See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1890
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-37) not displayed.
.
.
.
#38. To: Original_Intent (#36)
I can agree with that original.
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy? And, if Baldwin spoke out against America's military imperialism and demanded that the money stay in the pockets of taxpayers, (close 700 bases in 130 countries) then how many families would feel pressured to terminate pregnancies because we can no longer keep mothers at home and survive on a single income? The federal govt is the cause of so many of the problems they pretend to try to solve (and always with criminal sanctions not "socialist subsidies" to expectant mothers because that money is earmarked for military contractors and Israel) and they, the true criminals create boogie persons (some class of citizens, but never "too much govt" or over reaching power hungry politicians and their fellow closet mates, Christian fanatics) to keep us from seeing the truth. Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"? Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate. Any attempt to sell him as "Ron Paul Lite" is horse shit. Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Okeedoekee... so you believe in the sanctity of life, I take it. What's your opinion on young lives of around ages 18-25 who are being sent out to fight and die in foreign locations, primarily sand locations for something other than US national defense? I speak of our young soldiers currently stationed in Eeeerak, dying for Israel/MIC/oil industry. Do you feel as strongly about protecting their lives, voting for a candidate who will bring them home ASAP, a top priority for our nation?
I said the values in the old testament and new testament are the same. A common value system or right and wrong. Do you understand now? I fully understood you the first time, Old Friend, Judeo Christian values and THEIR REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS according to Garp, I mean, according to G_d.
You cannot murder your child. What makes it ok one minute and not the next. What about if someone hits your wife in the stomach and kills the unborn. Should they be charge.? If you say yes then you are a hypocrite. If you say no then your a heartless SOB. I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
Wow, just say wow! Old Friend, you are quite the little poster boy for all them down home JudeoChristian (?) values.
Point taken. Obama could even be worse than Hitler because he isn't even pro life for Americans.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Of course not. he's just another cowardly, Jooish bootlicking business-as-usual politician without as much apparent baggage at the starting gate. That is both unfair and untrue. Chuck Baldwin has been a staunch opponent of Zionist aggression, to the point of earning the coveted slur of anti-semite, in his opposition to Zionist actions. He has been in the vanguard in opposing the ADL's anti-free speech "Hate Law" legislation and has been instrumental in keeping it from passing. I don't agree with him on everything but I think you are unfair to him based upon just one issue.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake. For instance, when the federal govt passed a "gun free zone" around schools based on the interstate commerce clause it was overturned. Do you know why? When you can successfully argue that then you'll be skilled enough for a discussion of this type. No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority. There is no federal statute that outlaws murder. (except on federal reservations or in the commission of terrorism, etc, and other jurisdictional questions that make it a federal crime. Now if murder is REEL BAD and REEL IMMORAL then why isn't any murder automatically a federal crime? Think about it. The Branch Davidians were murdered and the feds told us they were child abusers. There were no federal child abuse laws that justified the machine gun/immolation murders of those people! They were murdered under the guise of serving a search warrant for an item that would have required a two hundred dollar tax to be paid in order to be in compliance with the law. Believe me, the govt ain't in the business of saving children. they are the number one threat to them, and if you advocate putting their safety in federal hands then you really need to study up some more. Once unborn children become wards of the federal govt then people like Bush will force mothers to take experimental vaccines that enrich drug companies and endanger children's lives. And all because you find abortion so morally reprehensible that you'll grab at any proposed solution including a deal with the demon himself to end it.
Ever heard of the concept of reaping what you sow. So you are against the death penalty? If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty? Not me, i'd string them up myself.
that's funny.
They were just first on the Bill or Rights. The constitution is crap without the Bill of rights.
Show me, if you can, where the Constitution authorizes government payments to foreign governments or welfare for any individual. I can wait. Have you ever read the little book, The Law, by Frederic Bastiat? If not, I highly recommend it and you can read it online here. I suggest if you want Chuck to answer your questions then who better than you to ask him?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I have never agreed with Bush's bs war and if you had ever read many of my posts you should know that. I am against foreign aid--all of it*--because the Constitution doesn't make any provision for it. I am against bs wars engaged in without a declaration of war by Congress in pursuance of actual and genuine American interests. And not against people who cannot be shown to have harmed us. *By that, I mean government to government aid. I have no objections to American citizens giving freely of their own money to any cause they believe is worthwhile or to any person they want to help no matter where they may be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. So you are against the death penalty? If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty? Not me, i'd string them up myself. Whatever...so how does death penalty relate to your wishing that "pregnant bitches" die from their back alley abortions? Are you trying to change the subject, maybe? But on the subject of death penalty, to answer your question, I am very consistent in my positions. I believe that the death penalty is a necessary evil in society as is abortion.
