Filed under: health care, Politics | Tagged: Abortion, China, Corona virus, democrat, Donald Trump, foreign aid, foreign assistance, Nancy Pelosi, outbreak, pandemic, pork, porkulus, relief bill, trump, Welfare, wuhan, wuhan virus | Leave a comment »
University of Alabama Gives Back Donation
I’m usually the last person to cheer for the University of Alabama for ANYTHING, but here I’ll make an exception. These crybaby peckerwoods calling for boycotts because Alabama RIGHTLY passed a law restricting the murder and slaughter of unborn children simply exposes who they really are. If donating money is contingent on murdering babies, no one should want your filthy money, you sick bastard.
apnews.com/342b804dd6094b8895fb406faa1162f9
Filed under: Abortion | Tagged: Abortion, democrats, donation, Georgia, late term abortion, murder, pro-life, University of Alabama | Leave a comment »
Democrats Vote to Continue Murdering Babies
Democrats are evil, anti-American tyrants. Strong language, I know. Their actions back up that statement. Over and over again. This is no different. Even if you’re not a Christian, how could ANY moral person justify the unrestricted slaughter of infants? How? There simply is not justification. Yet the democrats openly, PROUDLY support this infanticide. Evil.
Senate fails to pass bill protecting infants surviving abortion
Today, the United States Senate voted on an anti-infanticide bill introduced by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The legislation needed 60 votes to pass, and it failed by a vote of 53 in favor and 44 against. The bill stated that “if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”
Every Democratic presidential hopeful — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, along with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont — voted against this common-sense bill. Democrats Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Bob Casey Jr. voted in favor of the bill. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) did not vote on the bill.
The 2002 Born Alive Infants Protection Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, established that any child born alive — even as the result of an abortion — is to be legally considered a “person”, “human being,” “child”, and “individual” in federal law. However, that law contained no penalties for those who choose not to follow it. Senator Sasse’s bill included penalties for abortionists who break the law, including a fine and/or imprisonment for up to five years.
READ: Poll: 77 percent of Americans want Congress to protect abortion survivors
The bill would also have allowed a woman to take legal action against an abortionist who breaks this law. The bill states that any child who accidentally survives an abortion must be treated with “the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age” and would make certain that “the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.” In addition, the bill requires the mandatory reporting of violations.
Currently, there are 19 states which afford no protections to abortion survivors. According to the Centers for Disease Control, infants are still born alive every year. Between 2003 and 2014 alone, at least 143 babies died after being born alive during abortions. And according to a press release from Live Action News, “In 2018, 16 infants in Florida alone were born alive after surviving abortion attempts.”
Adult survivors of abortion have formed The Abortion Survivors Network. On the group’s website, it states, “a government report in Canada from 2012 reported that 491 children survived abortions there over the nine-year period of 2000-2009. There’s also this report that identifies 766 children survived abortions in the five-year period from 2013-2018. Additionally, there are similar government reports from the U.K. and states inAustralia.”
READ: 10 babies born alive after abortions in 2015 – in only 3 states
Abortion survivors Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jessen, Claire Culwell, and others have spoken out publicly regarding what it’s like to have survived abortions. A group of these survivors appeared on FOX News recently to tell their stories:
Recent polling indicates that just since radical pro-abortion legislation was signed into law in New York in January, more Americans are identifying as pro-life, including Democrats. Other polling indicates that the vast majority of Americans oppose the killing of children who survive abortions. However, the pro-abortion legislators in Congress have largely been deaf to public opinion on this issue.
Live Action president Lila Rose responded to the news of the vote in a press release, stating:
Live Action has documented on camera how abortionists in our country’s notorious late-term abortion facilities talk about survivors of abortion. Washington, D.C. abortionist Cesare Santangelo told our undercover investigators that he would make sure babies “do not survive” if they were born alive at his facility. A New York abortion worker told our Live Action investigator to “flush” the baby down the toilet or “put it in a bag” if she’s born alive. In Arizona, an abortion worker told us there “may be movement” after the baby is outside of the mother and that they would refuse to provide help and instead let her die. Dr. DeShawn Taylor, former medical director for Planned Parenthood, told a Center for Medical Progress investigator that identifying “signs of life” after a baby survives an abortion is contingent upon “who’s in the room.”
