Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Suffer Little Children

Newtown massacre victim Madeleine Hsu, age 6
"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus of Nazareth
Matthew 19:14
from the King James Bible 
"If our democracy’s working the way it’s supposed to and 90 percent of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy, you’d think this would not be a heavy lift....And yet some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that."

Barack Obama, 8 April 2013

"Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, announced Monday that he would join at least 13 other Republicans who have vowed to block consideration of gun legislation passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and assembled by the Democratic leadership."

New York Times, 9 April 2013

Is there a more disgusting piece-of-shit polluting our nation's capital than Mitch McConnell? If there is, please, I need to know. 

Mitch: Plutocracy's bitch
So, Mitch is going to block legislation that might prevent the next mass murder of innocent children? Fine. 

Since extreme violence seems to be the order of the day, might I share with you this insatiable little fantasy of mine? It involves our boy Mitch. You see, I have this dream of beating the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky to a fucking, bleeding pulp. Confronting him in a dark alley somewhere in the District of You-Know-Where, I can visualize pounding his skull to the very edge of existence. Once he got the message, I might then be seriously tempted to set the decrepit old son-of-a-bitch on fire - just to keep things interesting, you understand. But that kind of treatment would be much too harsh and brutal - even for the likes of Mitch McConnell. Just stuff the bruised and bloodied little bastard into a dumpster behind some third-rate pizzeria on K Street, where he can think things over while he recuperates.

Great Googley Moogley! I cannot believe I'm even thinking such horrible thoughts - and on so lovely a Spring morn! Inviting though the fantasy may surely be, violence on any level has never been my schtick. It's just that Mitch brings out the very worst in me, as that little tirade so clearly and horribly illustrates. It is merely a daydream, don't worry. I don't advocate violence  against anyone - for any reason - not even a corrupt and reprehensible old bugger like Mitch McConnell. I know full well that the Prince of Peace admonishes us to be kind and gentle to one another. But isn't the scene described above a helluva lot more palatable to the senses than the random slaughter of innocent children? I ask you.

Do you have or have you ever had six and seven-year-old children? Try to put yourselves in the shoes of the mothers and fathers of the kids who were murdered in cold blood on December 14, 2012. Try to picture your children with their little heads blown to smithereens; their little brains - the receptacles of  so much promise and hope - splattered onto the walls of their First Grade classrooms. A little empathy is in order here. CAN I GET A WITNESS??? YO, BABY!!!

The number of Americans who would prefer that our gun laws remain as obscenely loose as they presently are (or even worse) is a relatively low one.

The people on the pro-gun side of the argument are armed and dangerous. I'm just sayin'.

But what the hell! Ninety percent of the American people want to see stricter gun legislation and yet these assholes refuse to do the right thing. I can't keep emphasizing this enough, folks: Congress is an organized criminal enterprise. And it's not just the Republicans in the cross-hairs of my scope (figuratively speaking - I promise!) There are enough Democrats who are hardly blameless. They should all be held accountable for the carnage when the next massacre of innocents happens within a few months time. And it's gonna happen, make no mistake about it - again and again and again.  Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans (not to mention Harry Reid and the conservative Democrats) will see to that. This is a fact of life that we need to grow accustomed to.

And mere "background checks" aren't going to have much effect. It certainly wouldn't have made a bit of difference to the homicidal jackass who murdered those little children at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14. Those guns were purchased by his dear old mommy. Wasn't that sweet of her? If - miraculously - these rapid-fire people-killing machines were to be outlawed tomorrow, it would probably take at least a decade or more for the ban to be noticed. There are just so many of them out there as it is - with thousands more pouring onto the streets each and every day. We might have had a handle on the problem by now had the halfwit from Crawford, Texas not let Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban expire in 2004. Yet more rancid fruit from the sick and twisted legacy of George W. Bush. Wasn't that a time?

By the way, do you miss him yet? I'm sorry, that was a silly question, wasn't it. 

Jessica Rekos, age 6
Mitch McConnell and the NRA want us to swallow the idiotic notion that gun control is an assault on our "freedom"; that it's merely one slippery step on the totalitarian banana peel that would blindly lead us from democracy to "Stalinism" - or "Fascism" - or "Hitlerism" - or whatever stupid fucking "ism" of-the-day they happen to be whining about at any given moment. We shouldn't be naive enough to fall victim to their lies and propaganda. As long as American gun laws remain as insanely lax as they presently do, the chaos will persist. What part of this no-brainer do these corrupt fools not get?

Here's a tasty little tidbit to leave you with. I've walked all hours of the day and night in some of the more funkier neighborhoods in cities like London and Toronto. Never once did I have the fear that I might be shot and killed by some enterprising young freak looking to make a few extra dollars. I usually feel as free as a bird when I visit those cities. I don't have that same freedom in "the land of the free". Neither do you. I'm not kidding myself. You shouldn't either.

