Archive for the ‘Life’ Category

Can’t have a war without soldiers

January 20, 2014

Can’t have a war without soldiers:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/laurence-m-vance/you-cant-have-a-war-without-soldiers/

Congress rolls over for the executive (Ron Paul):
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/ron-paul/congress-rolls-over-for-the-executive/

What to do when cops pull you over:

Top brass, military and civilian, were told minutes after it started, about the “terrorist” (their word) Benghazi attack, with no mention of any video, to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and minutes before they reported on it to the President:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

Alcohol: study says it’s the “direct cause” of 80,000 deaths a year in the USA:

The countries with the highest rates of alcohol-related deaths were mostly in Central America, including El Salvador (27.4 out of 100,000 deaths each year), Guatemala (22.3 out of 100,000) and Nicaragua (21.3 out of 100,000).

Overall, men accounted for 84 percent of alcohol-necessary deaths, though the male-to-female ratio varied from country to country. In El Salvador, the risk of a man dying from an alcohol-necessary cause was 27.8 times higher than that of a woman, while in the United States and Canada, the risk was 3.2 times higher.

There were also differences in age groups for alcohol mortality between countries. In Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica and the U.S., the highest mortality rates occurred in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age. In Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela, the highest mortality rates were seen in individuals between 40 and 49 years of age.

No Such Agency also gets info from offline computers:
…And so China wants international rules on computer spying. Hahaha. Spying for me but not for thee.
How about we all stop our governments from doing all that spying on us.

Bumper stickers: “Stop watching us”…

“The NSA: The only part of government that actually listens to you”.

And they’re already bringing criminal charges against political opponents in Wisconsin:
…Who said political authorities would ever respect free speech?

 

Chinese Naval Vessel Tries to Force U.S. Warship to Stop in International Waters | Washington Free Beacon

December 14, 2013
BEIJING (April 18, 2009) Chief of Naval Operat...

BEIJING (April 18, 2009) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead speaks with Adm. Wu Shengli, Commander-in-Chief of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, during a visit to PLA Navy headquarters in Beijing. Roughead visited China to participate in the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy and to foster naval and military relationships between the two nations and explore areas for enhanced cooperation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones/Released) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://freebeacon.com/chinese-naval-vessel-tries-to-force-u-s-warship-to-stop-in-international-waters/

“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.

“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”


No, this underscores the need for extreme skepticism at any forthcoming claims by the USG or military forces.

In view of the long and prolific history of false-flag incidents, watch out for any claims that China fired on a USG vessel.

USG <> We the People.
USG <> We individuals.

A long list of documented false flags from history:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-05/these-false-flags-were-used-start-war

aec

 

//

The truth about the Pilgrims:

November 25, 2013

My reply to the Washington Post opinion about the Pilgrims:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-pilgrims/2013/11/22/9f93e822-52c1-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

About Point 2: In their own Mayflower Compact, they listed as a principal reason to come to America was as a witness to the Indians for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Point 3: It wasn’t “the first Thanksgiving“, exactly, but it is symbolically and significantly, because it was a thanksgiving celebration to thank first God and secondly to express gratitude toward the Indian neighbors..

Kudos for Point #4. The Pilgrims had fun, fun, fun…

About Point #5, you give too much overblown credit in your own mind to the “divine right” idea. Like one famous preacher said once about a drunk, he said “There but for the grace of God go I”, meaning he was not any better than that drunk. They were possibly thankful to God himself that the King had opened these new lands to them. And there are millions upon millions of Biblical Christians who regard it as an act of the grace of God that King James was the king during those years, because today we have the legacy, the evidence, the fruit, in the King James Bible. It is such a magnificent piece of literature, and as even the skeptical Napoleon recognized, much more than just literature, that even militant atheist proselytizer Richard Dawkins said he was honored to add his voice to a voice recording of it.

How about another great point or two:

Squanto was the first American Indian they encountered and in one of those “coincidences” he happened to speak fluent English, “the king’s English” as it is called, and became intermediary between the Indians and them, and he was Christian.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When the Pilgrims and the natives got together on that famous first at least most famous and earliest well-known day of giving thanks, to whom do you think the Pilgrims were giving thanks? Read this found at “http://www.thetimesnews.com”&#8230;

Turn your heart toward Thanksgiving

The Mayflower Compact, a painting by Jean Leon...

The Mayflower Compact, a painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris which was widely reproduced through much of the 20th century (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById("cosymantecnisbfw"); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Support the girl WITHOUT the Dragon Tattoo

November 10, 2013

Homeschool family separated for years fights back:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/homeschool-family-separated-for-years-fights-back/

In the novel and movie, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the hero of the story is a troubled girl who was the victim of a spy and security apparatus operating within the Swedish government, and victim of abuse by her state-appointed supervisors. But she is a prodigy in matters of hacking, which works in the story to do justice.

