Archive for Rights

‘Memories Pizza’ goes public on religious beliefs in Indiana supports RFRA

Posted in Clinton, Religion, Religious Freedom, RFRA with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 1, 2015 by saynsumthn

Bill Clinton signs RFRA Religious Freedom Restoration Act 3

Bill CLinton signs RFRA Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into law in 1993 by Democrat president Bill Clinton and supported by many Democrats including Chuck Schumer and Al Gore who called it important legislation.

Bill Clinton signs RFRA Religious Freedom Restoration Act 2

According to the Washington Times, “So far the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never worked as a defense for Christian bakers embroiled in lawsuits over gay weddings, but for a handful of Apache, Muslim and Sikh plaintiffs, it’s been a godsend.”

SB 1867 – Detention of citizens without a trial for crimes committed within the US

Posted in Alex Jones, Civil Rights with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2011 by saynsumthn

According to legal experts, the wording of the new National Defense Authorization Act effectively repeals the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), which limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. The Act allows for the imposition of martial law only where specifically authorized by the United States Constitution (invasion, insurrection, etc.) or Act of Congress. Under the provisions of the unamended NDAA, the president will have the power to impose martial law, and thereby suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, on his own authority.

READ MORE HERE

Vodpod videos no longer available.

ATTENTION PREPPERS – Having More Than 7 Days Of…, posted with vodpod

U.S. Senate Votes for Indefinite, Unconstitutional Detention

Well, now they have done it. On Tuesday a bipartisan total of 61 Senators voted for and only 37 voted against provisions in latest Defense Authorization Act that would authorize the President of the United States to arrest and detain indefinitely, without charges or trial, people suspected of being enemies, or linked to enemies of the United States.

Most Democrats voted against the provisions but only two Republicans voted nay — despite the fact that it is the Republicans more than the Democrats who talk about the importance of abiding by the Constitution. The two Republican Senators who have both read and respected the Constitution of the United States and therefore voted against the travesty were Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

The vote is such a blatant thumbing of senatorial noses at the Constitution of the United States that it might even be called revolutionary — or counterrevolutionary, meaning that it is an attempt to at least partially overthrow the revolution against the tyranny of the British crown beginning with the Declaration of Independence in 1776. When former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was criticized by some of his Senate colleagues for following a line of reasoning that is “pre-911,” the Senator, who cast the lone Senate vote against the controversial Patriot Act, replied that his critics were exhibiting a manner of reasoning that might be called “pre-1776.”

It might even be called, for the historically minded, “pre-1215,” the year English noblemen forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which guaranteed, among other things, the right of habeas corpus.

That is, lest we forget, the right to appear before an independent magistrate and hear the charges against the defendant and to be given a right to challenge those charges, any and all witnesses and the evidence behind the charges. That is what the U.S. Senate would now deny you. Ironically the Obama administration, whose defense of civil liberties has been well short of stalwart, has opposed these provisions that the Senate overwhelmingly passed Tuesday night. The attorney general has said the legislation is not needed and would, indeed, be counterproductive. The Secretary of Defense has said the same. The President has reportedly threatened a veto should the measure pass the House. It is bad enough that this war-making President is seen as the peace candidate when compared to the militaristic Republicans and their neocon, dot.com warriors in the Fourth Estate. It is even more outrageous if the Republicans will now make Barack Obama the defender of the Bill of Rights.

The War Party line, as found in, for example, National Review Online, is that nothing much has changed and only the libertarian “fanatics,” like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano, are sounding the alarm. It merely reflects what was accomplished by the passage of Authorization of the Use of Military Force in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It merely broadens the definition of the enemy to include more than members of al-Qaeda. That, however, leaves untouched the argument that the legislation is radically inconsistent with and unmistakably violates the Constitution of the United States, which the National Review and other allegedly conservative publications purport to hold in minimum high regard.

One can fairly easily anticipate the defense by Jonah Goldberg, who has already endorsed President Obama’s policy of targeting American citizens for assassination without charges or trial. Surely, Goldberg will argue (or perhaps already has), if the commander in chief has authority to put together an assassination list and kill people — even American citizens — without trial, what is the big deal about imprisoning citizens indefinitely without trial?

Read Rest from The New American Here

Senator Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

(Transcript of Sen. Paul’s 11/29/11 remarks)

James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.

The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.

Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.

I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.

If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.

There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.

Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:

“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”

He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.”

Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?

The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.

This is simply not borne out by the facts.

Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.

And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.

Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.

Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.

Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”

Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.

The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.

The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.

The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.

These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.

Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.

But 9/11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.

These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.

A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.

We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.

No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.

Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.

The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.

Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.

