The folks celebrating the passage of Alabama's HB 314 ("The Alabama Human Life Protection Act") seem not to have read the bill. Although every news outlet under the sun touted HB 314 as "the nation's most restrictive" anti-abortion law, an examination reveals nothing of the sort. Everyone says we are looking at pro-life clothes, but Alabama is parading naked. HB 314 is just another substanceless, pro-life fraud.
To start with, Gov. Kay Ivey said at the outset that she will not enforce the so-called ban. In deference to a judicial supremacy that conveniently lets every politician off the hook, Gov. Ivey said "we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court," and therefore allow the wanton murder of prenatal infants. Wherever she got that idea, it wasn't from the U.S. Constitution, which requires equal protection for the right to life of every person, and enacts independent branches bound to that requirement. In our system, the judiciary is "next to nothing," to quote Alexander Hamilton's footnote in Federalist 78, and its opinions are limited to cases before them and always subject to rejection from the other branches.
But even if Gov. Ivey overcame her judicial supremacist delusion, the new Alabama law would not stop a single abortion. Despite being labeled as a near-total ban, with only a "life of the mother" exception, the act carries multiple exceptions, all of which do not restrict abortion in any meaningful way.
Most egregious is the "mental illness" exception. Not long ago, every person exposed to politics understood that a "mental health" exception would allow all abortion. In Alabama's act, we find the classic representation of this gaping loophole, in which the doctor is authorized to kill the baby if the mother might "engage in conduct" that harms herself or her child. (What logic!)
Forget all the hype about no rape/incest exceptions--those conditions are included, along with every other possible kill-the-baby scenario, by this "mental illness" provision. Thus, Alabama has sold EVERY SINGLE baby down the river.
But let's go back in time and scrub the "mental illness" provision from HB 314: the bill remains immoral, unconstitutional, and pro-death. Alabama sells the babies out more than once.
We find in Alabama's act the usual trap laid by its "pro-life" predecessors. Almost invariably across the country, "pro-life" legislation has portrayed doctors as angels and expectant mothers as victims, regardless of murderous intent. Thus, every heartbeat bill, every fetal pain law, every born alive infant act, every partial birth abortion ban lets the woman escape penalty and lets the doctor off the hook by the trust placed upon his word, without due process of law. Even though God-endowed human life demands the highest level of protection, as expressed by every constitution and code in the nation, the Alabama act allows the doctor to destroy life and kill any baby that he claims had a "lethal anomaly." Who are these babies? Well, they are children like Noah Wall, the boy born without a brain. Instead of giving life a chance, and fulfilling the constitutional requirement to protect every person, the State by this provision encourages and authorizes the doctor to be an angel of death. Given his own humanity, and his requisite susceptibility to temptation, the doctor is highly likely to exploit the State-authorized, unchecked power and destroy any child he wishes, on any basis. No one would know if the doctor lied about who he killed. But even if he was honest, and killed only the disabled babies like Noah Wall, what justice lies in that? How is that defensible or lawful? So we find in this Alabama provision a mockery of law and justice: a violation of the Constitution's requirement for equal protection.
Finally, the Alabama act adds one more exploitable and immoral provision: the exception for the life of the mother. "Life of the mother" exceptions are looked upon with favor in the pro-life community, but these tend to unnecessarily threaten the child's life. The door gets flung open when you write a law that expressly enables a doctor to intentionally target a child for death. Now, in the process of saving the mother, the doctor's actions may cause the inadvertent death of a child whose mother is severely injured or sick. However, the doctor's duty is to proactively try to save all lives at stake. Yet we see the Alabama act blithely prescribe the intentional termination of the child in this scenario, as though he is not equal. The Alabama act expressly bestows upon the doctor unrestrained authority to act "with the intent to terminate the pregnancy" for the mother's sake. It was such an exception in old state laws that provided rationale for Roe v. Wade. Do pro-lifers forget that Justice Harry Blackmun said the following in Roe? "When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?" (Footnote 54, Roe v. Wade, 1973)
To end abortion, we cannot treat the child as the property of the mother, but as her dependent child and equal. Any mother or doctor who targets that child for destruction deserves the highest punishment in the land for seeking to commit the highest crime against humanity: the destruction of innocent human life.
