All posts in Declaration of Independence

Vatican: Supporters of Euthanasia and Abortion Use Same Arguments as the Nazis

by Admin on May 7, 2012 in Declaration of Independence, Obamacare, Right to Life, Tyrrany with No comments

Right to Life protesters greet Nancy Pelosi who is rated 100% on abortion by NARAL.

Vatican newspaper argues that today’s supporters of euthanasia and abortion use the same arguments as the Nazis decades ago. The Daily Mail reported:

The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper has angered supporters of euthanasia and abortions by suggesting they apply the same justifications that were used by the Nazis to champion their murderous eugenics programme. The controversial claim that they believe in the survival of the fittest concept, was made in an article on the front page of today’s issue of L’Osservatore RomanO. It was published in response to the recent Italian translation of a 1920 book titled Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living, by two German scholars, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche. It is written by Lucetta Scaraffia, an Italian historian who frequently has work published in the Vatican paper, reports the Huffington Post. ‘Contempt for imperfect human life, over estimation of the abilities of science’ are ‘still firmly present in our time,’ she states. The book she is discussing set the agenda for the Nazi programme of extermination – they believed that select people did not have the right to survive, such as disabled or terminally ill patients. It promotes the idea that people who are seriously or terminally ill or have a mental or physical disability were ‘unworthy of being lived,’ and should be given a ‘charitable death.’ In the article Scaraffia argues that this viewpoint on whether a life should be ended is present in the ‘writings of many contemporary bioethicists, and of many politicians who support legislative proposals of a euthanastic type.’ The historian asserts that the book is ‘sinisterly’ relevant to current debates.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sen. Moran Introduces Bill to Protect Second Amendment Rights from U.N. Arms Treaty

by Admin on March 25, 2012 in 2nd Amendment, Declaration of Independence, United Nations with 3 Comments

 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced legislation this week to protect the rights of American gun owners from being undermined by a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S.2205, would prohibit the Obama Administration from using the “voice, vote, and influence” of the United States during Arms Trade Treaty negotiations to restrict in any way the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, including regulation of civilian firearms and ammunition.

“The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act ensures that our country’s sovereignty and firearm freedoms will not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights,” Sen. Moran said.  “Our Second Amendment rights are not negotiable.”

In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the previous Administration’s position and voted for the United States to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms,” including tanks, helicopters, and missiles. However, with regular calls to include civilian arms and ammunition within its scope, the Arms Trade Treaty could restrict the lawful ownership of firearms that Americans use to hunt, target shoot, and defend themselves.  The Treaty is expected to be finalized in July 2012.

“America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes, and this bill will make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully penalized,” Sen. Moran continued.

The introduction of the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act is Sen. Moran’s most recent effort in his push to make sure an Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival in the Senate. In July 2011, Sen. Moran led 44 of his Senate colleagues in notifying President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts Americans’ Second Amendment rights. This opposition is enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/sen-moran-introduces-bill-to-protect-second-amendment-rights-from-u-n-arms-treaty/#ixzz1q6QFJ7ZB

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

VIDEO: SWEDISH ARTIST EGGED DURING LECTURE ON MUHAMMAD CARTOONS & FREE SPEECH

by Admin on February 23, 2012 in 1st Amendment, CAIR, Creeping Communism, Creeping Sharia, Declaration of Independence, Islam, Islamization of America, The Constitution with 2 Comments

Via: The Blaze

Artist Lars Vilks Attacked With Eggs Over Prophet Muhammad WorkSwedish artist Lars Vilks is no stranger to controversy. In the past, he has angered Muslims by creating drawings and art that are highly critical of the Prophet Muhammad. On Tuesday, Vilks, 65, was speaking at Karlstad University in central Sweden when protesters (purportedly Muslims) began attacking the artist with eggs. Ironically, he was invited to the university to speak about free expression (he also presented yet another drawing of Muhammad). According to Vilk’s account, around a dozen people started yelling at him and throwing eggs while he was addressing the audience. Of course, this isn‘t the first time he’s been targeted and it likely won’t be the last — something the well-known figure has accepted.