How many deaths will it take till they know
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is....

Oh, skip it. 

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY


Annette Funicello passed away yesterday.

I've gotta level you, folks; I was never really a huge fan of the "Beach Party" genre of film - anything but. They weren't even bad enough to make them fun to sit through. And yet in spite of that little personality quirk on my part, I always thought that she was lovely - and that smile one could read at midnight by....

This is getting to be an awkward time for me, at least as far as memories are concerned
. The teenaged icons of my early  childhood - not terribly far removed from me in terms of age - are beginning to fade into eternity. When I was a little boy they seemed eternally youthful and indestructible. They weren't, of course. They were (and are) as vulnerable as any of us in their grip on that brittle thread that binds us to this earth. Time keeps flowing like a river into the sea....
Has anybody here seen my old friend Lennon?

For every one who goes before me I fear it less and less.


Hyde Park on Hudson

Fourteen months ago I mentioned on this site that a film about Franklin Roosevelt had commenced shooting with the great Bill Murray in the title role. It was released on DVD this morning and I just finished viewing it twenty minutes ago for the very first time. It's a wonderful movie and highly recommended! In tribute to the recently deceased Roger Ebert: TWO THUMBS UP! 

For more recent rantings on this electronic cesspool of naughty, LEFT WING propaganda, please go the the link below:

"The Rant" by Tom Degan

What kind of Americans are you anyway?



At 6:22 AM, Blogger rjhuntington said...

Notice how the "slippery slope" argument is used only to deny or disparage rights, never to expand or enforce rights.

The right to life is subverted by the right to own an arsenal of firepower. The rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are subverted by anti-abortion laws, bans on same-sex marriage, and prohibition.

We are told that if we legalize pot or same-sex marriage that we will be on a slippery slope to debauchery and doom, but no mention of the slippery slope to totalitarianism or fascism we set upon by banning those simple liberties.

We see this false logic applied again and again, but no one seems to step up an challenge it. Why not?

At 8:18 AM, Blogger Jim Lynch said...

Your astonish ignorance is, well astonishing.
You talk about the right to life yet you condone abortion.
Abortion denies the right to life of an unborn child.
Please don’t use the nonsense the unborn child is part of the woman’s body. It is not, unless of course she has four legs, four arms, and a penis if the child is male.

At 10:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Show me where abortion, same-sex marriage, or pot are enumerated as "rights". These are issues over which we strongly disagree - not rights. Those like you who magically proclaim them "rights" are seeking to disengage the argument with the "rights" trump card. At least the slippery slope is an attempted argument, whereas your abortion "rights", same-sex marriage "rights", and legalization of illicit drug "rights" are unfounded assertions - not coherent arguments. So, you can do away with the slippery slope arguments - but it won't help you out much.

Even so, I don't typically engage in slippery slope arguments for a few reasons.

(1) it is usually a weak argument, (2) for most secular humanists the slope doesn't really exist - how can it absent an absolute morality, (3) we are already near the bottom of the slope - not much slippin' left to do.

At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should know Tom, that writing things like you want to beat the shit out of Mitch McConnell and dump his body on K Street could be considered a terroristic threat. I don't agree with McConnell in the slightest (he rather reminds me of a dung beetle in appearance and thought) but I don't want him physically harmed; merely put out to pasture in the same field in Kentucky they put the winner of the Derby in. When you've written so passionately about Gabby Giffords' attempted assassination, the Holmes massacre and the Sandy Hook shootings, you do a great disservice to yourself by publicly calling for the opposition leader to be beaten on the street. Have some dignity for yourself. This particular piece is a disgraceful hypocrisy Tom. You shouldn't put your name to it.

At 10:27 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...


As I said, it was just a twisted fantasy on my part. I do not advocate violence for any reason. It should be said that beating the bleeding mortal shit out of poor old Mitch is a helluva lot more ethically palatable to the conscience than the brutal slaughter of innocent children - and it will happen again sooner than you realize - thanks, in large part, to the corruption of Mitch McConnell.

At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's only a terroristic threat is he had a towel on h is head whilst writing it, lol

At 11:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

...I don't want him physically harmed; merely put out to pasture in the same field in Kentucky they put the winner of the Derby in.

That would be insulting to winners of the Derby.

At 12:02 PM, Blogger charles moore said...

The "right to life". What exactly is it, where and by whom are we given this "right"? Don't bother to answer as I really don't give a rodent's rear end and will not return to engage in a "discussion" about it.

Meanwhile, I like your McConnell fantasy, Tom. I will gladly hold him down while you beat the shit out of him, or you can hold him down while I beat the shit out of him or we can take turns.

