Reforming the courts
There has been a great deal of discussion lately about the power of the courts and the infliction of personal viewpoint into high profile cases. The travesty in Massachusetts finally seemed to get people's attentions, but the truth is, the erosion of restraint by the court has been going on for decades.
The textbook case of judicial usurpation of the role of the legislature in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Here the court did a number on the role of the state to protect human beings by denying that they are human, while at the same time creating privacy rights that do not exist in the Constitution. The court removed the protection of law to unborn human beings and there has been a murderous rampage ever since. The result is over a million dead babies and hundreds of thousands of women scarred.
All because the court has failed in its duty.
All because the justices failed to look upon the unborn child as a person.
All because of the selfishness that has infected our society.
random thoughts
Showdown in Florida
(and I am not talking about hurricanes or upcoming debates - yet)
Coverage of Terri Schiavo apparently does not rate much as far as thee media is concerned. I suppose in this day and age, the concept that a state supreme court would claim that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government to preserve the life of disabled persons to be an interference with the judiciary's powers is not all that unusual. Forget about justice or even doing what is right. We must not take any of the court's power to kill away.
Frankly it is my opinion that the attorney general should take custody of Terri as a material witness to a fraud upon the court and the possible conspiracy by her "husband" and his "lawyer" to cause the death of another human being, otherwise known as murder. I would also investigate a judge who does not see the obvious conflict of interest in Michael Schiavo continuing to be guardian when he is having an adulterous relationship with another woman who has borne him two children over the last several years. I pray the Governor has some guts to challenge this mockery of the law and protects this disabled woman.
Chappaquiddick anyone?
Why does anyone even pay attention to the senior senator from Massachusetts?
The guy is an embarrassment and everyone but he and his fellow Democrats know it.
The only reason he is not serving time for the death of that young woman is because he is a Kennedy.
Now he has the presumption to comment of George W. Bush.Kerry must really be hurting to have Ted Kennedy being his attack dog. Everyone outside of New England knows that this Kennedy is a loser and a further reminder of what unearned wealth and power can do to a soul. Instead of using the gifts God had given him, he has squandered his life and turned his back on his heritage. Pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, anti-American, anti-life, his legacy is disgusting to anyone who met him years ago and hoped that he would be a proponent of truth and justice. So now in his waning years, he seeks to further destroy the greatness of this land with his wearisome noise. The real sadness is that the people in Massachusetts keep electing him.
And on a local note, just because the Democrats have given up on Arizona does not mean that those who want to see the election of honest and pro life men and women, including the reelection of our president, should relax. No, to remind you of what our friend Hugh Hewitt writes, we must win big so they cannot cheat. Continue to register pro life friends to vote. Continue to pass out the pro life voter guides. Continue to pass the word that we must win in November. Thanks.
Reflections on a biased media
I have to smile when I read about or listen to all the consternation exhibited by the media these days over the CBS debacle and "Memogate." It is especially humerous to listen to the conservative talk show hosts talk about Dan Rather and what happened. Those of us remotely involved in the pro-Life movement for any length of time have to wonder why everyone is shocked. After all there has been an agreed upon blackout on the reporting of accurate information regarding the abortion issue since 1973. It is not simply reserved to the media and the press. This lack of honesty has infiltrated the courts, having revealed itself in all its raw power in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 when the now dead Harry Blackmun said these incredible words,
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those
trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology
are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the
development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "
Examine this statement. Can you not wonder how this man ever reached our nation's highest court? Is this statement not totally absurd?
Yet this is what Kerry and his friends defend.
And for 31 years, we have lived with a legal system that calls this the law.
The imfamous decsion continues ,
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."
The Court then goes on to define person and conveniently ignores the only natural definition of person - a human being.
And we have lived with this for 31 years.
There was no hue and outcry by the media, by the press. The New York Times and ABC, CBS, NBC all hailed the court. True the decision came down the same day that the Paris Peace Accords were signed and Lyndon Johnson died. Perhaps it was convenient that the news did not make it a big deal. Lets just say that the fraudulent memos about Bush have received more press than on the day
Roe v. Wade was issued.
Efforts to promote the humanity of the unborn child were ignored by the press and the media.
