Just to start this off, lets begin with full disclosure on my thoughts on abortion – Straight forward and without any reservations, you can call me the ultimate Constitutionalist when it comes to this subject.

The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4 1776.

 Jefferson’s “original Rough draught”, on exhibit in the Library of Congress that reads:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; …

  among which are the preservation of life…

That’s my position. Any questions?

This is the source and root of my belief system as an American and as a Christian, Period. If you want to debate it, I would love to engage anyone in a constructive and fact based discussion.

The Videos which began this Discussion.

Video 1: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

If that wasn’t enough for you, here is a link to the entire video : FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

Video 2: Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods

If that wasn’t enough for you, here is a link to the entire video : FULL FOOTAGE: Second Planned Parenthood Senior Executive Haggles Over Baby Parts Prices

Video 3: Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments…

If that wasn’t enough for you, here is a link to the entire video : FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments…

Video 4: Intact Fetuses “Just a Matter of Line Items” for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center

Video 5: Intact Fetuses “Just a Matter of Line Items” for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center

Democratic response:

washingtontimes
The White House dismissed the need for a federal investigation of Planned Parenthood … are raising questions about the authenticity of a pro-life group’s undercover videos on the sale of fetal tissue.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest also suggested that the pro-life group, the Center for Medical Progress, is an “extremist” organization. And he said for the first time that President Obama would veto any effort by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood.

JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told The Daily Caller that there had,

“been a kind of misrepresentation of the conversation that took place in the transcript in the conversation in the video.”

“I don’t know why they need an investigation,”

…she added.

“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing,”

she told the New Hampshire Union Leader
A video of the doctor who oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing organ harvesting has…

“got a Benghazi feel to it, for me,”

Rep. Scott Peters, D-CA, told The Hill.

Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)

asked U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris on Tuesday to review whether the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress broke state and federal laws when it created a fake human tissue procurement company in order to gain access to and secretly film Planned Parenthood staffers.
–http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Planned Parenthood: Judge bars pro-life group from airing StemExpress footage
www.washingtontimes.com

The pro-life group behind a series of undercover Planned Parenthood videos accused the bioservice firm StemExpress late Wednesday of trying to “cover up this illegal baby parts trade” after the company obtained a court order blocking the release of footage.

The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday stopping the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video showing three officials from StemExpress, a company that transfers fetal tissue from abortions performed at Planned Parenthood and other clinics to medical researchers.

A company spokesman told the Associated Press that StemExpress is “grateful its rights have been vindicated in a court of law,” but the center said in a statement that the court threw out most of the company’s request.

StemExpress is “attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public,” said the CMP statement.

“They are not succeeding — their initial petition was rejected by the court, and their second petition was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond,” the group said.

The court agreed to block the release of footage of StemExpress officials filmed secretly at a lunch in May until an Aug. 19 court hearing.

I honestly don’t want to hear from anyone that has not seen these videos (Warning: they are graphic), or those who have not read the statements above – note referenced links. I do not wish to discuss this topic with those who will not directly address the content of the videos. There are tons of other places where you can express your views on tax payer funding, women’s healthcare, right-wing conspiracies, the war on women, or any other so called related issue if you wish to join the Liberal / Democrat / Executive and Judicial branches of the present government, in ignoring what these videos actually contain.  Please do not do it here. I find it quite dishonest, and morally corrupt.

I understand this is a powerful and emotional subject, reaching into many beliefs, be it religious, political or whatever it may be for you personally. But, unlike the most of the media/blogs/internet, I will address only the post that actually talk to the contents (business, persons, actions, results) contained within the videos (CLIPS / FULL VERSIONS). I see no reason to go into conjecture. I will let the people in the videos speak for themselves. They all seemed eager at the time of the recording.

I will do my job in response to all post and speak for myself.

This is an on-going post. I have only started  here, facts first. My comments will also be added. Your questions, opinions and thoughts are always welcome. Let the debate begin.

Remain silent NO LONGER. Stand up for your rights, or they will be gone.

When this case was brought, a lot of people said, “What do you mean the Second Amendment might not apply to the states?  How can that be?”   Everybody assumed that the Bill of Rights applied to individuals everywhere.

That’s what this case was about.

It’s a Chicago gun case. The Supreme Court in this ruling not only confirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says, but it uses discrimination and abuses against blacks after the Civil War to make the point.

The justification, in part, for the ruling is that freed slaves would not be free, were they denied the right to keep and bear arms. And so there were several rulings demanding that in addition to their new found freedom they also be granted access to the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s an amazing case when you look at this, because the conservative position, in order to be free, the Constitution must be interpreted as to what it says, and it must apply to everybody.

The Second and Fourteenth Amendments prevented recently freed slaves from remaining de facto slaves forever. If they were denied, for example, recently freed slaves denied the right to keep and bear arms, they still were not totally free. That’s what this court has said today. And yet there were four justices who disagreed with this.

