Gosnell's Defense: Hey, Abortion is "Bloody and Ugly," But It's Not Illegal by Guy Benson

It's been a long few days for me and I didn't have time to write a post, but this is a very powerful article from TownHall.com. Hope to be back blogging in the next few days.


Abortionist and accused serial killer Kermit Gosnell's attorney wrapped up his defense presentation in a Philadelphia courtroom earlier this afternoon.  TheExaminer's Tim Carney witnessed the closing argument:
“Every one of those babies died in utero.” That is the pillar on which abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s defense rests. Defense attorney John J. McMahon’s closing argument Monday boiled down to this: Gosnell’s supposed crimes were really just late-term abortions. The question in Gosnell’s case, McMahon said, is not “whether he was an abortion doctor,” or “is abortion bloody and ugly?” The question is whether Gosnell killed babies after they were born or while they were still in utero. One of Gosnell’s alleged victims was named Baby Boy A by the grand jury. He was so big that Gosnell allegedly joked “he could have walked me to the bus station.” “They have no case” regarding “Baby A because it was killed in utero,” McMahon said Monday. Gosnell, through the abdomen, injected a chemical called digoxin into the baby “to prevent a live birth. The was the goal of Dr. Gosnell with [the mother’s] consent: to kill the baby in utero.”

Gosnell's attorney also told jurors that other measures -- such as snapping infants' necks and snipping their spinal cords -- were precautionary measures carried out on already-dead babies:
One baby was delivered into a toilet at Gosnell’s clinic. A clinic worker testified “I took the fetus out of the toilet. I snapped the neck. …” McMahon argued Monday that “not one line” of testimony in that case “indicates the baby was alive at any time.” Yes, Gosnell snipped many baby’s necks after delivery — but he had killed the baby in utero hours before with a shot of digoxin, the defense argued.


Of course, other lurid testimony from the trial contravenes the defense's core assertion.  Nurses at the clinic have testified -- among other things -- thatone baby screamed during a live-birth "abortion," and that another appeared to be "swimming" in the toilet into which it was delivered, as if he or she it was "trying to get out."  These are horrifying, but important, details.  Dead fetuses don't make moaning noises.  They don't try to escape.  They don't fight to breathe while being tossed into shoeboxes and discarded.  Plus, the "they were already dead" excuse doesn't explain Gosnell's macabre trophies (he stored the severed feet of his victims in jars around the office), nor does it cover the demise Gosnell's adult victim.  Defense attorney John McMahon clearly recognizes these gaps in his case, which is why he closed with a rant against the "racist" prosecution.  Cries of racism are especially rich, considering that Gosnell enforced a policy of de facto racial segregation at his unsanitary death mill, where white women were treated far better than women of color.

But the very fact that prosecutors are forced to meet the burden of proving these infants were delivered alive simply draws attention to the baffling and unjust standards constructed by our abortion laws.  If a fully-formed unborn infant is poisoned in utero, chopped to pieces, then vacuumed out of the womb, that's legally permissible. It's a textbook late-term abortion.  But if that very same infant happens to be delivered alive before the lethal blow is struck, it's murder.  Thus, a murder trial hinges almost exclusively on the determination of the scene of the crime.  If the killings of the exact same victims took place in location X,  they're sanitized into a "medical procedure."  But if they took place in location Y, they're felonies.  According to a witness, Gosnell once offered the following assessment of one of his victims: “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop!”  But that very baby was not "big enough" to be sheltered from legalized pre-birth killing in many states.  How is this ethically, medically, or morally defensible?

