Government and its distaste for armed citizens

A word to the wise… (and if you are reading this post then you must be among the very wise) there is a book that I have found INVALUABLE in understanding the concepts of a citizen’s right to bear arms. It is:
“To keep and Bear Arms, The origins of an Anglo-American Right” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

If you do not have this book in your personal library, please buy it. It is not an easy book to read – it is a book written by a historian, not a Second Amendment advocate and is concerned with sources, lessons, examples. I urge anyone who has an interest or passion for this debate to acquire the book and take the time to work through it. It will be worth it. Just to encourage you – bear in mind Justice Antonin Scalia found this book so compelling it helped him phrase the the seminal decision in DC v Heller that affirmed the Constitutional right of an individual to own a weapon for traditionally lawful purposes.

Most of us are well aware of the phrase “Power of the purse” – because we get reminded, from time to time, that the one real power that belongs solely to House of Representatives is the power to determine how the money of the Republic is to be spent.

But there is a second part to the equation – “the power of the sword”.

The Power of the Sword technically, I guess, resides within the Executive Branch. That branch of the government tasked with executing the laws.

Passing laws is one thing – getting people to obey them is another. Ultimately it is the ability of the government to enforce compliance that determines whether a law will stand.

Malcolm provides some solid evidence of this in her book (page 14)
“… However, disafforestation, or the removal of a Royal Forest from forest status for the purpose of its enclosure and sale, might leave hundreds of poor residents without a means of subsistence.The widespread riots that resulted, among the worst the Kingdom would experience before the Civil War, vividly demonstrated the English villager’s capacity for taking up arms and provide confirmation of the availability of firearms among the rural population…”

According to Malcolm’s book – the large scale riots and organization against the Royal plans provided the rulings classes with lesson that would later bear fruit in the Civil War of 1641.

It is a simple concept. Every law passed must be enforced at a local level by local officials. If the people they live among are not willing to follow the law then it will require force to get compliance. That ONLY works if the ones doing the forcing have more “force” than those resisting and the willingness to use it. Having to face armed resistance is a greater deterrent than facing unarmed resisters singing.

When I read accounts of the Totalitarian government in Iran shooting protesters I am reminded, again why governments do not want their citizens to be armed. If the protesters are unarmed and the police and authorities are armed then any negotiations are at the mercy of the authorities and they can end them whenever THEY choose.

The great thing about the US system of government is that it is not a dictatorship of the majority as it is in so much of the west. It is, at least theoretically, subject to the rule of law – and that rule and that law is the law of the land. Not what any majority may suddenly decide.

The rule of law stays in place and stays supreme as long as the electorate has the means to resist authoritarian impositions.

Amazing how those who wish to impose those authoritarian laws and rules push so very hard to “regulate” guns for the population at large.

The immorality of “gun control”

I have seen, in a few on-line forums variations on a theme – “how do you, as a gun owner, justify owning an AR-15?” The question is posed in slightly different forms but all basically written from the view that owning a gun is something that is not a natural thing, or is somehow a dangerous thing or a threatening one.

It is the question which is wrong. It is based upon a false premise.

A person owns himself or herself. The right to your own life is the building block of a free society. The right to the rewards of your own thoughts and work is a logical extension of the right of personal ownership and follows from it. This is what turns a country from slavery to a recognition of the personal rights of every citizen.

This is a right that the US Constitution embodies. It is NOT a right that a government gives – it is a right that belongs to the basic building block of the society that creates the laws that we live by.

My right to own my life gives me the responsibility to take care of it and to protect it. I am the one who gets to decide which means I employ to do that. However my right does not extend to forcing another person to do what I wish, merely to make me feel secure. Once we move into the realm of ME deciding what YOU must do in order to give me something, moves us back to the realm of slavery. We can agree between us on a code to enable us to live in harmony but the code must enshrine the principle that the rights of one cannot infringe the rights of the other.

In a society that recognizes individual rights the right to bear arms is a logical right. It does not require any other person to “give” me that right. I can choose to bear arms or I can decide not to. What I cannot do is decide YOUR choice in the matter. And you cannot decide mine.