In addition to all of the above, the Alabama act has a glaring oversight. It does nothing to stop Plan B, the preferred weapon of choice against the unborn child, and arguably the cause of most abortions in this day and age. By leaving Plan B on the shelf, you are telling women and girls their baby isn't really a baby. You are enabling the destruction of incalculable millions of persons made in the image of God, just because they are small and easy to destroy.
With its hypocrisy exposed, the Alabama Human Life Protection Act gets an "F" for failing to protect the little children.
A LECTURE BEFORE THE CLASS OF HAHNEMANN MEDICAL COLLEGE,
BY PROF. A. E. SMALL.
Next to the crime of infanticide is that of criminal abortion. It matters not by whom committed, whether by the mother herself or some interested friend, nurse or physician. The procuring of abortion, under all circumstances, is a direct violation of the laws of the physical constitution, and . . . a violation of that holy commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Before we proceed to discuss the nature of this crime in the light of reason and in reference to what legislation there has been upon the subject, it is proper to test its heinousness in the light of the moral law, which regards the wilful killing of a human being, at any stage of its existence, nothing short of murder. When we consider the fact that foetal life is human life, distinct from that of the mother's, and dependent upon an organization as distinct from that of the mother's as if it were entirely liberated from its resting place in her womb, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the destruction of such a being would be the destruction of a human life, and that he or she who lends an agency in perpetrating the deed would, in the eye of the moral law, be guilty of murder. In order to gain a better understanding of the bearings of the subject, abortion in the abstract must be considered.
To begin with a proper definition—it is a violent and premature expulsion of the product of conception, independently of its age, viability and normal formation. In the investigation of the subject as a crime, all cases of abortion that result from natural causes, or the result of accident, or justified by the rules of medicine, whether to save the life of the mother or her child, will be set aside. We shall confine our discourse to such cases only where the attempt at premature expulsion of the product of conception is artificially made, unnecessarily and intentional, and without which they would not otherwise have occurred.
The laws of the land do not [sufficiently] recognize that unnecessary abortion per se is a crime. . . . [I]t is regarded a mere misdemeanor. . . .
Able authorities upon the subject have pointed out the inconsistency of the law as contemplating the crime as directed against the mother and not against the foetus, when in fact no criminal intent against the mother can be affirmed, but against the foetus.
The act, when unnecessarily performed [to kill the baby rather than to save him], manifestly seems from one of two reasons—either to prevent the product of conception from receiving life, or if living, to destroy it. We shall produce evidence to show that the former cannot be the case, and consequently that the latter is the sole intent when the act is committed. To constitute a crime, a malicious or wicked attempt is supposed to exist, and as the intent in attempting to produce abortion is against the product of conception, and not against the mother, we cannot but regard this assumption of the law as erroneous; tending rather to increase the frequent repetition of the crime instead of exerting a wholesome influence against it. For unless the woman die in consequence of the attempt, it is declared in every state of pregnancy a mere misdemeanor; or where injury is done the mother, not necessarily fatal to her life, the crime may be considered a felony and punishable by fine or temporary imprisonment. The magnitude of the crime against the second human victim [is] entirely overlooked.
We shall for the present omit the further consideration of the subject as treated both in common and statutory law, our purpose being to show that abortion is primarily a crime of the most heinous character, directed with malicious intent against human embryotic and foetal life, and in pursuing this course we shall attempt to show the fallacy of the arguments urged by interested parties in extenuation of the offense.