Artist Lars Vilks Attacked With Eggs Over Prophet Muhammad WorkArtist Lars Vilks (AP)

“They were just waiting for the right moment to go to attack,” he told the Associated Press. “I’ve experienced this so much now. It is what it is. You have to expect these things. I have good protection and it works the way it should.” Video footage of the incident shows Vilks running away with security guards covering him as the eggs were hurled in his direction. The disruption, while chaotic, lasted only about one minute and Vilks is said to have not been hit (though individuals assisting him were visibly pelted with the eggs): “They were also shouting some slogans. We removed them as well as two people who had started shouting back at the 15 (egg throwers)”, explained Tommy Lindh, a police spokesperson. “At the time it was a bit tumultuous but the commotion only lasted for about a minute.” The Local reports:

The local Islamic Culture Association (Islamiska kulturföreningen) and Karlstad Young Muslims (Unga muslimer i Karlstad) had called for a boycott of the lecture earlier in the day, writing in a statement that Vilks ”abuses the freedom of speech that we all enjoy and uses it in such a way as to create tension sin society.”

Artist Lars Vilks Attacked With Eggs Over Prophet Muhammad Work During the question and answer period, Vilks spoke of the importance of preventing censorship. “Insults are part of democratic society. If we begin censoring ourselves, it will mean undermining freedom of speech in the long run,” he said. “I don’t think that the problem is that artists are too provocative but that we are not provocative enough.” Vilks has received death threats in the past from radical Islamists, particularly as a result of his depiction of Muhammad as a dog back in 2007. In 2010, two brothers were put in jail after trying to burn his home down and, in 2011, a Pennsylvania woman pleaded guilty of participating in a plot to kill the artist. This isn‘t the first lecture during which he’s had problems. In 2010, he was forced to cancel an event at another university after protesters stormed the stage and clashed with police officers. We’ll leave you with video from the 2010 attack:

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Video: Newt Slams “Elite Media” For Not Asking About Obama’s Extreme Pro-Infanticide Views

by Admin on February 23, 2012 in Declaration of Independence, Obama and Infanticide, Rick Santorum with No comments

Via: Nice Deb

I only caught the last half hour of the debate, so I missed this bea-u-tifulmoment when Newt took the MSM to task for not once asking asking Barack Obama about his pro-infanticide position, reframing the abortion issue by positioning  Obama  as the far-out extremist, he is.

All I can say is THANK -YOU, NEWT. The other guys could learn a thing or two from you.

Btw, I’m not sure Newt’s correct that Obama was never asked about it. Perhaps he was never asked about it during any of the debates. But he was asked byCBN’s David Brody in August 2008, and naturally Obama shamelessly  lied his way through his answer while calling the National Right to Life Committee and whistleblower, Jill Stanek liars.

From the New York Sun, dated August 18: Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate….

Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did “defies common sense and it defies imagination.” In fact, it was heinous.

He also sat down with Obama-friendly Pastor, Rick Warren at the Saddleback Faith Forum, where he – not surprisingly – hemmed, hawed, and yes, shamelessly lied through his answers, there, too.

CNN did actually do a fair report in late June of 2008 about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Act in IL:

As I noted in a previous post, it took people like Bill Bennett to point out that the 2003 IL bill had the same exact wording as the one passed unanimously in the US Senate….  Carville had no coherent response to that. He instead took the opportunity to slam Rick Santorum several times for being an “extremist”.

Ironically, Politifact concurs with Bennett 100% in a post about Santorum’s  “pants were on fire” lie  at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition forum in March 2011. He had said,  “Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed.”

Santorum misspoke. He should have said “left to die”, rather than ” be killed”. He’s guilty of hyperbole.

The meat of the post is where it deals with Obama’s slimy, weaselly, hide-saving whopper:


The federal legislation (the law Santorum sponsored in the Senate) became law in 2002. The federal legislation included a so-called “neutrality clause,” which said the law would not change the legal status or legal rights of anyone prior to being “born alive.” Abortion rights advocates said the clause was necessary to make sure the bill would not affect current abortion laws.

Obama said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had included a similar neutrality clause. The laws the full Illinois Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story.

The National Right to Life Committee said during the 2008 campaign that the Illinois bill of 2003 did have a neutrality clause. The committee said Obama subsequently misrepresented the bill. Obama responded to that charge in an August 2008 interview.

“I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying,” Obama said. “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.”

Back in 2008, we requested documentation from the Illinois State Archives about the 2003 bill and found that it did have a neutrality clause, as the National Right to Life Committee said. (The clause was added at the committee level, and those records are not available online. But we have posted the documents we received via fax from the State Archives here).

But Santorum’s the one with his pants on fire.

Whatever. If they caught the vapors over “be killed”, wait til Politifact hears  Gingrich’s “legalized infanticide” comment.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Quote of the Day – 02/22/12

by Admin on February 22, 2012 in Declaration of Independence, Liberty, The Constitution with No comments

Via: NoisyRoom, Hat Tip: Garry Hamilton

 

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.” – Calvin Coolidge

We Could Use a Man Like Calvin Coolidge Again.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta