Tag Archives: U.S. Constitution

Supreme Court Uses U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child to Justify Overriding American Law

By Daniel Downs

The Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Graham v. Florida. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, based the decision on the 8th amendment clause, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Florida law does not permit the possibility of parole for those sentenced to life in prison. To sentence a juvenile to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide crimes does seem unusually cruel.

The controversy over the decision, however, is with the Court’s use of the U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child (CRC). According to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the Kennedy opinion echoes his opinion issued in the 2005 Roper v. Simmons case.

“That case involved the imposition of the death penalty on juveniles, which the majority ruled was unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment under their ‘evolving standards of decency’ test. Roper was perhaps most noteworthy for its numerous citations of international law and foreign sources in helping to determine what modern standards of decency should be.”

In Graham v. Florida, the Court, the evolving standards of decency were also justified based on CRC and other foreign national law that also held the same alleged standard of decency. As cited by C-FAM, the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia in Roper v. Simmons still applies.

“The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards—and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.”

Michael Farris, President of Parental Rights, represented 16 members of Congress in the case. He sees the courts reliance on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child as first steps to the certain erosion of the sovereignty of American law over issues of parents and children.

http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={F94AE58A-9D7E-44BA-A40A-5E3DF0D2D851}Farris also noted that along “with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the U.N. CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.” He urges all Americans to contact their representatives in Congress asking them to oppose the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by supporting both Senator DeMint’s bill S.R.519 and the Parental Rights Amendment.

The Ohio Project at Clark County Fair

What is the Ohio Project? I’m glad you asked.

The Ohio Project is a grass root initiative opposing recently passed federal health care reform legislation mandates. The initiative seeks to introduce a state constitutional amendment giving Ohioans the legal to oppose those mandates that extend beyond the Constitutional authority of the federal government. It will make the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution enforcement for this specific set of issues.

The central region coordinator, Nancy Channell, has arranged for a petition signing booth at the Springfield Antique Show and Flea Market.
All are invited to enjoy the many unique displays of antique collector items, booths offering consumer goods, information about area service organizations, and political efforts of organizations like The Ohio Project. At the same time, you can help the Ohio Project succeed by signing the petition.

Supporting the Ohio Project means enforcing your constitutional rights to government limited to the rule of law under the Constitution.

For more information, go to the Ohio Project website. You can also find out more about the Springfield Antique show by going here.

DeMint Resolution Challenges Child Rights Convention

Washington, D.C. – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today introduced S.R. 519, a resolution opposing ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention, or CRC) in an effort to discourage the State Department and the Obama administration from submitting it to the Senate. Citing dangers posed to American families and to State and federal sovereignty if the treaty were ratified, the measure resolves that “the president should not submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent.”

In Washington’s current political climate, the resolution has little chance of gaining 51 votes for adoption, but its proponents say that is not the point. Since ratification of the Convention requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, or 67 favorable votes, S.R. 519 needs only 34 cosponsors to prevent that vote and effectively end any chance of ratifying the treaty in the immediate future.

Opponents of the CRC warn that under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the treaty’s ratification would render it “the Supreme law of the land,” superseding all state constitutions or laws as well as pre-existing federal law. The only legal authority higher than a ratified treaty is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution. According to Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), ratification of the Convention would “undermine the U.S. system of federalism, a system on which this nation was founded.” All family law, the vast majority of which is currently set at the state level, would be federalized as a treaty obligation of the national government.

“We want to see the CRC taken off the table for this Congress, and this resolution will do that. But I am also aware that the only permanent solution to this threat to our families is a parental rights amendment to the Constitution,” DeMint said, referring to another resolution he champions, S.J. Res. 16, which proposes just such an amendment.

Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, agrees. “The Amendment is what we really need, but this resolution is a good temporary fix in the meantime.”

Gun Bill Committee Hearing Wednesday, 4.28.10

The Senate Judiciary on Criminal Justice Committee, chaired by Sen. Tim Grendell (R-18), has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, April 28 at 10:15 AM in the Senate Building’s South Hearing Room.

The committee will hear further proponent testimony on SB 239, sponsored by Senator Shannon Jones and Senator Tim Schaffer to allow citizens who hold a valid concealed handgun license (CHL) to carry a firearm in restaurants, and to reduce burdensome restrictions regarding how a license holder must transport a firearm in a car. This will be the third hearing for SB 239.

The committee will also hold its first hearing for SB 247, which will align Ohio law with federal statutes regarding the restoration of rights to Ohio firearms purchasers. Both sponsor and proponent testimony will be offered on the bill, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Niehaus, Cafaro, Grendell, Buehrer, Coughlin and Seitz.

Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman Jim Irvine stated, “We are pleased to see bi-partisan efforts to refine and improve Ohio’s current firearm laws. The Senate has two bills that address the most pressing issues facing those who legally own guns in Ohio. SB239 would allow licensed citizens to carry concealed firearms in restaurants and fix burdensome car carry rules. SB247 would align Ohio law with Federal statutes and protect citizen rights. We hope the legislature moves quickly to pass both.”

Buckeye Firearms Association is calling on the Ohio Senate to quickly move this bill through the legislative process and to send it to the House.

This Senate committee had its first hearing on SB 239 in March, and held a second hearing on April 14. The House has already held several hearings on HB 203, which also seeks to allow license-holders to carry in restaurants.

For the full text of the SB 239, visit:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_239

For more information and the full text of the SB 247, visit:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_247

Source: Ohio Freedom Alliance, April 25,2010

Americans Rising for the Constitution–April 19, 2010

The Voice of Freedom will be heard across America on April 19, 2010 (Patriots Day), as people gather at their state capitols to participate in a Re-Dedication Ceremony to Creator, Country and Constitution and to serve the Articles of Freedom on elected officials — a non-political document which seeks to end violations of the Constitution and restore constitutional governance at the state and federal level. The special program will last 45 minutes and will be given at the same moment in time across all time zones. In Ohio, the event begins at 3 PM on the steps of the State Capitol.

The Articles of Freedom are the non-political work of the Continental Congress 2009, a group of 116 citizen-delegates from 48 states, who met for 11 days in St. Charles, Illinois from November 11-21, 2010. The contents address fourteen violations of the Constitution, each of which has injured America’s economy and the Nation. Each of the 14 Articles includes “Remedial Instructions” to federal and state government officials, designed to end the violation. There is no other known document or plan in America at this time that complies with the U.S. Constitution and shows the people, and a rogue government, how to put the nation back on track. The Articles contain a pledge that asks citizens to join with a “goodly number of millions” to hold elected officials accountable to their Oath of Office, through obedience to the Constitution.

The April 19th ceremony will include a Color Guard; a prayer; singing to America; the Pledge of Allegiance and America’s Creed; a talk about the Purpose of the Articles and why they are being served on elected officials; and an opportunity for participants to re-dedicate themselves to the Constitution, Its protection and defense. In every state, the two U.S. Senators, the member of the U.S. House of Representatives whose district includes the state capital city, the Governor and the Head of each Chamber of the State Legislature have been invited to receive the Articles; those who do not attend the ceremony will be served at their offices immediately following the event.

“The First Amendment guarantees the Right of the People to Petition their servant government for a Redress of Grievances,” says Robert Schulz. “We have petitioned for a Remedy for every major violation of the Constitution since 1994, knowing what the violations would do to our people and our way of Life. Our Petitions have been answered with Silence and repeated injury to our economy, our Republic and our Sovereignty,” he continued. “The Articles are a constructive legal document rooted in the Constitution. We will serve it on our elected officials as the appropriate next step and wait for their response. The Constitution cannot defend itself, and it is not a menu. It is now up to the People to peacefully and lawfully procure relief,” said Schulz.

Event planners view the ceremony as an opportunity to show the conscious return of an increasing number of Americans who feel it is their duty to ensure officials follow the Constitution. “We await the day when every elected official in America, regardless of party, will have the sole purpose of upholding the Constitution in the governmental affairs of the People, and our citizens, in turn, will be vigilant – in every state and at the federal level – to hold them accountable,” he concluded.

The non-political event is open to all who want to show support for the Constitution. Planners urge people to visit www.articlesoffreedom.us/ThePlan.aspx to print out and bring along a copy of the program for the ceremony so they can participate fully.

To read the Articles of Freedom (html), go here.
To read the Articles of Freedom (pdf), go here.
To read a summary of the articles, go here.

Obama’s Legal Right To The Presidential Office Still Being Questioned in Court

By Daniel Downs

United States Justice Foundation is pursuing a court hearing to force Obama to produce valid documents including his actual birth certificate in order to clarify his qualifications for president under Constitutional law, according to World Net Daily.

Having spent nearly $2 million dollars to prevent the courts and the general public from it, it is reasonable to assume that Obama either is not legally qualified or he hold great disdain to the general citizenry as well as great disregard for ideals of our nation’s republican form of federal democracy.