Boy, that slippery slope to debauchery sounds like fun.

At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Rhetorical questions don't fly so well on blogs. Why are you afraid to debate it?

But, kudos on the classy rejoinder to Tom's thoughts on McConnell. Riveting and insightful - we've all learned from it...

At 3:07 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

The rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are subverted by anti-abortion laws, bans on same-sex marriage, and prohibition.

Show me where abortion, same-sex marriage, or pot are enumerated as "rights".

Must specific rights be “enumerated” in order to exist?

“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.”

Abortion, same-sex marriage, or pot are not “enumerated” but legislated rights... or denial of such, in some cases. But the argument is valid that government infringement on these violates the spirit of unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Opposition stances on abortion and same sex marriage are often based by invoking religious beliefs and efforts to make everyone conform to them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

The war on drugs is government intrusion into personal choices regarding our bodies. The war on drugs was dismantling the Fourth Amendment even before the “war on terror” wrought its havoc on our rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

At 3:15 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Now c'mon fellas, It was just a little daydream on my part. We should wish the hideous jackal good cheer - if that's at all possible.

At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We should wish the hideous jackal good cheer - if that's at all possible." You are talking about Harry Reid aren't you?

At 4:08 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Ah yes, where can we see our “rights” enumerated.

Our Right-wing Supreme Court stated in Citizens United that corporations have the same free-speech rights as individual people when it comes to the huge political contributions to electioneering PACs. There are many millionaires and billionaires who are more than happy to agree those are “rights.”

And that same right-wing Supreme Court ignored those pesky words about a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” when they declared that “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” is the only part of the Second Amendment that really counts. There are al least 10% of our citizens who believe fervently that second amendment “right” does not allow us to have background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or mentally disturbed people. They also believe all people should have the right to own assault weapons with large capacity magazines in case they want to fight a war. What is next? How about mobile missile launchers? Or better yet, how about individually owned B-2 bombers with nuclear weapons. Hey, that slippery slope runs both ways. Don’t we all have an unfettered “right” to bear arms?

How about back in 1896 when the Supreme Court said in Plessy v Ferguson that “separate but equal” treatment is perfectly OK. That case involved railroad porters but soon was applied to segregate “those people” in schools, bus terminals, restaurants, drinking fountains, swimming pools, seats on a bus, and almost anything else including who “those people” could or could not marry.

And how about in 1861 when a bunch of states decided that states had the right to secede from the Union? That took about 600,000 deaths to disabuse them of that notion, although there are still many people who believe that states have the right to nullify any federal law they happen to not agree with. And what “rights” of a state were in question. Well perhaps the right to buy and sell other people just as we buy and sell cars.

And how about in 1857 when the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that it was illegal for anyone, anywhere, to help a human being owned by another person to escape from that bondage?

In all these examples people were more than happy to agree that the Supreme Court properly enumerated their “rights.”

Well, how about Roe v Wade? Brown v Board of Education?


At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You left out Senator Bryd (D). I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part.

At 6:02 PM, Blogger Patricia said...

Why is it that we can regulate the hell out of abortions, but guns are off limits? Right on Baldwin! Good work. Tom as always, an excellent rant. I have lived in Kentucky and the poverty there is unreal. McConnell is such a POS. My Dad actually sponsors a child, in Kentucky. He visits her every year. She lives in such abject poverty. The children do suffer from more than lack of gun control, It's a lack of McConnell control. To think this guy is Irish, it's enough to make one weep.

At 8:16 AM, Anonymous James said...

This is off topic but very interesting.


Your money in the bank is now at risk.

At 8:23 AM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...


The purchase of a gun does not guarantee the end of a life, the purchase of an abortion does.

That's why.

At 9:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Opposition stances on abortion and same sex marriage are often based by invoking religious beliefs and efforts to make everyone conform to them."

You mean like the religious belief that certain inalienable rights were endowed by our Creator?

At 10:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James -

I didn't read the article, but yes our "money" is very much at risk. As one economist recently said, people will soon know the difference between currency and money.

Watch the documentary "End of the Road". No political bias & tells the unfortunate story.

At 10:43 AM, Anonymous Susie Que said...

Chuck Morre or whoever you are: "The purchase of a gun does not guarantee the end of a life, the purchase of an abortion does." True, but an abortion sure does get rid of those welfare babies.

You know Chuckie, as the old saying goes if you are opposed to abortionm then don't have one.

At 2:30 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

This is what I meant, "Opposition stances on abortion and same sex marriage are often based by invoking religious beliefs and efforts to make everyone conform to them."

What part of that is not clear?

Are you saying because of the reference to the "creator" in the Declaration of Independence then government should conform to only your religion?