The young right to life movement could not catch a break. It did not matter that in November 1972, the voters in Michigan and North Dakota defeated by 68 and 71 per cent respectively efforts to make abortion legal thru the first trimester. It did not matter that the young movement had stopped the legalization through the various states and was beginning to roll back the few states that did "liberalize" the law.
No, back then and until recently the news was controlled by the major media and the big newspapers and wire services. As Pulitzer was to have said, "If it isn't in the paper, it did not happen."
That is what we have lived with until just recently. Now thru the internet, people can see the baby, read about fetal development, understand that abortion kills a baby and scars a mother. They can learn that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Even some talk radio will discuss the subject, however only whne they need to get the phones going. Yet it seems that as the some conservative talk show hosts get more popular, they will talk about abortion with less frequency. Perhaps it is just not "popular" to talk about and may affect the advertising department. Perhaps they get the star bug and the work of the right to life is not glamorous enough. Perhap I am getting too cynical and need to move on to my next point.
Well they are still killing the babies and the media is still ignoring it.
So tomorrow another 4000 will die.
What will you do to stop this horror?
Will you get involved? will you pray? will you help us?
www.azrtl.org
so much to do.
Archbishop Myers courageous article
In an effort to clear the air, Archbishop Myers of Newark, recently published an article on the web in the Opinion Journal,
www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=11005634, where he explains once again that when it comes to the subject of abortion, a person of good will who seeks to do right and avoid wrong
cannot vote for someone who supports abortion and votes to keep abortion legal when there is a candidate running who is in favor of restricting abortion and protecting unborn children.
That means in simple language that one may not vote for a person who holds the political views and opinions of John Kerry. One may not vote for a person who votes for legal abortion if one wishes to act consistent with the natural law.
This is not rocket science.
We should all agree that killing innocent people is wrong.
Unborn babies are people.
Unborn babies are innocent.
Abortion kills babies.
Therefore abortion is wrong. Period. End of discussion.
so why is there all this confusion?
Anyone who supports abortion is claiming that there are times and places where it is acceptable and permissible to intentionally kill another innocent human being.
Further that person who supports the killing of innocent human beings would allow the mother in cooperation with a "health care provider" to decide and then act to kill that child.
So what is the difference between the abortionist who sticks the scissors into the back of the beck, sucks out the brains, and crushes the skull, and the Al-Qaida terrorists who just decapitated the American in Iraq?
What is the difference between the two dead bodies except age and location?
Can we not understand that we must address the killing that happens every day in our country?
What is so difficult about respecting the right to life of these children?
Does anybody care? Is anybody there? Does anybody see what I see? - from the musical "1776"
Urgency Marks This Year's Elections
September 21, 2004
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand for the entire nine months of a woman's pregnancy. Since that time, the Right to Life Movement has grown and developed to become a formidable player in the world of politics. During that time those in the Pro-Life Movement have also developed thousands of emergency pregnancy services throughout the country to offer help and hope to women with unplanned pregnancies. Yet the ultimate goal of making abortion unthinkable and illegal by law has eluded the Pro-Life Movement. Now as we look over the last thirty years, we know that more than ever, we, who believe in the sanctity of all human life, must engage in the public square and make our voices heard in community and through the ballot box. This election is critical to our efforts to save babies and protect women. You vote will determine who may live and who may die. Every vote counts. As in times past it is vital that you and those you know to be Pro-Life stand up and vote for only Pro-Life candidates.
The November election for President provides the country with a clear choice for president. Massachusetts Senator, Democrat, John Kerry, has voted against almost every pro-life measure in Congress since taking office 20 years ago. He has voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Act every time he has had the opportunity.
President Bush not only supported the partial-birth abortion ban, but he promoted and signed the bill into law.
The partial-birth abortion procedure, used during the second and third trimesters, involves removing the baby from the womb feet first, except for the head, and then puncturing the skull and suctioning out the brain. John Kerry refused to make this “procedure” illegal. Among his supporters are the most extreme pro-abortion fanatics in the nation.
John Kerry supports the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on demand, even as a method of birth control. He wants to keep abortion legal. This position comes from a man who states that life begins at conception and who claims to be “personally opposed” to abortion.