World Net Daily raised a very important point concerning the Constitutional right and necessity of proving a presidential candidates qualifications. As written,

“Did you know that John McCain had a lawsuit filed against him,
to force him to establish his citizenship (Hollander v. McCain)
during his campaign for President! After he produced evidence and
official documents, and after Congressional hearings, the U.
S., by Senate Resolution 511, John McCain was recognized as a
‘natural born citizen.’ If he had to go through these
“hoops”—why didn’t his presidential opponent have to do the
same?”

That is one of the recurring criticism of all criticism surrounding litigation to determine Obama’s citizenship and constitutional right to hold the office of president; no records of any such process of verification ever took place.

Both McCain and Obama held the office of U.S. Senator before the the election of presidency. The citizenship of both McCain and Obama were in question. Yet, as pointed out above, only McCain’s citizenship was clarified both by the federal court and the U.S. Congress.

It is still the obligation of the federal court and the U.S. Court to actually verify Obama’s citizenship.

If it is found that Obama is not qualified and therefore the Supreme Lawbreaker of the Land, what should be done about it? What punitive action should the federal court and/or Congress take toward Obama?

Re-thinking the War on Terrorism

By Andy Myers

”Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all . . . The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796)

I hate that term: “The War on Terror.” I hate using the word “hate.” But I feel so strongly that our foreign policy has gone awry that I can’t help but speak out. We should all feel a duty as Americans to protect and defend the Constitution the limits of which are made a mockery of by the misguided “intellectuals” in Washington and their taxpayer funded “think tanks” who call the shots and continually get it wrong. Their punishment is a promotion to some other bureaucratic agency where they can wreck more havoc and again disregard the rule of law. Even congress, who’s authority it is, doesn’t even have the fortitude to “declare war” as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution anymore.

Can you imagine what our founder’s would think of our foreign policy exploits and the executive powers held by the President today?

Death, destruction-reconstruction, and the bankrupting of behaving as an “empire” will only garner additional support for those who despise our overreaching foreign policy behavior.

Nations don’t hate us because of our way of life or our freedom. They despise our government’s never ending meddling in their internal affairs. Ask yourself how you would feel if a “foreign” nation were on our soil doing what we are doing in over 130 countries and over 700 bases around the world. You know all too well you’d be fighting mad!

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes-known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” (James Madison, Political Observations, 1795)

Our military overstretch and the liberties and freedoms we are losing everyday is frightening. Even President Eisenhower’s prophetic warning to the American people of the threat from an ever increasing military industrial complex hardly garners attention and yet today this warning stands as true as ever. Don’t get me wrong I’m no isolationist, and I don’t think there aren’t any credible threats out there that shouldn’t be dealt with. But, I firmly believe that what we are doing today in terms of dissipating the threats to our country are wrongheaded and misleading the American public along with exacerbating the threat of another possible attack all the while bankrupting this country.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Like most think tank propaganda carefully chosen by the government and it’s cohorts through mainstream media pulpits, the average “patriotic” American along with elected leaders and worse-our children-are easily indoctrinated into believing we must do “everything” in our power including military occupations, torture and renditions to make America safe from those who would seek to harm us. But, where do you draw the line? Do two wrongs make a right? Madeline Albright’s infamous interview on 60 Minutes is a perfect example of reprehensible logic and sadly is very common place with today’s foreign policy “experts.” Here is the excerpt:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it.” (60 Minutes, 5/12/96)

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds… [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our mismanagers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers… And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]… til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery… And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.” (Thomas Jefferson)

I am also convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with over 700 military bases around the world, troops in over 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national security and bankrupting our country all the while making us here at home less free and safe. I believe that those who have been calling “the shots” are terribly misguided. And, that if something isn’t done soon to educate and change the way the grassroots movements across the country think about our overreaching empire abroad, our constitutional republic, our children and their children will pay a punishing price in both lives and treasure.

“Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies.” (Congressman Ron Paul)

Something that is a “fundamental must” in understanding if we are even to be able to grasp what role America should adhere to here at home and abroad is in the theory of natural rights that was espoused by our forefathers and by John Locke (1632-1704). In his Second Treatise, Locke stated that every man was entitled to life, liberty, and property (his “natural rights”) provided that exercising those rights does not intrude on others rights, and that the role of government in natural-rights theory is to protect those rights.

Without staying true to this tenet, America will be damned just as every other civilization has been in it’s pursuit of “empire.”

Watch Continental Congress 2009 On Live Stream

Watch history being made as delegates to the Constitutional Congress 2009 develop a plan of civic resistance to fight back and save the Constitution!