If you want to make a point, then do so clearly, please. Or forget about interacting with my comments because they may lead to questions you refuse to answer as in a previous thread.

You never did tell us what your penalty would be for terminating an embryo. Death to the woman and doctor? Life imprisonment for both? Burning at the stake? What is your price on adult human lives for the termination of an embryo?

You make half a case, spouting your religious morality, yet ignore real world ramifications.

So show us where embryo rights are "enumerated"?

If you want to debate me, fine. But your are simply sniping now.

At 4:55 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Susie Que,

If you are opposed to guns, you should not buy one.

However, your comment has not diminished in any way or by any amount this plain undeniable truth: The purchase of a gun does not guarantee the end of a life, the purchase of an abortion does.

Accepting that truth is the first step in dealing with this subject with logic and rational thought.

At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DD –

First, if I answered all of your questions (which frankly I don’t feel any obligation to do) I would overstep what I feel is my reasonable participation in a blog. I don’t believe I need to be writing whole essays on any given topic – rather pointing out major flaws in arguments or providing food for thought. I have answers to them in most cases, but my neglecting to take the time to provide you with them in all cases isn’t “refusal”.

Second, if I “spout” my religious morality, I do so alongside your “spouting” of your irreligious, or secular, or humanistic (call it what you will) morality – much of which I perceive as canned secular talking points. Nevertheless, everyone has a morality. And everyone advocates for their position. So the accusation doesn’t bother me in the least. People will continue to lob it – it will continue to bounce off.

My point in the case at hand, which should have been obvious, was that the founders’ idea that YOU referenced in making your point was, in fact, invoking a religious belief. And they invoked this religious belief in a foundational document to the formation of our nation. And, they invoked this religious belief as foundational to the very rights we are debating – as endowed by the Creator (big C). Not to mention

So, yes, my opposition to abortion, among other issues, is a stance I take based on invoking religious beliefs that I want to impose on others. So was the founding of our country – if you’ll remember, the British government was a tad opposed to it.

At 5:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for my "not to mention..." - no idea what I was thinking about when I left off. Will remain a mystery.

At 6:41 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Thank you for your expansion, and agreement with my statement. I will also agree with you on the religious framing of the Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause. I'm merely contending that those rights are not, and should not, be defined by a religion. Nor should religious beliefs alone be reason to curtail some rights.

I respect your understanding that everyone has a morality. (Excepting perhaps the very mentally ill and anti-social types, with the former being very much forgivable.)

As for "not to mention"... Been there so I'll agree.;-)

At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Sue-Zee Q said...

Poor Chuckie, so quick to find offense where none was given. I did not diasgree with your statement about guns vs abortion. If you will check it out, I replied "True..." I was merely pointing out that a plus to abortion would be ridding us of those pesky welfare queens who keep having babies in order to support their worthless, non productive life style that you conservatives rail against so much.

You really are like a broken record with your self righteous, pious postings about abortions and guns.

But I forgot that you sometimes take the liberals to task for being racists while assuring us that there is not a racist bone in your body. Why some of my best friends are black, Jewish, homosexual, Muslim, Atheist,...insert whatever is proper for the day.

At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Suzie Que, so this is why you support abortion rights?

"I was merely pointing out that a plus to abortion would be ridding us of those pesky welfare queens who keep having babies in order to support their worthless, non productive life style that you conservatives rail against so much."

If this is what pro choice supporters really believe, then Tom is right, "suffer little children".
I believe you are suffering from a personality disorder, called Psychological Projection. Help is out there.

This is still the truth.
The purchase of a gun does not guarantee the end of a life, the purchase of an abortion does.

At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Sue-See Kew said...

Chucky, you just continue to ignore the obvious, don't you? It is you conservatives who are always railing against the takers, the poor, the lazy and undeserving who are sitting on their collective asses wanting gubmint hand outs and free stuff. I am merely pointing out a bit of a solution to the problem.

And incidentally, I have not once mentioned guns except to quote you. YOu are the one with the gun fetish.

At 6:44 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...

Suzie Que,

Here's your quote

" Susie Que said...

" Chuck Morre or whoever you are: "The purchase of a gun does not guarantee the end of a life, the purchase of an abortion does." True, but an abortion sure does get rid of those welfare babies.

You know Chuckie, as the old saying goes if you are opposed to abortionm then don't have one.

10:43 AM"

My post was responding to Patricia.

Please get help soon.

At 7:06 PM, Anonymous Mitch McConnel said...

"Is there a more disgusting piece-of-shit polluting our nation's capital than Mitch McConnell? If there is, please, I need to know."

Yes, the most poorly experienced but the most smoothest talking bullshit artist ever to occupy the White House!

