Without exception, each of the Democrats who are contending for their Party's Presidential nomination stated during Thursday night's debate that they believe the U.S. Constitution affirms and protects the citizens' 'right to privacy.'
The term 'right to privacy' has become code language for those who support abortion rights. That is most unfortunate. This implies that those who are pro-life see no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Such thinking is exceedingly flawed.
For example, personally I am pro-life. I do not believe that a living human being growing inside of a woman's body is just 'another part of her body' like an appendage. While the life growing inside her is connected to her body, that life itself is separate with its own genes and chromosomes.
I do not believe that it is right to tamper with that life unless there is an overriding medical reason for doing so.
This medical reason would be determined by the woman's physician. And in that regard there is a right to privacy, due to the fact that medical information is considered private and protected by law.
Thus, if the woman in question decides to have an abortion upon the advice of her physician, it is really none of my business. Medical records are private, and as each of the Democratic candidates stated, we all have the 'right to privacy.'
Alrighty then. Let's see just how far these legal scholars are willing to go with their supposed affirmation of the Constitutional 'right to privacy,' shall we?
If it is none of my business nor the government's as to whether or not the young woman living beside me decides to have an abortion due to medical reasons, which are considered a matter of privacy, although I happen to believe that such an act may be unethical, immoral, and displaying a shocking lack of regard for the sacredness of human life, then why is it any of government's business when and where or how often I buy a gun?
The right to privacy in the Constitution protects a woman's right to end a human life but does not protect MY right to privacy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is explicitly affirmed as an inherent right.
It is actually much easier in this country to end a baby's life than it is to buy a gun.
When I go to the gun shop to purchase a handgun or a long gun, I am required to fill out paperwork, complete with my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and Social Security Number, and in some states I have to wait a week to 14 days before I can take possession of the firearm.
How long will it be before I have to drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em so that they can examine my lower colon with a proctoscope before I can purchase a firearm?
Further, the right to privacy doesn't seem to bother the Dems in the least when it comes to airline safeguards, national databases, national I.D. cards, cameras on street corners, eye-I.D., and the like.
Our privacy has been flying out the window faster than a bat out of hell over the last ten years or so, under both Democratic AND Republican politicians in the Congress and White House.
Yet the Dems claim we have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Apparently, that claim only pertains to abortion rights. I am waiting for one of them to correctly extend that right to the Second Amendment and other privacy violations as well.
I won't be holding my breath...
Showing posts with label Democratic debate 11/15/07. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic debate 11/15/07. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
CONFIRMED! Student Says CNN Forced Her to Ask Frivolous Question
As expected, it has been confirmed today that some of the questions posed to the Democratic Presidential candidates in Thursday night's debate in Las Vegas were planted by CNN. It is not clear to what degree, if any, Mrs. Clinton had to do with the planted questions.
We do know that the audience at the debate was stacked in favor of Mrs. Clinton. We know she has planted questions in the past during her personal appearances. We know that CNN's commentators without exception praised her debate performance.
The student in question, Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Mrs. Clinton if she preferred 'pearls or diamonds,' wrote in her MySpace entry this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frivolous question.
Her original question, which she had planned in advance, pertained to Yucca Mountain. But when the time came for her question, the CNN 'reporter' pulled the plug on the question and told her to go with the frivolous question.
Both CNN and MSNBC have been notorious for asking at least one, if not more, stupid question unworthy of a serious debate during the events they have aired. Thus far, only Fox News has succeeded in producing a debate that was on a par worthy of a major, serious discussion of the issues facing the nation. The trouble is, the Democrats refuse to appear on Fox-sponsored debates, choosing instead to go with their advocates at CNN and MSNBC, both of which have dubious reputations.
In addition, Ms. Luisa also maintains that CNN required that all questions from each participant be submitted for pre-approval.
As expected, CNN caved to Mrs. Clinton's demands, despite the network and the Wolfpack's (Blitzer and his pack of wolves) staging an apparent ambush at the beginning of the debate. Once that was out of the way, the entire thing was 'The Hillary Show,' complete with cheers and applause from the so-called 'undecided voter' audience and the jeers leveled at other candidates such as John Edwards.