Constitutional deliberations today begin at 8AM and will cover “Violations of the “Sovereignty” clause (i.e., Sovereignty of the Republic, North American Union). Beginning at 1:30PM, Constitutional scholars and elected delegates will address the “Violations of the Constitution’s Property” clauses (i.e., seizure of private property for private benefit.)

Beginning at 8AM on Wednesday, November 19, the schedule of constitutional issues that scholars and delegates will address include Jury Nullification, Grand Juries, and Health Care.

To watch the sessions, click on LiveStream. To see previous sessions, go here.

The Constitution, Federal Legislation, and Ohio

By Matt Meyer

“First do no harm” should hang above the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, those four simple words aren’t a consideration in our nation’s capital. How else could you explain the budget-busting global warming and national health care bills currently dominating the public debate? Separately, each measure is fiscally irresponsible. Taken together, the bills will devastate Ohio’s weak economy and place enormous unfunded mandates on the state’s Swiss cheese budget.

First, there is the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. With Ohio’s natural abundance of coal, almost 90% of Ohio’s energy is produced by CO2 producing coal-fired power plants. Those power plants feed electricity to what is left of Ohio’s manufacturing plants, which produce still more CO2 emissions. All of that production translates into jobs. On the renewable energy side of the fence, Ohio isn’t blessed with an abundance of sunshine, consistent wind, or powerful rivers to power solar panels, wind turbines, or hydro plants. Although Ohio currently has two nuclear power plants, there appears to be no political will to build additional nuclear power plants.

Given these irrefutable facts, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Ohioans don’t suffer increased costs, job losses, and economic decline should the cap and trade bill pass. Unlike the future made-in-Hollywood catastrophes portrayed by the global warming crowd, those costs, losses, and decline will be immediate and real for Ohioans.

On health care, Medicaid spending already consumes 39% of the state budget. The Baucus national health care bill would restrict Ohio from setting eligibility requirements, which would increase the load on states by $37 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Because Ohio is the seventh largest state and possesses an anemic economy, a big slice of that $37 billion will fall on Ohio taxpayers.

With these enormous economic stakes, Ohio’s two senators must put aside partisan urges, resist trendy but illogical policy options, and work toward solutions that are in the state’s best interests. To do otherwise is not only bad for Ohioans, but would actually go against the Founders’ original intent for the Senate when it was first established in the Constitution.

For America’s first 126 years, U.S. senators were elected by state legislatures. The reason rests in the Founders use of checks and balances to keep the political system in harmony. With U.S. representatives elected by popular vote in apportioned districts based on each state’s share of the total U.S. population, the House served as the place where the “will of the people” ruled. In theory, if a handful of large states with a majority of representatives banded together, they could pass legislation harmful to the other states.

In the Senate, however, to check the tyranny of the majority, the Founders allocated each state only two senators, thereby structurally blocking large states from riding roughshod over the smaller states as could happen in the House. To further check the accumulation of power in the federal government, the Founders placed the election of senators in the hands of state legislatures who would ensure that those individuals elected to the Senate would protect the interests of the states regardless of what the passions of the people wanted. For example, a majority of people in a state may want a federal program that individually costs them very little in taxes, but would place large unfunded costs on the state.

In 1913, the passage of the 17th Amendment altered this finely tuned structure by placing the election of senators in the hands of the people. Not surprisingly, shortly after this structural change to the Constitution, the era of big government in Washington, D.C. unchecked by the states began its march. Congress went from the New Deal to the Great Society to the era of unfunded mandates to today when Washington simultaneously considers bills that would nationalize 17% of the U.S. economy, and imposes additional burdens on our energy production just months after exploding the federal deficit, nationalizing car companies and banks, and passing the largest single year budget in American history.

So, how could Ohio’s senators or senate candidates support legislation like the Waxman-Markey or Baucus bills? When they no longer have to be accountable to the state they represent because it has no power to check their votes (i.e., a legislative threat not to reelect them should they vote yea), they can place other special interests and even their own ideological views ahead of what is best for Ohio, its economy, and its citizens.

The irony, of course, is that these “reforms” will hit Ohioans regressively so that the very middle class workers and poor that they claim to fight for will be hit the hardest.

Source: Buckeye Institute Weekly News Digest, October 12, 2009.

Ohio Supreme Court endangers children, violates parental rights, and supports the violation of law and decency

On July 1, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision that allows Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Ohio (PP) to keep secret their reports documenting whether or not PP is notifying authorities of instances of statutory rape of pregnant minors seeking abortion services at the Cincinnati clinic.