I AM THE NATION by Otto Whittaker

I AM THE NATION
I was born on July 4, 1776, and the Declaration of Independence is my birth certificate.  The bloodlines of the world run in my veins, because I offered freedom to the oppressed.  I am the nation!
I am 281 million living souls and the ghosts of those who have
lived and fought and died for me.
I am Nathan Hale and Paul Revere.  I stood at Lexington and
fired the shot heard around the world.  I am Washington,     
Jefferson, and Patrick Henry.  I am John Paul Jones, the Green
Mountain Boys and Davy Crockett.  I am Lee, Grant, Abe
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Pershing, Eisenhower, MacArthur,
Patton, and Colin Powell.
I remember the Alamo, the Maine, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001.  When freedom called, I answered and stayed until it was over, over there.  I left my heroic dead in Flanders Fields, the rock of Corregidor, on the bleak slopes of Korea, in the steaming jungle of Vietnam and the desert sands of Kuwait.
I am the Statue of Liberty, the wheat fields of Kansas, the
granite hills of Vermont, and Tennessee the Volunteer State.  I 
am the coalfields of the Virginias and Pennsylvania, the fertile
lands of the west, the Golden Gate, Brooklyn Bridge and the
Grand Canyon.  I am Independence Hall, the Monitor, the  
Merrimac and the Challenger.  I am the Liberty Bell that first
rang for freedom.
I am big.  I sprawl from the Atlantic to the Pacific  - three million square miles of land throbbing with industry.  I am two million farms.  I am forest, field, mountain and desert.  I am quiet  villages and cities that never sleep.  You can look at me and see Ben Franklin walking down the streets of Philadelphia with his breadloaf under his arm.   You can see the lights of Christmas and hear the strains of "Auld Land Syne" as the calendar turns.
I am Babe Ruth and the World Series.  I am more than 170,000
schools and colleges and more than 300,000 churches where my
people worship God as they choose.  I am a ballot dropped into a box, the roar of a crowd in a stadium, the voice of a choir in a 
cathedral.  I am an editorial in a newspaper and a letter to      
Congress.  I am John Glenn and Neil Armstrong and their fellow  astronauts who whirl above my head.  I am Eli Whitney and  Stephen Foster, Tom Edison, Albert Einstein and Billy Graham.  I am Horace Greeley, Will Rogers and the Wright brothers.  I am   George Washington Carver, Jonas Salk and Martin Luther King Jr.  I am Longfellow, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Walt Whitman and  Thomas Paine.
Yes, I am the nation and these are the things I am.  I was  
conceived in freedom and God willing, in freedom I shall spend 
the rest of my days.
May I always possess the integrity, the courage and the strength to keep myself unshackled, to remain a citadel of freedom and a beacon of hope to the world.

They warned us.

Today I'm just going to give some quotes from our founding father's Many of our founder's principles, I think you'll find., have been lost.

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

"God Bless Planned Parenthood!"...not.

Obama's speech at Planned Parenthood's national convention nearly had me in tears today. Not because it was so eloquent and powerful, but because it was disgusting. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization dedicated to "promoting a commonsense approach to women's health and well-being, based on respect for each individual's right to make informed, independents decisions about health, sex, and family planning." The organization provides mammograms and contraception to those who can't afford it. Sounds nice, right? Well they also happen to provide abortions which they see as a woman's "right". it's also taxpayer funded to some extent.

So when Obama goes to their convention and praises Planned Parenthood for all their work and saying that those who don't support planned parenthood and abortions want to "turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s then the 21st century" I get upset. Obama is doing his best to make those who support a baby's right to life look like a bunch of morons living in the past. Obama never said the word "abortion" in he whole 12 minute address, but he used "right to choose" instead.

I think that a baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to choose any day  I get that you say "what about rape, or incest, or the mother's life?" My position is a bit more Conservative than some. If a woman get raped, I believe that the right thing to do would be to have the kid and either  keep it or give it up for adoption. I would be a hypocrite to say it's ok in cases of rape but not ok when the person doesn't feel "responsible" enough. I believe a baby is still losing it's life. In case of incest, you have to look at the risks. Even if the baby is born with a mental disorder many still go on to live good lives. But having the baby might affect the mother's life depending on what her age is. Now to the case of the mother's life. It is a choice then. She can die and let the baby live or the baby can die and she can live, it's not meant to be a easy decision though.