Teen Pro-Life Phenomenon ‘Lia’ Defends Rights of the Unborn

Posted in Abortion, Personhood, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Youth with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Teen Pro-Life Phenomenon ‘Lia’ Defends Rights o…, posted with vodpod

Teen Pro-Life Phenomenon ‘Lia’ Defends Rights of the Unborn

By Patrick B. Craine

TORONTO, Ontario, August 31, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life prodigy Lia Mills, whose Youtube orations have amassed nearly a million views, has set out to prove the humanity of the unborn in a new video, part of an ongoing campaign to promote the message of life. If the unborn are not human, the 13-year-old Toronto-native explains in her ten-minute address, then abortion is simply a matter of personal preference. But, she says, “if the unborn are human, then they have value and rights.”
She points out that textbooks on embryology clearly state that life begins at conception and human development begins at fertilization. “At conception, a new life with its own unique DNA begins,” she explains. “All of the body parts of the mother share the same DNA, the mother’s DNA. But an unborn baby has an entirely different DNA. He or she is separate from the mother.”

“It should be clear that when two living beings from the same species mate, the product will be the same species as the parents,” she adds.

Lia argues that all of the claims against the humanity of the unborn distinguish them from the born based on (1) size, (2) level of development, (3) environment, or (4) degree of dependency. She goes through each one and points out that we do not devalue born people based on these differences.

To take the fourth, for example, she observes that many argue the unborn should not be given the same rights as others because they depend so completely on their mother for life and sustenance. But Lia points out that a one-week-old baby is totally dependent on her parents, and the infirm are dependent on medical implements.

“Really if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we should be able to kill those who are on welfare, because they depend on the government,” she asserts. “We are all dependent on someone to a degree and no one goes around saying that those who are more dependent aren’t human or are somehow less human than others.”
In the end, she admits that abortion advocates now accept the humanity of the unborn, but rely instead on the claim that the unborn are not persons. “They acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, but are now denying them their personhood, and thereby denying them their rights,” she says. “Is it possible to be a human and not a person?”

Having shown the humanity of the unborn, Lia’s next video, which should be issued shortly, will answer the question “Are the unborn persons?”

From Eugenics Sermons to pushing global abortion a/k/a adolescent reproductive health, population control pushers target the clergy

Posted in Abortion, Church, Eugenics, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, Sex Ed with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 19, 2010 by saynsumthn

Years ago, the American Eugenics Society brought in religious people by promoting eugenic sermons. In doing this they paid preachers hundreds of dollars to submit the best “Eugenic Sermon” and preach it from the pulpit, enabling the eugenics movement to indoctrinate the church. Many religious groups found eugenics a welcome addition to their existing charity work and social services. For example, the Congregational parish of Reverend Oscar McCulloch in Indianapolis offered a lending library, prenatal and child care, visiting nurses, and literacy classes. McCulloch believed that good marriages required church support and he became interested in the new eugenics being introduced by his friend and parishioner, David Starr Jordan. McCulloch studied the Tribe of Ishmael, a “degenerate” extended family living in Indianapolis.

Sermon contests, including a national competition sponsored by the American Eugenics Society, were a popular form of religious involvement in eugenics. Entries in these contests present scripture citations to support the compatibility of religious and eugenics principles. Until the Vatican ruled eugenics unacceptable in the mid-1920s, some Catholic priests and theologians promoted eugenics. They argued that the Church had always restricted marriage through rules such as bans on cousin marriages.

Between 1926 and 1928, the AES held contests for the best sermon preached on the subject of eugenics. In addition to the nine folders labeled AES Sermon Contest, the APS collection includes 45 submissions filed under the name of the minister, preached before Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Unitarian, and Jewish congregations across the country.

Read about this on Google News

Here is an old newspaper article

Margaret Sanger formed the Negro Project to promote “Birth Control” among Black Ministers.According to Author George Grant, in 1939, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood announced the organization’s new “Negro Project” in response to requests from southern state public health officials—men not generally known at that time for their racial equanimity. “The mass of Negroes,” her project proposal asserted, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among Whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.” The proposal went on to say that “Public Health statistics merely hint at the primitive state of civilization in which most Negroes in the South live.”

In order to remedy this “dysgenic horror story,” her project aimed to hire three or four “Colored Ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to travel to various Black enclaves and propagandize for birth control.

“The most successful educational approach to the Negro,” Margaret wrote sometime later, “is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Of course, those Black ministers were to be carefully controlled—mere figureheads. “There is a great danger that we will fail,” one of the project directors wrote, “because the Negroes think it a plan for extermination. Hence, let’s appear to let the colored run it.” Another project director lamented, “I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with . . . a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under White supervision.” The entire operation then was a ruse—a manipulative attempt to get African Americans to cooperate in their own elimination.

