Note to readers:
You would think that this anniversary would be cause for celebration by Liberals. With each act, within the scope of the law, advocation of “individual, fundamental freedoms” and a triumph of “Women’s Rights”.
Yet, 60 MILLION abortions go unheralded, without fanfare, uncelebrated. Why?
Today, January 22nd, marks the anniversary of “Roe v Wade”: the Federalization of abortion law and wide-open door to the indiscriminate butchering of the most vulnerable in our society.
Happy Anniversary, Liberals. You must be VERY proud…
The New Slavery
Throughout the history of the United States, pieces of legislation have been drafted in direct violation of the Constitution and the other founding documents. These violations, almost always, come in the form of legislated discrimination. The Constitution itself seemed to support the rationale for some of these laws, which included (but were certainly not limited to) women, blacks (and other non-whites) banned from voting, the legality of slavery, etc.
But, in truth, the Constitution neither legalized nor advocated any of these.
Contrary to what is claimed by Democrats, there is no justification for slavery to be found in the Constitution. But, there is a very important reason for their claim: throughout American history, the greatest proponents and defenders of slavery (and other forms of legislated discrimination) have been…the Democratic Party. Rather, the Constitution merely recognized that slavery was existing law.
The “3/5 Compromise”, as it is called (“…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”), does not discuss the race, creed, gender, etc, of those to be counted as “3/5 of a person”, directly conflicting with the Liberal claim to the contrary. In fact, it states SPECIFICALLY, that “…the whole Number of free Persons…” were to be counted for taxation and apportionment. This “whole Number” INCLUDED free blacks, living in non-slavery states. In their argument against the relevance of the Constitution, Liberals fail to mention this fact.
With regard to women not having the Right to vote, Liberals glom onto the phrase, stating that “…all MEN are created equal…”. But, in truth, this is like the bible verse, found in Matthew 18:21-22 “Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.” By similar interpretation, a Liberal should conclude that forgiveness need only happen 490 times. Obviously, this is not the case. Rather, “seven”, in biblical times, referred to an infinite number….Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen an “infinite times infinity” times. So it was in the early days, when “men” referred to ALL people…not just men.
It is therefore no real surprise to know that, even today, Democrats continue to pursue fundamental, legislated discrimination. Variously, issues from “hate crime” legislation and “Affirmative action” to our modern day progressive tax code and embryonic stem cell research and funding comprise merely the latest efforts by Democrats to continue their legacy of Democratically-legislated discrimination, seeking to qualify the citizenry, separating them based on race, creed, gender, gender-identity, stage of life, etc. In the most recent times (since 1973) the primary target of Democrat hostility and discrimination is the unborn and the partially born. In the case of former President, Barack Obama, Senator Barbara Boxer and (shamefully) a few others, this hostility extends to some who are newly-born. (In the remarkable case of Boxer, hostility extends throughout a newborn’s stay in hospital.)
Any way you define it, abortion is The New Slavery.
A LEGACY OF LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION
Our founding documents (The United States Constitution, Declaration if Independence and Bill of Rights), with regard to “equality”, are VERY clear:
“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.”
- The Declaration of Independence
Beyond the fact that the CLEAR intent in these words is to make clear, without question, that these rights are a) “unalienable” (unable to be taken away), b) begin at the moment a person is “created” and c) “endowed by our Creator” (“Creator” with a capital “C”). This statement also makes clear that “happiness” is NOT guaranteed. Rather, the “pursuit of happiness” is guaranteed. This is a critical distinction and lies at the root of not only the equality issue but also the Liberal pathway to legislated inequality.
I know of no one who makes the claim that racism, sexism or homophobia doesn’t exist. They do exist. To deny this truth is to express one’s ignorance of reality. However, whether these “-isms” exist is NOT the relevant issue here. What IS relevant is whether they are “institutional”. By that, I mean legislated.
Throughout the history of legislative action in the United States, laws have served as a reflection of the ideological mix of Congress. Belief in the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees happiness, Liberal ideology requires legislative action which supports and enforces their idea of “equality”, vis-à-vis “happiness”.
TSA PROCEDURES (Discrimination, based on “Right to privacy”)
Although Justice Harry Blackmun, in drafting the “Roe” decision, identified a “Right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, Liberals do not, for whatever reason, regard the same Right as applied to body scans and physical pat-downs. As is absolutely consistent with Liberalism, the “Right to privacy” is not equally applied. Rather, “Privacy” is granted to whomever Liberals deem “worthy”. “Privacy”, Liberals contend, in THIS case, is not an “unalienable Right”.
