Lt Governor David Dewhurst proxies for Mitt Romney.  AJ Spiker Iowa Republican Party Chair.  Issues.  Craig Robinson The Iowa Republican,  pre-election coverage.  Issues.  A delivery guy gets pissed off and pisses on a tip stiffer.   Sounds like a country song, don't it?

Direct download: mickelson-2012-11-05.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 4:08pm CST

 There is a very power video making the rounds in the internet.  It is a collection of testimony from the children of rape.  They are standing with Richard Mourdock.  Very powerful.   It stimulated this exhange. 

From James.

These are touching examples of why none of us LIKE abortion. My side of our family would probably not exist if abortion had been legal in the 1920's. However, I still have reservations over the legal aspect of all this--who makes the actual decision regarding an abortion. The police? The courts? The church? The woman?

James,

That's the central question. Before 1973 it was up to the states to define and defend life. SCOTUS served up Roe which fraudulently grasped jurisdiction, committed sociology rather than law, based upon at least three false assumptions, built upon a court case whose standing was based upon fraud. States, under our form of government defend life. The jurisdiction was always there first. The Texas AG in Roe falsely asserted that the unborn merited protection under the 14th Amendment's due process clause. That was a fatal error to the case. The 14th Amendment states that one is person under the law once he is born. The pre-born therefore are not "legal" persons under the 14th Amendment. The states however, pre-Roe, began with the idea that it is the function of states to protect the lives of their citizens as we are equally endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. The act of human creation was always considered to be conception. Therefore, the rights of the un-born are to be named and protected by the same body which protects the rest of us. Based upon the Declaration Principles, the states protected life beginning at conception and ruled it worthy of legal protection beginning then. Enforcement begins with the assumption that humans are fully human before birth and nobody, including mom can destroy another human life without the expectation of accountability. Neither mothers or the church, or courts have the jurisdiction to  take the life of another innocent human being. The legislature is the representative body which crafts the laws by which the courts enforce (due process). We don't allow individuals to appeal their own "conscience" when it comes to defining life nor do we give individuals the power of life and death at any other time except for clear cases of self-defense against deadly aggression. There isn't justification to grant mothers the power of life and death over their own offspring; and this doesn't violate her rights to control her own body. Once conception has begun, there are two humans involved. Mom doesn't have the  moral  jurisdiction and shouldn't have the legal jurisdiction to kill her own,  now living offspring. Any more than she has the moral legal right to end the life of her infirmed mom who is confined to a wheel chair or lying helpless in her death bed. Why?

 1. Life is God-given. 2. Rights are God-given. 3. God gave us government to restrain evil. 4. God gave us His law to define evil. 5. God ordained human government to enforce His laws. Pagans reject all of these ideas. SCOTUS is a pagan institution.  Iowans should resist Roe as the  legal and sociologic  rubbish it is and  to define life as worthy of protection from the beginning.  That IS with Our jurisdiction.

Category:general -- posted at: 7:11am CST

1



-->

Syndication

Links

Archives

November 2012
S M T W T F S
     
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30