Everybody who cares about how free men are kept free needs to read this ruling.

Justice Thomas on pages 42 to 46 gives a really necessary history lesson that everyone should read.

He documents how blacks were almost denied their right to keep and bear arms and thus subjected to less than full citizenship and left defenseless against those that sought to continue to control them even after the days of slavery.

The US Constitution is the greatest legal document of freedom written. It puts teeth into individual and human rights.

The left has been doing everything it can to revise and to rewrite that history and to say that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, and this ruling just obliterates their logic.

The right to bear arms, the fascinating history that accompanies it and an important role in the freeing of black Americans from discrimination and de facto bondage and slavery.

Starting on page 26 of the majority opinion, the case McDonald v. Chicago, the court supports its conclusion that the right to bear arms applies to states as well as individuals.

They demonstrate how vital the Second Amendment was to recently freed slaves:

“The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in§14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that ‘the right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.'”

In order to affirm their notion that the Second Amendment applies to everybody, not just areas of the federal government, the Bill of Rights, they cite post-slavery and the right of former slaves to have guns.

Four justices of the US Supreme Court voted as though the Second Amendment didn’t exist or as though they thought the Second Amendment was wrong or they think.

Section 14 of this ruling thus explicitly guaranteed that all citizens, black and white, would have the constitutional right to bear arms. So I guess we could say constitutional decision here, conservative court, 5-4 has used the illegal discrimination against blacks as proof of the value and intent the Second Amendment.

The liberals, if they weren’t hypocrites, ought to be cheering this reasoning and this decision. Disarming blacks post-slavery was key to preventing them from ever becoming free. The attempt was made even after slavery was declared illegal and it was ended, after the civil war they still tried to keep blacks from getting guns. And everybody back then knew, you’re not going to really be free, and you’re really not going to be an American if you’re denied the right to keep and bear arms simply because of your race.

What liberal can argue with this?

Page 28:

“In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection.Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three ‘indispensable’ ‘safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.’ 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms: ‘Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open –If the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.”

Page 29:

“Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: ‘Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.’
‘The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” And in debating the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Congress routinely referred to the right to keep and bear arms and decried the continued disarmament of blacks in the South.”

The only downside is that there were four Supreme Court justices that voted against this — voted against the Second Amendment.

If the Constitution mattered to the left and these four justices on the left may as well epitomize the rest of the left in this country and around the world.  If they had their way, it wouldn’t be 5-4. That’s how close we are to the forfeiture of our freedom.

Supreme Court justices vote on the Constitution. They determine whether something is constitutional or not. The Second Amendment got voted on today, and it squeaked by 5-4.

They don’t just want to amend it. They don’t want to go to the trouble of amending it. The short-circuit way is to get enough of Obama’s people on the court and throughout the federal judiciary so they can simply repeal it by fiat, by virtue of their rulings.

Imagine if it was the First Amendment, free speech that was voted on today and it passed 5-4.  It’s inconceivable…

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS -.PDF

HOLDER:

“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,”

Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Fox News: May 13, 2010

Sen. John McCain on Monday asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, if she’d had a chance to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

NAPOLITANO:

“I have not reviewed it in detail,”

Napolitano said during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“I certainly know of it, senator.”

She knows of it…  Really??

Who doesn’t, “know of it” ?  Actually reading it… those pesky little details can be such a burden.

Sound familiar??   (added to WTF list…)

PELOSI:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

CONYERS:

I love these members that get up and say, “Read the bill!” What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you’ve read the bill?

Back to the misrepresentation, of the unread bill…

OBAMA:

[E]fforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.  In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.

The president is bashing Arizona for simply trying to enforce the law — the federal law, as well as now a new state law.

Has he read the law??

Simple question. Isn’t protecting our legal citizens from an invading army of illegal aliens who are using our services and taking our jobs, a basic notion of fairness?

Why is fairness being denied to American citizens?  What about the basic fairness of state and federal governments to protect the American citizens?

Looks like what’s going on in Arizona is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law.

Related Post: Obama CliffsNotes… updated
Related Post comment:

Comment by Gage:

glad you posted something new for me to read while i’m in web design ;] all very well until the last bullet that confused me:

•Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that launched a national debate.
Obama and his regime govern against the will of the people. CBS Poll: 60 percent of Americans say Arizona’s tough new immigration law is “about right” or “doesn’t go far enough.” Are you listening, Washington?

1. is this dealing with the thing where people who “supposively look like illegal immigrants” must carry a form of identification with them at all times and must present it when requested to do so by a cop?

2. the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?

