"Mental Defective Olympics". President Obama should not have apologized for his remark about his bowling score being like that of competitors in the Special Olympics. To call a horrifying, disgusting competition among mental defectives "Special" is an outrageous abuse of language. Retardates — regularly, and properly, called "retards" in the popular culture — are not "special"; they are "defective", subnormal. At worst, they are profoundly subhuman and will always be a parasitic drain on society. They will never experience human happiness or accomplishment, and nobody should delude themselves that wasting millions of dollars on pitiful athletic contests for subhuman losers is somehow going to make their lives complete. They will never be anything but seriously deficient "human" beings, and the money society spends on keeping these creatures alive is an evil waste that could much better be spent on keeping normal children alive in the Third World. Profoundly retarded "people" should be euthanized, their bodies cut up for parts for normal people, if they be usable, and the money now being thrown away, for DECADES, should be used for legitimate purposes. The idea of killing animals to keep vegetables alive is disgraceful.
+
If the whole world were prosperous, perhaps we could afford to indulge retards. But in fact the world is in terrible condition, with even normal people in advanced countries suffering hardship. And over 14 million normal children die of STARVATION each and every year without end. Meanwhile, we're throwing away billions of dollars a year on retards. Disgraceful.
+
Governess Palin deliberately and passive-aggressively inflicted a retarded child upon society that she should have aborted. Protections for the unborn are intended for the human. Severe retards are not human. Fortunately, that irresponsible witch is rich enuf to provide a fund to take care of her little retard for its entire worthless life. Not everyone is so able, however, and society is stuck with the bill for these sad monsters decades after their parents have died. Some of them actually dare to reproduce, and pass along their mental defect to future generations that society will also have to take care of, as future dead drains on social resources. And normal children in the Third World will continue to be left to die while rich countries waste the money that should have been sent to them on keeping worthless, subhuman parasites alive instead!
+
Society has no reason whatsoever to feel guilty about despising mental defectives. If similar defectives were born among chickens, the flock might well peck them to death, a very painful death and far worse fate than being held in contempt by the human flock. And if society should choose to kill mental defectives, it doesn't have to be cruel about it, and the death society deals out can be painless.
+
Society did not produce mental defectives. Individual parents did. That is their tragedy, and their problem. We have no reason to be ashamed of finding mental defectives disgusting and useless. It is part of the natural order for us to find mental defectives disgusting so we don't mate with them and pass their defect on to future generations.
+
We didn't produce their defect. Why should we have to pay for it? Why should we indulge them, even call them "special"? They're not "special"; they're "defective". They are not better than ordinary people; they are WORSE, and we have no reason not to admit for everyone to hear that mental defectives are worse than normal people, and live at our sufferance — a sufferance that we can properly end anytime we want. Mental defectives who become a public charge and cannot pull their own weight should be euthanized. It's not like they are elderly people who become infirm after decades of contributing to society. The more profound retards will never have contributed to society nearly as much as they take. Society has the right to end its toleration of this endless parasitization anytime it wants, and end the drain on public resources. We don't have to be cruel about it. They won't know they're being euthanized. You just give them a nice cup of hot chocolate with a sleeping pill in it. Then, if they have working organs that normal people can use, you chop them up for parts and cremate the rest. If they have no parts that normal people can use, you just finish them off, humanely, cremate them, and scatter their ashes in national forests, where they will return to and nourish the Earth they theretofore parasitized.
+
I am LIVID that this craven society, which HATES retards, as all societies do, not only does not say outrite that mental defectives are not human and should be euthanized to end their sad little lives, but that retards are actually treated as SPECIAL! The Supreme Court has said that mental defectives who kill normal people, even BRILLIANT people, cannot be put to death for their crimes. Subhuman monstrosities are thus given rights SUPERIOR to normal people or even geniuses. That is insane. The judges who came up with that insane decision should be ignored, overruled, even executed if need be to permit us to get rid of the criminals who should be killed FIRST: those too stupid to know right from wrong. But don't worry. We'll have retards throw the switch, so it will be alrite in the minds of the judges killed by them.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,260 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:19 PM