Where is the Hope and Change dickhead Tom?

At 9:39 PM, Anonymous James said...

The smooth talking bullshit artist is starting to dismantle Social Security, it seems Conservatives cannot see he is one of them! As time goes on it will be harder and harder to stick to the partisan scripts that everybody assigns themselves.
Hey Tom, Obama is not getting more Liberal as you hoped before the second election, it is too bad I was right.

At 9:51 PM, Anonymous Soo-See Cue said...

Oh Chuckie, so your post was responding to Patricia! Does that mean that no one else can respond to your comments? I thought that was what you ultra conservative posters do all the time.

You know, Chuckie, I think you are the one who needs to get help.

At 2:26 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Yeah, James....

FDR is doing somersaults in his grave. What a disappointment. I can't even think about this at the moment. Give me a day or two.

At 5:50 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...


I too have been sorely disappointed by our President.

He pulled a “Nixon” on Iraq instead of just packing up and getting out. More of our armed forces died under Nixon than in the whole Vietnam disaster prior to Nixon’s election. I am (and was) convinced that if Bobby Kennedy has not been killed he would have ended the Vietnam war on January 20, 1969.

He extended all the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 instead of going back to the tax code we had under Clinton. Remember those 1993 Clinton tax increases that economic “genius” Phil Gramm said would bring the economy to a screeching halt? Well, it took Gramm’s dismantling of Glass Steagall in 1999 to start us on the road to the screeching halt in September 2008.

He signed the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts in January 2013 for all except those with taxable income over $400,000 ($450,000 if married filing joint). Hardly ever discussed is that those with taxable income of more than $400,000 still enjoy a 20% maximum tax on dividends and capital gains, which is a major part of incomes for the very wealthy. Mitt Romney might pay 19% in taxes instead of 14%. Big deal. An average worker earning $50,000 is in the 25% income tax bracket plus that 15.3 % on every dollar earned that goes to the Federal Government for payroll taxes. All those Bush tax cuts were, and are, an economic disaster except for the very wealthy.

He has now started dismantling Social Security with this “Chained CPI” gimmick. Even before that, the Social Security CPI ignored inflation on food and energy. Duh.

But every time I get disgusted with our President, I think of where we would be if McCain and Alaska Barbie had been elected in 2008, or the Mittster and his sidekick had been elected in 2012. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

At 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will you be on the "front line" on this? It'd be great to see your photo with a AK47 slung over your chest.

Members of the Syrian opposition movement have hired a top Occupy Wall Street activist as their U.S. lobbyist, according to registration forms filed with the U.S. Senate on Monday. Carne Ross is best known as one of the driving forces behind the Occupy Wall Street Working Group on Alternative Banking, a coalition that created a model for nonprofit banking.

According to the lobbying forms, Ross’s advisory firm, Independent Diplomat, Inc., will “meet with key officials and desk officers in the State Department and other U.S. agencies to gather their views [on the Syrian civil war] … and advise the Syrian Coalition how best to tailor their own approach to the U.S. Government.”

The National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, as the opposition is formally known, is engaged in a pitched battle to overthrow the autocratic regime of Bashar Al-Assad. Since 2011, the armed conflict has resulted in an estimated death toll of more than 70,000.

At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, by Mara Hvistendahl

Hvistendahl’s plaint recalled the incredible work of Edwin Black, most notably his book War Against the Weak, which detailed the role American eugenics played in the monstrous ethnic cleansing in Europe in the 20th century culminating in the Holocaust. One of the most important personalities in this terrible saga was the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood. Yet like Hvistendahl, Black was concerned about the implications of what he had uncovered. In the introduction, he writes: “Opponents of a woman’s right to choose could easily seize upon Margaret Sanger’s eugenic rhetoric to discredit the admirable work of Planned Parenthood today; I oppose such misuse.”

Seth Mandel

At 4:05 PM, Anonymous Lazy Liberal Drunk said...

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other
If you want to change the second ammendment, try this:

Article V

Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While you libs up in New York are running around pissing your pants in sheer joy because King Cuomo signed the "toughest gun control law in the nation" restricting your 2nd amendment rights, you may want to consider that others are similarly undergoing throes of ecstasy at restricting rights that you hold precious.

The Virginia Board of Health voted to require abortion clinics to meet the same architectural standards required of new hospitals. Abortion-rights groups say the standard is clearly designed to be so costly that clinics will have no choice but to close. Virginia has joined a rapidly growing list of states that are making it more difficult for women to terminate pregnancies.

“There’s a fundamental culture change going on,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion political candidates. She called the recent restrictions “common-sense, common-ground” measures.

Does that "common sense" thing sound familiar? How do you like it when it's "only common sense" to restrict your rights?