The program’s genocidal intentions were carefully camouflaged beneath several layers of condescending social service rhetoric and organizational expertise. Like the citizens of Hamelin, lured into captivity by the sweet serenades of the Pied Piper, all too many African Americans all across the country happily fell into step behind Margaret and the Eugenic racists she had placed on her Negro Advisory Council.

Soon taxpayer-supported clinics throughout the South were distributing contraceptives to African Americans and Sanger’s science fiction dream of discouraging “the defective and diseased elements of humanity” from their “reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning” appeared at last to be on the road to fulfillment. Planned Parenthood had its first real success in social engineering.


Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble dated December 19, 1939, made this statement:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation [of Eugenicists] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Clarence Gamble, mentioned above funded the North Carolina Eugenics Society. Click Here : Clarence Gamble. Gamble also supported Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Movement. Sanger fand many of her board members and presidents were members of the American Eugenics Society.

Listen to what the State of North Carolina’s Eugenic Board (Funded by Sanger supporter- Clarence Gamble) did to this “African American woman” : Elaine Riddick
( Interview From the film: Maafa21)


Later- the nation’s largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood founded in eugenics ( Watch Maafa21http://www.maafa21.com) later connected with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights now known as Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice to promote a eugenic abortion agenda.

Recently, Planned Parenthood released their global plan for sexualizing young people. The document aims to emancipate children from the guidance of parents by liberating their sexuality. The document is entitled: Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration and available to download here and is explained in the video below:

Now – CFAM is reporting that the clergy will again be used to push this plan globally:

The article is by CFAM entitled UNFPA Uses International Year of Youth to Exploit Children By Terrence McKeegan, J.D. and is printed in full: (links to articles referenced are available on CFAM’s website)

NEW YORK, August 19 (C-FAM) Last Thursday, the United Nations (UN) officially launched the “International Year of Youth” (IYY) in the UN General Assembly Hall. The theme for the year is “Dialogue and Mutual Understanding,” with a focus on health and development, particularly the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). But some observers fear that the IYY agenda has been taken over by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and its allies who are using it to promote new “rights” to sexual and reproductive health education and services for young people.

The UN has devoted considerable resources for the IYY, including for a new cutting-edge website, and has incorporated the youth agenda into the work of all of the major UN agencies. At the UN launch, the Joint Statement of the Heads of UN Entities was delivered by the head of UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid.

Obaid’s statement emphasized new rights for youth under a right to health. “We all agree that health is a human right and an integral part of youth development. … Investments in health care, including universal access to evidence-based sexual and reproductive health programmes are crucial to prevent unwanted pregnancies, maternal mortality, sexually transmitted infections and other threats to young people’s health.”

The blueprint for the IYY is the “World Program of Action for Youth” (WPAY), a document that was adopted by the UN General Assembly without debate in 1995. In the area of health, WPAY calls for the leadership of UNFPA (the only named agency in the section). “The United Nations Population Fund and other interested United Nations organizations are to be encouraged to continue assigning high priority to promoting adolescent reproductive health.” The term “adolescent reproductive health” is now used in dozens of programs and curriculums by UNFPA and other international organizations to promote sexual and reproductive rights, including access to contraception and abortion, for young people between the ages of 10-14.

According to WPAY, “The reproductive health needs of adolescents as a group have been largely ignored to date by existing reproductive health services. The response of societies to the reproductive health needs of adolescents should be based on information that helps them attain a level of maturity required to make responsible decisions.”

One of the major new initiatives of UNFPA on youth is Y-PEER, which focuses on peer education and whose membership includes “thousands of young people who work in the many areas surrounding adolescent sexual and reproductive health.” The primary Y-PEER “training” manual includes a “condom relay race,” a section on how to convince religious leaders to implement the reproductive health agenda, and several exercises to impress upon students the difference between gender and sex, with sex being biological, but gender being a social construct. According to its website, Y-PEER’s areas of focus are Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, including many predominately Muslim countries.

According to one long time UN observer, “Much of this agenda is being driven by the deep fear that the global cohort of young people, which is a booming cohort, will reproduce. They have to catch them early, corrupt them and convince them they do not want any children.”

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ayn Rand’s attack on pro-lifers + religion

Posted in Abby Johnson, Ayn Rand with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 18, 2010 by saynsumthn

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.
Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mike Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

Susan, Passionate Rush Limbaugh caller “They cannot keep doing this, this is wrong”

Posted in Constitution, Health Care, Obama, Religion, Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2009 by saynsumthn