LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: The Dirty “little” Secret Of ...The Natural Born Citizen Clause --- Revealed.
Source:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... -born-citizen-clause-revealed/
Published: Jan 27, 2012
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2012-01-27 14:14:32 by BorisY
Keywords: native, naturalized - immigrant, natural - parents
Views: 102402
Comments: 232
Natural Born Citizen Respecting the Constitution The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed. I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States. Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language: Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.” Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.” (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.) The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific. Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation. Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President. According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B. It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored. Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule: “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974). This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”. Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B? Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule. Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect. Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated: “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States. The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.) If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument. Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents. Leo Donofrio, Esq. [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.] [See commenting rules here.]
Poster Comment: People who can't figure this out shouldn't be allowed to vote - citizenship !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-170) not displayed.
.
.
.
#171. To: CZ82 (#168)
here is your statement that started began our exchange If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!! My point, abortion is only 3% of the total services provided annually, and by law government money can not be used to pay for abortions. The list just provides information about PP's other services - what they are and how many.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
You do understand why some people here call you looney mom?
Back attcha.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
My point, abortion is only 3% of the total services provided annually, and by law government money can not be used to pay for abortions. The list just provides information about PP's other services - what they are and how many. Can you say that with a straight face???? So you don't think they have been circumventing the (cough....cough) law for years???? Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!! So what else is it "SUPPOSEDLY ILLEGAL" to do with that money?????? I'd bet it's "NOT" give it back to the Leftards in campaign contributions!!!!!!! (The Circular Money Laundering scheme). How do you think they buy votes???? With other peoples money........
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
I'd say he is getting his wish!!!!
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
Or perhaps you're paranoid.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Citizenship - qualification for presidential office are two separate things ! To: butterdezillion Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case. That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed. But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level. The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal. Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened. “The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.” In Georgia, state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined. That’s exactly what several groups of individuals did. Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot. Hatfield and Irion told WND the expected process is that Malihi will make a decision over the course of the next week whether Obama, without appearing or being represented at the hearing, documented his eligibility to the court’s satisfaction. That recommendation then goes to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, to whom Obama’s lawyer, Michael Jablonski, earlier had complained that Malihi was letting the attorneys “run amok” since the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been resolved. But in fact the U.S. Constitution demands a different status for presidents, that of a “natural born citizen,” which Founders likely considered to be the offspring of two citizen parents. If that is the case, Obama could not be eligible as his father was a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. At the time Jablonski complained to Kemp and told him he should simply cancel the hearing, Kemp warned Jablonski that he ultimately would be reviewing the hearing result, and to not participate would be at Obama’s “peril.” Both lawyers, whose cases in fact are separate from each other as well as from the Taitz’ case, said it was important for them to be able to introduce evidence and build a court record. Hatfield said the goal ultimately is to have a court rule on the substance of the controversy: Is it necessary to have citizen parents to be a “natural born citizen” or will that definition evolve as America ages? Hatfield told WND that he specifically asked the judge at the end of the hearing to close the record, and he did that. Hatfield said that should make it clear that as the decision is made, and any challenges progress, no new information can be added to the evidence already submitted. He said it’s very clear that the court had jurisdiction to take the case and accept evidence, since the ballot at issue is a ballot with which the state election in 2012 will be conducted. And Hatfield noted that although Obama’s lawyer at least made a motion to quash the subpoena from Taitz for his testimony and records, Obama’s attorneys never even bothered to respond to his own motion to produce records. Obama’s campaign declined to respond to WND emails and messages inquiring about a comment on the situation. Irion told WND the default is a typical result when one side fails to appear for a dispute that’s being adjudicated in court, but in this case, that would have left it wide open for arguments on appeal that had nothing to do with the issue. He said he explained to the judge that awarding a default judgment actually would have been rewarding Obama for failing to respond to the subpoena. The attorneys said they would be watching for Obama’s next move in the contest. And they said they believe there is a possibility that because of the dispute, Obama may end up not being on the Georgia ballot in the fall. Obama lost the state in the 2008 election to John McCain. Earlier, several attorneys who previously took cases challenging Obama’s eligibility as high as the U.S. Supreme Court said Obama’s refusal to participate in the hearing was a travesty. “That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” said attorney Leo Donofrio. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.” He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.” “If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned. “My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said. “If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation. His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not accepted any eligibility cases. “He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said. Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supreme Court, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.” “For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.” “He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said. 16 posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 05:00:23 by Mr. Wright (N)
