Democrats do not support the constitution

Recently I’ve been reading a lot about the communist goals of the ACLU, their founders, and their long ties with communism since their inception. It is something I’ve known for a long time, my dad used to talk about it, in fact. Interestingly, I find that although we don’t use the term to categorize current legislators, what they’re striving for fits right in with the goals of Roger Baldwin. Interestingly, many of them are attorneys. I put this little flash presentation together and it illustrates some of the points I’d like to make here.


So there you have it in black and white, folks, progressive=communist. And in some circles, the term “progressive” as long been synonymous with “communist”, but maybe this is the first time you’ve actually seen it in print.

I am forced to wonder, bearing this in mind, about the vigorous court proceedings having to do with the life and death matter of Terri Schiavo. The issue isn’t even whether or not she’s in a PVS, (although she’s not), the issue is really–who determines someone’s right to live or die? Is it God, as we used to believe when the founders said

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

? Or is it the government? Should it ever be the government?

Looks like that’s the way the communists want it, and that’s the direction we’re travelling in.

From Chronwatch:

From rare abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, this ”procedure” progressed to partial-birth abortions, a term derided by abortion proponents but marvelously descriptive. At the latest stage of pregnancy, a baby could have its life ended in the most barbaric manner, its head punctured and brain suctioned out while the abortionist gripped its writhing body as it left its mother’s womb.

But there is worse. The more extreme advocate the right of parents to return a defective baby up to 28 days after birth–to have her life, now deemed worthless, ended.

Some of us believe in protecting the lives of the innocent. But then, the communist view is that if you don’t have any value to society (and the government determines your value), then you should die. And the democrats are holding to that position, so I wonder if we should even call them democrats anymore….”democratic” isn’t what I’d call the ideology.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, this is becoming an argument between whether or not she’s in a persistent vegetative state or not. I don’t believe we should even walk that tight rope, because everyone has the right to life, regardless of whether they’re mentally challenged, or physically challenged, or on life support of one form or another. Do you see how this opens a pandora’s box?

I was reading over at this website about the technology of ventilators and life savings equipment. Sometimes a person is severely injured and needs this equipment in order to stay alive and heal. Some people return from that state and eventually can be taken off the ventilator or the life sustaining equipment. But in the direction we’re headed, the person would lose their right to live when they become injured or disabled and *poof* they’d be snuffed out.

And here is an article called Should Lawmakers Overrule Courts in Life-Support Cases?

While “Terri’s Law” addressed an immediate life-and-death emergency, the Schiavo case is stimulating Florida and other states to reconsider their laws. The ACLU advocates a right to die, but persons with disabilities have at least an equal right to live. An accused has the right to plead guilty, but because that waives the right to a trial the defendant must first demonstrate the waiver is knowing and informed.

Similarly, before an irrevocable decision to starve to death someone unable to speak for herself, state laws should require evidence that any prior statement rejecting food is based on information sufficient to show informed consent—not the sort of casual remark the courts relied on in the Schiavo case.

When courts apply law that threatens the lives of the vulnerable, legislatures have the authority to reform the law—and that includes saving people with disabilities from deliberate starvation.

That means even people like Reeves, who was on a ventilator. I just find it interesting that in the case of Terri Schiavo, they’re all for murdering her, whereas in the case of Christopher Reeves, they said that it was Bush’s fault for Reeves’ death because of the position on stem cell research (you know, the harvesting from human fetus kind-the frankenstein stem cells). Would the American people be outraged if the courts had condemned Christopher Reeves to death because he was on a ventilator???

And one more thing, with compliments from Hugh Hewitt:

Radioblogger exposes Barbara Boxer’s admission that their goal is to change the constitution:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we’re saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn’t too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don’t you think so? It’s the only check and balance on these people. They’re in for life. They don’t stand for election like we do, which is scary.

What is scarey is what you just said there, bow-wow.

And here’s the actual clip of her saying it.

In one small paragraph, if this passage gets picked up around the ‘sphere and on radio, the Democrats just lost their argument. The truth of the matter is it is the Democrats who indeed are changing the Constitutional requirement, because Democrats like Barbara Boxer don’t think the current political makeup is fair. Not only should there be a supermajority, which is clearly unconstitutional, but appointed judges should stand for elections. I wonder if that weathered, pocket-sized edition of the Constitution did backflips in Robert Byrd’s shirt pocket when she said that.

Game over. Dems lose. Spread the truth far and wide, bloggers.

Put it all together, and what’ve you got? Much more trouble than I signed on for, that’s for sure. Ogre is right; we are not free, we continue to lose our constitutional rights and God given freedoms and these people are all working in unison to insure that it’s going to happen permanently, across the board. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet….and poison by any other name would be just as deadly.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.