There is no difference between infanticide and abortion: both kill the same child….
Today should have been a time of unity in protecting life, but instead, Democrats continue to push for the brutality of abortion and infanticide. With Congress failing to do its job, every state should take this issue up for themselves, ensuring care for these innocent children that are often left to die, and work to eradicate abortion altogether.
Filed under: Abortion | Tagged: 2002 Born Alive Infants Protection Act, Abortion, Abortion Survivors Network, Ben Sasse, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Centers for Disease Control, democrats, infanticide, Lila Rose, Live Action News | Leave a comment »
“Angel of Death” Joseph Mengele Praises Andrew Cuomo
Filed under: Abortion, Politics | Tagged: Abortion, Andrew Cuomo, babies, democrats, eugenics, infanticide, Margaret Sanger, murder, New York, self-destruct, societal collapse, societal decay | Leave a comment »
Ghoulish Baby Killers Celebrate Infanticide in New York
These ghouls who support killing babies are going to stand before the throne of judgement to answer for this. Judgement won’t likely happen here on earth, but when it comes, they will wish it had.
Not only did they clap when the bill passed, they cheered. It’s what democrats and leftists do. They deny God because they think THEY are gods. They think they know better. They are in for a rude awakening.
Galatians 6:7 (NASB) Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
+
New York Passes Bill On Roe V Wade Anniversary Casting Abortion As A Woman’s Right
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill Tuesday night, expanding abortion access and codifying a woman’s right to abort under state law.
Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the Reproductive Health Act on the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, making good on his promise to add abortion protections to the state constitution, according to the New York Post.
Roe v. Wade gave women the constitutional right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment on Jan. 22, 1973. The ruling extended the right to abort up to the point of fetal “viability,” a slippery term that continues to foster debate as neonatal care advances.
Read entire article here: https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/23/abortion-roe-v-wade-new-york/
+
Filed under: Abortion | Tagged: Abortion, abortionist, Andrew Cuomo, Cuomo, democrats, infanticide, leftists, liberals, murderers, New York, progressives, Reproductive Health Act, Roe v. Wade, viability | Leave a comment »
PROOF: Democrats Hate America and Want to Kill Babies
How can democrats claim that they love America and support Americans when they won’t spend money to defend them? Even more insulting is the fact that democrats not only won’t spend money to defend Americans, but want to spend large sums of money to kill babies all over the world.
Democrats hate America, and want to kill babies.
+
Filed under: Abortion, Illegal Immigration, National Security | Tagged: Abortion, border wall, democrats, Donald Trump, Mexico City Policy, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, national security, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance, United Nations Population Fund | Leave a comment »
The Kavanaugh Betrayal: Who’s Responsible
Mr. Farah makes a convincing argument. I’m still waiting to see what rationale Kavanaugh gives for siding with Murder, Inc., and for continuing to allow the federal government to subsidize their murder mill with our tax dollars.
Well, Mr. Kavanaugh? We’re waiting.
+
The Kavanaugh betrayal!
Posted By Joseph Farah On
I hate to say it, but I saw this one coming.
When President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, I knew it was at least a very risky pick.
But he won the hearts of conservatives because of the insanity of the opposition.
Now we know, for certain, that Brett Kavanaugh is a fraud. He should never have been President Trump’s first choice. He’s a weakling. He buckled to the extreme left to salvage his own reputation. I had a bad feeling about this guy – ever since his role in the Vincent Foster cover-up and his tutelage by former independent counsel Kenneth Starr.
How many times do we have to see this kind of betrayal by Republican nominees of Supreme Court justices – Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts?