Arkansas legislators banned abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The Kansas legislature blocked certain tax breaks for abortion providers and declared that life begins at fertilization.

Alabama enacted a law requiring abortion doctors to have permission to perform the procedure at local hospitals, challenging a practice under which clinics bring in physicians from out of town.

The governor of North Dakota signed the toughest abortion law in the nation — a ban on abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Before you celebrate restricting or removing the rights of others, you may want to consider that others will be celebrating the removal of your rights.

At 8:24 AM, Anonymous James said...

This article shows the discrepancy between forcing birth and the lack of care there after.

The United States ranked in the bottom four of a United Nations report on child well-being. Among 29 countries, America landed second from the bottom in child poverty and held a similarly dismal position when it came to “child life satisfaction.”

Keeping the U.S. company at the bottom of the report, which gauged material well-being, overall health, access to housing and education, were Lithuania, Latvia and Romania, three of the poorest countries in the survey.

UNICEF said in a statement on the survey that child poverty in countries like the U.S. “is not inevitable but is policy-susceptible” and that there isn’t necessarily a strong relationship between per capita GDP and overall child well-being, explaining: “The Czech Republic is ranked higher than Austria, Slovenia higher than Canada, and Portugal higher than the United States.”

The Netherlands ranked number one on the list, with Norway, Iceland, Finland and Sweden filling out the top five.

But don’t feel too discouraged, fellow Americans! As the International Business Times notes, the U.S. has managed to take first place in plenty of other surveys conducted by global organizations:

The United States is No. 1 on many other lists: It spends more on the military than the next 12 nations on the list combined; it’s the best in the world at imprisoning people; and it has the most obese people, the highest divorce rate, and the highest rate of both illicit and prescription drug use.

At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Chuck Morre said...


Your assumption is that restricting the freedom to abort will automatically mean there will be stress placed on govt to take care of them.
First of all it is not the responsibility of the US federal govt to provide for its citizens. Its job is to guarantee life, liberty, and justice for the citizens who live in the states that belong to the Union. Legalized abortion does not provide any of these for the victims of the abortion.
Further, I'm pretty sure I could develop a list of countries in which the USA was number one the UN's finding for having the most "child satisfaction"(what ever that is.). It depends on the group of countries you select, doesn't it.

Secondly, I really don't give a hoot what the UN says about the USA if for no other reason than how the UN ignores the murders committee by Islamic extremists of other followers of Islam and Christians, Hindus, Jews. The UN has no hand in my view of things, telling anyone how to run their country until they address the largest war in the world today. And that is the war of Islamism radicalism against anything, anyone that that does not believe in or reflect their world views.

My advise to the UN would be to stop fretting over "child satisfaction" in the USA but instead focus on the satisfaction of all citizens found in those nations in its membership that are being threatened or governed by Islamic Fascism.

At 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since so many in the media have failed/refused to report on the late-term abortionist/infant serial killer Kermit Gosnell trial happening right now in Philadelphia – because they are sooo busy reporting on Jay-Z and Beounce’s trip to Cuba – we’ve rounded up a top 10 list of the most gruesome, horrific revelations that have come out during the trial to help speed up their reporting. You’re welcome, Rachel Maddow!

1) A young woman who worked at Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic as a teenager testified that she saw a baby’s chest move even after the gruesome snipping procedure Gosnell used to end the baby’s life. “The chest was moving,” she testified. The baby was so large that another worker even took a cellphone picture of it. Prosecution experts, based on the picture, say the baby was well past 24 weeks, the legal limit for abortion in Pennsylvania.

2) Another former employee described how she heard a baby scream during a live-birth abortion. “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” he testified, telling a judge and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury that the body of the child was about 18 to 24 inches long and was one of the largest babies she had seen delivered during abortion procedures at Gosnell’s clinic.

3) Stephen Massof, who does not have a medical license, described how he jabbed medical scissors into the backs of babies’ necks to kill them. He assisted Gosnell in “snipping” the spinal cords of babies, calling it, “literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.”

4) According to a news report, Massof told the jury that women were often given drugs to speed up delivery of the baby so the abortion/infanticide could take place: He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, “it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”

5) One day after a former employee described how she heard a baby scream during a live-birth abortion, another worker at the Kermit Gosnell “House of Horrors’ abortion clinic testified that she saw a baby “jump” when she snipped her neck in an abortion. “It jumped, the arm,” she said, showing the jury by raising her arm.

6) Another Gosnell clinic worker testified that she took photos of one particularly large baby, referred to by prosecutors as “Baby A,” with her cell phone that was estimated to be about 30-weeks gestation. Baby A had been delivered alive into a toilet where she cut the baby’s throat.