George Bush opposes Roe v. Wade and supports a constitutional amendment to protect all human beings, born and unborn. George Bush also opposes the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion. Further, he reinstated the “Mexico City policy” which prevents tax funds from being used to promote abortion overseas.
John Kerry has stated that he will reverse the Mexico City policy, and supports the use of tax dollars for abortion. During his twenty years in the Senate, John Kerry has voted 79 times to support abortion and abortion-related matters. He voted against "Laci and Connor's Law," which recognizes as victims those unborn children who are killed or injured in violent federal crimes. He also voted against notifying a parent before an abortion is performed on a minor daughter. John Kerry has promised that, if elected President, he will appoint only Supreme Court Justices who support Roe v. Wade. John Kerry will put a litmus test on his appointments to the Supreme Court. For the Left the courts are the means by which it seeks to control the culture. Those who represent the liberal and secular view of history, government is a tool to be used to maintain power and control. The integrity of the system is irrelevant to those who want power.
Our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution provide a means of protecting the innocent and the defenseless only when we the people act to enforce the law. Our State constitutions also are to be a bulwark for liberty and freedom. Unless we engage the opponent at the voting booth, unless we stand up for the rights of women and children, unless we support ONLY those candidates who will protect all human life, we will find ourselves losing the precious freedoms our brave men and women in the armed forces have sacrificed their lives to defend.
This is not a game. This is for real. Each vote counts. Vote Pro-Life.
. For details on upcoming events, visit our website at
http://www.azrtl.org/
A View From a Room
We are witnessing the meltdown of journalism as we have known it. Evidence the unwillingness of people to simply accept as true what the major media outlets are broadcasting. Combined with the fact that most people do not read the newspapers or watch network television as in the past, one can predict that a major casualty of the information age will be the old means of information. Of course the press and the media have created their own problem when they sacrificed credibility and integrity for power and influence. ( Not that they did not crave or lust for it in the past, it was just done more discreetly and the news pages were off limits to crass pandering or manipulation.)
We in the pro-life movement have suffered from a biased media and press for over 35 years. Most in the press have never been willing to actually address the real of abortion - that abortion kills children in the womb. No, it must be addressed as a conflict of "rights" between the mother and her child. The mother and her child are never on the same side - no- they are always at cross purposes. And who do suppose manufactured that conflict? Our friends in the media, who were looking to promote their pro-abortion agenda, wrapped up in the all American sound of "choice."
The truth is very simple. Abortion kills a child. It destroys a relationship between a mother and her child. For those who respect the woman, abortion is always unthinkable. For those who respect life, abortion is always unthinkable. For those who are men and understand the role of men in today's society, abortion is always unthinkable.
CBS and the lies it promoted about President Bush, has been caught by the thousands of Americans who will not let the media deliver its calumnies without a response.
So too must those of us carrying the banner of truth about the need to protect all human life, to end abortion, and to pass laws to protect our children, continue to challenge the lies and misstatements of those who have a duty to tell the truth.
Remaining focused
To those who worked so diligently to support the pro life candidates in the primary, my thanks for a job well done. Now on to the general election and the goal of increasing the pro life presence in the state legislature, maintaining a pro life congressional team, and protecting a pro life presence in the White House.
As I have stated repeatedly in my reports to the membership www.azrtl.org, and in my articles published on the web www.intellectualconservative.com, we must support the election of pro life candidates for public office. We must study the races and understand the positions of every person on the ballot. In the race for president, George W. Bush has embraced the pro life perspective. He wants to see an end to the hideous practice of abortion. His opponent supports legal abortion, has told the National Abortion Rights Action league that he would only appoint judges who believed in abortion, and has voted against every pro-life bill ever presented in the Senate. He is not qualified to run for public office in that he is unwilling to protect and defend the most innocent and defenseless of human beings, the unborn child. Each of us must therefore use our right to vote to cast a vote in favor of the children and their mothers.
These next two months are critical to the effort. This blog will be another tool for the cause.
I hope to serve you and the movement as we strive to restore this culture to one that respects the fundamental right of all human beings to life.