Excepting all accidental and necessary cases of abortion [to save the mother or infant, before cesareans were available], it must be evident that abortions must be intentional and must be occasioned by the “malice aforethought” of the law. It has been stated that the malicious intention, unless otherwise shown, is not directed against the mother but against the product of her womb. Hence the whole criminality of the offense turns on this one fact—the real nature of the foetus in utero. If the foetus be a lifeless excretion, however soon it might have received life, the offense would have been of minor consequence.
“If the foetus be already and from the very outset a living human being and existing independently of its mother, though drawing its substance from her, its destruction in every stage of pregnancy is MURDER. Every act of procuring abortion,” rules Judge King of Philadelphia, contrary to the usual interpretation of the law, “is murder, whether the person perpetrating such act intended to kill the woman or merely feloniously to destroy the fruit of her womb.”
In Doctor Storer's contributions to Obstetric Jurisprudence may be found a complete reply to the plea of ignorance of the nature of the crime, which is often urged in extenuation. He says:
“Ignorance of the law is held no excuse. The plea of ignorance of guilt could hardly better prevail, where its existence is implied by common sense, by analogy, and by all natural instinct, binding even on brutes. * * * Common sense would lead us to the conclusion that the foetus is from the very outset a living and distinct being. . . . The foetus previous to quickening, must exist in one of two states, either death or life. The former cannot take place, nor can it ever exist except as a finality. If its signs do not at once manifest themselves, as is generally the case, and the foetus is retained in utero, it must either become manified [sic] or disintegrated—it can never become vivified. If therefore death has not taken place, and we can conceive no other state of the foetus save one, that, namely, life, must exist from the beginning. . . .
"The human instinct, unaided by reason, invariably leads to the protection of embryonic and foetal life. . . . Whatever ideas the human mind by reasoning may have forced itself to believe or entertain, let the slightest proof of the existence of foetal life be alleged, and maternal instinct at once makes itself known.”
Thus far incidental proof concerning the commencement of foetal life, and consequently the manifest guilt of unjustifiable abortion becomes apparent. . . .
It will be conceded then that the period of manifest quickening is by no reasonable conclusion to be regarded the commencement of foetal life. The period set by some of the old writers was the third day after conception, and this is quite as reasonable, and yet neither is to be accredited as true.
In order to arrive at the conclusion that embryotic life exists from the commencement to the end of pregnancy, it is not necessary to set up the claim of sentience and will, as some writers have done. For while perfection of endowment does not exist with the embryo, its independent life can be conceded, with prophetic endowments for future development in the womb and after birth of all the attributes of human perfection. We must concede this if anything, for how can the embryo merge into the foetus without a perfectly independent excito-motory system distinct from that of the mother? If we admit this we are brought directly to the conclusion, that the existence of a distinct and independent nervous centre must be as self-acting and living as that of the mother.
If we have succeeded in proving the existence of foetal life, before quickening has taken or can take place, even though the beginning of undeveloped faculties, the inalienable rights of a human being are implied, and this should compel us to believe that [intentional] abortion is a crime.
This once established, we are struck with a full sense of human degradation; of mothers imbruing their hands in their infant's blood; of fathers equally guilty, counseling and procuring the commission of the crime; of nurses who lend themselves to the infamy; of members of the medical profession made wicked by their wholesale murders, out-Heroding Herod, eclipsing in criminality the pirate upon the seas, the midnight robber or highwayman; of the wretches who make this kind of murder a trade; who go forth with falshood and lies, in defiance of the mandates of the Almighty; of the public complacency that nurses the crime, or palliates it, or with insulting claims of legal assumption that it is a mere misdemeanor to go forth as a destroying angel to prey upon human life. Who can uphold or defend so common a violation of all just law, human and divine? Who can justify such assault upon all instinct and reason? Let those answer who would seek, if they could, some reasonable excuse for this waywardness.
