The Decline of the Establishment GOP
He broke out his white board in order to erase the minds of the people. What he did instead was verify his own decline in value in any political environment. He tried to ensure the America voter that you are mindless and need to listen to him. What he said did not sway the people but caused the people to rise up again and say, “we decide for ourselves!” Karl Rove, get off the track or get run over, cause the Cain Train aint stopping!
Let’s look back in time. It was 2007-2008 and some people in the Republican Party were causing the boat to shake a bit by voting for a candidate they were not suppose to. His name was Mike Huckabee. As the uproar started, career GOP operatives gathered to push their establishment candidate forward in order to reign in the voice of the people. John McCain was the ordained candidate and the people would have to live with that.
Following the money trail, I found Mr. Rove was in the establishment movement. He gave a considerable donation to Senator John McCain and was also said to be a consultant for the candidate. This was a formula for failure. The combination of an establishment candidate with the backing of the GOP establishment is what got President Obama elected.
Karl Rove bares responsibility for the crisis America faces today and he’s trying nothing more than to sell us the same formula for failure this go around. As he goes to bat for his establishment candidate in Mitt Romney, he holds nothing back to discredit not only Mr. Herman Cain, but the very people who are thinking for themselves who choose Mr. Cain as their candidate. He thinks the American people are not smart because they are choosing Cain over Romney. He is doing nothing but campaigning for Romney with a bigger stage and no one to call him on it! Hey Fox News, where’s your fair and balanced?
A few days later he’s at it again. Not attacking Cain, but campaigning for the candidate he’s trying to shove down our throats. He’s blinded to the fact that the people don’t want another establishment candidate. We want a Herman Cain! No more people who put a fast spin on the way they are going to keep things the same, but instead a real person who is going to bring a bold change to Washington DC. So Mr. Rove, please let us think for ourselves and stop trying to shove your Romney down our throats!
Mr. Rove, it is people like you that have awakened a sleeping giant in the citizens of the United States of America. It is these citizens who have the right to stand up when its government has oppressed them and turn the fate of this nation to become, as Ronald Reagan said, a shining city on a hill. As the Declaration of Independence states, people have the right, ‘to throw off such government, and to provide NEW GUARDS for their future security’. And Mr. Rove, it is people like you who are the accomplices of a government which has formed, ‘a long train of abuses’! You have helped create the problem and it’s the right of the people to fix it.
The people of America have awoken to such abuses to their rights that they took the time to become informed. The people who they found that did the most damage were the politicians the people entrusted. Then the people saw a group of political pundits who would year after year try and sell us the same politicians in a different skin. The people of America are sick of this ride and we are stepping off this Rhino merry-go-round and onto the Cain Train to the White House. So Mr. Rove and all your coconspirators, get off the track!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The RIGHT to LIFE
The Right to Life
by Laurie “Blondie” Pruser-Stockman
The Declaration of Independence specifically states that the inalienable rights of anyone are the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; the Constitution of the United States of America does not but it should, in my opinion.
It is argued that there is a protection in the Constitution that protects a person's life, and there is. It is the 5th amendment "No person shall....Be deprived of Life, Liberty or property, without due process of the law..." So is the problem here defining a person, not life?
We need a constitutional amendment (yes, I know that would be time consuming but it would be appropriate) that clearly states that the Right to LIFE is a right to everyone regardless of age, physical, mental or developmental state, until that person does something that requires that the law removes that right from them. It might be more prudent to actually define when a person becomes a person but there in lies the argument.
Let's address this question first: What if anything should force anyone to relinquish their right to LIFE? When they take another's LIFE? When they take their Liberty and/or affect their means of obtaining Happiness?
I did a bit of investigating to find out what laws address this issue.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder
It seems that the aggravated rape of a child is a resounding variable in several states including TEXAS, South Carolina as well as the US Military.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state
Here a repeating theme is when a murder is committed and the murder is especially heinous, atrocious cruel or depraved *or involved torture
But what are the FEDERAL LAWS that say that you relinquish your right to LIFE?
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
The Federal Government views your right to life to be effected in a broader sense. Murder while smuggling of “aliens”, drive-by shootings in drug related crimes, espionage, transportation of explosives or the destruction of government property or foreign and interstate commerce, murder of a judge or cop, or first degree murder.