SLAVERY (Discrimination based on ethnicity)
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was a legally accepted reality in the United States. In today’s terms, it’d be considered “stare decisis” or settled law. The two majority parties at the time, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, held somewhat differing positions with respect to the issue of slavery; Democrats being staunch supporters and defenders of slavery law, the Whigs somewhat against it (but unwilling to fight the battle to abolish it). (It is a popular Liberal claim that the Constitution legalized slavery. In fact, no such legalization is to be found in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution simply recognizes the existence of slavery and clarifies it in terms of taxation and apportionment for representation).
HATE CRIME LEGISLATION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
Whether race, religious or gender based, hate crime legislation provides for greater levels of punishment based on the motivation for a particular crime.
With the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona, Liberals IMMEDIATELY pushed for special legislation, which would levy heavy penalties to anyone threatening an elected official (never mind that America already has such a law, applicable to ALL: assault).
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
The practice of hiring based on race, gender, gender choice, etc, serves to favor one group (minorities, etc) over another (Caucasians).
TAX LAW (Discrimination based on income, gender, marital status, etc)
The United States Constitution provides for the collection of various taxes by Congress (for those who argue that taxation is “unconstitutional”, this simply is not the case). The argument, appropriately, is a) the degree of taxation levied upon the citizenry and b) the discriminatory actions with regard to “who is taxed what”. Liberals choose to favor certain groups (the poor, minorities, etc) over other groups (the wealthy and successful).
THE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” (Discrimination, based on creed)
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists penned, “…believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Although this specific language is not found in the Constitution, the notion that the Federal Government is forbidden from meddling into a citizen’s personal religion of choice, is: “…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. The inspiration for this part of the First Amendment came from Merry Olde England, when the King, having been disallowed his divorce, rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England; the official state religion.
According to our Constitution, with respect to religion, the Federal Government has two responsibilities:
- It is specifically forbidden to establish a state religion
- It is specifically forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
In their relentless pursuit of legislated discrimination, Democrats twist the intent of the first part of this clause (no prayer in public schools or public places, no religious symbols in public places, etc), while ignoring the other.
In public schools, it is against the law to pray. In fact, a student is not even allowed “a moment of silence”, in the event that someone might take offense. Liberals, in defense of this law (wholly written, supported and defended by Liberalism) claim that this law is in keeping with the first part of the establishment law in the First Amendment. The Liberals are wrong; for in fulfilling their interpretation of the first part, they grossly violate the second part, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
THE NEW SLAVERY (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
In 1973, a Supreme Court decision ushered in the latest iteration of Liberalism’s drive to legislate discrimination. Roe v Wade, which became Federal Law in January, 1973, provided Federal legislative protection to any woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy. Although originally constructed with strict limitations with respect to the age of the fetus, the new law disregarded a fetus’ “humanity”, defying 100% of biological and genetic absolutes with regard to the definition of “human”.
To date, approximately 60 MILLION unborn American children have been sacrificed on the altar of Socialism, with no end in sight. In fact, Democrats continue to pursue the expansion of abortion. Just this past week, nearly 200 Democrats voted against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act”.
You would think that this anniversary would be cause for celebration by Liberals. With each act, within the scope of the law, advocation of “individual, fundamental freedoms” and a triumph of “Women’s Rights”.
Yet, 60 MILLION abortions go unheralded, without fanfare, uncelebrated. Why?
Today, January 22nd, marks the anniversary of “Roe v Wade”: the Federalization of abortion law and wide-open door to the indiscriminate butchering of the most vulnerable in our society.
Happy Anniversary, Liberals. You must be VERY proud…
The New Slavery
Throughout the history of the United States, pieces of legislation have been drafted in direct violation of the Constitution and the other founding documents. These violations, almost always, come in the form of legislated discrimination. The Constitution itself seemed to support the rationale for some of these laws, which included (but were certainly not limited to) women, blacks (and other non-whites) banned from voting, the legality of slavery, etc.
But, in truth, the Constitution neither legalized nor advocated any of these.
Contrary to what is claimed by Democrats, there is no justification for slavery to be found in the Constitution. But, there is a very important reason for their claim: throughout American history, the greatest proponents and defenders of slavery (and other forms of legislated discrimination) have been…the Democratic Party. Rather, the Constitution merely recognized that slavery was existing law.
The “3/5 Compromise”, as it is called (“…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”), does not discuss the race, creed, gender, etc, of those to be counted as “3/5 of a person”, directly conflicting with the Liberal claim to the contrary. In fact, it states SPECIFICALLY, that “…the whole Number of free Persons…” were to be counted for taxation and apportionment. This “whole Number” INCLUDED free blacks, living in non-slavery states. In their argument against the relevance of the Constitution, Liberals fail to mention this fact.