 
The People of the United States vs. the Rich — Full Speed Ahead. The rich are fiting back against nearly universal fury over their greed, pretending that they have choices and they can hurt us; that if we don't cave in and let them steal from the taxpayers, they will ruin the economy and crush us. Bullshit. They have NO POWER. We, the People, have all the power, including the power to tax them at 100% over $1 million income per year if we damned well please. We can audit them and find every attempt to evade taxes, then charge them treble damages and IMPRISON them, charging them as well triple the costs of keeping them in prison.
+
The rich have to be slapped awake from their insane delusions. The names of at least some of the thieves who stole from AIG have now been made public by the Connecticut Attorney General. The rich pretend to be livid. They are actually terrified.
+
They had better back off or we may have to go that extra step, not just running bus tours past their mansions but burning their mansions to the ground in the middle of the nite, or following the execs out of their mansions — leaving the wife and kiddies unharmed — run them off the road, grab them, and torture them to death. Maybe only violence can get thru to these bastards, that the days when they ran roughshod over everyone else are OVER. You will do what you're told, or we will KILL YOU.
+
We are perilously close to violent revolution, and the rich may need to repent, or die.
+
The pretense that they have choices, that they can simply sit on their money and refuse to buy stocks or "toxic assets" sold at bargain-basement prices, is an empty BLUFF. They are NOT going to sit on their money, on the sidelines, while other people buy up everything at super-cheap prices and then pass them at the speed of a rocket when the economy recovers, leaving them humiliatingly "poor" by contrast.
+
There is noplace else to invest, because almost the whole of the world is suffering from the current Decession already, and if the rich were to try to make things worse here, they would as well make things worse EVERYWHERE, including those few brite spots still in existence.
+
Moreover, if the Federal Government were to see unusual outflows of cash, it could simply forbid movement of OUR money — remember that every dollar has our name on it, "United States of America"; every dollar with those words on it is OURS, and would have absolutely no value whatsoever if our name were NOT on it — out of OUR country.
+
As a practical matter, the rich have NO choices but to swallow their extreme pride and behave responsibly. Because if they are spiteful to us, they risk lethal rage from us. There aren't bodyguards enuf on the planet to protect them from mass rage, and many a fool has found to his dismay that bodyguards can turn on them. Remember Indira Gandhi, baby. Remember Indira Gandhi.
+
Congress must not be intimidated by the rich. Crush them. Make plain that the people have all the power and the rich have nothing but what we LET them have. If we decide to make war upon them, they will have NOTHING AT ALL, not even their lives. They have NO leverage, NO power, NO rights but what we give them. They will do what they're told. There is noplace else to go, noplace else to invest. They can't take two cents out of the country without our permission, and we are under no obligation to GIVE them permission to take OUR money out of OUR country. If they want to leave with nothing, fine. Good riddance. They will find, if they try to start all over, with nothing, that they really weren't magic after all, and they will never be able to recover because they really did not "earn" or "make" their fortune after all. It was just inherited or the product of simple luck, not skill, not merit, not God's special benediction, and they cannot replicate it elsewhere. Only the conditions in the United States empowered them to become rich. Only our infrastructure and educated workforce and a culture that produces creativity and indulges risk and extraordinary reward enabled them to become rich. And every other country they might even think of living in has HIGHER TAXES than we have.
+
Lest they think the United States is too "civilized" (castrated) to strike them down, let them remember that the most civilized country of Europe, France, had a Reign of Terror that sliced the heads off the rich. And where would the American rich get the idea that the United States is a nonviolent country? We have the industrialized world's highest rates of violent crime, 16,692 murders in 2005. Our culture glorifies violence. Just check the TV schedule for any given nite. The bulk of primetime on several nites a week is devoted to violent death — as entertainment!
+
As for the Government, it is involved in TWO wars, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people, a minimum of 91,000 Iraqis alone, probably as many as 655,000, and perhaps as many as 1.3 million. That's only for the last six years, following the U.S. unilateral and unprovoked attack upon Iraq of 2003. In more than a decade before then, the U.S. Government caused over 500,000 more Iraqi deaths in its "sanctions regime". So the U.S. Government is perfectly comfortable with killing massive numbers of people.
+
The rich have no reason to feel safe, not from the unorganized populace, not from the Government. They had better stop threatening us, and toe the line, while they are still able to move a toe. There's a saying, "A word to the wise is sufficient." The rich, however, may not be nearly so wise as they think. They may need to be beaten into submission. And there are lots of people in this country who would love to beat them — to death.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,260 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 7:33 PM

 
Really Getting Tuf on Bonuses. Congress pretended to get tuf on thieving executives at companies that have received Government bailouts. But this is their idea of getting tuf:

The bill would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses given to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at American International Group and other companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money. It would apply to any such bonuses issued since Dec. 31.