This brings us to the much discussed question, “When does life begin?”.
I do not understand the confusion and why this is consistently being argued as I have known since my very first lesson in a biology class that scientist maintain that living things have five (5) basic characteristics.
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce
5. All living things have the ability to adapt.
The unborn child has all of these abilities and characteristics. So is a baby in the womb of its mother a life/person or not?
1. It is a very highly organized being from conception on.
2. It has the ability to acquire the necessary components to grow.
3. The baby certainly responds to its environment within the womb. It moves when stimulated. It even attempts to make more room for itself by pushing, turning and stretching within the safety of its mother’s body which was designed for the very purpose of providing it a secure environment in which to live.
4. It has the ability to reproduce; it reproduces through mitosis to become a fully functioning human and a female baby is born with all the ova that she will ever have in her lifetime.
5.It has the ability to adapt; It begins life in a sac of amniotic fluid within its mother’s womb and upon birth it begins to adapt to life outside of the womb.
I believe that the unborn child has met the 5 basic criteria for being classified as Living and therefore since its DNA is shared with a human woman and man who both created that life, whether intentionally or unintentionally; it is a human or person. So that person must not be denied its Right to LIFE.
I do not see any incidence where an unborn baby could be found guilty of any crime which legitimizes a reason to have its Right to Life ended. . . not one.
Herman Cain has stated that he is “100% pro-life, period”. “Life begins at conception.”
But how will he govern as President of the United States of America? Mr. Cain realizes the limitations placed upon the executive branch and the President in particular, by the Constitution of the United States of America. He has stated that as President, he has no authority to order a person not to seek an abortion. He is correct. There is no such provision in our Constitution. He has chosen to live within the fundamental laws which give our government its powers as 3 independent branches instead of grandstanding ad making promises outside of those laws and the scope of the power of the Executive branch of our Federal government.
So as President, what would President Cain do? He will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. “…Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.” Mr. Cain goes on to state that he will oppose any abortion funding; he will veto legislation that funds Planned Parenthood and he will do everything possible “consistent with his constitutional role as President” to advance the culture of life. *Letter dated October 21, 2011 to supporters.
Again, I feel that a Constitutional amendment to specifically state that the unborn child has the inalienable Right to Life is necessary. That law would follow the original intent of our founding fathers. The unborn child’s Right to Life is simply an Inalienable (Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) Right.
I believe that Herman Cain is pro-life and will, with the powers granted him through the Constitution of the United States of America, truly promote the rights of innocent babies to Life so that they can have Liberty and Pursue Happiness.
by Laurie “Blondie” Pruser-Stockman
The Declaration of Independence specifically states that the inalienable rights of anyone are the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; the Constitution of the United States of America does not but it should, in my opinion.
It is argued that there is a protection in the Constitution that protects a person's life, and there is. It is the 5th amendment "No person shall....Be deprived of Life, Liberty or property, without due process of the law..." So is the problem here defining a person, not life?
We need a constitutional amendment (yes, I know that would be time consuming but it would be appropriate) that clearly states that the Right to LIFE is a right to everyone regardless of age, physical, mental or developmental state, until that person does something that requires that the law removes that right from them. It might be more prudent to actually define when a person becomes a person but there in lies the argument.
Let's address this question first: What if anything should force anyone to relinquish their right to LIFE? When they take another's LIFE? When they take their Liberty and/or affect their means of obtaining Happiness?
I did a bit of investigating to find out what laws address this issue.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder
It seems that the aggravated rape of a child is a resounding variable in several states including TEXAS, South Carolina as well as the US Military.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state
Here a repeating theme is when a murder is committed and the murder is especially heinous, atrocious cruel or depraved *or involved torture
But what are the FEDERAL LAWS that say that you relinquish your right to LIFE?
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
The Federal Government views your right to life to be effected in a broader sense. Murder while smuggling of “aliens”, drive-by shootings in drug related crimes, espionage, transportation of explosives or the destruction of government property or foreign and interstate commerce, murder of a judge or cop, or first degree murder.
What is first degree murder? In most states, it is defined as a killing that was premeditated (planned). . And of course treason and murder that is the result of terrorism.