CNN's credibility as a news organization has been teetering on the edge of extinction for years. News story after news story, reported by non-mainstream media sources, have blown the whistle on CNN's penchant for slanting its news and engaging in outright deception in reporting.
With Thursday night's debate, the network has just about doomed itself to tabloid status, deserving to be relegated to the ash-heap of untrustworthy and unreliable sources of news.
Planting questions in what is supposed to be a serious and honorable discussion of the issues facing our nation is a most despicable practice. It is to be condemned harshly.
Both CNN and Hillary Clinton should from now on be on notice that the electorate is watching closely, not because we like her but because we don't trust her or her mouthpieces in the mainstream media such as CNN.
For the entire story on the planted question, click here:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
We do know that the audience at the debate was stacked in favor of Mrs. Clinton. We know she has planted questions in the past during her personal appearances. We know that CNN's commentators without exception praised her debate performance.
The student in question, Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Mrs. Clinton if she preferred 'pearls or diamonds,' wrote in her MySpace entry this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frivolous question.
Her original question, which she had planned in advance, pertained to Yucca Mountain. But when the time came for her question, the CNN 'reporter' pulled the plug on the question and told her to go with the frivolous question.
Both CNN and MSNBC have been notorious for asking at least one, if not more, stupid question unworthy of a serious debate during the events they have aired. Thus far, only Fox News has succeeded in producing a debate that was on a par worthy of a major, serious discussion of the issues facing the nation. The trouble is, the Democrats refuse to appear on Fox-sponsored debates, choosing instead to go with their advocates at CNN and MSNBC, both of which have dubious reputations.
In addition, Ms. Luisa also maintains that CNN required that all questions from each participant be submitted for pre-approval.
As expected, CNN caved to Mrs. Clinton's demands, despite the network and the Wolfpack's (Blitzer and his pack of wolves) staging an apparent ambush at the beginning of the debate. Once that was out of the way, the entire thing was 'The Hillary Show,' complete with cheers and applause from the so-called 'undecided voter' audience and the jeers leveled at other candidates such as John Edwards.
CNN's credibility as a news organization has been teetering on the edge of extinction for years. News story after news story, reported by non-mainstream media sources, have blown the whistle on CNN's penchant for slanting its news and engaging in outright deception in reporting.
With Thursday night's debate, the network has just about doomed itself to tabloid status, deserving to be relegated to the ash-heap of untrustworthy and unreliable sources of news.
Planting questions in what is supposed to be a serious and honorable discussion of the issues facing our nation is a most despicable practice. It is to be condemned harshly.
Both CNN and Hillary Clinton should from now on be on notice that the electorate is watching closely, not because we like her but because we don't trust her or her mouthpieces in the mainstream media such as CNN.
For the entire story on the planted question, click here:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
Friday, November 16, 2007
Second Amendment News Roundup for 11/16/07
Images courtesy of A Human Right.
Focusing on guns and politics, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
Michelle Malkin presents her riveting take on the Democratic debate last night, including video clips and comments about CNN, the candidates, and the citizens who asked questions:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/15/what-happens-in-vegas/
Gun Law News informs us of an unusual development in the D.C. v. Heller case:
http://www.gunlawnews.org/News/heller111607-2.html
The Volokh Conspiracy comments on the Barry Bonds indictment. Baseball has always been a game of integrity, at least up until the modern era. If Bonds is convicted, his 'record' needs to be made null and void, because that will mean he was using steroids while supposedly 'beating' Henry Aaron's homerun record:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_11_11-2007_11_17.shtml#1195229570
My favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, has this MUST-read on tax cuts and class warfare:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/congressionalandleftistlies.htm
Squeaky points to a great video clip of an imbecile (CORRECTION--the video is the RESPONSE to the imbecile...so sorry)...one who claims that government should have a monopoly on force:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2007/11/16/great-slideshow-alert/
The Bitch Girls highlight some safety issues with hunters in Kentucky:
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=7607
Breda writes about a lover of liberty who was imprisoned in North Korea:
http://thebredafallacy.blogspot.com/2007/11/liberty-or-death.html
Nicki presents disturbing information on a federal judge who ignores clear law concerning firearms:
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/11/gun-laws-confront-legal-challenges.html
Nicki also has a good read entitled, 'Defending Home and Self':
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2007/11/defending-home-and-self.html
Tam posts an entry from the early days of her blog--comments on the Brady gang:
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/11/dont-you-hate-reruns.html
Oscar Poppa has a few quips about global warming:
http://oscarpoppa.us/?p=785
Say Uncle has the quote of the day, and it's a good one:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/11/16/quote_of_the_day-179/
Robb Allen needs a roommate for the 2A blog bash in Louisville:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2007/11/16/Wanted--Louisville-Roommate.aspx
We all know John Edwards is a barefaced liar. Sebastian shows us an example:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=1935
Mike McCarville reports that Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK, has ripped into the Senate for lack of debate on an important issue:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2007/11/coburn-rips-senate-for-lack-of-debate.html
It seems the Philadelphia police commissioner lives in la-la land. A Keyboard and a .45 has the story:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/11/police-commissioner-sylvester-johnson.html
The Adventures of Roberta X blogs on 'the mood escalator':
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2007/11/mood-escalator.html
Alphecca reports that the NAACP now contends that if you defend yourself, it's racist:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=527
Armed and Safe says that even more Illinois counties have passed pro-Second Amendment resolutions:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-illinois-counties-pass-pro-second.html
Blogonomicon points to commentary on Michael Sullivan that every gun owner should read:
http://blogonomicon.blogspot.com/2007/11/but-hes-only-enforcing-existing-laws.html
Dustin's Gun Blog points to a 'gun-free zone' editorial that is excellent reading:
http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/great-gun-free-zone-editorial-by-alan.html
The most beautiful blond on earth, Blonde Sagacity, posts commentary on the ACLU:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/11/aclu-watch.html
By the way, if you happen to be traveling to the Carolinas, South Carolina in particular, here are some restaurant recommendations, scenic drives, and reputable car dealerships (if you are moving here):
http://carolinacountryside.blogspot.com/2007/11/best-of-carolina-part-one.html
A Few Comments on the Democratic Debate, 11/15
The Democratic candidates debated in Las Vegas Thursday evening before a highly partisan crowd, despite Wolf Blitzer's assertion that they were 'undecided voters.' These 'undecided' voters were all Bush-bashers and overtly anti-Republican.
It was obvious in their responses to the answers by the candidates and in the questions they posed to the them.
The CNN production was fairly poor. The Democrats were introduced to the stage individually, to great applause, much as baseball players in the World Series are individually introduced to the ball field to take their place standing along the first and third baselines.
The display was positively tacky.
In response to suggestions that CNN and its moderators had been 'warned' by the Clinton campaign to go easy on the candidate, Wolf and his pack wasted no time in attempting to appear bold in the face of the threat.
They went directly after Mrs. Clinton on the flip-flopping.
The ensuing scuffle between Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama was the stuff of dramatic TV--a mild form of Jerry Springer. Mrs. Clinton responded by saying that the words of Edwards in particular were 'mud-slinging.'
Clearly they were not.
Edwards merely held up for public viewing the statements of Mrs. Clinton, particularly on her many contradictions, often within the same sentence.
Once the three finished with their tangle, the debate continued on a variety of issues, most of which showed that each one of the Democratic candidates are avowed Socialists, and big tax-and-spend liberals who believe government is the best and final solution to all problems.
The following is a run-down of my impressions of each candidate, based upon the Thursday night debate.
Mrs. Clinton--definitely a flip-flopper, contradictory, subject to change with the wind, a big government Socialist who is trying very hard to run from her votes in the Senate in support of the Iraq War, funding for the Iraq War, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, free health care and tuition credits for illegal aliens, driver's licenses for illegal aliens (despite her claim during the debate that she is opposed to it...I suppose it is one of those infamous Kerry-inspired cases of 'I was for it before I was against it'), and GOVERNMENT MANDATED healthcare for everyone in America.
B. Hussein Obama--a clown. He once taught law. This is one of the things that's wrong with America. He stated that it is the duty of the Federal Courts to equalize and protect minorities. No, Sir. The ONLY constitutional duty of the Court is to interpret and uphold the Constitution no matter what other considerations may exist.