But the majority of abortions are not based on the examples given. Most involve a teenager or college student getting pregnant and they don't want a baby. They want to be able to choose when they have a baby and plan for it (hence "Planned Parenthood"). I say that if you don't want to have the baby DON'T GET PREGNANT. That is your right to choose. If you do get pregnant, take responsibility for your actions (or do we not do that anymore?). I know it's not always possible for someone that age to take care of a baby, but there is adoption and many programs that help with that.

Christian Organizations sometimes put counselors outside abortion clinics to try and show the women going in some other options. And it has proved to be effective. But in many cases these people are arrested or told to leave because of "harassment" even though tall they do is pass out pamphlets and talk to those who wish to talk. The Left-Wing media makes sure that abortion is praised, and that these stories are left out.

I don't like tax dollars going to an organization I view as immoral and we shouldn't be obligated to help fund them. I'm not trying to take anyone's rights away or stop women from getting health care, I simply believe an effort should be made to stand up for the rights of the unborn. Obama made reference to an Arizona law making it  illegal to have an abortion after 6 weeks of being pregnant saying it was stripping women of their rights. What about the baby's rights? In my opinion in most cases, abortion should is unconstitutional. And having a president praising and organization for performing abortions and even going so far as to say "God bless" it, just makes me sick.

"God Bless Planned Parenthood? no. God SAVE America? we can only hope and pray.

A Red Line...

President Obama said in August 2012 concerning the Syrian civil war "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation."

It now appears as if the Syrian Government has crossed that "red line". An intelligence report given to the White House on Thursday stated that they are  fairly certain that the Syrian  Regime  used sarin gas on Syria's rebels. Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel, when asked if the Red Line had been crossed, said it was too soon to say and that they needed "all the facts" before anything was done.

So what does this mean? Are we going to go and get involved in the Syrian Rebellion?  Some say we should have already gotten involved so nothing like this would happen. We are already giving he rebels provisions, just not weapons.

My take on this is LEAVE THEM ALONE! We don't need another war. and we need to get rid of this perception that we are the policemen of the world. Syria isn't an ally. And even if we help the rebels out there is no guarantee they will be allies. We helped Libya "revolt" and it hasn't helped us one bit. They just have another terrorist group leading them up now, the Muslim Brotherhood. If anything we are just as bad off as before. It looks as if the Rebels will have the Muslim Brotherhood at their head to before long.

I know this non-interventionist view is seen as cold and cruel, but it's what we need to do. America can't afford to help every country that decides to revolt. We're over 16 trillion dollars in debt. We have our own problems.. My position is. If they attack us, we wipe them off the earth. If they attack our allies, we protect our allies or those we have treaties with (Japan, South Korea, Britain etc...), but we need to stop helping rebels who don't like us revolt against a government that doesn't like us. you may ask "but what about all the 70,000 dead over there?" This will sound cold but It's not our problem.

When we start intervening with other country's problems we normally just screw everything up. And has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe other countries don't want the U.S. involved in their affairs? Our foreign policy should be to protect our interests. Not just make it worse for us. Stop giving all these Middle-Eastern countries weapons and foreign aid for goodness sake. We have our problems here. We could have kept all those air traffic control officers who were put on furlough by just stop giving billions away to those who are, at best, neutral with us.

Obama says will. intervene when they cross that red line, I say intervene when they start messing with us or the people we protect. Let 'em have a go at Israel and then we get involved. But  IT IS NOT OUR JOB. If the UN or other countries want to get involved, great for them. but we should fix our country before we attempt to fix others.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Immigration in America.  A very touchy subject. This is my first post on immigration, but I doubt it will be my last. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2012 alone 757,434 people became were naturalized and became legal U.S. citizens. But the problem we have now is with t Illegal immigrants, the majority of which come from Mexico looking for job opportunities,  and sometimes just government benefits (hard to believe, right?).