So a $250,000 bonus is just fine with Congress? It's not fine with me, and not fine with the bulk of the American people.
+
Moreover, legal experts say that these taxes will never actually take effect, because the Supreme Court will strike down this measure as unconstitutional, as being an ex post facto (retroactive) measure and/or bill of attainder. Oh? Didn't any of these people ever hear of Article III, Section 2?

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Judicial Review, Judicial Dictatorship. The Constitution nowhere grants the Supreme Court the power to void a law duly passed by Congress and the President, or by Congress alone over Presidential veto, in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution. The power to void laws was invented, simply seized out of the clear blue sky, by the Supreme Court, without any Constitutional warrant whatsoever, in the notorious case of Marbury v. Madison .That asserted power is entirely extralegal and unconstitutional.
+
Thomas Jefferson, for one, understood full well that absolute power, given to the Supreme Court, would produce judicial dictatorship:

You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Abraham Lincoln, pondering the destruction wrought upon the Republic by the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, said:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

In short, five old fools (a majority of the nine members of the Supreme Court) — or even all nine members of one Court — cannot be permitted to thwart the will of the people.
+
To prevent this, the Framers put into the Constitution a zinger of a provision that empowers Congress to forbid courts to review a particular act, not just a category of governmental behavior. That provision lies fallow, unused, most of the time, but can be trotted out to preempt courts from seeking to overrule the people, any time Congress may so choose.
+
Reread the wording:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means that any time Congress wishes to make an exception from standard practice, it can do so. An online discussion of the question "How can the legislature override the judicial review power of the supreme court?" includes this info:

No, [judicial review] can be avoided, last time was in 2001. Check out
EXPEDITING CONSTRUCTION OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA --
(House of Representatives - May 15, 2001)
H.R. 1696

"(3) The decision to construct the World War II memorial at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site, decisions implementing this subsection, and decisions regarding the design for the World War II memorial are final and conclusive and shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review."

I checked the wording of the legislation as passed, and that provision is indeed there.
+
The validity of Congressional prohibition of judicial review was implicitly accepted by the Supreme Court in Webster v. Doe (1988). In that case, the failure of Congress to preclude judicial review worked in favor of a gay man. But I read a few years ago that Congress had passed some antihomosexual legislation with a provision forbidding judicial review. I didn't find any such act in the Google search I ran today, but that may be only because I didn't plug in precisely the right search terms. In any event, the power of Congress to forbid judicial review on a particular piece of legislation is well understood.
+
Thus, if Congress does NOT forbid judicial review of measures to roll back the obscene bonuses paid by AIG and other recipients of bailout money, when everyone expects the Supreme Court to strike down this legislation because of its retroactivity and specificity to a small number of recipients, we must conclude that Congress is merely grandstanding, not passing serious legislation, seriously intended to recapture those wrongful bonuses, at all.
+
Let us for a minute, however, assume that Congress, caught in hypocrisy, were to feel compelled to prohibit judicial review of this legislation. The question then becomes "How much of a bonus to executives should be permitted by a corporation that receives taxpayer bailout money?" Is $250,000 a reasonable upper limit? Or is $1,000 — enuf to buy, say, modest Christmas presents for a typical household — a reasonable upper limit?
+
Congress is used to dealing with very big numbers. The rest of us?, not so much. Let us compare a $250,000 bonus to what the typical American makes. Let's start with people on a fixed income, just barely getting by in this tough time, or even falling behind.
+
The typical Social Security payout is $1,153 per month, which totals $13,836 for an entire year. A bonus of "only" $250,000 is 18 times the typical Social Security recipient's base income (which may also be total income) for an entire year. As if that weren't bad enuf, that $250,000 is also only a bonus, on top of the recipient's actual yearly salary, which could be hundreds of thousands of dollars more. A bonus is paid in one month. $250,000 is 216 times the typical monthly income of a person on Social Security. So I ask, how is Congress being 'tough' on bonuses?
+
In case anyone thinks it unfair to compare Social Security recipients to these executives, let's take the typical income of an ordinary working person as our point of departure: $32,140 per year, or $2,678 per month. $250,000 is 7.8 times the typical annual income, and 93 times the typical monthly income. I repeat, how is Congress being 'tough' on bonuses?
+
Congress should ELIMINATE bonuses ENTIRELY, save perhaps $1,000 at the holidays, for EVERY company that receives taxpayer money. We who pay for these bonuses don't make even a large fraction of the BONUS figures we see tossed around, let alone salary-plus-bonus. Why should we suffer to pay, to the rich, bonuses for failure? We should NOT. Congress should forbid bonuses higher than $1,000 once a year, until every dime the taxpayers have poured into these companies has been repaid. You want to talk about incentive? That should serve as an enormous incentive to corporate executives to succeed, and pay back taxpayers — so they can resume paying themselves outrageous amounts. Congress can do this, and make it stick, simply by FORBIDDING JUDICIAL REVIEW of its anti-bonus legislation. Citizens need to know that, and insist on it.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,259 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:48 PM

