Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


A Photo-Op for Health Care?

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

Time to revisit health care reform and I am hopeful you will agree with me that this week’s Presidential Health Care Summit is shaping up to be nothing more than a photo opportunity for President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

Sure, the President has invited a handful of Republicans to sit down to discuss health care reform. 

 

But, Barry, I ask you what is there to discuss?  President Obama has unveiled his own health care plan – in advance of the so-called ‘summit.’  The White House says ‘we view this as the opening bid for the health meeting.’  Does that mean President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress is willing to wipe the slate clean and start over?  I doubt it.

I think House Republican Leader John Boehner is probably more on target when he says the President’s plan has “crippled the credibility” of the summit by “proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.”

 

Barry, in poll after poll, the American people simply don’t like what’s happening – they want to start over when it comes to health care reform. 

 

And, most Americans don’t want federal funds used to pay for abortions – something that we discussed before

 

I was hoping to see some language in President Obama’s proposal that embraced the Stupak-Pitts Amendment approved by the House in its version of health care reform – language that prohibits using federal funds to pay for abortions.  Don’t bother looking.  That language is not there.  What is there is the President signing off on the Senate-approved language on abortion funding - language that does not adequately prevent federal funds from paying for abortions.  

 

And, even before the summit occurs, more promises from the Democrat-controlled Congressional leadership to use a legislative scheme to push health care through – without meaningful input from Republicans – a tactic that hardly reflects a bipartisan solution that Americans deserve.  

 

The question now – Will President Obama’s health care ‘summit’ really mean anything?  Is it a legitimate meeting of the minds or a just a high-profile photo-op? 

 

We’ll see.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(83)
post a comment
1 American

posted February 23, 2010 at 2:42 pm


I, for 1, am an American who is FOR healthcare reform, and am appalled at your attempts to speak for me or anyone else out there. The US NEEDS healthcare reform. Our current policy of medical care for profit is reprehensible and should be criminal. And get off your anti-abortion bandwagon. When you’re a woman, you can know and understand the concept of freedom of choice and control over your own body. Until then, you’re talking out of your nether regions.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm


The ludicrous individual is misleading the public in the belief system that it is only their body that they are dealing with(that is a developing child)… So if you want to convince the rest of the public that you are not taking a life by enforcing the belief system that those are not growing children inside of the mother , well let me just say, I AM NOT FOR PRIVATE MURDERS BY CHOICE!
C



report abuse
 

Me

posted February 23, 2010 at 8:33 pm


The spokesman for Anthem Health Care in CA made it perfectly clear why we NEED health care reform NOW. Only by extending the risk pool to the entire population can we adequately cover everyone. The alternative is the health care companies making lots of money on the backs of the healthy, while denying coverage to the sick. More people will die or stay sick and the system will collapse. This is already happening. It needs to change NOW. Those who can’t see that are deluded.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted February 23, 2010 at 9:34 pm


There is only one sure way to get real healthcare reform now. President Obama just needs to announce that he is that he is in complete opposition to a single payer public option, especially against the expansion of Medicare to include everyone. Then the childish, opposed-to-everything-Obama-supports Republican jerks in Congress will all vote for it…
Cara, for the last time, there are more spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) caused by God than any healthcare plan would ever pay for. If God Almighty doesn’t want every embroyo to be born, who am I to argue with that godly reasoning. And who are you? The Bible is very clear about this. It does not say “the first-conceived are mine” or that the inheritance passes to the first-conceived or even that the final heavenly elect are the 144000 first-conceived sons
This is a red herring anyway. The truth is that the do-nothing Republicans don’t give a rats rear end about the sanctity of life or they would never have supported the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, torture, or the death penalty. And they definitely would not stand idly by and let the current health insurance system allow 45000 innocent people a year to die from lack of adequate health care…



report abuse
 

Cornelius

posted February 23, 2010 at 10:26 pm


Jay,
Give us a break and be honest with us: you would not support this bill much less one with a universally available public option even if it had the Stupak language in it. I doubt you would support it even if a repeal of Roe v. Wade were included so just stop blowing smoke. You really do not want significantly restrictive abortion legislation (and Stupak would be the most restrictive legislation since Roe v. Wade), you want the issue because it helps keep you and others making the big bucks. Go ahead and ignore this as you usually do.