Our borders need to be kept in check. We had roughly 11 million illegal immigrants enter the USA in 2010, taking jobs from hardworking Americans and getting benefits that only citizens are entitled to, all the while not paying taxes or helping society. So am I saying I'm against immigration? No. But we need legal immigrants who have had background checks and have gone through the proper process of becoming a citizen.

So I am going to lay out the plan Sen. Marco Rubio laid out to deal with our illegal immigration crises, with a few choice modifications.

First, I would secure our border with Mexico. Do whatever it takes to ramp up security. Build an electric fence. Place men with machines guns along the border. Pull Chuck Norris out of retirement and get him to kick their tails back into Mexico. Whatever works. But make sure that we know who gets in, and make sure they get in legally.

Second, set up a system to allow illegal immigrants become legal, overtime. sat it up for illegals to turn themselves in and make them pay a penalty and make them start paying income tax. Make sure they learn to speak English. Allow them to continue living and working in the U.S. but WITHOUT  any government programs or benefits. after ten years they can become a naturalized citizen assuming they haven't broken any major laws. This plan allows those who are applying for legal immigration already keep their place in line and not be moved to the back as many on the Left would have us do.

Our nation was built on immigrants, and I want immigration to thrive. But immigrants should pay taxes just like the rest of us, and make an attempt to come here legally. Not just hop a fence or grab a boat over the border on a whim. We need a safe and secure country and a secure border is just one step toward protecting our interests.

The Left doesn't want to do a whole lot about the illegals. Most of the votes from illegals goes to Liberal candidates (even though they aren't supposed to vote). Liberals have made it so that it is hard to deport illegals, or to even find them. Despite what Liberals want, it is obvious to most Americans that something needs to be done.

Here's the link to Marco Rubio's own description of his plan without my personal spin on it. Hopefully our elected officials will see that they need to stop with the petty bickering and do what's right for America. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/23/immigration-will-continue-to-benefit-all-americans/

Canadians Prevented Terrorist Plot

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-arrests-cbc-idUSBRE93L0YW20130422?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

A brief second post today.

Reports from Canada today say that two men had a plot to derail a train in an attempt to kill innocent people. The planned attack was "the first known Al-Qaeda-backed plot on Canadian soil" according to police. The plotted attack was reportedly supposed to be on a train heading from Canada to the U.S. The Canadian Royal "Mounties" arrested Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser today, but will not release the nationalities of these two men yet. The plot was said to have no apparent connection to the bombings in Boston.The Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has yet to comment on the alleged terrorist plot.

The Radical Islamic groups aren't just going after America, they hate the West as a whole and they despise our independence. Luckily, this plot was stopped by the fine work of the Royal Mounties and tips from other local Muslims. Still, it's a sobering reminder that an attack is possible anywhere.

Earth Day, Fracking, and the welfare of North America.

Ah, Earth day. The day of the year environmentalist hippies rejoice and join together to save the earth with an all-natural puff of Weed. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing things to protect our earth and it's resources but Earth day has become, and you could say it was from the start, a day dedicated to the Liberal Agenda.

"Fracking" (http://tinyurl.com/6afkj5v) has been attacked by the Left for years now as being enviromentally "unsafe" and causing "pollution" to the water. The Left have turned Hydraulic Fracturing into an evil occupation done by evil, greedy people. Now I'm sure many people have seen the video of the fire coming out of the water faucet caused by a Natural Gas leak. And I'm not going to deny that Fracking has risks, but generally it's worthwhile and safe.
As with any operation involving chemicals and potentially harmful substances, the problem isn't necessarily with the process, but with the precautions taken. Fracking in and of itself is is safe and has been used in America (especially in the Midwest) for years.The pollution everyone is complaining about come from how well the precautions were. Technically,  a well that isn't built competently could give you trouble just like Fracking could.