The decision to be responsible for my survival is the moral stance to take. Trying to force me to comply with your wishes and feelings against my own rights is the immoral stance to take.

The Grand Farce

Like most of America I have avoided the abject “Theater of the Absurd” being played out in Washington DC by the Democrat Party.


I have watched – with bewilderment – as the process of “getting Trump” has been the all consuming passion of the hard left since the day of the election in November of 2016. I read in the book “Shattered” how the Clinton campaign went from conceding with forced grace (as we normally expect the losing side to behave in these things) to pivoting to a message that it was all the Russians’ fault. That somehow the damned Russkis had put the fix in and tricked 62 million Americans into voting for their secret billionaire property developer puppet. And they, the gallant losers (though really winners) were going to “resist”.


And so the pathetic weep-a-thon and wail-o-rama that has become the Modus Operandi for the Democrat Party was launched on a tidal wave of tears and slobbering anguish.


For a little over three years the political and strategic aim of the Democrat Party has been to “get Trump”. Within days of the election “Impeachment” was being bandied around as a technique that could remove the Trump Obstacle from the scene and start on setting the political world of the left and of the Deep State to rights again. The Main Stream Media – ABC, NBC. CBS and the dog whistlers of the Cable CNN and MSNBC have been acting in unison in a full throated attack on whatever Donald Trump is doing – right now. Everything that happens is viewed through the prism of “how can this be used to attack Trump?” . NOTHING is viewed through the prism of “how can we help the country?”.


The push has always been to “get Trump”the hope has always been to find something, anything, which would convince the majority of US Voters that he must be removed from office. The leftist supporters, of course, have been convinced from November 2016 that Trump should be removed. Not because of what he has done or not done but because his election is just so unfair, unjust, not right, unfair and anything that removes him is fair and just.


This has led to what, in any other country, would be a hilarious spectacle – watching pompous politicians, having decided that Impeachment must be done – launch what they claim are unbiased inquiries to prove themselves right. Pelosi tries to sound serious as she announces that she has instructed the House to draw up articles of impeachment – acting as if this was something reluctantly arrived at solution instead of it being a cobbled together post facto justification for decisions reached with no proof at all before any inquiry was ever launched. And watching the media breathlessly reporting on the non-story like it was a serious moment in US History instead of being the acme of pathetic theater.


If the only thing available to them to write in an impeachment article was that Donald Trump once jaywalked – they would have already included it. Instead we are subject to the opinions of “witnesses” who actually saw nothing, opining on whether or not their own interpretation of the divining of Donald Trump’s intentions was enough to impeach him.


Really. If this tripe was going on in France the late night “comedians” in the USA would be laughing themselves into sweaty piles at the stupidity of the French. Instead, of course, those self same “comedians” are part of the background chorus chanting for something “to be done”.


Is anyone of a sound mind out there even buying into this BS?


The USA, over the last three years has an economy that is second to none. I realize – BTW – that a good economy is a complex thing and not just the result of a magic wand wave by an incoming President. I think that POTUS did do the one thing that unlocked the potential of the USA – he started rolling back regulations and needless laws and bureaucratic over-reach and, with the unchaining, things started to ramp up very fast. More and more people went back to work, unemployment dropped and dropped. There have been trade deals made, trade opponents dealt with, ISIS demolished. Overall I think the USA is doing great.


And the Democrats have done what? Nothing except organize committees to go after Trump.


We have Democrat politicians like Ocasio-Cortez shrilly claiming to have never experienced the American Dream – while being elected as the youngest member of the House of Representatives, having attended Boston University while not having any money to do so. Ms Ocasio Cortez finds herself in the legislative body of the most [powerful country on earth – and finds time to claim how hard done by she is?


Wow.


In the midst of good times and good things the Democrat Party is seeking to tear society apart by balkanizing every part of society they can infiltrate.
There are lessons to be gleaned from this performance by Pelosi, Hoyer, Obama, Podesta, Biden, Booker Warren et al – the ONLY thing the left cares about – is power. They have proven that they do not care about the electorate, the wishes of the voters nor the welfare of the country. They care about the handles of power.


If you want an example of how the Democrats view themselves in power – you only need listen to what they are saying.


