Tag Archives: United States Supreme Court

False teacher, false dichotomy

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie  took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to offer a common but fallacious false dichotomy about Health Care vs. Bullets.  He probably uses the same bad logic on education vs. bullets, taxpayer-funded abortion vs. bullets, etc.

GOP leaders in Congress – hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare – are looking to reroute funding for health care to military budgets.

Well, duh.  The bill was obviously un-Constitutional.  Anyone who can read knows that.  The only question is whether the judges will have any integrity.

And here’s what is Constitutional: Defending the country — with bullets!  Pacifism is a moral evil.  It is a noble and Christian thing to protect people.  Strong national defense saves lives and prevents wars.  We won the Cold War that way.

It’s a move people of faith must resist.

There’s the predictable “people of faith,” where Chuck dives into being unequally yoked with non-believers (oh, wait, he’s a non-believer himself . . . this gets so complicated!).

Politico reports: If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care reform law, that loss for President Barack Obama could be a win for the Pentagon.

That’s because Congress could find itself flush, thanks to billions of dollars that were allocated to fund “Obamacare” that won’t be spent if parts of the law are knocked down. . . .

Oh, so this is just a hypothetical.  Hey, here’s an idea.  Maybe if we didn’t spend the money at all and just borrowed less for future generations to repay?

The funny thing is that Chuck forgot to pretend that Obamacare saves money.  Oops!  Now, we all knew it would cost hundreds of billions, but Chuck used to spout that talking point that it would save $$ — just another tangled web for him.

For Christians, the responsibility on how to respond is clear.  We need to continue to work towards a health care system that covers every American.  It is our moral obligation.

1. He’s not a Christian.  He denies the essentials.

2. That’s odd for a pro-abortionist who takes little girls to gay pride parades to prattle on about moral obligations.

 Robbing people of their health care to expand military budgets is contrary to the values of our faith.

Eek!  Robbing!  That sounds bad.  Oh, wait, the truth is that no one is robbing anyone of anything.  Chuck, like most Liberals, doesn’t understand positive and negative rights. No one has a “right” to healthcare.  And the military budget angle was pure speculations.

And what “values” are those?  More taxpayer-funded abortions, where you truly rob people of their funds to kill innocent but unwanted human beings?

Remember, no system is perfect.  Even if the lie about our system killing 46,000 people per year was true, we’re still 10 times better than England.

False teacher.  False hypothesis.  False dichotomy.

Queue the crickets on the impact of the overturned gun control laws

Don’t miss both important lessons here:

1. Contrary to predictions by gun control proponents, overturning gun control laws caused crime to plummet.

2. If you only consume mainstream media, you wouldn’t know that.  And that should bother anyone with intellectual integrity.  Do not pretend to be fully informed if you aren’t consuming conservative media along with your liberal media.

Via Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News:

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision.

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets . . . .”

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.”

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated — they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.

 

Free speech and video games

Stan got me thinking about recent Supreme Court case about free speech and video games in his post about Free Speech.  For the record, I’m certainly opposed to these violent video games.

Briefly, the story is that the Supreme Court has struck down a California law that made it a crime to sell violent video games to children. It wasn’t even a close vote. The court ruled 7:2. The court made a stunning decision: Make parents responsible for their children. Is there any doubt that our court system (and the nation that supports it) has lost its mind?

This comment will probably reveal that I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t the 1st Amendment specifically say that “Congress shall make no law . . .” and not “the States . . .?'”  Also, wouldn’t this get in the way of the 10th Amendment?

More importantly, I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the headlines noting that the responsibility to regulate this would now fall on parents.  That’s one of the major problems of people looking to government to solve all their problems.  The government solutions are usually counterproductive, but like drinking salt water the people just look to the government to solve even more problems.

This is just another example of the slippery slope of government intervention.  Countless parents have come to expect the government to feed their kids multiple meals per day, even if it means wildly wasteful programs.  But what could be a more basic responsibility of parents than to feed their kids?