I have decided that the best explanation the could be given of this would be in the video below. It clarifies and highlights many of the main points of this post.

                                     

So while the process is generally safe, there are environmental risks involved, but they are not nearly as bad as the Liberal Left would have you believe. So why is it so important that we keep fracking? According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have more than 1.3 billion barrels of oil that are technically recoverable in the United States with existing technology. The largest deposits are located offshore in portions of Alaska and in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain West. This means the United States has more recoverable oil than the rest of the world combined, outside of North America. The Heritage foundation says this to fuel every passenger car in the nation for 430 years. Therefore, “ it is merely semantics—not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce-- that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.”

Right now we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil. President Obama claims that we have very little "recoverable" oil. but he overlooks much of the oil that could be reached through fracking and offshore drilling. Fracking in the Rocky Mountains has already proved very beneficial, and has created lots of jobs, in addition to providing oil. The benefits of fracking far outweigh the risks involved. And if done competently and by properly trained individuals, fracking is completely safe. It remains a mystery to me why we haven't tapped into the resources even more.

 President Obama, though, has been caving to the far left environmentalist group for a long time. He has imposed strict regulations on fracking making it harder to get into the industry. The Left-wing media has demonized it and have caused many to believe that the Fracking process will destroy our country's nature, as well as contaminate water and land. It is important that the American people realize that we do not need to spend billions of dollars to get oil from other countries, many of which are not our best of allies. 

I believe that for our country to grow and prosper, it needs to become more independent. But our President doesn't see it in the same light. rather than anger the environmentalist groups and people(Al Gore anyone?) that helped get him into office, he would  impose regulations and turn down importants projects that would help achieve more independency. This has been proven numerous times, whether it was a moratorium on deep sea drilling in 2010, or the more recently delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline that would run from Canada to the U.S. with the potential to deliver up to 590,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude oil into the Mid-West refining markets.Even though the majority of Canadians and Americans support the pipeline.

I finish today with a quote from a great business man "What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity - intellect and resources - to do something about them". Henry Ford. We have the resources and the means. So a question to the President, What's holding us up?

On Sundays I intend to post something with a Christian theme and possibly a regular post later in the day.

Excerpt from: 

Christianity As An Influence On The Founding Fathers

by
John A. Sterling
James Madison is often referred to as "the Father of the Constitution  because, from the very beginning of the Constitutional Convention, he was a guiding influence and a strong voice of principled reason. In his political career, which spanned more than fifty years, Madison was a stalwart defender of religious liberties. He frequently wrote that the Christian faith was solid enough doctrinally, theologically, morally, and intellectually that it did not need the support of civil government. In fact, he wrote in Memorial and Remonstrance that if civil government were necessary to prop up Christianity, then it would prove that the Christian Faith could not stand on its own merits. Because Christianity thrives in the absence of civil control and government intervention in religious affairs always served, historically, to weaken it, it should be kept separate from the institution of civil government. Incredibly, this "separation" is often misinterpreted as "anti-Christianity" when it should be more properly read as "anti-government".
Some historical background would be helpful at this point. Madison had a dispute with Patrick Henry over Henry's proposal to levy a tax to support teachers of the Christian Religion. In 1785 Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance in which he makes the case for keeping Christianity free from entanglement with the state. He saw very clearly that religious "liberty" would be compromised if placed under the dominion of the state. "It was because Madison exalted religion that he favored religious liberty. Since he revered the Christian religion above all others, he wanted it to flourish in its purity, free from the corruption that inevitably came with state support." 5.
Madison's Christian influence is understandable in light of his upbringing and education. He was raised in a strong Episcopalian home where both parents were active in the church. He went to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) which was then a very orthodox, conservative Christian school. The president of the college was the Rev. John Witherspoon (one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence) who recognized in Madison a bright and attentive pupil. We know a great deal of Witherspoon's beliefs-- the influence that he had during this time was tremendous. "Witherspoon was president of the College of New Jersey from 1768 to 1794. In those twenty six years 478 young men graduated--about eighteen students per year. Of those 478 graduates, 114 became ministers; 13 were state governors; 3 were Supreme Court judges; 20 were United States Senators; 33 were U.S. Congressmen; Aaron Burr Jr. became Vice President; and James Madison became President."

