I saw NRO's list of the presidential candidates' favorite films, including Obama's: Casablanca, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
The above doesn't sound right to me, so I've created a list that I think is more realistically representative of Obama's favoritest movies:
-A-
Action Jackson
Adam & Steve
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
All About the Benjamins
Avatar
-B-
B.A.P.S.
Battlefield Earth
Beaches
Beavis and Butthead Do America
Becoming Barack
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
The Birdcage
Bowling for Columbine
Boys N the Hood
Black Caesar
Black Devil Doll from Hell
Blackenstein
The Black Gestapo
The Black Godfather
The Black Hole
Black Knight
Black Like Me
Black Mama, White Mama
Black Shampoo
The Black Stallion
Blacula
Boogie Nights
Breakin'
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
Born on the Fourth of July
Boys Don't Cry
Brokeback Mountain
Brother from Another Planet
Bruno
Burlesque
By the People: The Election of Barack Obama
-C-
Che!
Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town
Cleopatra Jones
Coming to America
Crack House
The Crying Game
-D-
Dances with Wolves
The Day After Tomorrow
Deliverance
The Devil Wears Prada
Dirty Dancing
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
-E-
Eat, Pray, Love
The Emperor's New Groove
-F-
Fahrenheit 9/11
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Ferngully: The Last Rainforest
The First Wives Club
Foxy Brown
Frankenfish
Friday
The Full Monty
-G-
Gang Related
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie
Gigli
G.I. Jane
Godsend
-H-
Halloween III
Hamlet 2
The Happening
Happy Feet
He Got Game
House Party franchise
Howard the Duck
How Stella Got Her Groove Back
How to Be a Player
-I-
I Am Legend
I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka!
-J-
JFK
Juice
Jungle Fever
-K-
Killer Tomatoes Strike Back!
-L-
Lake Placid 3
The Last Temptation of Christ
Leprechaun: In the Hood
-M-
Malcolm X
Mandela
Mannequin 2
Mansquito
Mega Shark Vs. Crocosaurus
Menace II Society
Morons from Outer Space
My Own Private Idaho
-N-
New Jack City
Norma Rae
Night of the Lepus
-O-
Out of Africa
Old Skool Thugz
-P-
Panther
Pinnocchio
Pitch Black
Plan 9 from Outer Space
The Princess Diaries
-R-
Reds
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
-S-
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
The Scarlet Letter (Demi Moore Version)
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Scream, Blacula, Scream
Senator Obama Goes to Africa
Sex and the City franchise
Shaft (1971)
Sharktopus
Showgirls
The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants
Snakes on a Plane
Something to Believe In
Soul Plane
Stalin
Steel Magnolias
Superfly
Surf Nazis Must Die
-T-
The Terror of Tiny Town
Thelma and Louise
They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!
Titanic 2
To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar
Troll 2
The Twilight franchise
-W-
Waiting to Exhale
Wall Street
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
The Wiz
-#-
1984 (both versions)
27 Dresses
Friday, October 28, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
First Do No Harm Part II
Part I
Third, here are some interesting quotes found here:
It is only in extremely rare cases that abortion can even be mentioned as a potential means of saving the mother's life. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother" (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." Even Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
The same article makes this interesting observation about ectopic pregnancies:
. . . if ectopic pregnancy is left untreated, the likelihood that the mother will die lies somewhere between .05%-.119%.
An untreated ectopic pregnancy would constitute a worst-case scenario.
Fourth, here is a brief excerpt from a letter to the editor of a newspaper, written by a neonatologist:
In fact, Ireland — a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected — has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. More than a decade ago, a group of Ireland’s top obstetricians concluded that “there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”
To sum up: ectopic pregnancies are a concern, but they usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. Even dealing exclusively with untreated cases, a hair over one-tenth of one percent of women -- at most -- die of this complication. Once one factors in access to proper medical care, the number drops, becoming effectively nonexistent.
Third, here are some interesting quotes found here:
It is only in extremely rare cases that abortion can even be mentioned as a potential means of saving the mother's life. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother" (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." Even Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
The same article makes this interesting observation about ectopic pregnancies:
. . . if ectopic pregnancy is left untreated, the likelihood that the mother will die lies somewhere between .05%-.119%.
An untreated ectopic pregnancy would constitute a worst-case scenario.
Fourth, here is a brief excerpt from a letter to the editor of a newspaper, written by a neonatologist:
In fact, Ireland — a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected — has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. More than a decade ago, a group of Ireland’s top obstetricians concluded that “there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child.”
To sum up: ectopic pregnancies are a concern, but they usually resolve themselves without medical intervention. Even dealing exclusively with untreated cases, a hair over one-tenth of one percent of women -- at most -- die of this complication. Once one factors in access to proper medical care, the number drops, becoming effectively nonexistent.
First Do No Harm
A commenter has questions about a claim I made in this post:
You siad, "Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother."