The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments last October on this issue after granting a Motion for Rehearing which was brought by attorneys for Jane Roe.

In Roe v. Planned Parenthood, the parents of Roe allege PP employees breached their legal duties when they failed to notify the proper authorities of the young girl’s sexual victimization by the 22-year-old male who brought her to the clinic. They further allege that PP violated Ohio’s parental involvement laws by failing to notify or get consent from them before performing the abortion on their 14-year-old daughter.

Attorney for Jane Roe, Brian Hurley, states about the decision, “We respectfully disagree with and are disappointed in the decision. It allows Planned Parenthood, under the pretext of protecting privacy rights, to prevent anyone from reviewing its redacted records to determine the truth of what many people believe is Planned Parenthood’s policy and practice of violating its duty to report suspected or known sexual abuse of minors. We believe that the protection Ohio provides to its sexually abused children has been significantly weakened and parents’ rights to protect their children from abuse have been undermined. We agree with Judge Donovan’s assessment that the decision is neither just nor reasonable.1

I agree with Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, who said,

“It’s hypocritical for the Ohio Supreme Court to be concerned about the privacy of girls receiving abortions at Planned Parenthood when, by keeping the redacted, anonymous records secret, it is in fact protecting the privacy of older men who abuse underage teens. The Court, by its decision, is enabling and perpetuating injustice.”2

Lila Rose, 20-year-old UCLA student and president of the non-profit Live Action, caught on tape Planned Parenthood workers breaking state laws requiring prompt reporting of statutory rape and parental consent laws.

Lila Rose went undercover at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Birmingham and told a counselor that she was 14-years-old, pregnant by her 31-year-old “boyfriend.” Rose said she needed a secret abortion so her parents would not find out about her sexual relationship with the older man.

After telling the counselor that her “boyfriend” is 31, Rose asks, “Is it a problem about my boyfriend?” The counselor, identified as “Tanisha” in the video, responds, “As long as you consented to having sex with him, there’s nothing we can truly do about that.” Rose then says that her boyfriend “said he could get in big trouble,” and Tanisha acknowledges that “he could, especially if your parents find out that he’s 31.” She then tells Rose that the clinic manager, OB/GYN Dr. Desiree Bates, “sometimes does bend the rules a little bit” and states that “whatever you tell us stays within these walls” and “we can’t disclose any information to anybody.”

Alabama code 26-14-3 requires health professionals to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately.

“The law is explicit about a healthcare provider’s duty to report, yet Planned Parenthood pretends they cannot say anything,” Rose notes of the investigation. “Planned Parenthood increases its business and influence by circumventing state reporting laws, but inflicts terrible harm upon the vulnerable young girls sent back to statutory rapists.”

In the video, Tanisha also seems to tell Rose that a signature from an “older sister that’s over the age of 18” or someone “with the same last name” could function as a substitute for parental consent so Planned Parenthood could perform an abortion on a minor. Alabama Code 26-21-3 specifies that the written permission of either a parent or legal guardian is necessary before a minor may obtain an abortion.

The new video is sixth in Live Action’s Mona Lisa Project, a nationwide undercover investigation that documents Planned Parenthood’s repeated noncompliance with state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors. Alabama is the fourth state to be implicated in the controversy, along with Arizona, Indiana, and Tennessee.3

While Alabama's Attorney General is taking legal action, YouTube is banning this public evidence of Planned Parenthood's crimes. Are YouTube executives politically correct leftists or are they being strong armed by the Left's politicians and corporate members who are leading the drive help PP regain taxpayer funding for its baby-killing services? Because they are owned by Google, the ban on Rose's video is without a doubt politically motivated. Another reason for YouTube censorship is their executives partnership with billionaire George Soros, the global fund raiser for all thing Left like anti-Catholicism and abortion-on-demand.

Breaking state or federal laws is not limited to organizations like Planned Parenthood. Members of the Left seem to always break the law in order to achieve their agendas. It is no surprise that leftist politicians-at-law draped with black robes sitting high at the bar of justice collude with their associates. The false high wall doctrine of church-state separation was the beginning upon which all of the Left's goals have been achieved. Roe v Wade and all similar court decision– Roe v. Planned Parenthood–is merely one lethal example. Parents killing their unborn children is not a privacy right found in the US Constitution, but protecting life is.

References:

1   Christian Newswire, July 2, 2009.
2   Christian Newswire, July 3, 2009.
3   Live Action, June 30, 2009.

Lila Rose’s video can be viewed online at liveaction.org/alabama