Oh, and by the way, the book trilogy author inserts the question in strategically rare spots about why that particular tattoo. In the books, it turns out that the girl was briefly a member in an all-girls’ grunge band with a name suggestive of Satanism. (Sorry, I don’t remember the name and search engines are not helpful). Thus, again, we see another case where the author is probably hiding his sympathies behind hints that let the reader “draw his own conclusion”.

But then the author was pretty clear in his choice of villainy. He hits a target everybody in the world always uses as an example of evil, Hitler and his Nazis, and combines it with a target he apparently hates, of course using some verses in the Bible. But note, people, that no Christian does those practices anymore and almost all varieties of Christian doctrines even condemn them today, and almost all Biblical interpretations say are superseded by the Law of Love we get from Jesus Christ.

Never mind also that now with the reach of the Internet Reformation, we all know that Hitler –and his Nazis– hated Christianity as much as he hated the Jews. Even almost as much as the voices that claim the state was supposed to separate religion from having any say representation in government.

In the books, her story finally got publicity out and the truth is told and the defamed and disgraced journalist is vindicated.

Contrast that with the very public way in which the Swedish government has persecuted a family for homeschooling their son, and persecuting them in a way that the Nazis would have cheered whole-heartedly. As a matter of fact, Germany is now using a law that they say bans home schooling, passed into law by the Nazi dictatorship, where as we speak the German regime is attempting to do the same things to other families there in Germany.

The figuratively jack-booted Swedish authorities marched Nazi-style, in fact, onto a flight that was ready to take off, and yanked off the son and marched him off into government centers. No doubt he is as we speak under the thumb of official indoctrination specialists to do an Orwellian on him, so they can use him later to denounce the very people that tried to protect him from turning into a state “zombified” robot.

It’s not “Father Knows Best” anymore, it is Big Boss knows best, Great Leader knows best, in the dominant culture. God help us.

Thank God that eventually when their cup of evil is full, He Himself will put an end to these evils that men to do men.

(Starting with the identity thieves and hypocrites that use his name in vain every Sunday or Saturday or Friday in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.)

Ezekiel 8 :12 Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, the Lord seeth us not; the Lord hath forsaken the earth.

13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s house, a nd, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.

 

//

“Reproductive rights” — Orwellian Newspeak — because it’s about the BABY

October 26, 2013

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a "King o...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a “King of abortion”, would later be an active member of a pro-life organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This goes out in reaction to Tibor Machan‘s opinions as expressed in the following link:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34690/Tibor-Machan-Communitarianism-and-Reproductive-Rights/

I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.

How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.

So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)

CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…

That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.

Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.

The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.

An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.

The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.

We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.

In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.

This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.

You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.

So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.

Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.

But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

www.silentnomoreawareness.org/‎

Atheism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Christianity, Respect for Life

August 11, 2013

I used to be an atheist as a young collegiate, but determined to keep an open mind to find the truth whatever it was, I followed science, history, and logic to discover that the Bible was true. For that reason, I am strongly against any coercion of believers.

Believing on Christ is not necessary for living peacefully with your neighbors but it helps you do so if you really believe you will have to answer in this life and the next to a God of love that requires it.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

But an atheist can follow the laws of love better than a Christian in some cases. It’s easier for them if:

#1 They are raised in a culture with a post-Christian legacy from prior generations of respect for the neighbor (noise about the “bad” old days are greatly exaggerated)

#2 They are not raised in a pagan culture like pre-Christian cultures (Even Charles Darwin rebuked an anti-Christian comment in a British paper, explaining how ALL world travelers having to drop anchor off a remote Pacific island felt relief if they saw a steeple of a Christian church. “Whew! We won’t BE dinner tonight”.)

#3 They were NOT raised under an oppressive dictatorship of official atheist government and without clandestine Christian influence. A former fellow employee of mine had helped the Ukraine transition to more of a free market economy. The Russian mafia was much more ruthless than the gangs from other places because they were trained in godless atheism.

Now with the decline of Christianity and the other monotheistic beliefs in the West we already see a decline in the respect for earthly life. Christians are more likely to be pro-life not because of their “religion” directly, but because the philosophy of respect for life is external to their own determinations. It’s much harder to commit prenatal infanticide if you know you are accountable to a real God, it’s easier if you can make up what’s good in your own eyes. When you already believe in a real God you can’t see with your eyes but you know he exists the same way you know that the invisible wind is something real, then it’s harder to claim a baby that looks the same outside and inside the womb is not a baby if you can’t see it, or it’s not breathing.

