Sandy Hook, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Patriot Act, Motor Vehicle Accidents and Partial-Birth Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2014

Politics 101

(Originally published January 10th, 2013)

The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy.  The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives.  Including 20 children.  The most innocent of us.  Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns.  The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence.  Caused by people having access to guns.  So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control.  To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms.  By severely restricting access to guns.

Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right.  The right to keep and bear arms.  Which allowed the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech.  The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies.  And to muzzle that anti-British speech.  They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order.  And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns.  So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech.  Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors.  And they even included the Third Amendment.  Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  Again, further protection from state oppression.

The nature of states is to oppress their people.  Most have throughout history.  Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time.  Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to.  England changed that with representative government.  America expanded on these liberties in the New World.  And ever since has been very wary of government.  Until the Twentieth century.  When the growth of government began.  Transferring ever more power to the federal government.  Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.

When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans

Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age.  That today’s government is a kinder government.  A more caring government.  One that just wants to take care of the people.  By providing generous benefits.  Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started.  Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first.  Or so they said.  Even their names said they were putting the people first.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Socialism is all about taking care of the people.  Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people.  For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people.  And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns.  To make that oppression easier.  The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.

If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression.  It’s more the rule than the exception.  When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this.  And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal.  And that things have always been that way.  Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government.  While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government.  While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly.  They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval.  Where the government controls the economy.  They like that.  Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation.  Even if that government oppresses their people.  Like they do in China.  Where people still deal with famine in the country.  Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories.  And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.

So naïve liberals trust government.  Completely.  Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act.  That they fear.  But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?”  When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end.  But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world.  Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.

People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year

President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis.  Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary.  Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths.  That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying.  A powerful message during emotional times.  But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).

These are deaths by unintentional injury.  Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths.  About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents.  Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%).  Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%).  Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%).  You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms.  Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010.  Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury.  Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total.  According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids.  Motor vehicles are.  But firearms are not.  So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much.  If at all.  So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives.  In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list.  Abortion.

It’s hard to get numbers on abortions.  But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year.  Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000.  Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions.  Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear.  These are human lives.  For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother.  For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law.  And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.  In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter.  One for the mother.  And one for the unborn fetus.  Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years.  Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms.  Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives.  When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion.  Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feminists want no Restrictions on Abortion unless a Woman Aborts a Boy because she wants a Girl

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently.  Conservatives sees it as killing a human life.  Liberals don’t.  To them a fetus is not a human life.  It’s just an inanimate lump of cells.  With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue.  Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014

Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and  completely unacceptable…’

What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…

The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…

Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal  than another..?

That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.

This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense.  Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion.  While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it.  A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby.  But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term.  This makes no logical sense.  Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.

In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born.  But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy.  Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore.  Because it makes no sense even to them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Sandy Hook, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Patriot Act, Motor Vehicle Accidents and Partial-Birth Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2013

Politics 101

The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy.  The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives.  Including 20 children.  The most innocent of us.  Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns.  The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence.  Caused by people having access to guns.  So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control.  To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms.  By severely restricting access to guns.

Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right.  The right to keep and bear arms.  Which allowed the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech.  The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies.  And to muzzle that anti-British speech.  They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order.  And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns.  So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech.  Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors.  And they even included the Third Amendment.  Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  Again, further protection from state oppression.

The nature of states is to oppress their people.  Most have throughout history.  Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time.  Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to.  England changed that with representative government.  America expanded on these liberties in the New World.  And ever since has been very wary of government.  Until the Twentieth century.  When the growth of government began.  Transferring ever more power to the federal government.  Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.

When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans

Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age.  That today’s government is a kinder government.  A more caring government.  One that just wants to take care of the people.  By providing generous benefits.  Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started.  Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first.  Or so they said.  Even their names said they were putting the people first.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Socialism is all about taking care of the people.  Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people.  For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people.  And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns.  To make that oppression easier.  The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.

If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression.  It’s more the rule than the exception.  When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this.  And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal.  And that things have always been that way.  Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government.  While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government.  While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly.  They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval.  Where the government controls the economy.  They like that.  Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation.  Even if that government oppresses their people.  Like they do in China.  Where people still deal with famine in the country.  Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories.  And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.

So naïve liberals trust government.  Completely.  Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act.  That they fear.  But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?”  When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end.  But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world.  Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.

People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year

President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis.  Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary.  Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths.  That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying.  A powerful message during emotional times.  But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).

These are deaths by unintentional injury.  Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths.  About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents.  Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%).  Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%).  Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%).  You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms.  Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010.  Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury.  Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total.  According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids.  Motor vehicles are.  But firearms are not.  So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much.  If at all.  So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives.  In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list.  Abortion.

It’s hard to get numbers on abortions.  But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year.  Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000.  Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions.  Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear.  These are human lives.  For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother.  For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law.  And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.  In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter.  One for the mother.  And one for the unborn fetus.  Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years.  Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms.  Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives.  When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion.  Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The British create Stem Cells from Blood that don’t have the same Rejection Problems as Embryonic Stem Cells

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

Stem cells were all the rage once.  They were going to cure everything.  Even make Christopher Reeve walk again.  Who was paralyzed during an equestrian competition.  And who the Republicans wanted to stay paralyzed.  Apparently.  As they opposed using embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses.  Worried of the precedent this would give.  Taking a life (an aborted fetus) so another life could live.