 
Crush AIG Thieves. A corporation that is owned and should be controlled in every particular by the Federal Government is misbehaving so badly that its misbehavior constitutes crimes. The Obama Administration pretends to be powerless to do anything about it and stop or reverse the payout of over 165 million taxpayer dollars to top executives. Absurd.
+
'Public Policy' Exception. The pretense that any piece of paper AIG management signed is a contract that Government cannot void is nonsense. A "contract" is not a contract until a court SAYS it's a contract. And if a court finds that a written "agreement" is NOT a contract, it's NOT A CONTRACT. I worked for lawyers for decades, and when we drew up what was intended to be a contract, it was NEVER given the title "contract" but only "agreement". Because an agreement is not a "contract" unless and until it can be enforced by a court of law. One way an "agreement" can be voided is that a court finds that it is contrary to public policy.
+
You have only to watch Judge Marilyn Millán on the People's Court to get a sense of what an agreement has to contain, at the very least, to be confirmed by a judge as a contract.
+
• There must be a "meeting of the minds". Both sides to an agreement must understand exactly what they agree to. If one side thinks the agreement means one thing, but the other side thinks it means another, there is no meeting of the minds, and a court will not render the agreement a "contract".
• The agreement must be mutually beneficial, and the "consideration" (benefit) given to each party must be felt by each side to be sufficient, that is, proportionate and appropriate, entailing a rough equality of obligations and benefits. One-sided agreements will not be confirmed as "contracts".
• A third test applies to some agreements: it must comport with public policy. An agreement to violate the law will not be enforced. For instance, if a woman hires a hitman to kill her husband (a "contract killing"); she pays him the fee he demands; but he refuses to kill her husband, she cannot go to court and demand that the hitman either kill her husband or return her money. Because hiring someone to murder someone is contrary to public policy, the "agreement" is NOT a "contract" even tho every other element of a contract is present in the "agreement".
+
Apply this to AIG. The claim is made that AIG committed to pay money to executives even if they caused not profit but disaster to the company. Paying people to harm the company is not enforceable as a matter of public policy. Paying people to loot a corporation and steal taxpayer money is not enforceable as a matter of public policy. The "agreements" signed by AIG are not enforceable as a matter of public policy, so they are NOT "contracts". Period.
+
Even as regards the very most basic condition of a contract, a "meeting of the minds", did AIG really intend to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to people for destroying the company? Plainly not. Such an intention is inconceivable, so it did not happen. Thus, as regards a meeting of the minds, AIG cannot have intended that catastrophic failure be rewarded with bonuses.
+
Who is AIG? A corporation is the property of its owners, not managers. Even if management wanted to feather its own nest without regard to the owners, they are not entitled to do that. A corporation is not its management but its owners, the stockholders. So even if the managers did intend to take shareholder money and appropriate it for themselves while destroying shareholder value, the actual corporation, the owners/stockholders, did NOT so consent. The actual party to the "agreement", then, did NOT agree to be robbed, so there was NOT a meeting of the minds between the actual parties-in-interest.
+
A corporation is a legal entity a step away from the owners, such that when the corporation is sued or ceases to exist, the owners (shareholders) are not personally ruined. But sometimes courts "pierce the corporate veil", and find that the owners can be held to account for corporate acts. This is usually done to punish misdeeds committed by the owners thru the corporate structure. But if the corporate veil can be pierced to punish, surely it can be pierced to protect. Let the courts protect the shareholders of AIG — mainly the United States Government, now — from the misdeeds of AIG management.
+