Thank you for clarifying your position for me. Frankly I was not certain what your positions are, especially since you said you would vote for Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who I believe holds Israel on the same footing as America. Do you believe Pastor Baldwin, if President, would send American soldiers to fight and die for Israel? Would you support that decision? Postscript: I have no issue with citizens making donations as long as they don't declare donations to foreign nations as being income tax deductible on their US tax returns. Would you agree?
Changing the subject lol. Is that what you were trying to do relating it to the war in Iraq? I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear.
That is actually inconsistant. You are in favor of killing innocents and guilty. So in other words you are for right and wrong. Me on the other hand am against abortion and for the death penalty (if they get it right). Right and right.
It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary".
Oh. And thanks for answering my previous questions. At least you were courteous enough to do that.
b. I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear. a. did I ask you? b. I thought that's what you meant.Thanks for leaving no doubt. Carry on.
Testy testy. I'll sidestep the barbs and strawmen to simply stay with the issue as it is an important philosophic point. Which religious principles did I browbeat you with? I simply pointed out that the basis of philosophic understanding of the Founders were based to no small degree upon their religious views and that is supported copiously in their writings. Yes, they had other influences and understandings, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, etc., .... By today's standards they were very learned men. Religion, taking it in the generic and avoiding specific dogma, is at its base an understanding, or an attempt to understand what we, "man", are. From that basis flows an understanding what we mean by rights and responsibilities. Religion, within its province, addresses those interrelationships of understanding the nature of man and thus from that what is moral, ethical, and just. Natural law is just such a realm and its basis is what is regarded as man's basic nature and rights and that springs again from the realm of religion. Many of these standards, ethical sensibilities, can be found in more than one of the great religions. Whether Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism it is regarded as wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, and to commit murder (not that people belonging to such religions do not do these things but that they are recognized as criminal). These are all fundamental principles which comprise what we call a just society and they are all issues explored within the realm of religion and ethical precepts supporting them and are the basis upon which codified law is generated. To seperate religion from law and from government is to suggest that amoral relativism should be the standard upon which we govern. The horrors that such a society would visit upon the innocent is not a pleasant thought. Because you personally have a "bug" on religion does not change history, nor, thankfully, society.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. But go into our wallets? NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! By what logic is the taxpayer's purse sacrosanct but the body of a woman open to govt compliance inspections? The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. And, (like welfare) abortion should not be a federal question or mandate for the states either way. Just as murder is a state law, so should be any laws pertaining to abortion. It is not an issue that the constitution addresses just as slavery was not a question that the federal govt was lawfully empowered to settle. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. No offense but, it would help if you weren't intentionally obtuse when I try to explain things that require some intelligence which you obviously have. I expect that from numb nuts but not from you.
Postscript: I have no issue with citizens making donations as long as they don't declare donations to foreign nations as being income tax deductible on their US tax returns. Would you agree? I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances. But maybe you could ask him. I am not his campaign manager, just a supporter who thinks that he is the best man running. I was for Ron Paul but Ron dropped out. As for your second question, I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years, even wrote a couple of books about it back in the 80's (both of which are out of print). I don't think most Americans should even be filing such tax returns because the reality is that there is no law which requires them to. And the only reason most people file them is due to ignorance and misunderstanding and a large dose of fear. In fact, it is mainly due to fear of losing what they have acquired and of having jurors who are as ignorant as they are finding them guilty for so-called "crimes against the state" and sending them to prison that keep most people filing forms they are not required to file and paying the government money they never owed in the first place.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. a. our post modern world's decadent sexual mores b. what does society do with unwanted babies, some of whom might be damaged through drug or alcohol use during pregnancy, many of whom might not be adoptable due to race mismatch with prospective parents who wish to adopt c. what right does government or society to intrude in an individual's private personal decision that involves a woman's body? does the government have ownership rights to a woman's uterus? is it in the constitution that government can withhold medical services to a woman because she is pregnant and wants to abort?