Adam Schiff holds “hearings’ in secret. Summons witnesses who have not witnessed anything and prevented others from presenting witnesses or questioning the people he has brought up. This is what passes for “inquiry” in the eyes of the left.


At the same time we have people like Elizabeth Warren – someone who is seeking to be President who says that when she becomes President she will abolish the Electoral College. Why is that such a bad thing? Well in order to be sworn in as President a candidate has to swear to Uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Warren is promising to violate it. And that is quite apart from the fact that the President is in the Executive Branch not the legislative branch. So she cannot just change the Constitution.

Or we have Billionaire Bloomberg who plans to impede the ability of US Citizens to keep and bear arms – in Direct contravention of the 2nd Amendment. Again yet another Democrat Candidate who plans to act as a dictator and violate his oath of office.


The left does not wish to govern. It wishes to rule. Not for you and me – but for their own ideology. Believe them when they keep saying exactly that.

If you wish to see peace…

A person’s right to their own self defense is both a self evident right and, in addition the only possible moral building block of a safe and secure society.

That is the proposition I am arguing for.

There is a motto that is both profound and incredibly useful, both in personal and societal usage.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum”

It translates to “If you would see peace, prepare for war”

It derives from the work of the Roman General Vegetius who said “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” which translates to “Therefore, who desires peace, prepares for war”.

Please note – and note carefully – it does NOT say “he who wants peace must fight a war” “ or “war brings peace” or anything like that. It merely states that in order for a person or a state to be secure in its peace it must be prepared for war.

But why is this the case?

Immanuel Kant – Perpetual Peace A Philosophical Sketch

Immanuel Kant in an Essay of 1795 entitled “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” had many things to say about the ingredients of a “perpetual peace” and how it could and should be achieved. I am including a link to that sketch and I would urge you, if you have not read this, to go, now and read it.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm

I shall be using a couple of quotes from that article – and want to be sure that they are read within the context of the overall article itself.

Section two of the essay has the following opening paragraph:

“The state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war. This does not always mean open hostilities, but at least an unceasing threat of war. A state of peace, therefore, must be established, for in order to be secured against hostility it is not sufficient that hostilities simply be not committed; and, unless this security is pledged to each by his neighbor (a thing that can occur only in a civil state), each may treat his neighbor, from whom he demands this security, as an enemy.”

Kant goes on to show that the establishment of a peace can only occur when states adhere to a republican form of government. (I am probably being overly cautious here but Kant is not endorsing the Republican Party in the USA or the Republican Guard in Baathist states) Kant goes on to lay out why this is the case and is well worth the read.

“The only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican. This constitution is established, firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of a society (as men); secondly, by principles of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens). The republican constitution, therefore, is, with respect to law, the one which is the original basis of every form of civil constitution. The only question now is: Is it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace?”

Kant’s essay contains some interesting arguments on “republican government” versus “democracy” and lays out the philosophical underpinning of why democracy is a despotic form of government.

But the purpose of this essay/blog post is to lay out why it is that self defense is an inherent human right that, when denied by the ruling class, leads not only to threat and violence but also to decay in the society.

Why must this be the case?

The fundamental building block of a society is the individual.

John Locke in his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government says:

John Locke – Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government

“every•·individual·man has a property in his own person[= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his.” (chapter 5 – Property).

Your right to your life is a building block of any civilized society. It is the ONLY approach that guarantees respect for every individual.

In order to maintain your life you must have the right to defend it from the aggression or ill will of others who might seek to harm you. If you do not have the right to your own defense then you do not have a right to your own life. Does that mean that we are in the Hobbesian nightmare of “ The condition of man… is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”? No it does not.

What it means is that we owe ourselves a duty to protect our lives. No-one else has that duty to us. Only us. I can defer part of that duty to those who might volunteer to defend me, but the final responsibility is mine – not theirs.

If we return to the quotes at the start of this article – if I am to see peace, I should prepare for war. I should, at all times be willing to defend myself against anyone seeking to harm me. My choice of defense is mine. Not the aggressors, and not the authorities, Mine. It has to be that way because the life I hold is mine.