report abuse
 

Thomas W. Ivey

posted February 24, 2010 at 12:34 am


Jay,
I am a little disappointed with your Trial Notebook Entry “Health Care: President Obama’s Plan – Time to Start Over”
While I support you and the ACLJ and do not in general have a problem with the entry, there is one thought that disturbs me, because I would think that a Constitutional scholar would know better.
Mr. Obama’s posted plan is no where close to a bill. If fact it is so vague that the CBO could not score it. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a piece of legislation. He has not written a proposed law. He has provided a framework of what he would like to see in proposed legislation. This has been done by most presidents in the past. It is not unconstitutional.
If nothing else our side must be truthful.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 24, 2010 at 4:07 am


Thomas,
Your side has never been honest. What is Christianity and Fox News? Both a pack of lies and liars.



report abuse
 

Trylon

posted February 24, 2010 at 10:30 am


The American government should never have to pay for abortions. In stead they should be paid for in Canada by a Canadian.
Americans who believe that a woman should own her own body, rather than some government with a political lien to use it as an incubator, would need to contribute regularly into a fund held in a Canadian bank.
My proposal would have said fund overseen by famous Canadian physician Dr. Henry Morgentaler and his brave staff. Bills for U.S. medical abortion services would be sent up to Henry and then payment would flow back across the border. Dr. Morgentaler -who has a nationwide series of clinics – knows the range of operational costs.
This is a radical idea, rather than a joke. Henry, a holocaust survivor, has always been a radical who “thinks outside the box”. If you look at his biography on Wikipedia you will see that he has been jailed for his defense of a woman’s right to control her own body. I am glad to have known him through the Humanist Association of Canada and admire him greatly.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:24 pm


Re: DSJULIAN
abortion- induced termination of pregnancy, involving expulsion and destruction of the embryo or fetus, esp. before it is capable of survival.
—-
As far as God is conscerned, God is God. I do not believe in murdering children before they have a chance of survival because you dsjulian are in favor of it(abortion).
This is not a health care issue because this is indeed a murder which should not be funded with U.S. tax dollars because you so incline.
Health care can leave this out of any plan for it does not keep all living people healthy. It is indeed killing which is not a healthy practice.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:30 pm


Re: TRYLON
The thing about abortion trylon, is that it is not only the woman’s body we are dealing with. So, your argument does not fly.
They are developing people in a stage depending on the mother for care.
So, pre-meditating the conditional responce of termination of a child with-in, is exactly that, pre-meditated murder. Certainly not an admirable quality!
C



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:32 pm


Cara,
Why does God murder children with miscarriages then? Your God is the biggest abortionist there ever was.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:34 pm


We the People of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promoter the geral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm


POSTERITY RIGHTS



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:45 pm


A LITTLE BIT OF KILLING OF OUR POSTERITY IN ANY BILL OF GOVERNMENT IS INDEED THAT, A LITTLE BIT OF KILLING………



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:52 pm


Re: BORIS
As far as being a Christian is conscerned, the choice is yours. Free will, a gift.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 24, 2010 at 2:54 pm


promote the general welfare of our Posterity…….
C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 24, 2010 at 9:31 pm


“promote the general welfare of our Posterity…….”
Doesn’t say that. Says “…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Secure…Liberty, that’s what they set out to accomplish within the text of the Constitution. You’re reading comprehension is abysmal!
Posterity either exists, or it doesn’t. It refers to living descendants. If there are any living descendants, we have posterity; if not, we don’t. It matters not the number.
Regardless, (as Cara has forgotten AGAIN) we would still be informed by the preamble to the Constitution that its main text is devoted to securing Liberty for ourselves and our (existing) posterity. The very thing which you, Cara, would take away! You are insane if you think The People will turn their hard won Liberty over to you! Your claim seems to be, basically, “I know better than you do about what God thinks, so I should make the decisions about your life instead of you”! Pitiful. Just, …pitiful.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 1:15 pm


Ok, you want the whole opening paragraph written out for you again, here you go. When people have no reputable point of view they go for the personal attack. So..
The United States Constitution-
We the People of the United States in Order to form A more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
KEY PHRASE*****
……..promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,…..
Cara Lea Floyd