With regard to women not having the Right to vote, Liberals glom onto the phrase, stating that “…all MEN are created equal…”. But, in truth, this is like the bible verse, found in Matthew 18:21-22 “Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.” By similar interpretation, a Liberal should conclude that forgiveness need only happen 490 times. Obviously, this is not the case. Rather, “seven”, in biblical times, referred to an infinite number….Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen an “infinite times infinity” times. So it was in the early days, when “men” referred to ALL people…not just men.
It is therefore no real surprise to know that, even today, Democrats continue to pursue fundamental, legislated discrimination. Variously, issues from “hate crime” legislation and “Affirmative action” to our modern day progressive tax code and embryonic stem cell research and funding comprise merely the latest efforts by Democrats to continue their legacy of Democratically-legislated discrimination, seeking to qualify the citizenry, separating them based on race, creed, gender, gender-identity, stage of life, etc. In the most recent times (since 1973) the primary target of Democrat hostility and discrimination is the unborn and the partially born. In the case of former President, Barack Obama, Senator Barbara Boxer and (shamefully) a few others, this hostility extends to some who are newly-born. (In the remarkable case of Boxer, hostility extends throughout a newborn’s stay in hospital.)
Any way you define it, abortion is The New Slavery.
A LEGACY OF LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION
Our founding documents (The United States Constitution, Declaration if Independence and Bill of Rights), with regard to “equality”, are VERY clear:
“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.”
- The Declaration of Independence
Beyond the fact that the CLEAR intent in these words is to make clear, without question, that these rights are a) “unalienable” (unable to be taken away), b) begin at the moment a person is “created” and c) “endowed by our Creator” (“Creator” with a capital “C”). This statement also makes clear that “happiness” is NOT guaranteed. Rather, the “pursuit of happiness” is guaranteed. This is a critical distinction and lies at the root of not only the equality issue but also the Liberal pathway to legislated inequality.
I know of no one who makes the claim that racism, sexism or homophobia doesn’t exist. They do exist. To deny this truth is to express one’s ignorance of reality. However, whether these “-isms” exist is NOT the relevant issue here. What IS relevant is whether they are “institutional”. By that, I mean legislated.
Throughout the history of legislative action in the United States, laws have served as a reflection of the ideological mix of Congress. Belief in the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees happiness, Liberal ideology requires legislative action which supports and enforces their idea of “equality”, vis-à-vis “happiness”.
TSA PROCEDURES (Discrimination, based on “Right to privacy”)
Although Justice Harry Blackmun, in drafting the “Roe” decision, identified a “Right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, Liberals do not, for whatever reason, regard the same Right as applied to body scans and physical pat-downs. As is absolutely consistent with Liberalism, the “Right to privacy” is not equally applied. Rather, “Privacy” is granted to whomever Liberals deem “worthy”. “Privacy”, Liberals contend, in THIS case, is not an “unalienable Right”.
SLAVERY (Discrimination based on ethnicity)
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was a legally accepted reality in the United States. In today’s terms, it’d be considered “stare decisis” or settled law. The two majority parties at the time, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, held somewhat differing positions with respect to the issue of slavery; Democrats being staunch supporters and defenders of slavery law, the Whigs somewhat against it (but unwilling to fight the battle to abolish it). (It is a popular Liberal claim that the Constitution legalized slavery. In fact, no such legalization is to be found in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution simply recognizes the existence of slavery and clarifies it in terms of taxation and apportionment for representation).
HATE CRIME LEGISLATION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
Whether race, religious or gender based, hate crime legislation provides for greater levels of punishment based on the motivation for a particular crime.
With the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona, Liberals IMMEDIATELY pushed for special legislation, which would levy heavy penalties to anyone threatening an elected official (never mind that America already has such a law, applicable to ALL: assault).
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
The practice of hiring based on race, gender, gender choice, etc, serves to favor one group (minorities, etc) over another (Caucasians).
TAX LAW (Discrimination based on income, gender, marital status, etc)
The United States Constitution provides for the collection of various taxes by Congress (for those who argue that taxation is “unconstitutional”, this simply is not the case). The argument, appropriately, is a) the degree of taxation levied upon the citizenry and b) the discriminatory actions with regard to “who is taxed what”. Liberals choose to favor certain groups (the poor, minorities, etc) over other groups (the wealthy and successful).
THE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” (Discrimination, based on creed)
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists penned, “…believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Although this specific language is not found in the Constitution, the notion that the Federal Government is forbidden from meddling into a citizen’s personal religion of choice, is: “…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. The inspiration for this part of the First Amendment came from Merry Olde England, when the King, having been disallowed his divorce, rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England; the official state religion.
According to our Constitution, with respect to religion, the Federal Government has two responsibilities:
- It is specifically forbidden to establish a state religion
- It is specifically forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
In their relentless pursuit of legislated discrimination, Democrats twist the intent of the first part of this clause (no prayer in public schools or public places, no religious symbols in public places, etc), while ignoring the other.