If you love someone, you don’t always do what they ask for so they’ll feel better about themselves. Proverbs 27:6 says ” Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” The foremost champions of aiding self-euthanasia, assisted suicide, they know it is no help to the victim. Anybody who is sick, if you love them you will seek to build their morale, you won’t affirm their desires to die. When I was a teen I told my uncle I wanted to die and he encouraged me. Later on he tried it himself, but failed, and shortly after that he married a very good lady that loved him and raised children with him, including a beautiful daughter.

The main problem in at least the majority of cases is the interference of government in such highly personal decisions. I don’t want my family to spend millions or even tens of thousands on me if I get to need such huge treatment just to stay alive, but err on the side of life, always. If the government does not pay for such treatments there would be fewer chances for controversy. I do not have the right to take your money, even if it’s tax money, even if it’s deceitful fiat currency, for my million-dollar treatment.

But actively causing my own death? Don’t think so. Actively assisting my wife to die. No way Jose!

But these are only examples of where the rubber meets the road, and where a post-Christian society starts breaking down into a society that has less respect for life.

Slavery or Freedom by Scott Lazarowitz

June 3, 2013

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz73.1.html

A great summary of the difference between slavery and freedom, what they are, and how governments fit into the definitions…

“Death with dignity” or “Useless Eaters”? Power and paternalism says “Go ahead and die!”

May 27, 2013

The title to the article found at the following link is a propaganda piece itself and a tendentious accusation, and the author is not stupid. She KNOWS that it is not true, because without even checking other articles, we know that she accuses pro-lifers of religious motivation. I don’t know, maybe she switches personalities depending on the issue. Her title: “Assisted dying isn’t contested on religious grounds – it’s about power, paternalism and control”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/assisted-dying-isnt-contested-religious-grounds-its-about-power-paternalism-and-con

On that site, they claim that the lay people of almost all religious self-identifying persuasions favor “assisted suicide”, and they point out that the clergy and other leaders oppose. They love to use a majority opinion when it suits their purpose, while saying a judge is “legally” correct in pointing out that a poll majority is no basis for law, they immediately contradict the concession by making it still sound like an elite imposition on the majority.

Polls have lost credibility a long, long time ago. Especially for making any argument for anything. I have been polled myself. The wording of the question, asking leading “questions” to change the mind of the respondent. They inflicted the same question upon me in three different ways in that poll. The “surveyor” only stopped because I stopped the questioning. They assured me my answers would count anyway.

Did they count my responses in their “results”? I’ll never know, and neither will you. The results of that poll were publicized in the obvious direction the pollsters were supposed to evoke, but they are usually useless. They certainly are real arguments for nothing at all. “Approval ratings” are also bogus, believable only when there isn’t too much at stake. Not only useless, they are in essence frauds meant to play with the public mind. Propaganda tools.

I do not have a big clergy salary or position, work as easily reporting to woman bosses as to men bosses, I hate control as a mostly anarcho-capitalist  libertarian, and I don’t think anybody should have cultural sanction to kill another person. That’s finality in the control category, killing somebody, and that’s exactly the problem that inflicts so many PATHOLOGICAL killers. No emotion at killing somebody.

Now we have advocates of “mercy” killing.  They do not deny their emotions, but here comes the “for your own good” rationale beating down on common sense.

Oh, but that stage is maybe to follow. The powers that be that are pushing this theme are not yet going to admit that their real goal is the elimination of what Hitler called “useless eaters”. For now it’s a “compassionate” [sic] concern for the desires of the suffering.

For now, they say they only want to “help” those who are of “sound mind” who want to go. Presumably who also suffer from terminal disease. That’s their main argument anyway.

Kid you not. “Help them” die instead of talking them out of suicide. Hello? Rational logic calling! Come back!

In this “Brave New World” drowning in drugs and the commercialization of pleasure and hedonist philosophies, instead of improving techniques for improving the lives of the suffering, they want you to think of just letting them die. What a psych trick to say “Death with dignity” rather than a “poor quality of life”. There is no “dignity” in either killing yourself, and there is a lot less dignity in helping someone you say you love to kill themselves. Or instead of talking them out of it, nod your head, knowing that it is your partner’s pride that does not want to be dependent for life.

The compassionate thing is to make them know that their lives are important to you, making them know that they are more useful to you alive than dead.

(Meantime, many of the same powers that be advocate dependency on strangers from government for the poor).

Not the new twist in the psych of that title. They added a new Doublespeak to the Newspeak dictionary, calling it “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide”. Suicide has a bad name. Suicide is a bad name. That’s because suicide is a very bad thing.

If you kill somebody else, it’s called murder. If you kill yourself instead, that’s called suicide. To some people that makes all the difference. But it is still somebody killing somebody. If it’s bad to kill somebody, it’s bad to encourage them or help them kill themselves.