Delusions of Powerlessness. Media are abuzz with frustration over these AIG bonuses. Everyone seems to agree that 300 million people are completely powerless against a few dozen people. That is insane; absolutely delusional thinking. 300 million people can not merely stop a few dozen from committing outrages; 300 million people can KILL a few dozen — or even thousands, as of right. Even if all we did was, each and every one of us, punch these executives, one punch per person, that collective punishment would KILL them, many times over. To think there is nothing we can do is DELUSIONAL.
+
Barney Frank said tonite on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show that the United States owns AIG and can, as owner, simply refuse to pay out bonuses. Tho Frank did not say this, if AIG had so refused, the people who claim to be "due" such payments would then have to sue, and persuade a court that they earned them.
+
That's one way to go. There are many others.
+
Acting in behalf of the 300 million American owners of AIG, the United States Government has the power to void any financial agreement made in the United States (always remember that no "agreement" is a "contract" unless the Government says it is). Bankruptcy courts do it all the time.
+
More pointedly, the United States Government has the literal power of life and death over these executives. We can demand they return this ill-gotten gain on penalty of imprisonment or death.
+
But we don't have to rely upon direct Government action.
+
Misbehaving executives should fear for their lives, if not from the Government, then from the people directly. How might that work? Very easily. And very quickly.
+
The Government can put the names, Social Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, PHOTOGRAPHS from various angles, full-body and up-close face shots, and daily schedule — with routes to and from work, the stores they shop at and restaurants they patronize, with days and times — on the Internet and let the people take care of this for us. And then we can sue their estate for return of ill-gotten gains.
+
If we imprison them, we can seize all moneys necessary to pay for their imprisonment, at whatever rate we care to charge.
+
No One Is Indispensable. The excuse the Feds make is that the executives who got AIG into such a mess are the only ones who know how it happened, and, thus, how to get us out of the mess they made: 'it takes the bombmaker to defuse the bomb'. Oh?
+
First, that cannot be true. Any team of competent "forensic accountants" and lawyers can sort this mess out, even without a single word of explanation from the 'bombmakers'. If the United States Government, over 14 million people — yes, 14M — does not contain the requisite experts, it sure as hell can hire them — for a lot less than $165 million.
+
Moreover, the United States Government can imprison evil thieves and hold them in horrendous conditions, here or abroad, and get every bit of information we need from them to undo their crimes. If they resist, we can simply starve them until they cooperate. "Fatcats" would not remain fat very long in a cell into which no food is delivered until and unless they cooperate.
+
The rich are not, personally, physically courageous. They do not volunteer for the millitary. They do not serve as police officers, firefiters, or even auxiliary police officers walking the streets in a neighborhood watch. Merely not feeding them for a few days would make most of them spill their guts (so to speak).
+
If we are in a hurry, or don't trust what the prisoners might say just to be fed, we can inject them with sodium pentathol or scopolomine "truth serum". We can interrogate them under polygraph and voice-stress analyzer. Even if interrogations under such drugs or machines were somehow regarded as illegal, here, we can subject AIG executives to "extraordinary rendition" to places where we can use all of the above-mentioned techniques and torture to get all the information we need. Even the Obama Administration has asserted the right of "rendition". Do we really need to send cowardly rich bastards to, say, Afghanistan, Libya, or someplace deep in Central Asia to interrogate them without constitutional niceties? Or would the mere threat to do so suffice?
+
Media and politicians should stop running over at the mouth that we are powerless against these corporate thieves, and start very publicly talking about what we CAN do to them. Scare the sh* out of them.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,259 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:59 PM