Even though I thought the court’s view of this as a 1st Amendment issue was an overreach, I’m glad to see them err on that side.  It may mean we’ll have just a little more time before any criticism of the LGBTQX agenda is considered illegal.

Roundup

Attention young people who campaigned and voted for Obama: Don’t look surprised when employers don’t want to hire you because you’re unemployed.

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” — Homosexual Activists Target Jim Walder, Illinois B & B Owner, for Denying ‘Civil Unions’ Ceremony.  This is a typical tactic for them: Target Christians to sue then scare others into falling in line.

From the flying pigs department: Hey, I sort of agreed with false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie on the topic of Democrat Fred PhelpsU.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor Of Westboro Baptist Church Right To Protest.  It was fun watching one false teacher attack another.

Phelps & Co. are awful, but restricting religious speech — even for those with teachings as false and despicable as Phelps and Currie — is dangerous and unconstitutional.

Chuck forgot to mention that Phelps is a Democrat, though.  Would have have missed that little point if Phelps was a Republican?

Hey, I thought the homosexual rights leading to pedophile rights argument was supposed to be a slippery slope fallacy?  Apparently not.

Sadly, this isn’t too surprising when homosexuality is deemed moral because it’s natural.

“Pedophilia is another “sexual orientation,” comparable to heterosexuality or homosexuality, according to expert testimony recently presented to the Canadian Parliament.” (http://online.worldmag.com/2011/03/04/pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/)

It does demonstrate that the logical slippery slope argument that other sexual orientations will be reconsidered morally is not a fallacy, but true. When an argument supporting homosexuality is accepted, it can’t artificially be withdrawn when it makes logical sense to apply it elsewhere.

I found the pro-homosexuality arguments to more like cliffs than slippery slopes. Once you buy their fallacious reasoning you’ve gone off the cliff. On the way down you realize the other creepy things you’ve justified.

Yea!  Former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate affiliate closing all 5 clinics in Bay Area – Hey, maybe if they hadn’t spent 750k fighting parental notification bills they could have stayed open.  BTW, anyone who thinks parents shouldn’t know when their kids are going have a physically and psychologically dangerous operation to kill their grandkids needs a moral compass tune-up.  I knew one person who opposed parental notification because the kids might get hurt by the parents, but that logic would lead schools to never send report cards home, among other things.

Hey, I thought no one would be impacted by oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” Part II: Homosexual and bisexual indoctrination in elementary school. I think I showed this a couple years back.  It is a good item to save for those claiming the LGBTQ lobby isn’t trying to indoctrinate kids as young as kindergarten.  This is so repulsive.  One of the underlying fallacies is that you have to do things like this to stop bullying.  But of course you can stop bullying without affirming destructive behaviors in those being bullied.  The guy giving the “hiding my shin” soccer example and pretending that sexual preferences are like physical body parts was ridiculous.

“Is It True That Science Had No Consensus on the Beginning of Human Life in 1973?”

Not at all.

I urge you to check out the Blood Money website and blog.  The latest post addresses the seemingly willful ignorance of scientific facts that were well-known in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was made.

We still have science deniers today who insist that they just don’t know when new human beings are created.  Ironically, most of these are in the science-worshiping camp that likes to pretend that Christians are anti-science and live by the circular reasoning that we can only trust what comes from science or that science trumps all other ways of gathering information.

Read the post for a clear and thorough recap of scientific knowledge about when life begins.  The Roe v. Wade decision was based on bad ideology and politics, not science.

During his majority opinion during the Roe v Wade trial of 1973, Justice Harry Blackmun said,

The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.” (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973)

The science had been “settled” for a long time and what we have learned since then just reaffirms that.  Just a couple of the many facts noted:

In the 1860′s, a movement was led by medical doctors(not religious enthusiasts) to take the common law a step futher. These doctors declared that that unborn children at anystage were human. In fact, as early as 1857, the American Medical Association stated, “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being is a matter of objective science.” As a result of this movement, laws were passed in all 50 states prohibiting abortions. These were the laws on the books that were challenged at a federal level in 1973 by the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions.