This raised a lot of ethical issues on the Right.  But not the Left.  Who looked at it as giving abortions a noble purpose.  Terminating the gestation of the fetus and using the embryonic stem cells to make miracle drugs.  It was a two-for for the Democrats.  Miracle drugs.  And a good reason to abort fetuses.  So it was all you heard about in the news.  The miracle of stem cells.  As long as they were embryonic stem cells, though.  For if it didn’t involve an abortion the Left didn’t seem to care much about it.  Which is a pity because there are some developments on the non-abortion-side of stem cell research (see Stem cells being made from blood by James Gallagher posted 11/29/2012 on BBC News Health).

A patient’s own blood has been used to make personalised stem cells, which doctors hope will eventually be used to treat a range of diseases…

Stem cells are one of the great hopes of medical research. They can transform into any other type of cell the body is built from – so they should be able to repair everything from the brain to the heart, and eyes to bone.

One source of stem cells is embryos, but this is ethically controversial and they would be rejected by the immune system in the same way as an organ transplant.

Researchers have shown that skin cells taken from an adult can be tricked into becoming stem cells, which the body should recognise as part of itself and would not reject.

Yawn.  You hear nothing from the American Left about these exciting developments.  I mean, you’re not hearing anything like the excitement we heard from them when they attacked any politician running for office who opposed the use of embryonic stem cells.  Michael J. Fox, suffering from Parkinson disease, even made a political ad to support a Democrat candidate who ran against a Republican who was opposed to the use of embryonic cells.  But these new developments will pass by quietly in the background.

It makes you think.  Especially with the past election.  Where abortion and birth control dominated the Democrats’ strategy.  They put the fear of God into as many women as possible that if the Republicans won women would soon be back in back-alleys for their abortions.  That birth control would soon become a thing of the past.  That all women would be reduced to being baby making machines.  Suffering through a life of cooking, cleaning and baby-making.  Hell on earth.  Or, in other words, being married.

It worked.  Women voted for President Obama to keep their birth control and abortion.  Even though no one was threatening to take it away.  And even though we’ve lived under 20 years of Republican presidents since the Sixties and not one of them took away their abortion or birth control.  But spreading the lie that the Republicans would do just that should they win election scared enough women to make a difference.  Which clearly shows why the Left was so excited about embryonic stem cells.  It provided a purpose for abortion.  A noble purpose.  To save life.  And how they wished with all of their might that embryonic stem cells delivered what some promised.  They would have loved to have that argument to make.  That abortion was not only a liberating women’s health issue but a noble issue as well.  Sigh.  It just wasn’t to be.  Sure, these new blood stem cells are an exciting development.  But where is the politics in that?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Despite Strict Abortion Laws some UK Doctors provided Abortions for Women who didn’t Like the Sex of their Fetus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

The UK has law governing abortion.  Unlike the US.  Who has no law on the books.  Well, there were many laws on the books in the several states.  But Roe v. Wade made these moot.  Perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court ruling of all time.  And what many call legislating from the bench.  For this decision didn’t interpret law.  It made new law.  For there was no law on the federal register to interpret.  And that’s how abortions became legal in the United States.  Whereas the UK actually debated the issue.  And used their legislative body to write it into low.  A novel use of the legislature.  Legislating.

Roe v. Wade was based on an abortion that never was.  The ‘Jane Roe’ in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey.  Who had her baby and gave it up for adoption.  Converted to Catholicism in later life.  And became pro-life.  She regrets her part in Roe v. Wade.  And now works to overturn that decision.  The only ‘law’ on the books for abortion in America.  Granting full access to abortion without any legislative debate whatsoever.  Which they probably didn’t want.  For they did have that debate in the UK.  And their law placed some restrictions on abortion (see Abortion forms being ‘pre-signed’ by Press Association posted 3/23/2012 on the guardian).

Spot checks at more than 250 abortion clinics this week found evidence of blank forms being signed in anticipation of patients seeking a termination.

The law states that, except in emergencies, two doctors must agree for a woman to have an abortion.

Although doctors do not have to see the woman in person, they must certify that they are aware of her circumstances and why she wants to go ahead with the procedure…

The news comes after a Daily Telegraph investigation last month uncovered allegations that doctors at three clinics had agreed to terminations based on the sex of the baby.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has suspended or placed restrictions on these doctors and the claims are being investigated by the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester police and West Midlands police…

In the UK, abortions are allowed on certain grounds, including that continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman’s life, physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy, continuing would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children and there is a real risk the child would have a serious physical or mental disability.

Apparently China isn’t the only nation that has aborted a pregnancy based on the sex of their baby.  This is perhaps the greatest concern to those on the pro-life side of the argument.  This selective breeding.  Just how far will people go in making their decisions in terminating their pregnancies?  An identified birth defect?  The sex of the baby?  The color of their hair (some kids pick on redheads in school).  If the fetus shows an obesity gene?  A short gene?  A premature bald gene?  An ugly gene?  A homosexual gene?  Just how far will parents go to have ‘perfect’ children?

Even an atheist has to admit this is getting too much like playing God.  A lot of women making these decisions are not in the best frame of mind.  A lot of them are young, too.  Who will have a lifetime ahead of them to think about this decision.  Which is why the British require counseling.  Because some women may change their mind.  Like Norma McCorvey did.  And if you do that would be a terrible thing to have to live with.

Often when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy the choice is to destroy a women’s life now by having a baby that she is ill-prepared to raise.  Or ruin her life later as she dwells on what she did when she was ill-prepared to raise a child.  Some may be burdened by this in later life.  Some may not.  But most would agree that they would much rather not ever be in the position to have to make this decision. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,