If we, as a society, are each determined to defend ourselves then we have that in common with each other. We can enter into business and dialog and agreements and contracts and partnerships and families in the knowledge that we share this attribute. We have respect.

But if some force ( the Leviathan that Hobbes thought was the answer) interferes in that compact, what happens?

You no longer know where I stand on the fundamental facts of our existence. Do I respect YOUR life? Do I respect YOUR rights? What was previously an established fact between us has now become a conditional – only resolvable by appeal to a third party. Which has now assumed a power over that one inviolable right – our own lives. And, in a “democracy” that power is wielded by those that command a “majority”.

Thomas Hobbes author of Leviathan

When the power over our own lives, our personal property, becomes the plaything of the mob – we have reached the condition of war of every man against every man. Instead of our own personal judgment we are at the mercy of of rabble-rousers who can command a majority to take away the rights that we should hold.

And once lost those rights will only ever be restored by the blood that established them in the first place.

Kant summed up, nicely, why Democracy is Despotism

“Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, “all,” who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom. “

Please re-read that.

It is simple – if we wish to see peace we must be prepared for war.

24 tons of Fentanyl

Some great work by the Mexican Navy and law enforcement has incredibly worrying implications for all of us in the USA.

On the 23rd of August 2019 they issued a press release saying that the Mexican Navy had intercepted a fentanyl shipment from China reportedly to be delivered to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel of 24 Metric TONS of fentanyl.

Sounds like a lot – does it not? It certainly should because it IS a lot. I have included a link to one of the articles (in Spanish) below here along with a screen shot of the article. The amount given in the first paragraph of the article is 23,368 kilograms of fentanyl. It is rated as around 100 times stronger than morphine as a painkiller. IN 2015 the total amount of fentanyl used in healthcare worldwide was 1,600 Kg.

https://www.msn.com/es-mx/news/mexico/marina-armada-de-m-c3-a9xico-asegur-c3-b3-importante-carga-de-fentanilo/ar-AAGf1jA

Mexican Authorities seize 23,368 KGs of Fentanyl

First – and very importantly – fentanyl has an absolute place in medically supervised pain control. I urge you to read, at least, the Wikipedia entry for the drug to get some realistic background on this medication.

It has also become one of the prime additives to the illicit trade in heroin and morphine.

It is an extremely dangerous drug. It can cause an overdose in very small quantities – the estimate for a lethal dose in humans is 2mg (according to the FDA and European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). This would mean that 1 kg of fentanyl is enough drug to cause death by overdose to 500,000 humans. You might want to re-read that last sentence.

The shipment that was intercepted was 23,368 Kgs. Multiply that by 500,000 and you will get a surprisingly HUGE figure. A frighteningly huge figure.

The figure is high enough to ask the question – is delivery of 24 tons of this lethal chemical a threat of some kind? This amount is 14 times the entire medical consumption of the world 4 years ago. Yet some organization China cares enough to manufacture it and ship it to a drug cartel in Mexico. A drug cartel, moreover, whose main targets for drug distribution are the USA and Europe.

But if THAT was not frightening enough – what may be more frightening is the complete lack of reaction from the world’s press. I just (13:05 Eastern Time August 26th 2019) checked CNN.COM – not a mention on their page. Lots of articles about dogs, snark about Trump, but absolutely nothing about the interception of an existential threat to the population of the Americas. Curious to say the least. The BBC – nothing. NYT – nothing. Twitter had a burst of activity but it has faded a little bit.

Ask yourself this simple question – had the Mexican Navy intercepted a nuclear weapon – a small one with a kiloton yield that could have potentially killed 200,000 people – how would this same press have reacted? Would they have ignored it in favor of speculating about Trump?

The questions none of these “guardians of the truth” are asking.

Who on earth made 24 tons of one of the most lethal opioid drugs in the world?

Why did they make it?

How did they manage to ship it from Shanghai to Mexico?

Why is the Sinaloa Drug Cartel shopping for this drug?

I did send an email to the DEA Press Office asking them to confirm the story from Mexico – should they reply with a statement I will edit this post to update it.

UPDATE 08/29/2019

Received from the DEA

“Good afternoon.

We cannot confirm the contents of the seizure at this time, as the contents are still being tested.