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 25, 2010 at 3:25 pm


“Ok, you want the whole opening paragraph written out for you again, here you go.”
No, I already know what it says. You, apparently, do not. Your first writing, “promote the general welfare of our Posterity…….” — was wrong. Then you tried again, and it is not still not correct. There is a comma after Welfare which separates it from the next item. If you cannot write it as it was written, then please don’t bother. How difficult is it to copy a secton of the Constitutional preamble from one place to another?
My point was that the Framers did not write the in Constitution what you intimated they did, …and your point is what? That you were once again in error? Yes, I know that too.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 25, 2010 at 4:27 pm


We the People of lthe United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constituion for the United States of America. KEY PHRASE***** to ourselves and our Posterity, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Well, if you want me to include all of it, this would be what is told that we are to provide our Posterity with: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide a common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty …. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, C



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm


” KEY PHRASE***** to ourselves and our Posterity,…” Cara
Wrong. To capture the essence of this sentence you must have the whole sentence, including the verb and the object of the verb (both of which you leave out, here, for some reason!). Secure…Liberty, is the key part of the phrase. Reading comprehension is key for you Cara, you need LOTS of work.
I will assist by examining the phrase which you find to be “KEY”—”to ourselves and our Posterity,”. “Ourselves” refers to the writers, and to people in existance at the time, who will enjoy the Blessings of Liberty which they secure within the text of the established Constitution. “and our Posterity,” refers to those who will enjoy the Blessings of Liberty in the future due to the establishment of a Constitution which secures Liberty for them. We, living citizens and residents, ARE the “posterity” to which they referred. They did not refer to eggs, fertilized or otherwise, and give no indication they considered embryo’s to be citizens or residents. Such is not the case under the law, established by the Constitution, today. We reside under the same Constitution which they established in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty (among other things). The Blessings of Liberty which you would discard. Over my dead body.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Your Name

posted February 26, 2010 at 5:02 pm


Re: HG, well I have already wrote the full sentence, so you can go back and look at it yourself. Or if you want to look it up in a library book, go ahead. I was simply stating a portion as a highlight of a sentence.
God Bless,
Mathew 16 : 23
But He turned and said to Peter,” Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
24
Then Jesus said to His disciples, ” If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25
” For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
26
” For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
27
” For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
28
” Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 26, 2010 at 5:44 pm


Cara “NO”
Snappy come back baby! No, WHAT?
Cara “Re: HG, well I have already wrote the full sentence…”
But when it comes time to discuss MEANING, you try to use only a partial sentence, ” KEY PHRASE***** to ourselves and our Posterity,…” , why is that? And why does your argument involve taking away Liberty from The People and giving it to The Government or The Church? Give away the very Liberty which our Founding Fathers and Constitutional Framers secured for us within the Constitution?
“NO!” is the correct answer. Power to the People!



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted February 26, 2010 at 10:54 pm


What bothers me about the whole health care reform process is the fact that Pres. Barack is SO dramatic about his passion for providing health care for millions of Americans who do not have any coverage whatsoever, in theory. Nonetheless, he still leaves the abortion funding piece in the bill, knowing in fact that this is a controversial piece, like the hinge pin on the door, that sways whether the bill receives an up or down vote. On the face, abortion is the #1 issue versus securing coverage for those who do not have health care, yet another example of how hazy this administration is versus the “transparency” promised.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 27, 2010 at 2:20 pm


NLL: “What bothers me about the whole health care reform process is the fact that Pres. Barack is SO dramatic about his passion for providing health care for millions of Americans who do not have any coverage whatsoever, in theory.”
Yeah, that’s really bothersome alright! Sheesh.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm


Re: HG
I already have been writing the opening paragraph of The United States Constitution a whole bunch of times in the past year and a half on this web sight already. So excuse the partial phrases, that would be for the people who are deeply concerned about the topic of ending abortion for the sake of providing a defence and liberty for our Posterity.
Yes, I read your argument in regards to our Posterity not being descendants because they have not left the birth canal. That would be because individuals are murdering the people before they can come out or putting the developing people together in a science lab for research purposes or fertility selection. So, if you are for killing those developing children, there is no need to keep writing me back on the issue. I am bringing the issue up for specific purposes regardless of peoples lack of protecting them. Obviously people who want them killed will be the one who attack my blogs. So if your business is killing…… then……. you are what your are a killer.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 3:04 pm


