Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Does Dr. Gosnell Deserve Death Penalty for Baby Abortion Murders

gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell willfully murdered innocent babies born alive and faces death penalty

Dr. Kermit Gosnell willfully murdered innocent

babies born alive and faces death penalty

 America witnessed two murder trials during the course of the infamous abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial in Philadelphia. The first murder trial ended on Monday May 13, 2013 with the conviction of Gosnell for brutally murdering three innocent babies with scissors after the babies were born alive. The second murder trial which went largely unnoticed was the unacceptable silence of the mainstream media to acknowledge the butchering of countless babies who were born alive and were murdered in the most grisly fashion.

Dr. Gosnell was an abortionist who not only murdered the innocents with a passion that can only have been replicated during the dark days of Nazi Germany’s practice of eliminating the Jewish people during World War II. Now with Gosnell’s conviction, this dark pathological practice can no longer be ignored by the media and even those who claim to support abortion rights.

Dr. Gosnell, according to the Wall Street Journal, was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Karnamaya Mongar, who died due to a sedation overdose. Yet, this murder trial which produced dozens of counts by a grand jury against the doctor’s murderous practices also created a media blackout that noted journalist Kirsten Powers noted in her USA Today op-ed, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” Kirsten went on to rightly stress, “This should be front page news!”

Now one of the most important chapters in the annuals of American jurisprudence will occur in the coming days. Should Dr. Kermit Gosnell be sentenced to death for his horrifying murders which shock the conscience of his jurors? For these jurors the memories of coming to terms with count after count of Dr. Gosnell’s horrifying misdeeds will surely haunt them past their decision to give him life without parole or death by execution.

This decision by the jurors actually is a turning point for those who support breaking the binding repressive liberal media attacks on those who have stood for supporting a baby’s right to life and to be called a baby and not a “fetus”. It is important that this distinction is heralded across this nation, now and forever more. A baby was murdered, and a man was convicted for each and every murder the jury found Gosnell guilty of.

But the decision in this case does not end the dialogue concerning the murdering of babies who are aborted. Rather it signals a clarion call for each and every man and woman who understands that a baby is born and is viable and has a right to live in this country, not by political decision but by his or her God given right!

If Dr. Gosnell takes the stand to ask for leniency from the jury who can order that he be put to death, he should bear witness to the truth of his guilt and be willing to take the full measure of the punishment. In truth, Dr. Gosnell should be punished with the ultimate sentence, since he committed the ultimate crime in depriving these innocent babies the right to life given to each by their creator, God.

___________________

(Let me know what you think)

Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Vote

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, was quoted by Click on Detroit, as stressing in his brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, “Until now, no court has ever held that, apart from remedying specific past discrimination, a government must engage in affirmative action.”

This is crucial and central to the legal subterfuge which has been erected by civil rights advocates. If the U.S. Supreme Court is not trying to remedy past discriminatory practices against minorities by negating those practices as it did in the 1954 Brown case, how can it force a state to willingly and legally engage in discriminatory practices against whites as a matter of law!

What is even more mind numbing for those who desire to advocate a race-neutral color blind approach to enforcement of the law is how cavalier the opponents of race neutral solutions bemoan the difficulties of using race-based solutions. The fact is clear; the advocates of affirmative action want to continue to divide America into racial camps which perpetuate a myth of continuous inequality that is largely non-existent in 21st century America.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, The imagined legal barrier that the Michigan voters erected was illegal because it does not allow colleges to now use their “political” option to discriminate against whites. By allowing race-based solutions for admittance, suggests Michigan-based attorney, George Washington, colleges could continue their previous practices. He went on to say, “Proposal 2 deprived racial minorities of equal political rights by prohibiting the governing bodies [of public universities] from adopting by simple majority vote any plan that granted ‘preferential treatment’ to minority applicants.”

In short, attorney Washington is stressing that universities that are largely governed by liberal administrators and admission policies, should be allowed to use their liberal political mandate to discriminate against other races, as long as they are not minority.

Now here is a plan. Why not simply spend the time, money and effort used to defend legal discriminatory warfare against those who are not minorities and instead work on race neutral solutions. Sure, it might be more difficult to craft because it takes effort, imagination and tenacity.

But in the end, the color blind solution will produce a legally justifiable outcome based on America’s foundation of “One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

( Let me know what you think)

Is Voting Rights Act Protection a legal entitlement Supreme Court Must Overturn

Black Conservatives  rally against continued use of  Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

Black Conservatives rally against continued use of Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

Some civil rights officials on the left have attempted to use poverty, lack of jobs and even illegal immigration attitudes as an indication of why voting rights for minorities must continue to be monitored. This is a red herring that has no legal connection to the purpose and intent of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

The case in Shelby County, Alabama does bear witness to the fact that voting injustice, once wide ranging, is no longer present. Therefore, this law must not continue to be used as a hammer to pound local officials into submission for legal infractions that no longer exist. Is it truly a racial entitlement to voting protection that is now punitively used against cities, counties and states?

If Shelby County and other communities across the nation have moved beyond any measurable discriminatory practices against minority voters then, the U.S. Justice Department has no alternative but to remove them from the list. The U.S. Supreme Court must instruct the justice department to do so.

In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court must move with all deliberate speed to put an end to this continued imbalance of equal justice for all Americans. Equal justice under the law does not mean more justice for some and less for others. The court must remove this law as a useful tool for liberals who seek office and want to drum up the ghosts of past injustices long buried.

