Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

Holes in Olson’s case

Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?

He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?

Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.

And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.

What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?

So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.

Colorado stands up to protect Gosnell methods

Colorado Decriminalizes Gosnell Abortion Methods – No Rights For Unborns

By / 11 May 2013

In close coordination with Planned Parenthood, Democrat lawmakers have repealed the Colorado criminal abortion statutes which is the premise of the newly passed House Bill 1154 – prohibiting criminal prosecution of abortionists like Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell – making it legal in Colorado to kill a child, regardless of the circumstances surrounding his/her birth.

The bill simply decriminalizes any act perpetrated against the child and trivializes it to nothing more than property damage.

The bill states that

“nothing in this act shall be construed to confer personhood, or any rights associated with that status, on a human being at any time prior to live birth. Nothing in this article shall permit the prosecution of a person for any act of providing medical, surgical or any other type of care.”

According to WND.com the Democrats who sponsored and lobbied for the measure are led by Senate President John Morse, majority caucus chair Jeanne Nicholson and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino.

The bill repeals the Colorado criminal abortion statutes and in addition removes freedom of conscience – or, a health care workers right to refuse to be a part of an abortion procedure (so much for choice – so hypocritical). It also protects an abortionist in the case that a minor is brought in to have an abortion, perhaps by her parents or guardian, against her own will. In that circumstance the abortionist cannot be charged.

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/05/colorado-decriminalizes-gosnell-abortion-methods-no-rights-for-unborns/

Colorado Dems adopt ‘Kermit Gosnell Enabler Act’

Repeal[of] ‘criminal abortion statutes’ across state
Jack Minor – WND

On the heels of Kermit Gosnell’s extended abortion murder trial in Philadelphia, in which he was accused of killing infants who had been born alive by using a scissors to cut their spinal cords, majority Democrats in Colorado have adopted a strategy to prevent any such prosecution in Colorado

The Democrats are led by Senate President John Morse, majority caucus chair Jeanne Nicholson and House Speaker Mark Ferrandino. One opponent has come up with a striking name for House Bill 1154, which repeals certain state criminal statutes regarding the abortion procedure.

“Under guise of protecting pregnant women, this bill repeals the Colorado criminal abortion statutes, which in some respects, makes this the Kermit Gosnell Enabler Act,” Colorado Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, told WND.

“In addition, HB 1154 repeals part of the statute that protects freedom of conscience – severing the rights of hospitals, doctors and medical staff to refuse [to participate] in abortions.” /…

To receive the approval of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, the  bill plainly specifies it does not consider the unborn child to be anything  other than an inanimate object on a par with any other property that is  destroyed by a criminal.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/colorado-dems-adopt-kermit-gosnell-enabler-act/#5RYGMOKt2IB3iv6K.99

Ah yes, so much for choice and freedom of concience. Anyone who thought Gosnell was just a blip on the radar isn’t paying attention. Where are all those who say what Gosnell was doing was clearly wrong and illegal?

“Shocked”. Should I say prepare to have your conscience shocked, seared, then extracted like a tumor? ‘Yea, that’s the ticket’.

Then there are Liberals carping away, Gosnell is not representative of the industry. Meanwhile, they want to enshrine him as the poster boy. And the crickets keep on chirping on the left.

It could be Gosnell’s methods just lack a great name like Abu Ghraib they can rail against. That must be it. Maybe it needs a place associated with it…. how about Colorado USA?

Liberal Instruction manual:

Remove conscience from its packaging,
dig a deep hole,
place seared conscience at the bottom,
cover with removed dirt.
*tamp down to desired consistency… Decorate to suit – optional