Continue reading
Filed under: Abortion, Character, Corruption, Judicial Branch, Uncategorized | Tagged: Abortion, Anthony Kennedy, Arizona, Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, cover up, David Souter, independent counsel, John Roberts, Ken Starr, Kenneth Star, planned parenthood, Reagan, Roe v. Wade, Sandra Day O'Conner, Supreme Court, Vince Foster, Vincent Foster | Leave a comment »
Kavanaugh Joins Left to Protect Planned Parenthood
Justice Kavanaugh, we need an explanation. Justice Gorsuch has sometimes voted with the liberals, but has always had a constitutional conservative, and legal rationale for doing so. Perhaps you do as well, although I’m having trouble seeing how states can be denied the right to deny funds from supporting something that is morally reprehensible, and NOT protected under the Constitution.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling
Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter | 11:34 AM 12/10/2018 |
The Supreme Court declined to review three cases relating to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level Monday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.
The dissent was significant because it indicates that Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the high court’s liberal wing to deny review of a lower court decision that favored the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?,” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
Read”>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5498306-Dissent-From-Cert-Denial-Gee-v-Planned.html”>Read Justice Thomas’ Dissent
Filed under: 10th Amendment, Abortion, Conservatism, Constitution, Judicial Branch | Tagged: Abortion, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, planned parenthood, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court, Title X | Leave a comment »
Chuck Schumer is a Rapist
Chuckie Schemer needs to tread lightly…
–
Filed under: 9. Politics | Tagged: Abortion, Caitlin Schumer, Chuck Schumer, impregnate, Lisa Schumer, planned parenthood, rape, rebecca, sex, suicide | Leave a comment »
“Scary” Guns vs. Abortion Tools
Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control
Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.
You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.
You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?
The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…
Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.
Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.
►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?
To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.
Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.
Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?
Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?
Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?
Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.
I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons
Guns and I go back a long way.
My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.
My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.
I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.
I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)
And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.
But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.
These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.
The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.
The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.
These are cop-killer weapons, too.
The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.
As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.
Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?
How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?
How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?
The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.
As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.
When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.
Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.
Link to article: https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/
+
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Guns | Tagged: 2nd Amendment, Abortion, AK-47, AR-15, Benjamin Franklin, Beretta, bolt-action, buckshot, bump stock, checks and balances, confiscation, Constitution, failsafe, founding fathers, George Washington, gun control, John Adams, Las Vegas, law enforcement, M16, mass shooting, Military, militia, nra, patriotism, Ralph Peters, Remington 1100, shotgun, standing army, Thomas Jefferson, unarmed | Leave a comment »
More than 100 Million Gun Owners Did NOT Kill Anyone Today, but Abortion Doctors Did ⋆ Constitution.com
Why is it that we correctly see one nut with a gun killing 59 people as horrific, but shrug our shoulders at one “doctor” with a scalpel who kills THOUSANDS of babies? Why aren’t 55 MILLION dead babies since Roe v. Wade making America sick to its collective stomach? What about blacks, who were/are SPECIFICALLY targeted by the eugenicists who brought us abortion? You would think that blacks would be doing everything they could to end abortion since it is being used to eliminate them BECAUSE they are black.
Using the “logic” of the left, shouldn’t we be banning scalpels?
Filed under: Abortion | Tagged: 9. Politics, Abortion, democrats, eugenics, genocide, gun control, Margaret Sanger | Leave a comment »
America: A Nation on Her Death Bed
What is the single biggest reason for this decay in our society?
Biblical illiteracy.
+
+
50 Facts That Show How Far America Has Fallen In This Generation
What has happened to America? Please show these numbers to anyone that does not believe that the United States is in decline. It is time for all of us to humble ourselves and face the reality of what has happened to our once great nation. For those of us that love America, it is heartbreaking to watch the foundations of our society rot and decay in thousands of different ways. The following are 50 facts that show how far America has fallen in this generation, but the truth is that this list could have been far, far longer…
#1 According to a survey that was just conducted, only 36 percent of all Americans can name the three branches of government.
#2 Only 25 percent of all Americans know how long U.S. Senators are elected for (6 years), and only 20 percent of all Americans know how many U.S. senators there are. Continue reading
Filed under: Character | Tagged: Abortion, alcohol, America, antidepressants, biblical illiteracy, Child Abuse, decline, democrats, drugs, Government, heroin, lawyers, Marriage, Military, moral decay, Obama, pain killers, pornography, sexually transmitted disease, subprime credit, suicide | Leave a comment »