7) Baby A was described as being so large that his feet and arms hung out over the sides of the shoebox they put him in. Gosnell actually joked about the baby’s size saying, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

8) Prosecutors have cited the dozens of jars of severed baby feet as an example of Gosnell’s idiosyncratic and illegal practice of providing abortions for cash to poor women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania. In her opening statement to the Common Pleas Court jury, Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore mused that the jars of feet were some kind of bizarre “trophy” Gosnell kept.

9) Gosnell’s sister-in-law testified that it was it was part of her cleaning duties to dispose of the large bottle on the suction machine that would fill with blood and fetal remains. She would pour the blood and baby parts into the sink and grind them up using the garbage disposal.

10) It was revealed that on the night patient Karnamaya Mongar died the emergency exit was found to be locked and down a hallway crammed full of broken office furniture and other debris. Workers could not find the key as emergency personnel sought a way to get their Code Blue patient out of the facility and into an ambulance.

At 9:31 PM, Anonymous Sam Jones said...

Anonymous, granted the events coming from Gosnell's clinic are horrendous, if they are true, but as one who lived throughthe period before Roe vs Wade, I can assure you that will be nothing compared to the back alley abortions performed with a coat hanger if it is made illegal. Women who are desperate will find a way to abort legal or not.

At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sam Jones A.K.A, head in sand

IE: "if they are true"
"nothing compared to the back alley abortions"

"Women who are desperate will find a way to abort legal or not"

Sounds a lot like the pro gun argument.

At 11:45 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

The real story about the Philadelphia abortion clinic is that it's a preview of what will be a much more common occurrence as the ideological purists try to legislate away a reality they don't like.

Closing legal abortion clinics just makes more financial opportunities for illegal, unregulated clinics to fill the void.

Trying to use what happened in Philadelphia as a rationale to make abortion illegal makes about as much sense as using the story about the dentist in Tulsa, Oklahoma an argument against dental surgery.

At 12:39 PM, Anonymous Lomez said...

The Kermit Gosnell case, as horrific as it sounds, really is only a depiction of abortion on a grand scale. Satisfying a woman's "right to choose", Gosnell represents what American society has become since Roe vs Wade. We appease ourselves by changing the language of abortion as not to burden ourselves with the truth that dismembering infants in utero, and pithing delivered babies is not infanticide.

Gosnell is Women's Rights on steroids; the left should be very happy. Yet, we should not look at Gosnell with revulsion but rather look at ourselves in the mirror and reflect on how things got this way. If thinking does not change a generation from now Gosnell's barbarity might likely be accepted as "business as usual".

Tom, every year, this is how millions of children suffer.

An interesting article from NRO's Andrew McCarthy:

At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand you correctly. If abortion is made illegal, then what we are now finding out goes on in legal abortion clinics will become common knowledge because of it will be illegal?
So by keeping abortion legal we can prevent clinics like the one owned and run by Kermit Gosnell from happening? Hasn't worked so far has it.
I think the real problem is pro legalized abortion people don't want what goes on inside the "legal clinics" known, shown or talked about. Hence the common use of back alley's and coat hangers to frighten and fool people into believing it would only be worse if Roe v Wade was overturned.
The truth is, it couldn't be any worse than it is now.

At 6:47 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

It's really not that hard to understand that you can't legislate something people want out of existence. If it's made illegal, ALL it does is make it more likely that abortions will be done in unsanitary conditions by any quack willing to give it a try.

Like I said in my first post, using your questionable 'reasoning', one could make a case against dental surgery because of the case in Tulsa where the dentist exposed hundreds of people to disease because he wasn't following proper procedures. I'm sure he's not the only dentist in the country guilty of that, either.

It's childish and naive to think overturning Roe V. Wade is going to stop abortions from happening. If that ever happened, all it would do is drive the practice underground, and guarantee that what happened in Philadelphia would be much more common.

At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you can't legislate something people want out of existence."

Like the 2nd Amendment?

Polls do not support your claim that the majority people want legalized abortion.

The majority of Americans are opposed to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Using your logic, that it is foolish to think over ruling Roe V Wade will not stop abortions, why have laws against murder. The laws haven't stop murders so why have law's against it? And if murder was "legalized" would the number of murders go up or down?

At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property. This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years.”

Melissa Harris-Perry

At 1:18 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Once again:

A schoolchild is a living, breathing, thinking, and feeling, person with a name, gender and personality. An embryo is not.

Is terminating an embryo exactly the same as gunning down school children? Is the “murder” of an embryo just cause for life imprisonment or execution of both the woman and doctor?

This question begs an answer. If you call it a crime, you should consider the punishment. Make your case.