I've never heard this before. I'd love it to be true, though I'll remain anti-abortion regardless. Can you point me towards a source? What about ectopic pregnancies? Aren't they life-threatening to the mother?
A fair inquiry, and one I'll do my best to answer.
First, a declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, signed by 481 medical doctors.
Second, a selection from the Association of Pro-Life Physicians' official position statement:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.
The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.
What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.
A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.
One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.
However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.
Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.
It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
(To be continued)
You siad, "Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother."
I've never heard this before. I'd love it to be true, though I'll remain anti-abortion regardless. Can you point me towards a source? What about ectopic pregnancies? Aren't they life-threatening to the mother?
A fair inquiry, and one I'll do my best to answer.
First, a declaration that an abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, signed by 481 medical doctors.
Second, a selection from the Association of Pro-Life Physicians' official position statement:
When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.
Let us illustrate this principle further: if a rescuer is venturing into a burning vehicle to try to save its injured occupants, and is only able to save one of the two occupants, is it justifiable for him to then take out his gun and shoot the occupant he was unable to save? Of course not! Intentionally killing those you were not able to save is never justified in healthcare. We have the technology and expertise to provide quality healthcare to a pregnant woman without intentionally killing her unborn baby, regardless of the severity of her disease.
The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life.
What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.
A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point.
One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.
However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.
Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.
It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
(To be continued)
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Abortion and Pelosi
The House approved legislation, the Protect Life Act, to stop abortion funding in Obamacare. Senate Democrats are not expected to approve the bill and, pro-abortion President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
This is a step in the right direction, but that's all it is -- a step. With Democratic control of the Senate, and a "president" who would never saddle a woman with something as icky and soul-destroying as a newborn baby, this legislation is a long shot. However, the Republicans can do only the possible, not the impossible.
In reaction to the above news, Nancy Pelosi came out in Perpetual Liar mode and shared her hysteria with the country:
“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”
The term "wicked witch" is far too kind a descriptor for Pelosi. Think about her repugnant, deceitful statement for a moment: her position is that A.) taxpayers should fund the murders of unborn human infants; and B.) anyone who opposes taxpayers footing the bill for such atrocities wants to see women die. Can you imagine a more perverse, immoral accusation?
As far as women "dying on the floor" goes, it's a myth. Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Regardless, the claim is a smokescreen; rougly 99% of abortions are elective. The other 1% encompass rape, incest, and the mother's "health" -- dubious justifications all.
People like Nancy Pelosi can't be taught. They can't be reasoned with or persuaded. They only can be defeated. She will stand before her Maker some day and account for her wanton promotion of the physcal destruction of children made in His image -- whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in Him or not.
On that day, I would not want to be in her shoes.
This is a step in the right direction, but that's all it is -- a step. With Democratic control of the Senate, and a "president" who would never saddle a woman with something as icky and soul-destroying as a newborn baby, this legislation is a long shot. However, the Republicans can do only the possible, not the impossible.
In reaction to the above news, Nancy Pelosi came out in Perpetual Liar mode and shared her hysteria with the country:
“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer address,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”
The term "wicked witch" is far too kind a descriptor for Pelosi. Think about her repugnant, deceitful statement for a moment: her position is that A.) taxpayers should fund the murders of unborn human infants; and B.) anyone who opposes taxpayers footing the bill for such atrocities wants to see women die. Can you imagine a more perverse, immoral accusation?
As far as women "dying on the floor" goes, it's a myth. Numerous physicians have attested that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Regardless, the claim is a smokescreen; rougly 99% of abortions are elective. The other 1% encompass rape, incest, and the mother's "health" -- dubious justifications all.
People like Nancy Pelosi can't be taught. They can't be reasoned with or persuaded. They only can be defeated. She will stand before her Maker some day and account for her wanton promotion of the physcal destruction of children made in His image -- whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in Him or not.
On that day, I would not want to be in her shoes.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Columbus Day
In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He cruised out from obscurity
Right on into infamy.
He sailed for pillage and for vice.
He picked his nose and scratched his lice.
And when he saw an island fair,
He said: "Curse this mal de mer!
Let's drop anchor over there,
So I can snatch an Injun's hair!"
He added, "It's my solemn duty
To get some native island booty."
So he rowed in, lickety split,
To kill just for the fun of it.
He maimed and tortured, burned and slew,
Stole some 'backer for to chew.
He gifted all the noble reds
With burlap blankets for their beds;
And with intentions none too vague,
He gave them all Bubonic plague.
Now with his purpose all but done,
He floated in a gatling gun.
"Time for missionary work!"
He cried, and watched 'em twitch and jerk.
He cranked it till it ceased to fire,
Then sang a hymn and led the choir.
And as the smoke rose up he said,
"I'm glad those savages are dead.
We found no passage to the East,
But all these buggars are deceased."
And with a laugh, he sailed away.
That's why we have Columbus Day.
