I just knew where she was leading considering she writes for the Bergen Record; it's just the same liberal mantra, nothing different. The world is full of problems not addressed when a republican is in office and during the 8 yrs. of the stain maker everything was just great.
One other thing that they should make clear is that a vote for Kerry isn't just a vote for Roe v. Wade, it's a vote for partial birth abortion and a vote against parental consent.
PING
John Kerry-10/7/04 (Presidential Debate): “First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins.
John Kerry-10/13/04 (Presidential Debate): “I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.”
4/23/04: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass speaks in support of baby murder aka abortion at national rally in Washington, D.C. Kerry is flanked by Kate Michelman, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, left and Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, right. Feldt also lavishly praised Kerry at the Democratic National Convention.
Kerry on abortion-10/7/04: “You know, it's just not that simple.”
G.K. Chesterton: “Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles.”
Kerry on abortion-10/7/04 “But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it”
Being against killing unborn children-abortion is not “an article of faith”, it is being humane and civilized. It is a scientific fact not an “an article of faith” that human life begins at conception—not birth.
Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.
Abortion is murder.
But so far,
Bush has done little to significantly lower the abortion rate in the United States. In some places, abortions have likely increased due to unemployment. And the U.N. Population Fund estimates that Bush's repeated withholding of U.S. funds pledged for family planning programs has led to hundreds of thousands of abortions in poor countries. George Bush has no legal, ethical, or Biblical mandate to enforce the Constitution defying and conscience defiling majority opinion stated in Roe v Wade. Mr. Bush claims to be fighting the war on terror, but abortionists routinely exterminate more human life in a day than terrorists have taken in all their carnage. The Prophet may compel the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad to blindly obey terrorist commands; but The Constitution dosen't force the President to blindly follow unconstitutional opinions. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, removes all doubt as to who the real scimitar wielding terrorist is in America:
"The judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year?
None, not even war. 40+ million dead since 1973.
17 posted on 10/15/2004 4:21:57 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
=== I believe life begins at conception
Anyone who believes this cannot possibly vote for Bush.
31 posted on 10/15/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT!
Exterminators and their innocent, virtually defenseless victims have existed throughout history. The exterminators acquired the means to terminate the lives of their victims for any, or no reason.
Extermination has occurred under various labels, such as: serial killers, terrorists, Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, abortion, and the Soviet Gulags.
R.J. Rummel has defined and classified various exterminations by government @ Definition of Democide (Genocide and Mass Murder):Genocide
: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language). Politicide
: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes. Mass Murder
: the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government. Democide
: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated:
"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life!
R.J. Rummel:
Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide.
In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork made the following comments about Roe v. Wade:
"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that....Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."
Rummel again: War Versus Genocide And Mass MurderPublished in The Wall Street Journal (July 7, 1986).
Our century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars. World War I saw nine-million people killed in battle, an incredible record that was far surpassed within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World War II. Even the number killed in twentieth century revolutions and civil wars have set historical records. In total, this century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts is so far about 35,654,000.
Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.
Rummel's conclusion: Power, Genocide, And Mass Murder
The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom.
There is no moral difference between a government that permits abortion, from one that fails to prosecute serial killers, pursue terrorists, or promote the Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, and the Soviet Gulags!
The federal branches of government are coordinate, NOT coequal and they are all subordinate to the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law, NOT the Supreme Court:
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore and declare what the Constitution states with regard to a particular case over which they have jurisdicion - federal judges fabricate their own private interpretation from the hubris opined in novel dicta and deviant precedent, from which even greater deviation is justified in subsequent decisions.
For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Bd of School Comm., 554 F. Supp. 1104 (1983) Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970
James Madison stated in The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
Federalist No. 81
" The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous....But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.''
We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''
To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.
The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; PUBLIUS.
Article 6, Clause 2
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X 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.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 - Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
=========================================================================================
cognitive dissonance
n. Psychology
- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing terrorists while approving of abortion.
If you aren't conflicted, seek a conscience.
When Kerry said he can't put his deeply religious Catholic values into legislation, I was livid. Holding life sacred is not just a Catholic value, but a Judeo-Christian value as well as being plain old moral.