If you get the chance to attend any event where a liberal lefty is speaking and would like to "stump them" with their own logic, go and ask this one question:
“Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of
the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be
worth doing. Why not support the anti-abortion bill passed by the House then, if it undoubtedly will
save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of
pregnancy?”
Tends to make them stutter, stammer and run and hide as it did for Diana DeGette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and ardent gun-control advocate.
Michelle Keller of Northern Kentucky was sworn in yesterday as the third woman on the Kentucky Supreme Court, a milestone receiving great attention. But not all women jurists are of the same opinion when it comes to one of the most controversial issues on the "woman" front, abortion.
In early 2011 the Court of Appeals was faced with deciding whether a teenager from another state could travel to Kentucky and obtain an abortion without her parent's knowledge. While the decison is reported to be sealed, the 2-1 ruling in favor of such a practice has been made public.
Voting in favor of the procedure was newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Michelle Keller. But highly critical of the ruling was then Judge Keller's colleague on the Court of Appeals, Judge Joy Moore.
Chief Judge Jeff Taylor of Owensboro and Judge Michelle Keller of
Covington were in the majority and they admitted to the judge shopping
that concerns McClusky.
But they said Kentucky’s law makes it so “every
minor” gets the bypass and that the law does not place any limits on it
to Kentucky residents only.
Judge Joy Moore of Burlington said Kentucky judges have no “business
making any decisions regarding a minor from another state seeking an
abortion without parental consent.”
She cited as her basis for rejecting the claims that Kentucky’s
abortion laws say “it is in the interest of the people of the
commonwealth that every precaution be taken to insure the protection of
every viable unborn child being aborted.” [Life News]
Judges and Justices are expected to make their rulings based upon their interpretation of the law and not personal bias. But it is very clear that even when attempting to rise to that level of fairness differences of opinion do arise.
At this time no one has announced plans to challenge Keller when the seat to which she has just been appointed will appear on the ballot next year. The filing deadline isn't until January.
Senator Frank Lautenberg has penned an opinion piece in which he urges his colleagues to support a ban on "high capacity magazines" and his entire feeble attempt at logic boils down to this: "The NRA tries to portray that banning the sale of these magazines would
be a calamity. What they don’t tell you is that they were banned from
1994 to 2004 as part of the Assault Weapons Ban. The gun industry and
its allies in Congress allowed that law to expire."
No, Senator, what YOU aren't telling people is that since the repeal of the "Assault Weapons Ban" violent crime in the United States has dropped by 17%. And what you are also NOT telling people is that the one common thread in each of the so-called "mass shootings" was the fact that a crazy person was doing the shooting.
Your argument is reduced to meaningless dribble even further as a result of the Boston bombings. Look at the carnage caused by pressure cookers filled with shrapnel. There was no ammunition magazine involved. The point is that a crazy person dead set on killing and maiming a large number of people can do it in a variety of ways that don't involve guns at all.
Now add to the fact that there are millions of "high capacity" magazines already out there and then tell me what your silly bullet count will do except make you look even more foolish as you attempt to acquire political capital by using sympathy over other people's dead children as a ploy.
How about this, Senator. How about bringing home all of the troops from Afghanistan right now. How about taking one last series of flights over the country and rendering the poppy fields fallow for the next 100 years. How many young lives will the destruction of 90% of the world's heroin production save?
Your phony arguments are not only illogical, the fact that you would seek to advance an illogical argument on the graves of other people's children is disgusting. But why should we be surprised?
You once argued that anybody who opposed federal funding for abortions didn't deserve the protections afforded to them by the Constitution, so you have a long history of using the graves of dead children as your political soapbox.
Once again, as the author of this article says, Rand Paul is walking a very fine line between Libertarianism and Conservatism. But on the Right To Life Issue he is spot on, exactly right and his sponsorship of the "Life At Conception Act" which will gut Roe v. Wade, is probably his most important statement yet.
What Rand is saying in this act is that we must extend the right to "due process" to all human beings and in order to do that we must legislatively declare when that life begins which is entitled to due process.
I urged this very approach back in 2008. I'm so glad Rand has found this concept persuasive and is taking the lead on this.
I have to fight off praying that God sentence these people to Hell.
PHILADELPHIA - A jury
weighing murder charges against a Philadelphia abortion provider heard
grim testimony about unorthodox procedures used on inner-city clinic
patients.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, faces the death penalty if convicted of
killing seven late-term babies after they were born alive. He is also
charged with third-degree murder in the overdose death of a 41-year-old
refugee who sought an abortion in 2009.
Medical assistant Adrienne Moton admitted Tuesday that she had cut
the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, as Gosnell
had instructed her. Gosnell and another employee regularly "snipped" the
spines "to ensure fetal demise," she said.