Billy Richardson--too dumb to be President. He didn't even know that the Presidential oath of office specifically states that the utmost duty of the President is to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Richardson stated that 'human rights' are more important than defending the country's security and upholding the Constitution. What an imbecile.
John Edwards--the Breck girl. Pretty boy, in spite of the fact that he is a lawyer, pays scant attention to the Bill of Rights. He is the one who said that having Internet access, becoming a U.S. citizen, being guaranteed an education, etc, are the most important rights in this country. Never once did he mention the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights. He is also a Socialist who believes government can solve everything, but he gets a few points for holding Mrs. Clinton to some accountability.
Joe Biden--a likable, skillful politician. Too bad he is so liberal. He is masterful in his knowledge of foreign policy issues, but again, his stance is for Socialistic solutions to problems, although not as hardened as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
Chris Dodd--DUH!? What a complete and utter waste of time.
Dennis Kucinich--nutty as a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, a neo-Commie to the core, but at least he is consistent and does not try to soften or hide his basic philosophy, unlike Clinton.
With each passing Democratic debate, I become even more convinced that the election of any of these individuals to the Presidency bodes ill for the country.
It was obvious in their responses to the answers by the candidates and in the questions they posed to the them.
The CNN production was fairly poor. The Democrats were introduced to the stage individually, to great applause, much as baseball players in the World Series are individually introduced to the ball field to take their place standing along the first and third baselines.
The display was positively tacky.
In response to suggestions that CNN and its moderators had been 'warned' by the Clinton campaign to go easy on the candidate, Wolf and his pack wasted no time in attempting to appear bold in the face of the threat.
They went directly after Mrs. Clinton on the flip-flopping.
The ensuing scuffle between Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama was the stuff of dramatic TV--a mild form of Jerry Springer. Mrs. Clinton responded by saying that the words of Edwards in particular were 'mud-slinging.'
Clearly they were not.
Edwards merely held up for public viewing the statements of Mrs. Clinton, particularly on her many contradictions, often within the same sentence.
Once the three finished with their tangle, the debate continued on a variety of issues, most of which showed that each one of the Democratic candidates are avowed Socialists, and big tax-and-spend liberals who believe government is the best and final solution to all problems.
The following is a run-down of my impressions of each candidate, based upon the Thursday night debate.
Mrs. Clinton--definitely a flip-flopper, contradictory, subject to change with the wind, a big government Socialist who is trying very hard to run from her votes in the Senate in support of the Iraq War, funding for the Iraq War, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, free health care and tuition credits for illegal aliens, driver's licenses for illegal aliens (despite her claim during the debate that she is opposed to it...I suppose it is one of those infamous Kerry-inspired cases of 'I was for it before I was against it'), and GOVERNMENT MANDATED healthcare for everyone in America.
B. Hussein Obama--a clown. He once taught law. This is one of the things that's wrong with America. He stated that it is the duty of the Federal Courts to equalize and protect minorities. No, Sir. The ONLY constitutional duty of the Court is to interpret and uphold the Constitution no matter what other considerations may exist.
Billy Richardson--too dumb to be President. He didn't even know that the Presidential oath of office specifically states that the utmost duty of the President is to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Richardson stated that 'human rights' are more important than defending the country's security and upholding the Constitution. What an imbecile.
John Edwards--the Breck girl. Pretty boy, in spite of the fact that he is a lawyer, pays scant attention to the Bill of Rights. He is the one who said that having Internet access, becoming a U.S. citizen, being guaranteed an education, etc, are the most important rights in this country. Never once did he mention the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights. He is also a Socialist who believes government can solve everything, but he gets a few points for holding Mrs. Clinton to some accountability.
Joe Biden--a likable, skillful politician. Too bad he is so liberal. He is masterful in his knowledge of foreign policy issues, but again, his stance is for Socialistic solutions to problems, although not as hardened as Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
Chris Dodd--DUH!? What a complete and utter waste of time.
Dennis Kucinich--nutty as a fruitcake, crazy as a loon, a neo-Commie to the core, but at least he is consistent and does not try to soften or hide his basic philosophy, unlike Clinton.
With each passing Democratic debate, I become even more convinced that the election of any of these individuals to the Presidency bodes ill for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)