That criminal abortion is carried on to a great extent in our country is indeed probable, and that it is carried on apparently by those having high claims to respectability we also admit, and further we admit the plausibility of the motives that frequently lead to the act; and these are of sufficient importance to enter concisely into our discussion. Does not the motive give moral quality to the act?—some may inquire. We have already said that necessary and justifiable abortions, in accordance with the rules of medicine, are sometimes demanded [to save mother and child, before cesarean sections]. The lives of human beings are under more circumstances than a few sacrificed to prevent greater evils. But far be it from us to offer any palliation for the crime of murder. When a woman, a wife, either with or without the consent of her husband, applies to an abortionist for the purpose of ridding herself of the products of conception, she will always make a show of reason for the act, by attempting to show a necessity for it. She may set up the claim of being unable to have the responsibility of children; that she cannot educate them or keep them fed and clothed, or above degradation; that her own health will not permit it; that the period of gestation subjects her to confinement and away from social life, and she might as well be dead as alive. We have known some physicians to listen to an appeal like this and yield to the dictates of a blind sympathy, especially when a generous fee was forthcoming to more effectually close their minds against all sense of moral obligation, and plant themselves upon the flimsy reasoning of such women, and while prostrate before mammon would write a prescription for some powerful deobstruent. But they lend countenance to crime by such acts and become particeps criminis in a murderous transaction.
Such a woman's reasonings are as baseless as a fabric upon the sand. She has a husband to father her offspring, a Heavenly Father to protect her on the voyage of life, and in all probability an angel sent for her future comfort; and would any but a God-forsaken father and mother, and a God-forsaken physician, ever enter into a conspiracy to destroy human life upon such flimsy grounds? Thousand of cases of this kind are constantly occurring in the large cities and towns of our country, to enrich such female wretches as Mads. Restell, Beaumont and others, who levy imposing taxes in order to support them in the crime. By all that is human, all that is noble and grand in the attributes of true manhood, and by every consideration that relates to time and eternity, every honorable physician should set his face against this practice and hold it up as murder, in public and private. Let him scorn to sympathize with the barbarity and feel that fees taken for such agency would produce an uncomfortable sensation about his neck and bind him as firm as fate to perdition.
But it may be urged that illegitimate pregnancy is a different matter, and that every right-minded physician should be ready to save the reputation of a great many victims of this sort from utter ruin and their families from disgrace. A mere glance at the crime of abortion, without considering its heinous nature, might cause the unwary physician to fall into temptation. A young lady of previous good reputation has fallen. Will it raise her from degradation to make a violent assault upon the intra-uterine life that is the fruit of her imprudence, or in other words would any physician feel himself worthy of saying his prayers at night, after he had lent his hand to commit a deliberate murder to save the reputation of an already disgraced young woman? What good would he accomplish by the act? Experience proves that the fallen one seldom recovers, and her seducer is made no better, and the physician made more infamous than either.
Such nevertheless should command our sympathy, and we should do all we can to promote their temporal, physical and moral well-being. And we can do much in that direction, if we regard first of all our duty to God and our obligation to obey all just laws, both human and divine. It will be proper to guard the reputation as far as we can and by all possible means consistent with divine and human laws. But God forbid that we should do evil that good may come.
Historical note: The Hahnemann Homeopathic Medical College owed its existence in large part to Abraham Lincoln. In 1854, Lincoln drafted the charter for the school, and lobbied the Illinois legislature for approval. Originally from Maine, and then the first teacher of physiology and pathology at the Homeopathic Medical College in Pennsylvania, Prof. A.E. (Alvin Edmond) Small moved to Chicago in 1856 and served as professor, dean, and president at Hahnemann.
The debacle in the committee hearing room in Austin, Texas last week exposed the core of the problem with abortion. It all comes down to the humanity, and the God-given, unalienable, equal rights of the individual child, and whether or not the perpetrators who seek to slaughter them will be punished in the same way other murderers are dealt with under the law.
In other words, it all came down to the same things it came down to in front of the Supreme Court in 1973. Prior to Roe vs. Wade, Texas had unjust, immoral, unconstitutional laws on the books that deprived the unborn child of their equal rights, and punished their murderers differently, and much more leniently, than the murderers of those fortunate enough to have passed through a birth canal. Which, of course, provided the pretext the wicked Blackmun court needed to dehumanize, to depersonify, the unborn child. Which, of course, then led to the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of more then sixty million innocent, helpless, defenseless children.