Moton sobbed as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one
baby because he was bigger than any she had seen aborted before. She
measured the fetus at nearly 30 weeks, and thought he could have
survived, given his size and pinkish color. Gosnell later joked that the
baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said. [Daily News]
Colorado just passed a bill legalizing the private use of marijuana. Looks like some of the legislators should be very happy about that, considering that they think like stoners already. Here is one telling female students that they don't need a gun to defend themselves against rape, just learn judo.
And how exactly does that buddy system work again? Oh yeah, nobody ever kidnaps, rapes and kills two girls at once, right?
In fact if girls just stayed closer to their mom they would be fine, right?
On death row since 1994, Oba Chandler 65, was executed via lethal injection Tuesday
He was convicted for the brutal 1989
rapes and murders of an Ohio mum, Joan ‘Jo’ Rogers, 36, and her teenaged
daughters-- Michelle, 17, and Christie, 14, who were on holiday at
Disney World.
The Rogers women were last seen alive
in June of 1989. They had been in Tampa Bay and got lost on the way
back to their motel. They then asked Chandler for directions.
According
to authorities, Chandler sweet-talked them on his boat, Gypsy 1,
fastened concrete blocks around their necks with rope and dumped their
bodies in the bay. [Daily Mail UK]
Might I make a suggestion to the nit-wits in Colorado?
There are many reasons why we do not need more laws. Chief among them is the reality that if the ones we have don't prevent crime, increasing punishment by new laws won't help. Only law abiding citizens obey laws. Criminals ignore laws and are usually undeterred by them. Fear of punishment does not rule the criminal mind.
But there are sometimes larger issues which can be addressed by laws. And in that context the passage of a law can serve as a statement of public support for victims of crimes which do not get enough attention. Opposition to such laws can be misinterpreted as insensitivity to victims of crime.
I'm not advocating for or against the Violence Against Women act, because I don't get a vote. But this woman does and here is her testimony. I think it is worth your time to read this. I'm not sure enough people fully appreciate the problem. I think we need to make a public statement in support of the victims of this kind of violence.
Hear these words from Representative Jan Schakowsky (D Illinois):
I’m rising today because we must stand with the women of Congo.
And it’s not just Congo. One in three women across the
planet will be raped, beaten, or otherwise sexually assaulted in her
lifetime. Whether it happens in India or Indiana, rape, sexual assault,
and gender-based violence are unacceptable. I’m rising today because
women’s rights are human rights, and our rights are threatened every
day.
I’m rising as part of a global sisterhood, a revolution of activists
around the world who are committed to ending the violence. Today, in
approximately 200 countries, women (and men) are joining their voices
together in a global outcry to say this must be a priority.
As a member of Congress, I’m rising because women’s voices must be
heard in Washington, in capital cities across the world, at the United
Nations, and throughout the halls of power. As a community, a nation,
and a global society we will not succeed if half our population is
threatened, intimidated, or shamed into remaining silent.
After standing up for women who have been or could be the victims of violence she then goes on to accuse the republicans of waging a war on women. Of course that is non-sense, and I do not quote her in support of her flawed reasoning about such things or her pro-choice views, but to the extent that world wide violence against women is going unnoticed, I do stand in favor of our nation making it very clear, that it is both men and women who deserve equal protection.
Are the changes made to the new bill enough to justify a vote against it? I'll listen to the debate and then decide. I do acknowledge that there is ample authority for the position that passing criminal laws is the province of the states and most crimes do not require federal intervention.
But do we as a nation need to make a public statement decrying crimes against women? You're damned right we do, and on that point I stand too.
I ran a little exercise on Facebook over the past couple of days. I wanted to gauge a reaction to some topics of discussion. So I linked together Obama's assertion of the right to kill by drone, and the fugitive rogue police officer in California. I was a bit stunned. The reaction was varied, but unsettling.
I asked whether it would be appropriate for a government official to determine that the officer on the run should be hunted down and killed by a drone strike. The number of people who approved of such action was small, but their reasoning could reflect a widespread mindset.
First of all, the fugitive has been accused of crimes, not tried nor convicted in a court of law. In fact, for most of the nation, all we know is what the media has told us. Yet people have concluded that the man is guilty of murder and mayhem based solely upon media reports. That's an odd thing when you think about it. This is the same media they never trust when it comes to politics, snowstorm predictions or getting it right about Obama. Yet the public accepts that a citizen is guilty without any evidence other than that the which the media pushes.
The next area of concern was how willing people were to kill the man upon the decision of a government official, not a jury of his peers, but on the order of a government official. The reasons given generally fell along the lines of "well he refused to surrender". This reaction from among the same group of citizens many of whom openly profess to be willing to fight a new revolution if necessary to oppose government overreach.
And the last area of concern was how quickly the responses came in favoring his immediate assassination. There could be discerned a level of viciousness by that fact alone, a blood lust of sorts that seemed to make the whole idea of a public execution captured perhaps on tape, a desirable result for what, the entertainment value alone?