Your a killer



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm


“So excuse the partial phrases, that would be for the people who are deeply concerned about the topic of ending abortion for the sake of providing a defence and liberty for our Posterity.”
For the ones who have to focus on incomplete sentences to try and make their point; and still fail miserably like you? WE ARE their Posterity, dolt. Our Liberty (We, the Posterity of the Framers) is established by the text of the Constituition; wherein it says NOTHING, ANYWHERE, about giving protection to eggs. If you can find where it does, please feel free to print it out for me. Yeah, right.
“So if your business is killing…… then……. you are what your are a killer.”
Yes, I guess if your business is killing, then you are a killer. Wow, what a leap of logic you’ve managed! Still think you should be in comedy!!
I notice you have NO REPLY to the FACTS of my post. For instance, why do you want to take The People’s hard-won Liberty (secured by our Constitution) away? You think everybody in America should just give away their Constitutional rights, and I think that would be INSANE.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 7:51 pm


POSTERITY RIGHTS!
I can form complete sentences, thank you very much!
Sorry you feel so inclined to attack, Cara. She is sticking up for people who can not defend themselves.
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 27, 2010 at 7:52 pm


HG you need help. Get some!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted February 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm


HG doesn’t need any help. He’s knocking over your stupid arguments like bowling pins. I’ surprised he has the patience to deal with people who are beneath him not only intellectually but as human beings as well.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 27, 2010 at 10:37 pm


Just picking up the slack for you, Boris, you needed a break! It’s tempting to toss out the television, the Xbox, the iPod, and rely on Cara for entertainment; she’s so dang funny! But, it quickly loses its appeal when one realizes, as you have, the futility in dealing with such protoplasm. Sisyphean is the task.
Yet, with the witty support of you, and others, this site serves as a place where people can readily see the quality of argument supplied by the likes of Cara and Mr. Incredible. Genuinely horrifying to think they represent a (self-perpetuating?) segment of society; but here, at least, reason has a chance to shine through, in case anyone is looking.



report abuse
 

HG

posted February 28, 2010 at 2:19 am


This is precious, absolutely hysterical to me!
“POSTERITY RIGHTS!
I can form complete sentences, thank you very much!
Sorry you feel so inclined to attack, Cara. She is sticking up for people who can not defend themselves.
C”
Let me ask you dear, what do YOU do while “She” is sticking up for “people” who can not defend themselves? (And, how many others are in that body with y’all?)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted February 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm


No need to dicuss any further blog entries with whatever you believe in HG. God rest your soul…..



report abuse
 

Ryan

posted March 4, 2010 at 12:12 pm


Dear author,
Please stop watching Fox News and reposting their political spin on the internet. Trying to discredit everything Obama does based not on it’s merit but solely on the fact it is Obama doing it is just shameful.
Watch the Healthcare Summit for yourselves at CSPAN (.org). I would suggest skipping the first hour or so of introductions because it’s mostly just political speech, the actual conversation starts after that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm


Dear author Ryan,
Who says the author is watching Fox news??
Maybe they can deduct from the spin, that they are including abortions in on the mix of health care benefits and out of that deduction realize that they don’t want any part of it……….
Clean murders, I know. Somehow they seem a bit less messy, huh?
And you want the Americans to pay for it?
Wrong again….
So if you are all about dictatorship (Hitler mentality) well the writings that you want Americans to pay for other to murder their developing children, would be right in line with Hitler…
Not to mention the fact that these procedures are completely against the Constitution…..
C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted March 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm


Others, that is my point, they are others…
Not just cells



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted March 4, 2010 at 4:11 pm


The Bible has numerous accounts of children both born and “unborn” being murdered simply by the whim of a vicious, vindictive deity. Yet somehow Christians pull this “pro-life” nonsense out of the text.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 5:44 pm


ds0490
March 4, 2010 4:11 PM
The Bible has numerous accounts of children both born and “unborn” being murdered simply by the whim of a vicious, vindictive deity.
—————————————–
“Because of”???? There is no case of “because of.”
The old Hebrew has no causive sense, and, so, He says He did this and that to people, it means that He allowed this and that. The old Hebrew has only a permissive sense. So, when the Word was written down, they were taken to mean, when translated in to English, that He acted when He did not.
This “allowing” happened only when people turned their backs on Him. So, it was THEIR fault, not His.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 5:51 pm