And what was the response of Pro-Life, Inc., and their faithful minions in the Texas legislature when presented with a just, constitutional bill that would criminalize all abortions in their state? They were steadfast in their determination to make the exact same moral, constitutional, and legal error that led to Roe in the first place, even though more than 98% of the more than three hundred citizens who testified in front of their committee spent more than eight hours, late into the night, explaining to them in great depth, in exquisite detail, why doing this would be a gross violation of the most sacred obligations of their solemn oaths.
And the innocent blood continues to flow.
So, we're now on track to run trillion dollar deficits every year as far as the eye can see. We just hit $22 trillion in debt, which is up more than $2 trillion in additional debt since Trump took office only two years ago. We're spending a billion dollars a day on interest alone.
Under these circumstances, any "tax cuts" are illusory. The burden continues to radically rise, not lessen, on current taxpayers, and on our posterity, who haven't given their consent to any of this nonsense.
There's only one way out of this horrible mess, and that's to apply my three-fold criteria for any and all public spending.
1) Is it moral?
2 Is it constitutional?
3) Is it absolutely necessary?
If the answer to any of these questions is "NO," then it's high time we got rid of it.
Then what we have to do is to take the tax and regulatory burdens off of the producers in this country. We can start by completely dismantling the federal income tax, and replacing it with a simple, transparent, efficient retail consumption tax.
It's stupid and counter-productive to tax businesses and productivity. It's the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Put the tax burden on consumption, and you will encourage thrift and savings, which are the only things that can provide the seed for even more production of physical wealth and private property.
And last but not least, dismantle the massive regulatory state which is throttling our economy and disadvantaging us in the world market. Most of it is unconstitutional anyhow.
In the clean air of liberty, Americans can and will out-work, and out-think, and out-produce anyone in the world, no problem.
Restore our national moral basis. Restore respect for our Constitution. Restore liberty. The rest will take care of itself.
Today - January 27 - is designated as an annual day of Holocaust remembrance. It's the day in 1945 that Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated from the Nazis. There, for five years, as in so many other locations, they committed atrocities on an industrial scale.
Today, in America, a holocaust on an even vaster scale has continued for ten times as long as Auschwitz was operated. For fifty years, tens of millions of innocent, helpless, defenseless little boys and girls have gone to their deaths at the hands of the abortionists, and the pharmacists, and the medical profession, with the permission and the cooperation of their own mothers.
Make no mistake: Abortion is a crime against humanity, just as much as the extermination of Jews and others was a crime against humanity.
The only real difference is that today's fascist criminals are much more efficient, and have exterminated many more victims. And, worst of all, the ones delivering the innocents to their deaths are the ones who should have loved them more than anybody else.
The people of this country are being remorselessly, relentlessly, and very skillfully propagandized against the securing of our sovereign territory from the millions of foreign nationals who are invading it.
They are being convinced to happily accept the demise of our right to govern ourselves in liberty, which will, of course, also strip our earthly posterity of the precious gift of the Blessings of Liberty.
And Trump being the poster boy for border security will likely be one of the worst things that has ever happened to the cause of preserving and defending our sovereignty, security, and borders.
My best guess is that he will ultimately accomplish nothing, and compromise away everything, because he lacks the basic understanding of, and commitment to, the principles that are necessary to actually secure this country.
He's making the job of those who want to destroy this country and its sovereignty and independence much, much easier.
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." -- Frédéric Bastiat
How our pro-life regulatory laws are helping Janey's baby right now in FL at 25 weeks gestation:
-- "Must be in a hospital." (Her abortionist doesn't care. He has hospital privileges just like any other Ob/Gyn. Janey's father, like most pro-aborts, would prefer to have it done in a safe, clean, professional location anyway. Oh, wait. Florida law just changed again and he can get back to late-term kills in his private office.)