Your understanding of the classics still doesn't prepare you to defeat the constitution and the limits under which it was intended to serve. Do you understand why "gun free school zones" was not a legitimate federal issue? Do you know why the only means the feds have to enforce federally mandated speed limits is the withholding of funds? Why are there no national criminal sanctions or fines for violators of the federal speed limit? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT OF LIMITED POWERS, and better scholars than you and I have tried to defeat that for their own reasons? (The diff is, I know why they failed and why your argument is retreading over losing ground) Until you do, you're just making smoke to hide your "constitution deficit". And, high sounding references to the classics do not justify exceeding the limits under which the federal govt was intended to operate. It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
b. I have been against the unlawful application of the misnamed "income" tax for years a. there is no mutual self defense treaty between Israel and the USA. Israel pointedly refuses to sign such a treaty with us. So what circumstances could possibly justify our sacrificing American blood and treasure on behalf of such a self-serving selfish nation like Israel? As for Baldwin - I think you know the answer about how he prioritizes Israel from his writings on another thread. You don't need to be his campaign manager to figure out what he'd do and that's why I don't see Baldwin as being an AmericaFirster or one bit better than McCain/Obama. b. We file income tax out of fear. That's a given but what exactly is your position on declaring as income tax deductible those donations given to foreign nations?
Me on the other hand am against abortion and for the death penalty (if they get it right). Right and right. As I told you earlier, I am consistent in viewing both capital punishment and abortion as necessary evils. "Necessary evils" = imparts the concept of "without prejudice."
Sigh. First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it. However, that was not my point which you are steadfastly missing or ignoring i.e., what influences and standards guided the Founding Fathers in constructing that document? Hint: The prohibition against "establishments of religion" was not set up to guard the state against religion but the church against the state. Well at least you were half right. Under the existing Constitution it is not a Federal issue, but I think your over the top example is simply begging the question since the phrase "nor should it be" is your personal value judgement. The kind of thing the Founding Fathers took into consideration in writing the Constitution - value judgements and the Constitution was not written in a vacuum devoid of understanding of the preceding thousands of years of history, and religion, for good and ill, was very much a part of that history. Further the Founding Fathers were largely a religious group and schooled in religion and that schooling had no small influence in their final product i.e., the Constitution.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
And the Bill of Rights was not meant to establish the rights of men but was the "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution, the "thou shalt nots" aimed at the government. These are God given rights and "thou shalt not" touch them!
Thank you, a most excellent point.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Damn right I would be. The death penalty is wrong, and human beings do not rate the perogerative to decide who's life should end when.
You proved you are not pro-life with your self serving blood thirtiness regarding capital punishment. Your alleged anti-abortion sentiment is not pro- life, it is about controling women.
OI, you are by far the ass-kickin'est. Hey Mike.
That is because you are a blood thirty, anti-life, conflicted nose thumber in regards to the value of human life.
Howdy, how goes?
Still givin' er. See my animal scraps thread.