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
The Adminstrative Judge had no power to compel the President or his lawyers to attend.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
To: edge919 << “He was not being sued.” >> Semantics. This was all started by a lawsuit, yes? << “He was being subpoenaed for evidence and for testimony related directly to his candidacy for office. The only appeal he can file is with the state superior court, which he is NOT going to do.” >> He doesn't have to appeal in state court at all. He can simply ignore the whole mess then - if the state tries to keep him off the ballot - sue the state in Federal court. << “He is better off cutting his losses in this state and trying to marginalize the outcome of the hearing through his typical Alinsky tactics, and hope to high hell this isn’t repeated in all 57 states.” >> I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. No candidate with a brain is going to support that strategy. Concede states in a Presidential election? Silly. Other than a loss in Federal court, there appears to be no downside for him to simply ignore this. The USSC overruled the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. You have to keep that precedent foremost in your mind if you want to understand how Obama is reacting tactically to this. If Georgia announces some adverse impact to Obama from all this, then you can expect a hurried Obama appeal to the Supremes. The real interesting aspect here is that this would force the Supremes to review the “Natural Born Citizen” issue for the first time. Wouldn't it be interesting if they decided that Obama didn't qualify for NBC status? What would happen then? Would he be removed as President? Would 2012 be Romney vs. Biden? I'd pay to see that. It would be a fascinating news cycle. 23 posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 07:59:38 by omnidroid
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
No. This "case" was simply a ballot challenge.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
That issue has, in fact, been addressed several times by the court.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
sue = lawsuit
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Or perhaps you're paranoid. Or perhaps you're naive....
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
More like kicking the can ! Eventually a republican senate will decide !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Abortion was legal in over 20 states before the "sexual revolution".
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
No one was sued. It was a ballot challenge. Berfers know how gullible their audience is. They've made this out to be something it is not.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
www.guttmacher. org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf State Funding of Abortion under Medicare.....
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
Whew! That is Medicaid, not Medicare - for a minute I was wondering how many elderly pregnant women could there be. From your link: First implemented in 1977, the Hyde Amendment, which currently forbids the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, has guided public funding for abortions under the joint federal-state Medicaid programs for low-income women. At a minimum, states must cover those abortions that meet the federal exceptions. Although most states meet the requirements, one state is in violation of federal Medicaid law, because it pays for abortions only in cases of life endangerment. Some states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions, although most do so as a result of a specific court order. As part of her internship a friend worked with a group that provided services to homeless women. One client, a paranoid schizophrenic, pregnant as the result of rape (homeless women get raped a lot) and taking medication that was known to caused birth defects presented a moral dilemma for the staff, my friend said. They were in a position to get an abortion for her, but were not happy about doing so.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
PP gets NO Fed monies for abortions. They do get it for other procedures and administrative costs. And the Feds do regular audits and reviews to check that the monies are kept separate and the facilities are up to licensing and accreditation standards.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
CZ knows differently. He says So you don't think they have been circumventing the (cough....cough) law for years???? because, you know, liberals love abortion. CZ is part of the conservative ilk that doesn't respond to reality, but creates it.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
CZ seems to be another practitioner of that Black and White 'thinking'.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
LOL..... I didn't even notice that I mispelled that till you just mentioned it.....
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
What you call the sexual revolution was only ending the cultural cognitive dissonance about sex and who was having it. Girls got pregnant in the good old days just like they do now. They either had abortions or gave birth, just like they do now. The difference is that abortions are safe now, the girl who decides to carry her baby to term is more likely to keep her baby, and families tell the truth.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
They shouldn't be safe. I long for the days of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger. That way they can reap what they sow.
Again you show your contempt for the poor. Women with money had access to safe abortions either in the US, or abroad - it was only poor women who got the back alley, coat hanger abortions.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Your post is insanity. Why should murder be clean and safe. Screw that let the bitch die. Any woman having an abortion deserves that.
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
It doesn't surprise me that you believe that...... It's so easy to "launder" the money by transferring it from account to account to account till it gets to where you want it to be even though it shouldn't be there..... We used to do it all the time in the military...... It also explains why you vote, you believe certain things you are told by some people..... Oh by the way PP are currently under investigation for doing exactly that, using federal money for abortions!!!!!
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
Oh, how DARE you... That you would expect someone like loonybitch to be held accountable for her actions, is outrageous! Of course, the pro-abortion crowd never mentions the third option... for girls to keep their damned knees together. Noooo..... We can't have that, now, can we? Feh.