3. do you agree or disagree with this idea?

thanks ;*,

Gage

In this comment I am actually beginning the conversation about the new Law passed in Arizona. Due to my resent absence as a result of technical difficulties, I have a bit of make-up-work to do. In the next few days, I will be posting a more in-depth post dealing specifically with this controversy. (Above Post)

1. Yes this comment addresses the new law requiring identification.

But here, I’d like to clear up a misconception. Your statement “dealing with people who “supposedly look like illegal immigrants”, is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Obama, the media and everybody on the left is misrepresenting the Arizona law. Kris Kobach, a professor and the primary author of the Arizona legislation said…

“This law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a lawful contact with the person such as stopping him for breaking another law…”

Nobody in Arizona can be pulled over because of their race or because of the way they look. The cops can’t engage ’em unless they’ve got reason to on some other grounds, traffic stop, suspicion of robbery or what have you.

They’re just lying about this. They’re playing the race card here.

“This is profiling, produce your papers,” they don’t want a substantive analysis of this at all, any part of that, because on the substance they lose.

That’s why the template here is: this racism, this white supremacy, this Nazi-like tactics, why, this is going to launch Democrats to new heights of power in the November elections, and really motivate Obama’s base, really reenergize Democrat voters.

It’s all BS.

When, you or I get pulled over for speeding, or maybe a broken taillight, the officer ask for our “papers” (drivers license, registration, proof of insurance). If we board an Airplane, we are ask for our ‘papers’. When we use a credit card or write a check, once again we are ask for our ‘papers’.

Remember, it was just last summer that the Democrats in Congress made US citizens show their residency papers before they were allowed into the town hall meetings. Remember that?

Not just a resident of the US, you had to be a resident of that congressional district. And they were claiming it was a matter of national security to even allow them into the building.

I’ll even expand on this further in a future post. But, I think, I’ve made my position a bit clearer for our discussion here. (Refer to above information)

2.” the ppl of Arizona want something more extreme than this?”

Actually A Rasmussen Reports poll found that almost two-thirds — 64 percent — of voters in the state favored the measure. The poll I quoted was a national poll. Reflecting the strong national support for this law. I do not believe “extreme” would apply. I believe that the majority of the nation supports enforcing the laws already on the books, of which most dealing with illegal immigration are ignored. And, due to the lack of federal responsibility to enforce these laws, states are left to pick-up the slack.

Addendum:

Rasmussen Reports, May 12 2010:

“A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that just 17% oppose the proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare or workers compensation.”

“Seventy percent (70%) of Massachusetts voters favor a proposal recently rejected by the state legislature that would stop illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits.”

“The proposal failed to pass in the Democratically-controlled State House last month by a 75 to 82 vote.”

So once again the Democrats are governing against the will of the people. Nothing new to this administration.

3. Yes, I agree.

I believe, the laws already on the books need to be enforced.

Our society is based on the ‘rule of law.”

If the Federal Government refuses to step up to its constitutional responsibilities, the states then must respond. If the states do not respond, it is the right of citizens to defend themselves. This is the basis of a Republic form of government.

…

Arizona Governor Brewer Sends Obama Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

“You understand, I mean, with Charlie Rangel. You promised the most ethical Congress in history, and — and, I mean, you gotta understand now why so many Americans think Congress is corrupt. It just doesn’t look good. This Rangel thing just doesn’t pass the smell test.”

PELOSI: Look, I — I served for seven years on the ethics committee. The last thing I would have wanted would be for the speaker of the House to interfere in a political way in what was going on there. That just should never happen. Uh, but the fact is — is that, uh, w-w-what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good. It was, uh, uh, a violation of the rule of the House. Uh, it was not something that, uhhh, jeopardized our country in any way.

No, no, no.  How could the fact that one of the most powerful men in Congress is corrupt have any effect on America? I mean, after all, all he does is write the tax law. He’s chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

He doesn’t have any effect on America. No way. Don’t even tell me he’s in the same league as Tom DeLay, who they had to force out of there.

Here’s Pelosi back from November 7th, 2006, election night.

PELOSI: To-day the American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, DC. And the Democrats in-tend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.

Typical of everything the Democrats say: It’s a lie and is not true.

Here’s Paul Krugman from the New York Times. He was on This Week as well during the roundtable, and Elizabeth Vargas says,

“Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer were all calling for Tom DeLay to relinquish his post when he was also admonished by the ethics committee.”

KRUGMAN: It is worth pointing out that none of these things actually seemed to affect national policy. Yeah, I’m unhappy with this. I wish Rangel would go away. But it — it really has no national significance.

Oh, no national significance at all!

Oh, he’s only chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He’s cheating on his taxes. He’s not reporting income.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough says to Senator Durbin,

“You served with Charlie. I served with Charlie. Are you disappointed?”

DURBIN: I want to tell you one thing about Charlie Rangel. When he joined the Army after World War II as an African-American, he was put in a segregated unit. He served in combat in Korea. This man has served his country. I am not going to presume, uhhh, guilt when it comes to Charlie Rangel.

Charlie Rangel is a veteran, so who cares if he’s corrupt? He served in North Korea. Who cares?

He’s corrupt – simple truth.