So now, I present to you this to deliberate: When does the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness end?
Herman Cain has said. . "You can pursue happiness as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty. You can have liberty as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s life." * 2004 and various times since.
The words in our Declaration of Independence say "Pursuit of Happiness". . . not the Right to be Happy. But Liberty needs no definition nor does LIFE.
If you are not alive you have no right to Liberty or Right to Pursue (obtain, search out, work to gain) Happiness. And if you are not alive you are no longer a person who can have their rights taken from them.
So now, I present to you this to deliberate: When does the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness end?
Herman Cain has said. . "You can pursue happiness as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty. You can have liberty as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s life." * 2004 and various times since.
The words in our Declaration of Independence say "Pursuit of Happiness". . . not the Right to be Happy. But Liberty needs no definition nor does LIFE.
If you are not alive you have no right to Liberty or Right to Pursue (obtain, search out, work to gain) Happiness. And if you are not alive you are no longer a person who can have their rights taken from them.
This brings us to the much discussed question, “When does life begin?”.
I do not understand the confusion and why this is consistently being argued as I have known since my very first lesson in a biology class that scientist maintain that living things have five (5) basic characteristics.
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce
5. All living things have the ability to adapt.
The unborn child has all of these abilities and characteristics. So is a baby in the womb of its mother a life/person or not?
1. It is a very highly organized being from conception on.
2. It has the ability to acquire the necessary components to grow.
3. The baby certainly responds to its environment within the womb. It moves when stimulated. It even attempts to make more room for itself by pushing, turning and stretching within the safety of its mother’s body which was designed for the very purpose of providing it a secure environment in which to live.
4. It has the ability to reproduce; it reproduces through mitosis to become a fully functioning human and a female baby is born with all the ova that she will ever have in her lifetime.
5.It has the ability to adapt; It begins life in a sac of amniotic fluid within its mother’s womb and upon birth it begins to adapt to life outside of the womb.
I believe that the unborn child has met the 5 basic criteria for being classified as Living and therefore since its DNA is shared with a human woman and man who both created that life, whether intentionally or unintentionally; it is a human or person. So that person must not be denied its Right to LIFE.
I do not see any incidence where an unborn baby could be found guilty of any crime which legitimizes a reason to have its Right to Life ended. . . not one.
Herman Cain has stated that he is “100% pro-life, period”. “Life begins at conception.”
But how will he govern as President of the United States of America? Mr. Cain realizes the limitations placed upon the executive branch and the President in particular, by the Constitution of the United States of America. He has stated that as President, he has no authority to order a person not to seek an abortion. He is correct. There is no such provision in our Constitution. He has chosen to live within the fundamental laws which give our government its powers as 3 independent branches instead of grandstanding ad making promises outside of those laws and the scope of the power of the Executive branch of our Federal government.
So as President, what would President Cain do? He will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. “…Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.” Mr. Cain goes on to state that he will oppose any abortion funding; he will veto legislation that funds Planned Parenthood and he will do everything possible “consistent with his constitutional role as President” to advance the culture of life. *Letter dated October 21, 2011 to supporters.
Again, I feel that a Constitutional amendment to specifically state that the unborn child has the inalienable Right to Life is necessary. That law would follow the original intent of our founding fathers. The unborn child’s Right to Life is simply an Inalienable (Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) Right.
I believe that Herman Cain is pro-life and will, with the powers granted him through the Constitution of the United States of America, truly promote the rights of innocent babies to Life so that they can have Liberty and Pursue Happiness.
Friday, October 21, 2011
A conversation I'd like to have with those Protesting on Wall Street.
A conversation I'd like to have with those Protesting on Wall Street.
By Laurie Pruser-Stockman
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
"Why America - especially Black America, needs Obama vs Cain in 2012"
"Why America - especially Black America, needs Obama vs Cain in 2012"
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
A Static Argument Against a Dynamic Solution
A Static Argument Against a Dynamic Solution
Just Doesn't Stand Up
Thursday, October 13, 2011
"We Are America"
We Are America
By J.C. Anger
“We hold the truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.,,, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it” ~ Declaration of Independence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)