Sorry we cannot be more helpful.

DEA Public Affairs “

Time to bring those who ignore laws and the constitution, to justice

It is time to assign both responsibility and (given today’s litigious atmosphere) liability to various cities, states and corporations.

1) If you own a business that transacts in public and you post a “No firearms permitted” sign on your premises you are responsible for the safety of all people who come there to do business. If you fail to provide armed security and monitored access to prevent weapons being carried in you are liable for all injuries and damages incurred by any customer who is attacked in your premises while being prevented from defending themselves.

2) If you own a restaurant or other public dining establishment and fail to protect your customers from harassment by non customers and if you do not immediately order the intruders to leave and call the police you will be in violation of the health code and your place of business will be shut down until your health violation is remedied and you will be fined by the day until it is addressed.

3) If you sign an executive order, memo or other document stating that you are declaring your area of responsibility a “sanctuary” you are, personally, criminally liable for each and every harmful act committed by people covered by your edict.

It is time to make it painful for elected representatives and business owners who prefer to endanger people rather than just do their jobs. It is time to make them accountable.

The right to self defense

I have to admit that the right to self defense is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine.

Any “constitution” or “Bill of Rights” or “Statement of Human rights” that does not affirm this most basic of rights is fatally flawed. If any human does not have the absolute right to defend their own life at  need then the rest of any list really does not matter.

But throughout many parts of the world the right to defend one’s life is conflated with the idea that it somehow means “vigilante justice” of some kind.

This is, patently, ludicrous. But am I wrong?

For example, it is a simple fact that sexual assault is a major problem in many societies. I happen to live in the USA and there is a constant barrage of op-eds and  reports about sexual assault in various areas.

It is another simple fact that men, for the most part are usually stronger and larger than women so any man who is inclined to be such a predator is going to find it easier to find targets that he can overwhelm. Note I said “easier” not “always”.

So why is it not standard practice to teach young women to carry a gun and to learn how to use it properly? I think all women should learn how to carry and use a firearm in their own defense and that training should be thorough. They should be encouraged to apply for a concealed carry permit (if needed in their state) and to carry their weapon all the time.

I also think that if I had a daughter or daughters I would sign them up at a very young age for Krav Maga training. The Israeli Defense Forces developed Krav Maga to train their troops – male and female – in self defense and to defeat abductors. It is a discipline that has been forged in real life.

The above does not mean that I think that boys and young men should not get trained and equipped, I think they should. I also think that good training would provide better discipline for young people.

But back to my statement at the start of this blog – I believe the first right any human being has is the right to defend her or his self from harm.

“we should rely on the police” is a retort that sometimes gets used. but the police are not there to protect me or to protect you they are there to keep society on an even keel . If you get hurt or, god forbid, murdered they will work assiduously to find those who did it. But they are not held responsible for failure to protect you.

Consider that for a minute. It is not the policeman’s job to protect YOU. That is YOUR job. Same as it is my job to protect MYSELF and to extend that protection to my family.

Being as it is my right and responsibility I (and you) should be afforded the ability to at least match and defeat the weapons that might be used against us. Whose choice should it be? Ours. it is OUR right and responsibility. So why do governments insist in getting in the way of this?

What public good does it serve to have citizens as walking targets?

Privilege and collective “guilt”

Collective guilt is a wonderful gift and tool for – collectivists. It is why they LOVE to use it.

The best one they have come up with is “White privilege”. Seriously, this is their best effort. You can hear it trumpeted by the likes of Kamala Harris – an American citizen with PhD parents with great jobs and who went to school (up through high school) for most of her life in Quebec, Canada. Hardly the resume of a downtrodden mixed race child.

Kamala

We can compare her to perhaps the children of miners in Kentucky and West Virginia who, for the most part, are white. And who attended local schools in their districts where their parents lived and went to work. Perhaps we could examine the privilege of J.D. Vance who wrote Hillbilly Elegy and who did actually attend college (presumably getting there thanks to his whiteness and all)? There are a LOT of “under privileged” people in the world and they run the gamut of skin color from black through yellow and brown along to pasty white. All of us – and I include myself – were children of parents where our birth gave us no significant leg up or position of power or influence.