-- "Must have a sono." (I've seen the sono. Janey's seen the sono. Her doctors have seen the sono. In fact, they all know it's a girl. The sono is what will give them the best info. to determine the most effective killing method and to guide the hands and tools of the abortionist.)
-- 24 week limit, unless for "health of the mother." (Easy-peasy. Get the mother to sign off that she'll have mental health problems after the birth or fudge the sono a bit. Exaggerate any medical history the mother has.)
-- "Must be performed by a licensed physician." (Does nothing. The abortionist is a licensed Ob/Gyn. Pro-aborts WANT a trained, licensed killer for their little ones.)
-- "Second physician must participate if baby is at viability." (Does nothing. Janey's daughter's potential abortionist has buddy-abortionists and they do not care about her viability.)
Let's say she was in a state that required:
-- Mandatory counseling about supposed "breast cancer risk." (That comes across to Janey -- a chain smoker -- like it comes across to you when you read on the Tylenol bottle that swallowing a pill for your migraine might cause liver damage.)
-- "Parental Involvement," if she was a minor. ("Parental involvement" is actually the problem here. Her father wants his grand daughter DEAD.)
-- "No dismemberment d&e while the baby's alive." (This is a real law that pro-lifers in Texas tried to pass. Easy work-around: stab the baby in the heart with poison, inducing a heart attack before dismembering.)
-- "No auctioning this baby girl's body parts." (Does nothing to help Janey's daughter from being butchered by two big bullies in the first place.)
-- "Must bury the baby." (Does nothing to prevent her potential dismemberment and murder today.)
-- "Defund Planned Parenthood/no taxpayer money for abortions." (Janey's father is flat-out volunteering to pay in full, and the abortionist is chipping in as well -- offering a steep discount to get his hands on Janey's child. If all else fails, the pro-aborts will just tap into their abortion charities to pay for it.)
Do you see how this game works?
It's similar to laws being passed to regulate rape!...
saying how, when, and where a rapist might commit his evil.
That's why you need to GET BEHIND Abolish Abortion Texas and similar initiatives in other states.
It is our Christian duty to love our tiniest of neighbors as ourselves by supporting efforts to pass laws that will restrain the sin of grandfathers and mothers like Janey and her father today.
November 8, 2015
What exactly is a conservative, in the historical American sense of that word?
A conservative is someone who understands the self-evident truth that our rights come from God, not from any man.
A conservative is someone who understands that, before anything else, legitimate human government exists to equally protect and defend our God-given, unalienable, individual rights, including the rights of those who are as yet unborn.
A conservative is someone who understands the simple difference between right and wrong.
A conservative is someone who understands the fundamental, crucial nature of the God-created, God-defined, God-instituted marital union of one man and one woman, and the natural family and posterity that can only spring from that union.
A conservative is someone who understands that the first part of the laws of nature and nature's God is the right of self-preservation, in other words, the right to possess and use whatever physical means are necessary to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property.
A conservative is someone who understands the absolute necessity of having a government which will defend our national sovereignty, our national borders, and our national security.
A conservative is someone who understands the necessity of preserving our republican form of constitutional self-government.
A conservative is someone who demands that our representatives in government understand and fulfill the sacred oath of office which they are constitutionally required to swear. It's fairly simple really.
But let me leave you with a question: How may of those who are in public office today, or who are running for public office, are actual conservatives?
I would assert that there are few. And until we change that, hope for America ebbs away.
I don't have anything against Matthew Whitaker personally. He has always been very decent to me whenever I've encountered him over the years. He's a nice enough guy. But I have an obligation to inform my friends and readers of my opinion, now that he has taken such a high-level, important position in our government.
The way I see it, Trump did not pick him to be the interim Attorney General of the United States for his great legal mind, or for his vast experience in the highest levels of government. He picked him for his extreme loyalty to Donald Trump. He will follow the president's orders, period.