Racism in America is not the issue of the 21st century. A united country where race is color neutral and justice and equality does not play favorites is what the bottom line must be for the nation.

There is no place for reverse racism in America. This is the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court must arrive at in reaching a decision to overturn the irrelevant section of the law.

( Click -Let me know what you think )

Supreme Court Orders New Hearing on Obamacare Religious School Challenge

Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom. President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.

According to Fox News, the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.

It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.

A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as Governor Kasich of Ohio warned, “States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”

Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.

In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.

Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.

If anyone believes that this issue of the illegality of Obamacare is over because of an election, then wait and see the fallout in 2013, when tens of thousands of employers continue to either cut employee hours or lay off employees rather than go bankrupt.

In fact Newsmax reported that more than a dozen top American firms have initiated plans to cut thousands of employees due to Obamacare implementation challenges. Some of those firms include, “Smith & Nephew with 770 layoffs; and Abbott Labs plans 700 layoffs. In addition, Covidien projects 595 layoffs; and Kinetic Concepts — 427 layoffs. Dana Holding Corp, which is a global auto parts manufacturing company plan layoffs as well.”

How unique is it that a Liberty University remains in the fight for America’s liberty to not be subjected to a law that deprives Americans and religious institutions of their constitutional liberties. As Patrick Henry stated after Britain’s King George kept implementing unjust immoral laws against America’s colonial liberties,

Patrick Henry:
“Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”

Stand with Liberty University and stand for your family’s liberty as a gift you give for your children’s future and liberty.

( Click to let me know what you think )

Will Supreme Court Affirmative Action Case End Reverse Discrimination

US Supreme Court

Race based affirmative action  may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities?

Or, will their years of academic pursuit and hard work be rendered fruitless, because the student was denied access based upon their race? In a nation where there is a black president, and where diversity is clearly present in major industries, in academics, and other professions, is reverse discriminatory denial of educational access to white Americans, fair, right, just or even legal?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., gave America his take on this nearly fifty years ago, and his words have the answer which must guide the U.S. Supreme Court’s legal and moral determination of this case. Rev. King stated with moral clarity and conciseness in his 1963 “I have a Dream” speech, “I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!”

When is the time to make real the promises of Democracy? When does America finally become one nation and not an America divided by a two-tier system? Where is the end?

In 2003, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority court opinion in the University of Michigan Law School Grutter v. Bollinger decision. She concluded that universities would need 25 years until they ended their race-conscious admissions policies.

Justice O’Connor was wrong in 2003 and her discriminatory decision and conclusions muse be reversed now. Here is why her conclusions are in error and unnecessarily deprives honorable achieving students like Miss Fisher her rightful seat at the TU-Austin.

O’Connor stipulated in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, that race-conscious admissions policies were constitutional because they serve a “compelling state interest of promoting diversity and its associated educational benefits.”

The question has to be, racial diversity of whom and associated educational benefits for whom. Certainly Justice O’Connor and the NAACP and the liberals who backed the University of Michigan could not have been talking about the poor and low income black students, who never made the affirmative action cut. Surely, Justice O’Connor could not have been referring to providing an educational seat at the table to the black students whose parents see their kids stripped of their self worth by an educational system run by blacks, led by blacks, and run to ruin by blacks.

No, no and no again!

Justice “O’Connor’s decision in 2003 left intact a discriminatory system that only largely benefited students from well connected or very affluent black families. In fact, William Joyce Wilson, a noted black social research scientist, at the Kennedy School and the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, has concluded that affirmative action has actually been a very ineffective tool for the truly disadvantaged, and marginally beneficial for the minority working class.

So again, why is affirmative action still used to discriminate against white students? It is a matter of politics.

If a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, where fear, smear and misrepresentation is used in the black community to convince followers of democrat machine promises that affirmative action will help poor and low income blacks up the ladder of success.

Yet black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. Abigail Fisher’s parents and parents like them in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, South Carolina, or any other state are not keeping your child from learning, from achieving from realizing the American Dream. So why are you letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Unions, and democrat machines in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and many other major cities, have hoodwinked blacks and minorities into believing that whites are maintaining discriminatory practices that keep their families, their children, and their educational systems and children shackled to poverty, high school dropout rates, crime and sky rocketing illegitimate births.

These insidious notions must end.

Affirmative Action is and to a large part will always be a tool that is used to create a divide between whites, blacks and other minorities. Democrats, poverty pimps, and so called civil rights activists and organizations use affirmative action to skim millions of dollars from guilt-ridden white liberals who want to “do the right thing” because the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of America have raised the “slavery” boogieman.

Well, Al and Jesse that tired old slavery boogieman won’t hunt any longer. No matter how many sad sack stories and anecdotes that you drum up, white people and black people and Americans period, will reject this emotion driven discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court must come to the only conclusion that makes moral, logical and principled sense and bring about a game change to Supreme Court Justice O’ Connor’s decision 2003. When will Affirmative Action end? It cannot be put off 14 more years, 4 more years or even one more year.

It must end here with this court and it must ends now, so that the legacy of slavery and white guilt can die together and America can become one United States, and one nation under God.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy, so that America will let true colorblind freedom ring and the nation can become truly and completely free at last.

Let me know what you think – ( Click )