constitutional conservatism on my own time.
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.