Chris

Tucker Carlson just recently exposed the “politician privilege” that accrues to the children of political leaders when it comes to access to the nations top schools. The “Ivy League” schools seem to find un-noticed rich deposits of intelligence in the offspring of the political elite. Most people have to have unbelievably high scores on the SAT and groveling essays of why they should go to Yale, Harvard, Brown or Cornell etc. They have to submit all their extra curricular activities and advanced placements and volunteer work – and they may, just may, get in. But , on the other hand if you are the daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton none of that appears to matter. Or, if your dad is Governor of the State of New York then, no matter your inarticulateness you are a shoo in.

Chelsea

It’s not that Chelsea or Chris or Al Gore’s 4 kids are bad people – I am not saying that they are. But they do not seem to measure up to the candidates who are scrambling for those few placements that are supposed to show how the Ivy League is some sort of super-meritocracy. Chris Cuomo for example looks like he might have excelled in a a small metro college in New York.

Where are the cries from the other politicians about this obvious “privilege”? Bupkis.

IN the meantime – children of “privilege” such as Kamala Harris get to lecture people who really did have to come up the hard way – about THEIR privilege.

Hubris. Total hubris.

Pardon my confusion

the USA Women’s National Team won their semi-final game against England today and are through to the final.

Congratulations to them – I must admit to not really being that interested in the game but I can appreciate a good performance when I hear about it.

But it made me think.

What is going to happen with this competition? Will transgenders start appearing in the teams?

There are some points here that may not be obvious to an American audience not really familiar with the sport of football (soccer in the USA) . People unfamiliar with the game of soccer and, in particular professional soccer have the impression that there should be an easy transition from a woman playing in a woman’s league to a team playing in a men’s league.

It is not true. Physically the game on the men’s side is faster and a lot more physical. This would be natural as there have been men’s professional leagues for well over a century and the game has been constantly refined. But if you do not watch soccer and follow the professional sport then watching the Women’s game may give you the impression that the levels are comparable.

Just to be clear here – I am not casting aspersions at the quality of the footie played by the women’s teams. They are in many cases, good, the international games are becoming more and more competitive . But if you compare the two you will see what I am referring to.

I know of only one episode of a professional women’s soccer player playing on a semi pro team . This was, to be fair, a few years ago and it was not viable.

I am not sure if further trials have been done, I doubt it.

So now – what happens if transgender female players come onto the scene?

That one simple thing has transformed some areas of Women’s athletics in the USA.

What is going to happen?

I can no longer just sit in quiet discomfort

I have always been of the opinion that abortion is a subject between a patient and her GP. I personally find the idea abhorrent but I have always thought that it is like any medical procedure – sometimes it is necessary. I am not judging why it would be found necessary – just that I agree that it should be legal and should be an option that any person can freely discuss with her MD.

That does not mean that I support the slavish zeal of Planned Parenthood whom I consider to be a racist organization. I think the subject of “abortion” has long ago been submerged in the political activism around it.

My first misgiving was reading that Planned Parenthood had appealed a Texas law that stated that people performing the abortion procedure had to have admitting rights to the local hospital – something which is required for all outpatient facilities that perform medical procedures. I still do not understand the opposition to the law. I understand that pro-choice people think that it is being pushed and enacted by pro-life campaigners. But my point is – it may well be true that it is a law being championed by people who are pro-life – but SO WHAT? The idea of the law strikes me as being sound clinics that perform abortions should have to adhere to the standards of out-patient clinics that perform procedures. Period. What is wrong with that?

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/abortion-admitting-privileges-and-the-supreme-court-whole-womans-health

Gosnell was, or should have been, a clarion call to SUPPORTERS of planned parenthood that they do not supervise their clinics properly – or that there are “gaps” that they need to address.

All of this made me uneasy.

But what just floored me was the public support given by legislators in the State of New York cheering on the idea that babies that SURVIVE the abortion attempt should be allowed to die. They should be put to one side and just left to die.

I cannot get past this. I cannot get past the picture of those people cheering this. I cannot understand how this is not, at the very least, manslaughter or infanticide. It is unforgivable.