This might reduce the ability to manipulate whole societies through fiat currency based upon debt, reduce the expansion of war machines universally, and end fictional law in commerce ... but, should we dissolve the "fed" we needs be careful to institute a monetary policy that restrains the oligarchs ability to usurp it, ie., the gold standard. My opinion is against any standard that would allow those with ill gotten gains from the fiat system to turn them into control of a new system through the gold they have stolen already. Most of this ill gotten gain can be tracked down and restored to the nations having suffered the losses by and through corruption of international banking authorities. Depending upon how this might work out could determine the best form of monetary policy for the future. I had always been convinced that a gold/silver backed currency would be superior to any other. I think differently today because of the obvious, nothing would change besides the method of valuation. The holders of large blocks of gold would remain in control of international monetary policies only benefitting themselves. Treasury Notes without backing other than America's (and other countries) willingness and ability to produce the merchandise desired by the world at large would create the need for those wishing to purchase things from America to have currency capable (Treasury Notes) of transacting business. The demand for products would support the value of the currency and make Americans realize the import of production. The important thing to address is dissolution of "the fed" as it is the most blatantly criminal institution in America and causation of 90% of the grief/slavery. This, the richest nation on planet earth, has been raped to the point of bankruptcy by a small group of banking elites and their willing toadies. There exists a plentitude of honest and moral people weary of fiat induced slavery willing to monitor and maintain the purity of a replacement institution. Transparency being the key ingredient. The next biggest fraud are CORPORATIONS when considered as "legal persons" complete with protections from suit that no natural person has available. This situation must be rectified. And lastly, all laws need to be written so that a 4th grader can comprehend them in plain language, having been publicly noticed for 30 days prior to passage and made law. Restoration of privately prosecuted criminal complaints, taking discretion away from govt. prosecutors is another must. We can do this but it may require some bloodshed because the greedy blood- sucking sons of ugly bitches have much to lose and nothing to gain should Americans eradicate them. I'm sure there are many others with ideas and concepts much better than these simplistic notions of mine. The important thing for us all to realize is that we've been robbed by the most sophisticated mafia on earth. 99% of their theft is conducted through our participation and contributions to their system, which consumes our souls for a pittance but worse makes us accomplices in their treachery worldwide. No more influence peddling/bribery, this should be made a Capital Offense, punishable by death.
"Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States." "Mr. Chairman, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here that the United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country. . and was to supply financial power to an international superstate -- a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the World for their own pleasure."
2. But again, you're ricocheting off in another direction. When it comes to the human body no intrusion is too great as long as the govt claims to be protecting the unborn. 3. The simple truth is socialist transfer payments are already de facto legal in the US, and I don't have to offer any proof of that because you won't dispute it. 4. I'm not advocating the payments to mothers, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the govt and some so called Christians who will cheerfully offer criminal sanctions to poor mothers while saving the money to (unconstitutionally) transfer billions to some entity that they haven't the guts to challenge, such as the Israel lobby. 1. Good for you. But you know, this board "ain't my first rodeo" as they say. So I was probably posting that somewhere else when you were posting it here (maybe even before). 2. Not quite. I responded to your questions, even though I don't much care for your tone. When it comes to the human body murder is illegal. Period. Murder, at least as most people define it, means to take an innocent life. Ron Paul, a man I admire very much, has delivered something over 4,000 babies in his career and is opposed to abortion so I think I am in pretty good company--and the fact is that many libertarians oppose abortion on the grounds of non aggression. You seem to value the right to privacy very highly and I do too but when rights are in conflict something has to give. The right of the baby to live, once conceived, takes precedence over any right to privacy of someone else. You know, when people talk about being "pro choice" they are not talking about killing a wildebeest or something indefinable and unrecognizable, but a living human being. That is my position. May not change your mind and I can accept that. 3. I don't dispute that the transfer payments are made but I certainly do dispute the legality of it. If it isn't Constitutional it isn't legal because the Constitution itself is "the supreme law of the land" and the 9th and 10th amendments make it clear enough to all but the most severely brain damaged that powers not expressly given to the federal government were still the province of the people and/or the states. 4. I don't advocate any foreign aid whatsoever, at least not government to government aid which I have denounced on this very thread. I have no problem with any American citizen giving his or her money to any cause they believe is just and to anyone they feel is worthy of their help no matter where they are or who they are. But any time a government takes money through coercion and fear from those who have earned it and gives it to someone they favor more, whether it is some vote-buying scheme or aid to some of their "friends" in other governments, it is still theft and should be looked at as such. I regard them as thieves.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Comments (78 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#39. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
As for the abortion ban, I am opposed to abortion and that is a perfectly libertarian position--non aggression, especially not against the innocent and who is more innocent than a baby? Would an abortion ban or law against abortion completely end abortions? No, of course not.
#40. To: James Deffenbach (#34)
Obama believes in murdering them even after they were born alive from an abortion which didn't "take." He is right up there with Hitler.
#41. To: Old Friend (#35)
uh...Show me where I said that.
#42. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
You cannot take control of another person's body with the law and claim to support the non aggression principle. How would you even know if someone is pregnant without violating the principle and their right to privacy?