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He cruised out from obscurity
Right on into infamy.
He sailed for pillage and for vice.
He picked his nose and scratched his lice.
And when he saw an island fair,
He said: "Curse this mal de mer!
Let's drop anchor over there,
So I can snatch an Injun's hair!"
He added, "It's my solemn duty
To get some native island booty."
So he rowed in, lickety split,
To kill just for the fun of it.
He maimed and tortured, burned and slew,
Stole some 'backer for to chew.
He gifted all the noble reds
With burlap blankets for their beds;
And with intentions none too vague,
He gave them all Bubonic plague.
Now with his purpose all but done,
He floated in a gatling gun.
"Time for missionary work!"
He cried, and watched 'em twitch and jerk.
He cranked it till it ceased to fire,
Then sang a hymn and led the choir.
And as the smoke rose up he said,
"I'm glad those savages are dead.
We found no passage to the East,
But all these buggars are deceased."
And with a laugh, he sailed away.
That's why we have Columbus Day.
Friday, October 7, 2011
I Just had an Idea . . .
. . . for a new T-shirt. The front will say, in bold Spanish:
If you can read this, thank a wetback.
I mean, we'd might as well have a little fun with our demographic suicide, right?
If you can read this, thank a wetback.
I mean, we'd might as well have a little fun with our demographic suicide, right?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki: Did the U.S. Government Murder an American Citizen?
Well, not unless you believe that anchor babies are U.S. citizens, which entails embracing the modern "living Constitution" brand of jurisprudence. The concept of birthright citizenship -- i.e., that anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen, even if his father was Osama bin Laden, and his mother is Lilith -- comes primarily from a distortion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Before I continue, let's look at the relevant portion of the Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Anwar al-Awlaki's parents were Yemenis who attended school in the U.S., spawned a squalling representative of the natal Jihad, and later returned to Yemen when Pride-of-the-Red-White-and-Blue was seven years old. He returned to the U.S. at age eighteen, reentering on a foreign student visa and attending school at Colorado State University. The Yemeni government paid his college bills through scholarship funds. During his university years, al-Awlaki went to Afghanistan and trained with the mujahideen. I'm sure there's a Will Rogers anecdote in there, somewhere.
Unless you want to argue that Yemeni nationals and their offspring are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to non-citizens, then dubbing al-Awlaki a U.S. citizen is a non-starter. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to black Americans and the protection of their rights as freed slaves. The whole purpose of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was to recognize a distinction between citizens and aliens, not to make aliens born to aliens automatic citizens. Original intent matters, contrary to the opinions of those who think the Constitution makes an excellent litterbox liner.
If one insists that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, consistency requires that one also accept a woman's right to murder her unborn child, as per the right that materialized before the astonished eyes of the Burger Court, after spending over two hundred years shyly cloistering itself in the penumbras and emanations of the flatulations of the aberrations of that limbic region known as the Twilight Zone. Imagine the surprise of the Bill of Rights' authors as they turned over in their graves in consternation, having scribbled down abortion rights in unwitting quillmanship code for the delight of a later, more enlightened age.
And now, the patriarchy withers and dies, as women sing: "I can kill my infant, this I know, for the baby killers tell me so."
Shall we add a second verse? "Dropped my brat in the Dar al-Harb, cloaked in red, white, and blue garb."
Amen.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Anwar al-Awlaki's parents were Yemenis who attended school in the U.S., spawned a squalling representative of the natal Jihad, and later returned to Yemen when Pride-of-the-Red-White-and-Blue was seven years old. He returned to the U.S. at age eighteen, reentering on a foreign student visa and attending school at Colorado State University. The Yemeni government paid his college bills through scholarship funds. During his university years, al-Awlaki went to Afghanistan and trained with the mujahideen. I'm sure there's a Will Rogers anecdote in there, somewhere.
Unless you want to argue that Yemeni nationals and their offspring are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to non-citizens, then dubbing al-Awlaki a U.S. citizen is a non-starter. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to black Americans and the protection of their rights as freed slaves. The whole purpose of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was to recognize a distinction between citizens and aliens, not to make aliens born to aliens automatic citizens. Original intent matters, contrary to the opinions of those who think the Constitution makes an excellent litterbox liner.
If one insists that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, consistency requires that one also accept a woman's right to murder her unborn child, as per the right that materialized before the astonished eyes of the Burger Court, after spending over two hundred years shyly cloistering itself in the penumbras and emanations of the flatulations of the aberrations of that limbic region known as the Twilight Zone. Imagine the surprise of the Bill of Rights' authors as they turned over in their graves in consternation, having scribbled down abortion rights in unwitting quillmanship code for the delight of a later, more enlightened age.
And now, the patriarchy withers and dies, as women sing: "I can kill my infant, this I know, for the baby killers tell me so."
Shall we add a second verse? "Dropped my brat in the Dar al-Harb, cloaked in red, white, and blue garb."
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)