At 4:43 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Since so many in the media have failed/refused to report on the late-term abortionist/infant serial killer Kermit Gosnell

Whining about your fictional “liberal media” again? Try reading some non-corporate media some time.
From the January 27, 2011 of the Nation

Blood-spattered floors. Cat feces. Broken equipment. A 15-year-old giving anesthesia. Two women dead, countless more maimed and injured. Third-trimester fetuses delivered alive whose spines were then severed by the doctor. This was the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia. This is what illegal abortion looks like.

That’s right. Illegal abortion. A great deal has been written about Dr. Kermit Gosnell and the shocking conditions and practices at his facility, which was closed last March after a drug raid, and is back in the news because a grand jury has indicted him and nine employees for murder in the deaths of one woman and seven infants. There have been many calls for further restrictions on abortion, much revulsion expressed at post-viability abortions, much blame cast on pro-choicers for supposedly doing nothing to stop him. But it has not been pointed out often enough that what Dr. Gosnell was doing was illegal in Pennsylvania. It is not legal to perform abortions after twenty-four weeks. It is not legal to slit the necks of born-alive fetuses at any age, much less at thirty weeks or even more. It is not legal for untrained, unlicensed employees to perform medical procedures.

You know what else is sick?
Gosnell is Women's Rights on steroids; the left should be very happy.

Now stop spouting like liberals gleefully do this all the time, and tell us how you want to punish those who terminate an embryo.

Well, speak up. We know you think a zygote should be no different legally from a child. Now's the time for you to lecture us on your morality.

Pronounce your judgment.

We’re waiting...

At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Can't lecture you about something you don't have.

At 6:18 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

...something you don't have

Judgment, yet no answer.


At 6:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why I Didn’t Write About Gosnell’s Trial–And Why I Should Have — Megan McArdle, Daily Beast

But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”

Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.

What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion. But while legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open.

… If I think about it for a moment, there are obviously lots of policy implications of Gosnell’s baby charnel house. How the hell did this clinic operate for seventeen years without health inspectors discovering his brutal crimes? Are there major holes in our medical regulatory system? More to the point, are those holes created, in part, by the pressure to go easy on abortion clinics, or more charitably, the fear of getting tangled in a hot-button political issue? These have clear implications for abortion access, and abortion politics.

… Moreover, surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.

At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DD -

I'd be willing to settle for stiff fines for doctors. I don't think it is the "gotcha" question you seem to think it is. It is obviously a very complex question as most modern legal issues are, but not without answers.

And, while not beside the point, very much tangential to it...

At 11:16 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Thank you. You alone have the guts to answer me. It's not a gotcha question. If someone wants to make something a crime, then it is relevant and reasonable to ask how the newly created criminals should be punished.

I would contend that crime and punishment are not tangential, but consequential. We have arcane morality and drug laws so severe that the punishment is the real crime.

At 9:07 AM, Blogger MagginKat said...

Tom I cannot imagine touching Mitch McConnell for any reason! :)
My idea of justice for McConnell, Bush, Cheney, Eric Cantor, Lyin Ryan, Rumsfeld and a bunch more of those thugs is life in prison without parole, stripped of all their wealth/assets & left to rot in prison with no comfort at all.
Now that would be justice I could enjoy reading about.

At 9:22 AM, Anonymous Michael said...

The Sandy Hook Hoax is still serving its purpose.


At 12:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

kind of ironic that the people you gush over soooo much have no problem sending weapons all over the world, yet you don't want people here to be able to have them.
I find it amazing that you still think and act within a left/right paradigm even though it is painfully obvious that an agreement behind closed doors has been reached to neatly divide social issues between a 2 party system for the end result of nothing other than enhanced division. Everything with a public face is just theater.
Remember,there can only be one thing worse than a 2 party system and that's a one party system...so, as you call for the pummeling of those that you disagree with, you should actually be thanking them that they have the courage to voice their opposition to particular issues, such as you praise yourself for doing the same.
The pendulum swings both ways and the compassion you lack for perspectives conflicting with yours may someday end up as karma coming back at you.
And what about your requirement to proclaim someone isn't a robot in order to publish their comment? You do realize that that is already politically incorrect as there are many living people who wouldn't be without a robots help. As AI progresses...you will likely someday be hauled in front of a cyber magistrate to answer to these prejudices.

At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only true peace is when one side knows the other side can kick it's a$$. Let's face it Tom when a liberal becomes a victim of a crime what do you do Tom you liberals call for a man with a gun to come to your rescue. Next time shot hits the fan just suck it up we know liberals are just cowards who are so scared they may have to grow a pair. You don't want to save the children or you wouldn't want to kill them before there first breath of air.

At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MagginKat hey I have a better idea let's lock up liberals instead. Just because your all idiots and cowards.


Post a Comment

<< Home