To: mcToejam, rat-boy, drippy, Alzheimer Fred, whitesands, t-bird, loonymom/ming, e-type jackoff, goober56, wreck, cal-CON, rabid dog, dummy DwarF, biff and meguro. You're on the "a waste of human flesh" list. Piss off.
Kill anyone not agreeing with you exactly on the issue of abortion, heh..... Yeah, right, sure you are pro life; that is if you want to call pro control of women pro life that is.
Not only are you anything but pro life, you are pro sadism and pro blood revenge. The Mormons believe in Blood Atonement, that is, the policy of murdering someone before they can soil their soul with sin. So, this means you are Mormon now too?
Kill anyone not agreeing with you exactly on the issue of abortion, heh.... If someone is trying to kill someone. Someone else has the right to stop that killing and kill the aggressor. You are a phoney pro life person. You would let the baby die. You also are for allowing people to murder adults to not be put to death. It is no wonder you call yourself a witch. You are on the wrong side of almost every issue.
So, if you burst into a room with a gun, stopped the doctor from doing the procedure, murdered anyone there in the room as a guilty party to a murder that was about to happen, you are pro-life? Look in the mirror sonny boy; that is where you can see the phony pro-lifer.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political and spiritual leader Damn right I care enough about human life not to kill as a way to say killing is wrong. And that is not just a Wicca principle, you'll find people in all religions agreeing with me.
Look in the mirror sonny boy; that is where you can see the phony pro-lifer. I am pro innocent life. Someone who takes innocent life has forfitted their right to life. It is very calice and uncaring of you not want to punish the murderer. Lets go back in time to the month before your child was born. Scenario A. A bad person is going to harm your woman. He is robbing her. He is almost certainly going to kill your unborn child. The only way to stop him is to kill him. Would you kill him or would you let your unborn child die and never get to know the person you now know? Scenario B. Your woman is going to get an abortion. They only way to stop him is to kill the abortionist. Would you do it to save your unborn kid so that you can let him live?
No it doesn't.
Scenario B. Your woman is going to get an abortion. They only way to stop him is to kill the abortionist. Would you do it to save your unborn kid so that you can let him live? Either scenario you list, requires a man to take action. rat-boy is not a man, he's a brain-dead socialist. You want a good analogy? Think of the feckless Michael Dukakis, you've got rat-boy... rat-boy doesn't have a woman, because he's not a man... he's just another frustrated, testicularly-challenged socialist.
To: mcToejam, rat-boy, drippy, Alzheimer Fred, whitesands, t-bird, loonymom/ming, e-type jackoff, goober56, wreck, cal-CON, rabid dog, dummy DwarF, biff and meguro. You're on the "a waste of human flesh" list. Piss off.
If you were what masculinity was about, most women would choose celibacy.
Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
It was the pill, not abortion that liberated women sexually. For women, likewise, the sexual revolution concerned the rules of engagement, rather than the act of sex itself. Premarital virginity had been going out of fashion for decades before the declaration of sexual liberation. It started in the 1920s, as middle-class Americans converted from Victorianism to Freudianism and began to accept that a desirous woman was perhaps not so depraved after all. There- after doctors and psychologists counseled America’s women that a happy marriage was sustained by mutual sexual satisfaction. Experts encouraged women to explore their natural desires, but to start the journey in the marital bed. Women accepted the prescription and ignored the fine print. At the high noon of fifties traditionalism, 40 percent of women had sex before they married—compared to just 10 percent who did in the reputedly Roaring Twenties. Post-Conflict Regime Type: Probability of Being a Democracy Five Years After the Conflict Has Ended; Violent Campaigns - 4%, Nonviolent Campaigns - 46%. Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D., Stanford University,
Unlike you stonie, I'm sane. I don't play judge, jury and executioner based on my own singular judgment. According to your own religion, only your God can pass the ultimate judgment on people. And you are not your own higher power. I do know I would never trust you armed and in the same room with me. You are too far into the insanity zone to feel safe in that situation. I'd only shot someone who pulled a dangerous weapon on me. That is the only situation I would take a life. I wouldn't even shoot someone stealing my bicycle or car. Property is not worth taking a human life for. I wouldn't interfere with a legal abortion procedure with deadly force either. Nonviolent civil disobedience yes, bt violence only hurts the cause of ending abortions. The backlash from it serves to strengthen the resolve to preserve the practice, and I am too mature and savvy to the methods of sound political action to be an insane cowboy like you.
Wow. You would have let your son die. Go tell him that.
Comments (212 - 232) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhich equals out to........ 1.5 abortions for every prenatal service and 391 abortions to every adoption service.... (looks like his/her calculator was broken because this is the information he/she used from the PPFAs website).....