 
Newspeak on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research. Former President Bill Clinton had the unmitigated gall to say* that killing embryos in medical research is PRO-LIFE! We have all long known that Bill Clinton has no morality, but when he dares to turn language on its head and say that murdering babies is pro-life, he must be rebuked publicly and shunned universally. Adults have stem cells too, Mr. Clinton. Should we harvest the stem cells in YOU by slitting your throat and taking them from your corpse? Why not, if you think it's just fine to kill one person to save another? Why not, indeed.
+
You, Mr. Clinton, have hundreds of thousands of deaths on your hands as it is, in your monstrous sanctions against the people of Iraq, your delayed action in the Bosnian genocide, total inaction on mass murder in various countries around the world, etc. We can't kill you hundreds of thousands of times, but we can execute you once, and harvest everything in your body that might conceivably be of use, from heart and liver, to two kidneys and two lungs, to two corneas and various types of tissue that could be used, for instance, in grafts of ligaments. Your one now-evil body could be used for good, at long last, and several decent people could live longer at the very-cheap cost of your worthless life. A great bargain. Multiply that bargain by all the mad scientists who want to chop babies up for parts, 8 or more decent people saved for each executed "scientist", and we can save a lot of decent people at the same time as we end the mass slauter of innocents. That would be a HUGE bargain. Let's do it.
+
Insulting Mexico. The castrated losers who control the U.S. Government, alarmed by the extreme violence in the area of our Mexican border, are going to send TWO women to Mexico to tell the Mexican government what to do. Are they insane? Mexico is the country from which we got the word, and concept, "machismo". Latin men do not take orders from women. They still have their 'nads.
+
The United States wants to inflict Radical Feminism upon the world. The world doesn't want it. So we are consigning ourselves to failure in every aspect of our foreign policy with most of the planet in order to give 'lip service' (political cunnilingus) to the gender-confused losers who comprise all too large a proportion of today's feminists. Does it matter that Mexico will be insulted by being told what to do by Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton? Does it matter if Mexico refuses all suggestions from those women? Does it matter that Mexico's drug war, which has killed 8,000 people in the past two years, is spilling over into our territory? Yes, each and every one of those items matters. You don't send a woman to do a man's job. Because real men, who are the real power in most of the world, DO NOT TAKE ORDERS FROM WOMEN.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,258 — for Israel.)
____________________

