Posts Tagged ‘roe vs wade’

I firmly believe that abortion is murder.  No one has a right to commit murder therefore there can be no right to an abortion.   For the past 50 years we have witnessed the most heinous genocide ever perpetrated, the slaughter of hundreds of millions of unborn children worldwide. 

Because abortion is murder it should never have been legalized here in the United States.  Roe v Wade was a particularly monstrous decision because it overturned abortion bans that 46 states had enacted.  This I learned from Google.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, and health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.

Roe v. Wade was profoundly unconstitutional because the Constitution did not grant any branch of the federal government the authority to overturn state abortion bans.

Thanks to the Marxists who call themselves Progressives, abortion has polarized the United States like no other issues.  This past Monday President Trump issued a major policy statement on this most thorny issue: Read Trump abortion statement | The Hill

Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.

“It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months, and even execution after birth — and that’s exactly what it is. The baby is born, the baby is executed after birth — is unacceptable, and almost everyone agrees with that.”

Pointing out just how radical the Democrats’ position on abortion is was a strategically sound decision by President Trump.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint. The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be.”

“At the end of the day this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart, or in many cases your religion or your faith. Do what’s right for your family and do what’s right for yourself, do what’s for your children, do what’s right for our country, and vote. So important to vote.”

At the end of the day it’s all about will of the people. That’s where we are right now, and that’s what we want. The will of the people.”

I believe taking the middle ground was a strategically wise decision by President Trump.  Taking a hard line on this issue would have been a major turn off for moderates and would have energized the left.

“Like Ronald Reagan, I am strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

“You must follow your heart on this issue, but remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture and in fact to have our country, which is currently and very sadly a nation in decline. Our nation needs help. It needs unity, it needs all of us to work closely together. Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, everyone. We have to work together. We have to bring our nation back from the brink, and that’s where it is. It’s at the brink. And we will. We will do it. I promise you, we will do it.”

“Always go by your heart, but we must win. We have to win. We are a failing nation, but we can be a failing nation no longer. We will make our nation great. We will make our nation greater than ever before. Thank you very much.”

Taking a hard line on abortion would have made it easier for the Democrats to steal another election because it would have shifted a significant number of votes to Biden.

President Trump is Constitutionally correct when he stated that abortion is an issue that must be left in the hands of the states.  The Constitution does not grant federal government the authority to define or punish the crime of murder.

The reviews of President Trump’s abortion speech were mixed. Check out these two articles:

Trump nailed it with his statement today about abortion – American Thinker

Today, Donald Trump issued his statement on abortion, disavowing federal involvement. It was both a correct decision and a politically smart one. Democrats have always used abortion to bring voters into its fold. Now, it cannot do that anymore.

Everything Wrong With Trump’s 2024 Abortion And IVF Messaging (thefederalist.com)

The Republican once hailed as the most successful pro-life president in American history made clear on Monday that he is softening his position on abortion and beefing up his support for in vitro fertilization ahead of the 2024 general election.

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. If successful, they will wipe out states’ rights,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in her response statement.

While actually celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s most tragic decision, Roe versus Wade, Kamala Harris massacred the Declaration of Independence in a rather callous and portentous manner.  This article contains a transcript of her contemptible word salad.

We are here together because we collectively believe and know, America is a promise, America is a promise—it is a promise of freedom and liberty. Not for some, but for all. A promise that we made in the Declaration of Independence that we are each endowed with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Kamala Harris committed several egregious factual and philosophical errors with that one utterance, the most contemptible being her omission of life as one the Unalienable Rights listed in that passage of the Declaration of Independence.

Progressives, and the rest of their collectivist cousins, place little stock in the value of individual lives.  Their religious devotion to abortion is proof of this.  Abortion is the murder of the most innocent and helpless individuals. 

Leftists, such as American Progressives, have always treated certain classes of individuals as less than human.  These include Jews during the Holocaust, the slaves here in the United States, Ukrainians under the old Soviet Union in the 1930s, and the unborn.

Kamala Harris also neglected to inform us who endowed each and every individual with unalienable rights.  Leftists mistakenly believe that rights are granted by governments, because of this Democrats bestow ‘rights’ on their favored groups.  Because God directly endows each and every individual with their rights, it is a grave injustice when governments interfere with the rights of any individual.

The final mistake Kamala Harris made in her short statement occurred when she used the phrase “we collectively believe.”  She is gravely mistaken in the use of this language because Americans do not collectively do anything.  The United States was built upon individualism, not collectivism.

Official Merrick Garland portrait

By John Ruberry

America has endured some terrible attorneys general, Eric Holder, who served under Barack Obama and was held in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious scandal, John Mitchell, a Richard M. Nixon AG, who became the only the second US cabinet official to spend time in a federal prison, and Harry M. Daugherty, the leader of corrupt “Ohio Gang” during the administration of Warren G. Harding. 

And finally, there is Merrick Garland, once heralded as a moderate after Obama nominated him to succeed Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court in 2016. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t hold confirmation hearings on Garland. Donald Trump was elected president later that year, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS bench, where he is now part of the conservative majority. 

Garland is the worst US attorney general since Daugherty.

Who was Daughterty? He was a minor political figure in Ohio who gained power as a behind-the-scenes kingmaker. A drinker like Harding, hey, like most Americans in the early 20th century, Daugherty got involved in the prohibition movement for political expediency. And he’s the man who worked the famous “smoke-filled room” at Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel to win Harding the Republican nomination for president in 1920. In Harding’s words about his successful election, “We drew a pair of deuces and filled.”

Although Harding’s cabinet had some magnificent choices, Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of State and Andrew Mellon as head of the Treasury Department, the Harding cabinet included Daugherty and Albert Fall, secretary of Interior. Fall accepted bribes as he sold cheap oil leases on federal land in what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal, which led to a prison term for him, a first for a cabinet member. Daugherty, if he investigated it at all, barely looked into Teapot Dome. 