#43. To: Old Friend, HOUNDDAWG (#42)
I say outlaw all abortions. If the bitch wants to get a back alley abortion and ends up bleeding to death. At least justice was served instantly with no judge or jury. Attempted murder...get it?
#44. To: Old Friend (#37)
I don't think Obama is right up there with Hitler. I strongly disagree with his position on abortion. But he is no Hitler. I don't know but I suspect that Hitler would have been pro life when it came to Germans.
Lord Acton
#45. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
Does Baldwin have the courage to stand up and say "Christians don't need to hyphenate with "Judeos" and aren't dependent upon Jews, Israel, Zionism, or the ADL stamp of approval for legitimacy"?
#46. To: Original_Intent (#21)
(Edited)
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
#47. To: scrapper2 (#43)
#48. To: James Deffenbach (#44)
Point taken. Obama could even be worse than Hitler because he isn't even pro life for Americans.
#49. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution.
#50. To: HOUNDDAWG (#39)
Why don't you ask Chuck if he'd consider taking the billions in aid from Israel and spending it on poor mommies in America? Then watch how these "Christians" piously chirp why maintaining the Israeli war machine to slaughter unarmed innocents is "more holy" than saving unborn Americans.
Lord Acton
#51. To: scrapper2 (#40)
(Edited)
Okeedoekee... so you believe in the sanctity of life, I take it. What's your opinion on young lives of around ages 18-25 who are being sent out to fight and die in foreign locations, primarily sand locations for something other than US national defense? I speak of our young soldiers currently stationed in Eeeerak, dying for Israel/MIC/oil industry. Do you feel as strongly about protecting their lives, voting for a candidate who will bring them home ASAP, a top priority for our nation?
Lord Acton
#52. To: Old Friend (#47)
(Edited)
Ever heard of the concept of reaping what you sow.
#53. To: James Deffenbach (#51)
(Edited)
I have never agreed with Bush's bs war and if you had ever read many of my posts you should know that. I am against foreign aid--all of it--because the Constitution doesn't make any provision for it. I am against bs wars engaged in without a declaration of war by Congress in pursuance of actual and genuine American interests. And not against people who cannot be shown to have harmed us.
#54. To: scrapper2 (#52)
Whatever...so how does death penalty relate to your wishing that "pregnant bitches" die from their back alley abortions? Are you trying to change the subject, maybe?
#55. To: scrapper2 (#52)
But on the subject of death penalty, to answer your question, I am very consistent in my positions. I believe that the death penalty is a necessary evil in society as is abortion. Oh and tell me why abortion is "necessary".
#56. To: scrapper2 (#52)
#57. To: scrapper2 (#52)
#58. To: Old Friend (#54)
a. Changing the subject lol. Is that what you were trying to do relating it to the war in Iraq?
#59. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
(Edited)
No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority.
#60. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
#61. To: scrapper2 (#53)
Do you believe Pastor Baldwin, if President, would send American soldiers to fight and die for Israel?
Lord Acton
#62. To: Old Friend (#56)
It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary".
#63. To: Original_Intent (#59)
#64. To: James Deffenbach (#61)
a. I don't know if he would or not but I suppose it would depend on treaty obligations and the circumstances.
#65. To: Old Friend (#55)
(Edited)
That is actually inconsistant. You are in favor of killing innocents and guilty. So in other words you are for right and wrong.
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#63)
(Edited)
It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
#67. To: Original_Intent (#66)
First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#68. To: farmfriend (#67)
#69. To: Old Friend (#47)
"If somone killed your kid you would still be against the death penalty?"
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#70. To: Old Friend (#56)
"It would also be interesting to hear why you think that abortion is "necessary"."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#71. To: Original_Intent (#66)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#73. To: Old Friend (#54)
"I don't wish any pregnant women should die. But if they are murdering their babies they sure deserve it and I wouldn't cry a single little tiny eenie weenie tear."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#74. To: wudidiz (#72)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#74)
(Edited)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (or woman) in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer
#76. To: Rotara (#4)
(Edited)
Dissolving the Federal Reserve and everyone attached to it would be a great start! ;-)
#77. To: HOUNDDAWG (#60)
1. I purchased and read the THE LAW 25 years ago. And, I posted that info long before you got here.
Lord Acton
.
.
.