* February 11, 2009 on Cable News Network's show Larry King Live , tho King himself was off that nite.
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:29 PM

 
Killing Some in a (Vain?) Attempt to Help Others. President Obama has gone over to the dark side (no racial pun intended). He has chosen to kill some babies, which we know with certitude are alive, in the mere hope that something we don't know can work in humans, can save older people — more powerful people. It would seem Obama doesn't really identify as black after all. Because if he did, he'd understand that the more powerful must never be allowed to abuse, and even kill, the less-powerful, no matter what excuse they may give.
+
Nancy Reagan praised Obama's decision, which should give any decent person pause. The single most striking thing ever written for Mrs. Reagan's husband was this:

With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there's one individual who's not being considered at all. That's the one who is being aborted. And I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.

No one should ever forget that, because what it speaks to is the old "... and then they came for me" thing. If you permit the powerful to kill the helpless, sooner or later, the powerful become SO powerful that you are helpless against them.
+
Mrs. Reagan herself once said:

I do not believe in abortion at will. I do not believe that if a woman just wants to have an abortion she should... I do believe if you have an abortion you are committing murder.

But as long as you're aborting a baby — or conceiving it in a little glass dish where its independent life is beyond question — to chop it up for parts in scientific research that may NEVER produce any cure for anything, that's OK?
+
Let us be plain: Any embryo's life is his, or hers, not yours. Your life is yours, your health problems are yours. It is not your right to kill someone else and steal his or her organs because you need a heart or liver transplant and have the power to do so. That you may need an organ transplant imposes no responsibility upon someone else to die for you. Conversely, just because someone else needs an organ transplant does not give them the right to kill you to rip your organ out of your body for their good.
+
Embryonic stem cell research is VAMPIRE SCIENCE, not human science. Stem cells come from other sources, like adults, and even from surplus human fat. But the vampires among us don't want to use those stem cells. They're not juicy enuf, I suppose. They want to kill babies and steal their youth, their lives, their breath.
+
All the advocates of killing babies to chop them up for parts need themselves to be killed and chopped up for parts. How can they object?
+
An unborn baby has committed no crime. S/he hasn't advocated killing adults and chopping them up for parts for him or her. But people who kill perfectly normal human babies — I'm not talking here of gross defectives, those sad monstrosities that survive Nature's usual disposition of monstrosities, miscarriage, and face horrible, tragic lives if not euthanized. I'm talking about the healthy, truly human children who, if not slautered to steal their stem cells, would grow into perfect human beings — do thereby commit a capital crime, and forfeit the right to life by commission of that crime.
+
Vampires are not entitled to kill innocent people to live. 'People' are not entitled to kill innocent people to live. If you have a disease or disorder, that's your problem. No baby has the obligation to die to make your life better. If someone already born should die by accident that you have nothing to do with, and willingly donates an organ to you, fine. But you have no right to kidnap someone off the street, slit his or her throat, and rip whatever organs you may need out of their lifeless body.
+
Until very recently, organ transplants would not have been an option, and they are still not an option thru most of the world. Accept your fate. You will, make no mistake, die someday, no matter how many babies you kill. If an organ honorably harvested can help you, and get to you in time, fine. If not, accept that that's life, which inevitably ends in death ("Nobody gets out alive."), and have the good grace to grant someone else their own life, not steal it.
+
If you believe in God, imagine facing God in your personal Last Judgment. Explain to him why you felt you had the right to kill someone else so you could live a little better, a little longer. To take the whole of someone else's life so you could enjoy a few more years of your own life. What do you think He is going to say? And where do you expect to spend the rest of eternity?
+
I don't believe in God, and don't have to posit an eternity suffering the tortures of the damned to keep me from immorality. I am an ethical Christian, not religious. I understand, and obey, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. I don't need any supernatural being to control my behavior, because I am a decent human being who in fact does NOT do to others what I would not have them do unto me but do approach the world with such generosity as I can afford. Obama? Plainly he does not either understand, or cotton to (yes, racial reference intended, as reminder of how blacks fared when nobody protected them), that pesky Golden Rule nonsense.
+
The crimes that Obama wants to commit in our name, the mass death of children, must be stopped. Vampire scientists must be prevented from killing children, by suchever means as may be necessary. If that means destroying laboratories, then let's destroy laboratories. If it means punishing any deaths of children by execution of their killer, leaving a note on the body, "Chop ME up for parts instead", then let us execute the murderers. And it doesn't matter how high up they may wish to hide.
+
(There are people who pretend not to see the difference between murder and execution. Are we to assume they don't understand the difference between crime and punishment more generally? Perhaps they believe that "a penny stolen is a penny earned", or that right and wrong are indistinguishable, and evil is to be praised equally with good. It is because some people are simpleminded and base that we had to invent gods and threaten people with divine retribution to keep them in line even when we couldn't catch them in their misdeeds. A news report today says that organized religion (except for the more extremist sorts) is declining in the United States. People are more "spiritual" and less "religious". Question: if you're going to subject yourself to immersion in a world controlled by the supernatural, why not invent a God to order? Why not specify exactly what you want from Him or Her, in every particular? Dump everything that's not fun or that puts a cramp in your style. The inventors of the current Western God created Him to do their bidding, in controlling things they didn't want people to do. Why not create your own God, more powerful than the Judeo-Christian God, and have Him/Her approve of everything you want to do? And if that's what "spiritual but not religious" really means, why pretend to be "spiritual" at all? "Spirit" is supernatural gobbledygook. If what you mean is "ethical", "internally guided, morally ", or something like that, that's good enuf.)
+
I do not believe that Mr. Obama has spent so much as two minutes thinking of the morality of this matter. Nor even 50 seconds. Why just the unborn? If we can rightly kill an unborn baby to chop it up for parts, why not a baby just born? a baby six months old? a preteen child? Why can't we just seize any adult we can overpower, and kill him or her to save someone else?
+
I'll make a deal with Mr. Obama. If we can kill his wife, his dauters, and himself, and chop all four up for parts, then we can believe he is sincere that one person can rightly kill another to keep himself alive. If he does NOT consent to be killed for a stranger, then he has an obligation to put himself in the place of the children he wants to slauter by the hundreds of thousands, or even millions, to chop them up for stem cells.
+
If he does believe that it is proper to kill some to save others, has he signed an organ-donation card? Never mind. In the Brave New World of Obamian morality, we won't need an organ-donation card, or consent form of any kind. We find somebody who has the organs we need, we just kill them and take what we need. That's Obama's medical morality. Aren't you glad you live in a time of such marvelous science? Do you have any organ someone else could use? Someone 'better' than you are? Richer than you are? More powerful than you are? Enjoy it while you can.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,256 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:57 PM