#172. To: lucysmom (#170)
then it is also true that you crave the sight of diseased and starving children dressed in rags on our streets.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#172)
You do understand why some people here call you looney mom?
#174. To: lucysmom (#171)
here is your statement that started began our exchange If they thought they were getting their monies worth I don't think they would squawk, but I would say they don't think abortion is worth funding!!!!
#175. To: A K A Stone (#169)
He wants more abortions and less adoptions.
#176. To: CZ82 (#174)
Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!!
#177. To: war (#152)
(Edited)
#178. To: BorisY (#177)
“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.
#179. To: war (#178)
#180. To: BorisY (#179)
Semantics. This was all started by a lawsuit, yes?
#181. To: BorisY (#179)
The real interesting aspect here is that this would force the Supremes to review the “Natural Born Citizen” issue for the first time.
#182. To: war (#180)
#183. To: lucysmom (#176)
Don't forget that's one of the reasons ObamaCare was created, as a way to legally get around that (cough....cough) law!!!!
#184. To: war (#181)
#185. To: CZ82 (#183)
#186. To: BorisY (#182)
#187. To: lucysmom (#176)
Or perhaps you're paranoid.
#188. To: CZ82 (#187)
State Funding of Abortion under Medicare.....
#189. To: lucysmom (#188)
First implemented in 1977, the Hyde Amendment, which currently forbids the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, has guided public funding for abortions under the joint federal-state Medicaid programs for low-income women. At a minimum, states must cover those abortions that meet the federal exceptions. Although most states meet the requirements, one state is in violation of federal Medicaid law, because it pays for abortions only in cases of life endangerment. Some states use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions, although most do so as a result of a specific court order.
#190. To: mininggold, CZ82 (#189)
(Edited)
PP gets NO Fed monies for abortions. They do get it for other procedures and administrative costs. And the Feds do regular audits and reviews to check that the monies are kept separate and the facilities are up to licensing and accreditation standards.
#191. To: lucysmom, CZ82 (#190)
CZ is part of the conservative ilk that doesn't respond to reality, but creates it.
#192. To: lucysmom (#188)
Whew! That is Medicaid, not Medicare - for a minute I was wondering how many elderly pregnant women could there be.
#193. To: CZ82 (#192)
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
#194. To: lucysmom (#193)
The difference is that abortions are safe now
#195. To: A K A Stone (#194)
They shouldn't be safe. I long for the days of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger. That way they can reap what they sow.
#196. To: lucysmom (#195)
#197. To: lucysmom (#190)
(Edited)
#198. To: mininggold (#189)
PP gets NO Fed monies for abortions. They do get it for other procedures and administrative costs. And the Feds do regular audits and reviews to check that the monies are kept separate and the facilities are up to licensing and accreditation standards.
#199. To: A K A Stone (#194)
They shouldn't be safe. I long for the days of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger. That way they can reap what they sow.
#200. To: A K A Stone (#196)
"Any woman having an abortion deserves that."
#201. To: A K A Stone (#194)
"They shouldn't be safe. I long for the days of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger."
#202. To: Ferret Mike (#200)
Any woman having an abortion deserves that."
#203. To: A K A Stone (#202)
(Edited)
#204. To: A K A Stone (#202)
"You also are for allowing people to murder adults to not be put to death."
#205. To: Ferret Mike (#203)
So, if you burst into a room with a gun, stopped the doctor from doing the procedure, murdered anyone there in the room as a guilty party to a murder that was about to happen, you are pro-life?
#206. To: Ferret Mike (#204)
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
#207. To: A K A Stone (#205)
Scenario A. A bad person is going to harm your woman. He is robbing her. He is almost certainly going to kill your unborn child. The only way to stop him is to kill him. Would you kill him or would you let your unborn child die and never get to know the person you now know?
Dukakis was against the death penalty, and the question asked by Bernard Shaw invited him to show some passion and fire about crime — what if your wife were raped and murdered? — and Dukakis stayed doggedly on his track, expressing coolly rational rejection of the death penalty.
#208. To: Capitalist Eric (#207)
rat-boy doesn't have a woman, because he's not a man... he's just another frustrated, testicularly-challenged socialist.
#209. To: CZ82 (#197)
Leftards only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution. That's their cause: Spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that.
#210. To: A K A Stone (#205)
#211. To: Ferret Mike (#210)
I wouldn't interfere with a legal abortion procedure with deadly force either.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]