Miranda Rights are not for Every Citizen.... Apparently

The Boston Bombers have been caught, at least the two suspects we know about. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a 26-year-old who had been known to the FBI as a Suspect, was killed Thursday night, officials said. His younger brother, 19 year old Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, was caught in Watertown, Massachusetts last night around 9:00 p.m. while hiding in a boat in a residential backyard. The police should be commended for tracking these two suspects and catching them.

Now it sounds like a success for the whole nation, and it is, until you get down to what happened when the suspect was caught. Let's back it up a bit though.

 In April 2002, Anzor Tsarnaev apparently arrived in the United States on a tourist visa with his sons Tamerlan, 15, and Dzhokhar, 8. They had lived in Chechnya, a region of Russia in between the Caspians and Blacks seas. Over time, the family gained asylum, and Dzhokhar became a U. S. citizen. 

Let's make it clear, only one of the suspects involved in these bombings is a U.S. citizen. Both Dzhokhar and Tamerlan applied for citizenship, but Tamerlan was denied citizenship but because he didn't have "good enough moral character" to become a U.S. citizen. But Dzhokhar did make the cut.   Now I want to take a look at what this citizenship means. When a person takes the oath and becomes a citizen, he gets all the rights and freedoms that someone born in the U.S. gets...supposedly.

So what's the point of all this? When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured, he wasn't read his Miranda Rights. He doesn't "have the right to remain silent" or "the right to an attorney". So if he's a U.S. citizen, and he has all the rights and privileges of being one, how come he doesn't get an important Right that he is entitled to?

Now some are defending his rights being suspended by saying he was insincere in his oath of citizenship, but if that's the case, why did we let him become a citizen in the first place? Should any legal immigrant that commits an act of terror or crime get his citizenship revoked and lose all his Rights? And on the other side of the coin, should Americans-born citizens in the U.S. lose their Rights if they are "un loyal" to their country? To me, the answer is a resounding NO. We can't just suspend Rights on a whim, we do that and we have little separating us from a country like Russia? What's next, shooting unarmed suspects on site and getting rid of  Habeas corpus? The U. S. government may not like it, but they should treat every citizen the same and follow what the Constitution and Supreme court says. 

Today I would like to give a very special thanks to the heoric efforts of the police involved in finding the Boston Bombers.

Hello Everyone. So this will be the first post on on my blog. This blog is intended to be a commentary on things going on in America and around the world, politically, as well as socially. Feel free to comment and discuss anything, but please keep it respectful.

So I was listening to talk radio today, and someone made a comment about being an American citizen. The person (his name slips my mind at the moment) says that being an American doesn't mean you moved over here and stayed for ten years so you deserve citizenship, he said being an American means you respect and understand the values and freedom on which this country was formed. To me, this is more the definition of a Patriot than an American.

So I was thinking about this, and I realized that by that definition, the majority of the people living in America aren't "Patriots". We take for granted all the things we have. Millions of people happily live off of Government handouts. We give up our security and freedom willingly for our "protection". We allow the Government to get away with stuff, not because we can't stop them, but because the majority of Americans are ignorant. The American people have quietly let the Government slowly strip away at our Constitution, infringing on the Tenth, Fourth, and making attacks on the Second amendment.

I fear that the people in this country consider their rights and freedom as things that can never be taken away or suppressed. But the fact of the matter is, we have already started to head down the road towards practical enslavement.

It's not that people don't have access to what they need to know, or that the government is even trying to hide what they do, it's that The American people wish to be willfully ignorant. So I ask this question of you, are you just an American? or are you a Patriot?