This is not likely to end well, for Matt Whitaker, or for the country. Maybe I'm wrong, but we shall soon see, I guess.
I sincerely pray that Matt is not in over his head, and that the powers-that-be in DC don't quickly chew him up and spit him out.
“If any should say, it is in vain for them as individuals to be vigilant, zealous and firm in pursuing any measures for the security of our rights, unless all would unite: I would reply:
Ages are composed of seconds, the earth of sands, and the sea of drops, too small to be seen by the naked eye. The smallest particles have their influence.
Such is our state, that each individual has a proportion of influence on some neighbor at least; he, on another, and so on; as in a river, the following drop urges that which is before, and every one through the whole length of the stream has like influence.
We know not, what individuals may do. We are not at liberty to lie dormant until we can, at once, influence the whole. We must begin with the weight we have. Should the little springs neglect to flow till a general agreement should take place, the torrent that now bears down all before it, would never be formed.
These mighty floods have their rise in single drops from the rocks, which, uniting, creep along till they meet with another combination so small that it might be absorbed by the travelers foot. These unite, proceed, enlarge, till mountains tremble at their sound.
Let us receive instruction from the streams, and without discouragement, pursue a laudable plan.”
-- Nathaniel Niles
Abraham Lincoln: If vital questions are settled irrevocably by the Supreme Court, you have resigned your government
“…The 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 instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, 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.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
"We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate...as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism...Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt."
-- Gouverneur Morris
"We have no right to do wrong, from any motive whatever. To do evil that good may come is no doctrine of Christ, but of the devil. Fallen nature may maunder in that way, but the grace of God delivers us from such wicked sophistry. . . . Whatever the results may be, we must leave them with God, and do the right at all cost."
-- Charles Spurgeon
"Your Founding Fathers came over with that. They came over with the doctrines of the New Testament as well as the Old. They looked after one another, not only as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of duty to their God. There is no other country in the world which started that way."
-- Margaret Thatcher
"Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be ever so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. I know some say, let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that execute them: but let them consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men but good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones."
-- William Penn
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."
-- Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarian section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
- C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Former U.S. Surgeon-General under Ronald Reagan
By Mal Siret
Doctors' use of Caesarean section to deliver babies has nearly doubled in 15 years to reach "alarming" proportions in some countries, a study says.
Rates surged from about 16 million births (12%) in 2000 to an estimated 29.7 million (21%) in 2015, the report in the medical journal The Lancet said.
The nation with the highest rate for using the surgery to assist childbirth is the Dominican Republic with 58.1%.
Doctors say in many cases the use of the medical procedure is unjustified.
Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that Caesarean section - or C-section - rates of more than 15% were excessive.
Read this story at bbc.com...
By Lucas Tomlinson, Travis Fedschun | Fox News
The U.S. military on Thursday grounded its entire fleet of F-35 stealth fighters after one of the jets crashed during a training mission in South Carolina last month, officials said Thursday.
The stand down affects more than 200 jets while an "inspection of a fuel tube" in F-35 engines takes place, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
Read this story at foxnews.com...
by John Nolte
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) revealed a shocking detail the establishment media covered up about James Hodgkinson, the left-winger who attempted a mass murder at a Republican congressional baseball practice: according to Paul, the man who almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and wounded four others was shouting, “This is for health care!”
Read this story at breitbart.com...
By Donie O'Sullivan, CNN
New York (CNN)Almost 30 million Facebook users' phone numbers and email addresses were accessed by hackers in the biggest security breach in the company's history, Facebook said Friday. The attackers accessed even more details on 14 million of those users, including the area where they live, their relationship status, their religion, and part of their search history.
The FBI is "actively investigating" the breach...
Read this story at cnn.com ....
"Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold, and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the Emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor, and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich - whose gold was taken away - would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor - who received the gold from the hands of soldiers - would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first—and then they will joyfully share their wealth."
-- John Chrysostom