. . .

Did you catch that final entry? They had already cracked the genetic code 12 years before Roe V Wade! They already knew that a human embryo contained a uniquegenetic signature, never to be repeated. They knew the embryo was self-propelling, containing all of the information it would need to grow into an adult human being. They knew the genetic information in the embryo was not the same as the genome of the mother–in other words, they knew that the embryo was not the mother’s body, since every cell in her body carries exclusively her own DNA.

And, of course, even if Blackmun & Co. had not been so (deliberately?) mistaken they still should have erred on the side of life.  After all, if you aren’t sure if a medical procedure kills an innocent human being but realize it is a possibility, shouldn’t that make you think twice?

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

Kudos to Texas Governor Rick Perry on the sonogram bill — UPDATED

Ensuring women have all the necessary information before having abortions is a perfectly logical requirement.  The pro-choice movement goes into hysterics over things like this, of course, just like they oppose common sense rules like parental notification (your child can’t take an Advil at school without your permission and a multi-step process, but the school can take them to have your child undergo a risky medical procedure that kills your grandchild?!).

Why don’t pro-choicers trust women to make good decisions with the information available?  Do they think they are too fragile to know the truth?  The real reason for their opposition is that they know that when women see ultrasounds they are much less likely to have abortions.

Also note that this is a case where a politician accomplishes something for the pro-life movement.  I know some politicians of both parties use issues like this in a cynical way just to raise funds.  They prefer that it not be fully settled.  But legislation like this will save lives.

Some critics have said the bill isn’t an emergency, but I say that if lives are at stake then it is an emergency.

Others say it may traumatize the woman.  But the pro-aborts typically insist that abortion is never traumatizing.  These women may see ultrasounds of other babies in the future.  Couldn’t that traumatize them as well?  And if it is just a “blob of tissue” being removed, how would that be traumatic?

UPDATE: I wanted to add these important thoughts from commenter Roxanne.  They further highlight the benefits of this law.  If people really care about “safe” abortions then they would require ultrasounds.

As Abby Johnson mentioned in a side note in “Unplanned’, ultrasounds are the safer way to do abortions – but clinics don’t like the extra cost and time (which cuts down on the number of abortions that can be done in a given day).

If a baby really were like a tumour, you would demand an ultrasound, right?  You would want to know exactly what it is that’s in there and the risks of taking it out.  If women really were capable of making their own decisions, you wouldn’t use this foolish version of “informed consent,” in which the onus is on the patient to find out everything that she needs to know, while the doctor gives her tests and information only  under legal duress; you would make the information available to her, trusting her to understand it and use it.

 

P.S. If nothing else, go to the link to see the latest caption in the Wintery Knight’s “Unborn baby scheming about ______” series.  I always laugh at whatever he comes up with for the Mr. Burns look-alike unborn human being.

Via Republican Governor Rick Perry demands sonograms before abortions « Wintery Knight.

Texas governor Rick Perry is throwing his weight behind legislation to require doctors to show women a sonogram of their unborn child before having an abortion, declaring the issue a legislative “emergency.”

As an emergency item on the legislative agenda, the state congress will have the option of voting on the measure within the first 30 days of the current legislative session.

In addition to the sonogram, the bill would also require doctors to give mothers a detailed description of their child and his state of development, including the presence of limbs and internal organs. Mothers will also listen to their children’s heartbeat, and must be given information about abortion alternatives no less than 24 hours before the abortion occurs.

Perry’s decision to fast track the legislation was announced at a speech before the Texas Rally for Life, held on Saturday in Austin, the state capital.

“Nearly 40 years have passed since the tragedy of Roe vs. Wade was decided by the United States Supreme Court, and since then, fifty million, fifty million children have lost their chances,” Perry told the crowd.

“That is a catastrophic number.  That’s twice the population of this entire state. It’s pretty hard to imagine people of good conscience sitting idly by through this, and in Texas we haven’t. We have actively worked against that Roe vs. Wade decision.  We have taken great strides in protecting the unborn.”