Now I'm not trying to defend anything the guy did. As a lawyer for over 30 years I've made it very clear, I defend my client's rights, not their wrongs. But since when did we become a nation which was so anxious to stand up for the second amendment, but not the fourth, or the fifth, or the sixth or the fourteenth? When did we tire of the burden of due process and agree to permit a government agent the right to determine who lives and who dies?
And doesn't this mean to some extent that we have a selective zeal for life and liberty capable of being manipulated by the passions inspired by the media?
Are we past the point of no return? Or might this little exercise help us find our way back?
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that Roger Simon, chief political columnist at POLITICO has waged a war on women, but he certainly doesn't want them to be able to wage war on criminals who might come to harm them or their children. Simon thinks that a woman's best defense is her cell phone.
I learned a lot about biology this
week by watching a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was titled: “What
Should America Do About Gun Violence?”
I am not sure biology was supposed
to be the point, but an odd witness, who is not an expert on gun violence, let
it rear its ugly head.
Gayle Trotter is a senior fellow at
the Independent Women’s Forum, a self-described conservative group that
believes in “limited government, personal liberty and free markets.”
Trotter also believes in guns and
ammo. Lots of ammo.
She testified that women must be
able to arm themselves with military-style, semi-automatic rifles that contain
large ammo magazines because women are smaller than men and need an equalizer.
“You are a large man, tall man, a
tall man,” Trotter said to one senator who questioned the need for large ammo
magazines. “You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. You
cannot understand.
“You are not a woman stuck in her
house, not able to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able
to go seek safety on the phone with 911.”
This might be understandable if
Trotter lived in Syria and needed to defend her family on a daily basis. But
she lives in the United States. There is certainly violent crime in the United
States, but little of it comes from criminals who kick down the doors of homes
and come after women and children with guns blazing.
If that does happen, the safest
thing to do is to call 911. The most dangerous thing to do is to keep loaded
weapons around the house where children can find them and accidentally kill
themselves or others.[POLITICO]
Really Roger? Maybe you ought to read something about the prevalence of violence against women. What, you think the guy kicking down the door to attack a woman has to be some random rapist? Sorry dude, odds are the madman kicking down the door is a jilted boyfriend, drunk husband or a stalker. And you think a cell phone is the best weapon against a rape or a life threatening assault? Well let me just remind you, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
I carry a gun because a cop would be too heavy. And a woman in a home alone or with her children deserves to arm herself with whatever the hell she wants to protect her life and the life of her children.
And let's get one more thing straight, Roger, responsible gun ownership means keeping your firearms safely out of the reach of children. Nobody is suggesting that a loaded rifle needs to be left lying around for kids to play with. What a stupid thing to say for a man of your stature.
Do you really think that women tend to be reckless with guns? Is that because you think less of women?
And for your argument that a woman doesn't need a 100 round magazine to protect her kids let me run this scenario by you. Let's say a hurricane destroys transportation, the power grid and over taxes the police department. And let's say lack of food and police protection spawns roving bands of armed marauders ransacking homes looking for food, money and engaging in general mayhem. How many shots would you limit her to? Six, ten, what?
I say she should have as many shots as necessary to stop the threat.
You, on the other hand, apparently don't care about the kind of threats which could jeopardize her life and the lives of her children.
No, you may not be waging war on women, but you sure as hell don't want them to be able to fend off those who are, and that makes you just as guilty as the bad guys.
A store clerk was brutally beaten by robber wielding a hammer. The clerk having chosen to not arm himself with a hammer of his own found himself at the mercy of the bad guy.
FBI crime statistics show that hammers are used far more often to commit murders in the United States than rifles.
And as anybody who has been paying any attention knows, there is one
type of hammer which has resulted in far more deaths in the United States over the years than any other. Maybe we ought to be paying more attention to who gets one of these.
All original content on this blog is copyrighted to Marcus Carey. All rights to all content on this blog are reserved to Marcus Carey. Any use of the ideas, imagery, analogies, analysis, comments or other content is subject to approval. You may link to any content on this site and approval to use content will be freely granted upon request subject to appropriate attribution.
COMMENT POLICY NOTICE
Vulgar or profane language will not be published. Defamatory language will not be published. Your right to post comments may be revoked at any time without recourse. All comments are moderated. Comments do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions, attitudes or beliefs of the blogger, but reflect only the opinions of the comment writer. Publishing a comment does not mean that I have either adopted or agree with the comment or support any of its content.
If for some reason you cannot abide by these simple rules, you are invited to read here only.
SUPPORT FOR THIS BLOG:
From time to time this blog will post paid advertisements, and may link to Amazon.com where this blog is participating in a revenue generating program offered by Amazon.com for purchases made of products accessed by the link on this blog.