In public schools, it is against the law to pray. In fact, a student is not even allowed “a moment of silence”, in the event that someone might take offense. Liberals, in defense of this law (wholly written, supported and defended by Liberalism) claim that this law is in keeping with the first part of the establishment law in the First Amendment. The Liberals are wrong; for in fulfilling their interpretation of the first part, they grossly violate the second part, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
THE NEW SLAVERY (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
In 1973, a Supreme Court decision ushered in the latest iteration of Liberalism’s drive to legislate discrimination. Roe v Wade, which became Federal Law in January, 1973, provided Federal legislative protection to any woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy. Although originally constructed with strict limitations with respect to the age of the fetus, the new law disregarded a fetus’ “humanity”, defying 100% of biological and genetic absolutes with regard to the definition of “human”.
To date, approximately 60 MILLION unborn American children have been sacrificed on the altar of Socialism, with no end in sight. In fact, Democrats continue to pursue the expansion of abortion. Just this past week, nearly 200 Democrats voted against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act”.
Defended
now as “settled law”, Liberals claim that Roe CANNOT be overturned. But, as
with slavery, history will prove them wrong. Again.
UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION
Upon review of the above-listed examples of a clear history of legislated discrimination by the Democratic Party, one would be right to ask, “Why”? “Why would Democrats…Liberals…Progressives…encourage, protect, defend and generate ever-more…discrimination?
To truly understand the answer, a broader view, encompassing other Liberal agenda items and beliefs, must be taken into account. Specific examples of these include Darwinism (reducing humans to “merely an animal” status, Kelo vs New London decision (2005) which severely reduced the right to private property, etc.
The intent of legislated discrimination is to lessen the value, or render valueless, humanity; to reduce humans to “just a species of animal”, thereby stripping human beings of “unalienable Rights” and removing the notion of a “Creator” from which fundamental Rights derive. After all, when one group, whether classified by race, creed, gender, gender preference, stage in life, etc, is deemed unworthy of equal protection and not “...created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, then no race, creed, gender, gender-preference, stage in life, etc, is safe from discrimination.
Translation: fundamental, “unalienable Rights”, are endowed at the discretion of Government, not God.
And the battle is FAR from over. Consider current pursuits of Liberal legislators:
- Embryonic stem cell research (and the Federal funding of…). (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
- “The Fairness Doctrine” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
- “Net Neutrality” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
All of these, some enacted into law, create legalized discrimination.
BOTTOM LINE:
Conservatives believe that ALL people are created equal and endowed, by the Creator, with certain unalienable Rights. Therefore, no law, designed by humans, has the ability to supersede the Rights endowed by our Creator.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that THEY, the Government, may decide which people are considered equal and that THEY, the government, determine who has Rights.
And truly, both these belief systems are held for the same reason.
Both sides KNOW that either EVERYONE is equal (the Conservative view), or NO ONE is (the Liberal view).
Tim Hirota
Santa Ana, California
UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION
Upon review of the above-listed examples of a clear history of legislated discrimination by the Democratic Party, one would be right to ask, “Why”? “Why would Democrats…Liberals…Progressives…encourage, protect, defend and generate ever-more…discrimination?
To truly understand the answer, a broader view, encompassing other Liberal agenda items and beliefs, must be taken into account. Specific examples of these include Darwinism (reducing humans to “merely an animal” status, Kelo vs New London decision (2005) which severely reduced the right to private property, etc.
The intent of legislated discrimination is to lessen the value, or render valueless, humanity; to reduce humans to “just a species of animal”, thereby stripping human beings of “unalienable Rights” and removing the notion of a “Creator” from which fundamental Rights derive. After all, when one group, whether classified by race, creed, gender, gender preference, stage in life, etc, is deemed unworthy of equal protection and not “...created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, then no race, creed, gender, gender-preference, stage in life, etc, is safe from discrimination.
Translation: fundamental, “unalienable Rights”, are endowed at the discretion of Government, not God.
And the battle is FAR from over. Consider current pursuits of Liberal legislators:
- Embryonic stem cell research (and the Federal funding of…). (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
- “The Fairness Doctrine” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
- “Net Neutrality” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
All of these, some enacted into law, create legalized discrimination.
BOTTOM LINE:
Conservatives believe that ALL people are created equal and endowed, by the Creator, with certain unalienable Rights. Therefore, no law, designed by humans, has the ability to supersede the Rights endowed by our Creator.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that THEY, the Government, may decide which people are considered equal and that THEY, the government, determine who has Rights.
And truly, both these belief systems are held for the same reason.
Both sides KNOW that either EVERYONE is equal (the Conservative view), or NO ONE is (the Liberal view).
Tim Hirota
Santa Ana, California