HG
February 27, 2010 3:37 PM
WE ARE their Posterity…Our Liberty (We, the Posterity of the Framers) is established by the text of the Constituition; wherein it says NOTHING, ANYWHERE, about giving protection to eggs.
———————————–
An amazing grasp of the obvious: “It says nothing about ‘eggs.’”
The Founders were taling about those who would come after them. Those did not yet exist.
In order to exist and be posterity, you gotta be conceived first, as the first stage of development. It’s all part of the same process.
So, they secured the Blessings of Liberty to those who had not yet been conceived. Therefore, just as God knows us before He formed us in the womb, the Founders prepared a Nation for those they “knew.” Thus, “posterity” refers to the whole range of development of the human creature.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted March 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm


“So, when the Word was written down, they were taken to mean, when translated in to English, that He acted when He did not.”
Fellow Texans, I am proudly standing here to humbly see. I assure you, and I mean it- Now, who says I don’t speak out as plain as day? And, fellow Texans, I’m for progress and the flag- long may it fly. I’m a poor boy, come to greatness. So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie.
Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t- I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and lead the people on.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 8:37 pm


Nevertheless, when they wrote “posterity,” they meant those of the future who did not exist at the time they wrote it. They were securing the Blessings of Liberty to those, not only to themselves.
This means that they contemplated future generations. Future generations cannot exist unless they are conceived. Conception begins the generation. It is the beginning of development of the human creature. To be alive includes development, from beginning to end.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 4, 2010 at 10:59 pm


If the Founders wanted abortions to be illegal they would have made them illegal. Case closed.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 4, 2010 at 11:21 pm


Boris
March 4, 2010 10:59 PM
If the Founders wanted abortions to be illegal they would have made them illegal.
———————————————————–
That statement, of course, is a cheap trick.
However, if the Founders wanted the separation of Church and State the way YOU people say it should be, they would have made it clear. They didn’t. Case closed.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 5, 2010 at 5:48 am


Just because you can’t answer the question without putting your foot in your mouth doesn’t mean it’s a cheap trick. You are such a loser and liar. Read ‘em and weep:
Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363)
“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.” – James Madison



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 7:13 am


Babbling Boris says:
Just because you can’t answer the question without putting your foot in your mouth doesn’t mean it’s a cheap trick.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, that it’s a cheap trick stand on its own.
Babbling Boris says:
You are such a loser and liar.
Someone has deliberately given you wrong information. Please continue to pretend that you have fallen for the trick.
Babbling Boris says:
Where the preamble…
Mr. Incredible says:
The United States is not giving any money to Christianity.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 7:20 am


Babbling Boris says:
Just because you can’t answer the question without putting your foot in your mouth doesn’t mean it’s a cheap trick.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, that it’s a cheap trick stands on its own.
Babbling Boris says:
You are such a loser and liar.
Mr. Incredible says:
Someone has deliberately given you wrong information. Please continue to pretend that you have fallen for the trick.
Babbling Boris says:
Where the preamble…
Mr. Incredible says:
The United States is not giving any money to Christianity.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm


The United States gives money to Teen Challenge which is a religious organization. We’re putting a stop to this anti-American practice. Check your facts before you expose your ignorance and stupidity as ell as you dishonesty.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm


Bumbling Boris says:
The United States gives money to Teen Challenge which is a religious organization.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is not. It is a charity that meets 501(c)3 requirements. When you emerge from your drunken stupor next week, read this: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Bartles Boris says:
We’re putting a stop to this anti-American practice.
Mr. Incedible says:
No, you’re not.
Baileys Back Boris says:
Check your facts before you expose your ignorance and stupidity as ell as you dishonesty.
Mr. Incredible says:
Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge, or something?



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 5, 2010 at 5:51 pm


“An amazing grasp of the obvious: “It says nothing about ‘eggs.’”
The Founders were taling about those who would come after them. Those did not yet exist.”
I found stating the obvious necessary (but not, apparently, helpful) in my discussion with Cara. You are correct in stating that the word ‘Posterity’ in the preamble refers to those not yet in existence. That the Blessings of Liberty secured within the Constitution should apply to residents and citizens who come after them is a sound interpretation. Many pregnancies end in unintentional miscarriage. If I were to ask The Framers if their intent was to secure the Blessings of Liberty for these aborted embryos and fetuses, they would think me insane! To suggest that they intended to secure Liberty for the unborn is not substantiated by any language found in the document. Instead, what has been found there, by the Judiciary established within the text of the Constitution, is a Constitutionally protected freedom to abort a pregnancy. It is a Blessing of Liberty secured for people (We, their posterity) within the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final ruling in this country, not God, …and certainly not people who claim to know the will of God better than others!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm


Boris, the best kid a parent ever accidentally had, says:
The United States gives money to Teen Challenge which is a religious organization.
Mr. Incredible says:
Public schools get public money, too, and they teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, in violation of the Übersecularist “principle” that NO religion be mentioned in public schools.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 6:09 pm


HG says:
If I were to ask The Framers if their intent was to secure the Blessings of Liberty for these aborted embryos and fetuses, they would think me insane!
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, there are no Rights for those who do not exist. So, if you asked them whether they intended to secure Rights to those who, later, would be killed intentionally, or unintentionally, they would say that the Constitution protects persons and The People. The dead do not quality.
HG says:
To suggest that they intended to secure Liberty for the unborn is not substantiated by any language found in the document.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Posterity” includes the potential to be born. One must live through womb-development in order to be born. Thus, “posterity” must apply to the as-yet born.
HG says:
Instead, what has been found there, by the Judiciary established within the text of the Constitution, is a Constitutionally protected freedom to abort a pregnancy.
Mr. Incredible says:
No American court has said that this so-called “Right” to abort is absolute.
HG says:
It is a Blessing of Liberty secured for people (We, their posterity) within the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
People must be unborn first, then born. “Posterity” depends on the potential.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 5, 2010 at 6:50 pm


“”Posterity” includes the potential to be born.”
A. The preamble has no force of law.
B. According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I didn’t say it was absolute.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 8:30 pm


HG says:
A. The preamble has no force of law.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is part of the Constitution, and it communicates meaning.
HG says:
B. According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I didn’t say it was absolute.
Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS never said that abortion cannot be regulated.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 5, 2010 at 9:07 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Public schools get public money, too, and they teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, in violation of the Übersecularist “principle” that NO religion be mentioned in public schools.
Boris says: There is no such thing as the Übersecularist “principle” that NO religion be mentioned in public schools. Greek and Roman gods and goddesses are part of history. They aren’t taught as if they actually existed. The problem is with people who want their imaginary beings taught as though they really existed. There’s a law against that. The reason the Bible was taken out of the public schools is because it is fiction. The reason they don’t teach about Jesus in history classes is that there is no historical evidence that such a person ever existed.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 5, 2010 at 9:48 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Public schools get public money, too, and they teach about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, in violation of the Übersecularist “principle” that NO religion be mentioned in public schools.
Boring us says:
There is no such thing as the Übersecularist “principle” that NO religion be mentioned in public schools.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, there is. We see it, in the news, virtually every day. There is always somebody complaining about “religion” being sneaked into the schools under the guise of academics. In the same way, then, the teaching of and about Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, if we’re gonna adhere to that Übersecularist “principle.”
Boring us says:
Greek and Roman gods and goddesses are part of history.
Mr. Incredible says:
So is God. And, yet, you people say that God cannot be mentioned in public school cuz, you people say, even if He is mentioned academically, it is sneaking “religion” into the public school.
Therefore, even if academically, teaching Greek and Roman gods and goddesses violate that very “principle.”
Boring us says:
They aren’t taught as if they actually existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. According to you people, talking about ANY god is talking about “religion.” You cannot fairly say that talking about God is “religion,” and talking about gods and goddesses is not “religion.”
Boring us says:
The problem is with people who want their imaginary beings taught as though they really existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not so.
You people complain even when God is talked about in public school in the historical context. And, yet, you people are willing to accept teaching about gods and goddesses in any context. A mite inconsistent.
Boring us says:
The reason the Bible was taken out of the public schools is because it is fiction.
Mr. Incredible says:
That is not a fact.
The Word of God was taken out of public school cuz people like you complained, even if teaching about Him in historical context, that it is an attempt to sneak “religion” into the public school. You people complained that it is a way to promote one “religion” over another.
Boring us says:
The reason they don’t teach about Jesus in history classes is that there is no historical evidence that such a person ever existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes of people throughout history saw Jesus actually walk the Earth. They heard Him. They experienced Him.
You cannot produce just ONE on-scene eyewitness to say that all those multitudes didn’t know what they were talking about.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 5, 2010 at 10:05 pm