Daugherty’s assistant at Justice, and his roommate, was Jess Smith, who probably allowed alcohol owned by the federal government to be sold to bootleggers. Smith committed suicide a few months before Harding’s death in 1923.

Besides corruption, the Ohio Gang was known for its alcohol-fueled poker games at its de facto headquarters, “the Little House on K Street,” in Washington. Yes, there was a two-tiered justice system then.

And that’s been the charge against Garland’s Justice Department. No, not the poker games, but a two-tiered justice system. Don’t get me wrong, the January 6 rioters deserve punishment, even though most of them are probably guilty of nothing more than trespassing. 

Jim Banks, who Nancy Pelosi prevented from serving on the House January 6th Committee, summed up Garland’s hypocrisy perfectly. 

From the American Thinker:

Citing the Justice Department’s lenient treatment of left-wing rioters compared to the harsh treatment of Jan. 6, 2021 rioters at the Capitol, including many who “are not accused of entering the Capitol or committing violence,”

Rep. Jim Banks (R.-Ind.), in a two-page letter dated June 14, 2022, accused Attorney General Merrick Garland of leading “a two-tiered system of justice” at the Department of Justice. Congressman Banks asserted: “Violent rioters who are likely to vote Democrats [sic] are often released with a slap on the wrist, or less, while January 6th defendants are prosecuted to the harshest extent possible.”  

Asserting that “the unequal application of justice is an injustice,” Mr. Banks accused the attorney general of politicizing federal law, thereby assaulting “the basic American principle of equal justice under the law.” 

Then there is Hunter Biden, a Chicago-style influence-peddler. Garland is from the Chicago area; he surely knows a lot about mediocre people like Hunter throwing his weight around as he enriches himself and his family.

Just now on Fox Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, US Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told the host, “We have a two-tiered justice system, one that will treat with kid gloves, or cover up for, Democrats and their powerful friends, the elite–and the rest of Americans. And I think we are seeing that big time with Hunter Biden and all of his very suspicious [financial] transactions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court draft on Dobbs v. Jackson was leaked, the case that overruled Roe v. Wade, there have been protests, in violation of federal law, in front of the homes of conservative justices. So far no one has been charged, even though there is voluminous video evidence that had been aired by news outlets and on YouTube that includes clearly recognizable faces. Announcements of protests are posted on social media.

Is Garland quietly cheering on these illegal protests? Don’t forget, it was Garland’s office that asked the FBI to investigate parents protesting school boards over the teaching of Critical Race Theory, citing unnamed threats.

Last month former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro, who was 72 years old at the time, was put in leg irons by the FBI, after being indicted on contempt of Congress charges. “Who are these people? This is not America,” Navarro said during his first appearance in federal court. “I was a distinguished public servant for four years!”

Navarro, who has not faced prior legal troubles, is hardly a flight risk. 

Earlier this year, former Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan, who served in that role for four decades–and the former chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party–was indicted on a slew of corruption charges. 

Who wants to make a bet with me that Boss Madigan, also a septuagenarian, was not put in leg irons after his indictment?

Daughtery was later asked to resign as attorney general by Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge. He faced trial twice on unrelated charges. Both trials ended with hung juries. 

Garland will face tough questions next year, as congressional investigations led by Republicans will zoom in on the many debacles created by the Biden White House. Look for Garland to answer in the same fashion as Nixon’s Watergate co-conspirators did during the Watergate Senate hearings. “I don’t know” was a common response, as was “I don’t recall.”

Maybe, just maybe, Garland will answer questions about whether he plays poker at boozy parties in Washington.

John Ruberry regular blogs at Marathon Pundit.

I have five living kids at home, and would have an additonal six year old girl with Down Syndrome had she not died after a failed heart surgery. I also have a pretty odd mix of friends, most of whom don’t have a family anywhere near my size, so I get asked a lot of questions about raising a large family. The most common questions come from younger couples asking about when the right, perfect time is to start a family.

And well…there isn’t one.

Someone might tell you to at least wait till after high school, which sounds like pretty good advice. After all, you probably aren’t married in high school, need to finish your diploma, and let’s be honest, most high schoolers don’t think through such life altering choices as having a baby.

Yet I know a few families that were high school sweethearts that married in or pretty near to high school graduation. My mom was one of them. She was married at 18 to my dad (who was graduating college and 4 years her senior) and somehow managed to successfully raise three kids while traveling the world with a Marine Corps officer. Compare that with too many of today’s graduates that can barely write English papers and brag about doing their laundry only a few days late with hashtag adulting on social media. Perhaps that says more about the current state of education than family planning though.

We could pick more times: after you finish your degree, after to start your first job, after you “settle down” (whatever that means), or after you are “ready” (seriously, what the heck does that mean??). But every time you try to nail down a right time, you’ll find lots of counter examples of people starting families that don’t follow that logic that come out just fine.

Which is why there isn’t a perfect time to start a family. Sadly, I see too many good, family-oriented couples searching for the perfect time to start a family. Many of them pray over it, but their prayers revolve around asking God to tell them when to start a family, like they expect some booming voice to emanate from the clouds declaring “Have intercourse at 6:35 pm on July 12th!” or some other nonsense like that. This delay and worry is part of the reason people are waiting later and later to start families, which makes it harder to have children as your biological clock only runs at full tilt for so long.

The recent SCOTUS decision is likely making many couples revisit this question. Abortion and contraception make it appear to give us control of when we have children. Neither does, or certainly doesn’t without consequences. Accepting the challenges, and the joys, of having a family will mean accepting it on the timeline that it comes to you.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating to this blog or purchasing one of the author’s books.