But in the real world of rational discussion, the thing that makes it bad for somebody to be killed at the hand of another, is just as tragic a death if somebody is killed at their own hand.

The worst aspect of this is the degenerate drop of moral pretense here. While arguing in moral terms, the Powers That Be that want this expose themselves in that they show that they care not about life over death. They have other plans for you.

This is Pandora’s box. Their game is over, their gig is up, it’s going to start winding down. There will be some blowback from the Powers That Be that want to hold the power of life and death over the rest of us. People are beginning to wake up to their oppression, in spite of their tendency to hide in the shadows and behind secret societies, old boys’ networks and the like.

This paternalistic ruling clique wants us to believe that we the people have demanded the “right” to kill ourselves and get a doctor to turn upside down help us die instead of help us live. But there is a twist to this, just like with a “woman’s right to choose”. With a “woman’s right to choose”, it really becomes an invitation for a man’s “right to choose”.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding motherhood (so they’ve been told). But nature tells them in the back of the mind and in the region of the heart that having a baby in the womb makes them a mother. The desire is there and the “Silent No More” movement of women who publicly confess and denounce their own abortions is a demonstration of this, along with the fact shown in surveys of the symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.

In one pro-abortion movie, in fact, it made light humor of one young girl bragging that she had told FIVE different guys that it was their baby so she could get the money not only for the abortion but a trip to Hawaii. Real funny.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding babyhood (so they’ve been told). But surveys have shown that in the majority of cases, the women “choosing” abortion did it under pressure of a father, a mother, an uncle, or the boyfriend.

So it is a lie that abortion is simply a “choice” for women. It has made them more vulnerable to the demands of men, in fact. It has added pressure for them to approach sexuality in the same way as men. The long-term blowback is felt by the older feminists who yearn for motherhood. Connie Chung is one of the most famous of these, not exactly a “feminist”, but one who bought into the myth that a woman could have a fulfilling career same as a man without the naggings of motherhood. Too late, she sought motherhood. It is not paternalistic to understand this.

Denying your nature, denying who you are, denying the physical and natural testimony of your physiology, this is not a simple matter of “choice” or “law” or “decree”.

There is one more road to hell here, whether you want to think it’s paved with good intentions or not.

In a moral society, we expect doctors to heal us when we’re sick, alleviate our pain, and help us avoid death as much as possible. Doctors enter the profession with this orientation in mind. Part of the horrors of the Axis powers during World War II was the turning of this on its head. Medical knowledge was applied to death instead.

To legalize this will end the universal expectation of doctors. Some have already been indoctrinated by the fact of death in the baby-killing business, as in the Gosnell case in Philadelphia. Not even playing the race card saved him from the horrified reaction even from the partial-birth abortion advocates. Unsaid in the coverage was the fact that now President Obama uttered one of his few voiced opinions in the Illinois State Senate against strengthening the penalties for the kind of things that Gosnell did as a matter of course.

May God save us from this pro-death propaganda. That’s what it is.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: - Deuteronomy 30:19

 

 

Lauryn Hill Ordered by the Court to “Counseling” For “Conspiracy Theory”

May 20, 2013
English: Red hammer and sicle on transparent b...

Communist Money Changers Steal from Middle Class for Ruling Class (Photo: Wikipedia)

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/lauryn-hill-ordered-by-the-court-to-undergo-counseling-due-t-her-conspiracy-theories/

She’s going to get “re-education”.

They used to do this to people in the old Stalinist regime that disagreed with the regime. Declare them mentally ill and then experiment with pacification drugs to “cure” them and rob them of their independent minds.

 

“lfl”: Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.

May 19, 2013
8 weeks old baby

8 weeks old baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Christian Science Monitor:
http://tinyurl.com/bymvc99

Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.
Aggravated murder charges likely will be sought against Ariel Castro, a prosecutor said. Experts say it is unprecedented to sentence someone to death for killing a fetus in a case in which the mother survives.

Establishing legal personhood of those five babies would most importantly benefit the unborn children themselves.

Some of the liberty-minded have a problem thinking out whether the mother (or father) has an obligation to the child. I say there is no such quandary.

One bedrock principle for libertarians is demanding personal responsibility for one’s own actions. Leave me alone, don’t rob my neighbor to rescue me from the results of my decisions.

A baby is a result of a conscious action by two people, the father and the mother. The only exception is the case of a rape. But where two people have sex, even people with major brain limitations know that babies can “happen” from sex. If a new human life is conceived, you did it, it’s yours, you take care of it. Yes, you DO owe it to that baby. The baby had no say in the contract, it’s an “imposition” on the baby if it is an “imposition” on anybody. It’s an implicit contract made all the more “enforceable” under libertarian principles because of the fact that life is the first requirement for life, liberty, and ownership.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 150 other followers