“HG says:
A. The preamble has no force of law.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is part of the Constitution, and it communicates meaning.”
Which is not to say it has force of law. The preamble is a brief pep rally for the document. The document is where they undertook to accomplish goals expressed in the preamble; and yet there is no reference of any kind in the document to Constitutional protections applying pre-birth. To insinuate that the Framers intended to protect embryos from within the text of the preamble is preposterous. (I love that word, preposterous, but so seldom get a chance to use it. I’m delighted to find it fits here perfectly!) They were smarter than that you know! It shows the desperation of the anti-abortion argument. If I were to argue the point of view that abortion should be abolished or further restricted, I would not use this argument for fear of seeming insincere and poorly educated.
“HG says:
B. According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I didn’t say it was absolute.
Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS never said that abortion cannot be regulated.”
And neither did I. What I said was: “According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution.” Which was, and remains, true; standing in stark contradiction to any supposition that embryos are constitutionally protected. (Especially by the preamble, eh heh heh heh!!)
In the preamble, they point out ONLY that the Blessings of Liberty are secured for those that follow. They could not presume to ensure, beyond their own reproductive powers, that any such Posterity would, in fact exist; only that, if a Posterity should exist, their Blessings of Liberty would remain secured by the text of the Constitution.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 6, 2010 at 2:16 am


I can’t produce an eyewitness to something that never happened and to a person who never existed. You were already defeated on this point. Just chanting the same thing over and over and over again as if no objections had been raised proves you’ve lost the debate. If Cara Floyd finally kills herself you’ll be the dumbest fundy on the planet.



report abuse
 

Maximus Decimus Aurelius

posted March 6, 2010 at 3:17 am


“Are you not entertained!”
When a gladiator in the arena was slashed and dismembered, you never heard from him again. Not true of arguments here, which get brushed off and propped up in chariots to ride as if undamaged.
ROTFLMFAO, Boris!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 3:24 am


Bland Boris says:
I can’t produce an eyewitness to something that never happened and to a person who never existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
That isn’t the issue.
The issue is that you cannot produce even ONE on-scene eyewitness to back you up and say that none of it ever happened, nor do all those witnesses — great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes of them — no what they’re talking about. Everyone who was there saw Him and heard Him.
Bland Boris says:
You were already defeated on this point.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not quite.
Bland Boris says:
Just chanting the same thing over and over and over again as if no objections had been raised proves you’ve lost the debate.
Mr. Incredible says:
I repeat the same thing over and over, hoping that, at some point, my correct answer will cut through the beer fog that engulfs you and register in what little is left of your brain.
Bland Boris says:
If Cara Floyd finally kills herself you’ll be the dumbest fundy on the planet.
Mr. Incredible says:
Coming from you, that’s a compliment. A badge of honor. Thanks!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 3:49 am


HG says:
A. The preamble has no force of law.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is part of the Constitution, and it communicates meaning.”
HG says:
Which is not to say it has force of law.
Mr. Incredible says:
There is nothing in the Preamble to act as law. It is a statement of purpose, meaning and intent. From THAT standpoint, Document must be taken with that perspective in mind when interpreting the rest of the Constitution.
In other words, where the Founders say that they secured the Blessings of Liberty to their posterity, they intended that their posterity get the Blessings of Liberty that they secured. That has a foundation in the Declaration of Independence which also set America in motion, partly by ensuring equality and equity before the law.
In order for posterity to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty secured by the Founders, posterity must be alive. In order to be alive, there must be at least conceived. Conception starts the process of development. Posterity starts at conception. Potential people do not get the Blessings of Liberty. Potential people are not posterity. And, yet, potential must exist; and abortion destroys that potential. Thus, it destroys the posterity. The Founders did not contemplate the instruction of their posterity. They expected posterity. That is evident in the Preamble.
HG says:
The preamble is a brief pep rally for the document.
Mr. Incredible says:
It may be that, too. However, that does not exclude the Preamble being a statement of intent and how the Constitution is to be taken.
HG says:
The document is where they undertook to accomplish goals expressed in the preamble; and yet there is no reference of any kind in the document to Constitutional protections applying pre-birth.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it promises to Blessings of Liberty to their posterity. In order to be posterity, there must be life. The development of life begins at conception.
HG says:
To insinuate that the Framers intended to protect embryos from within the text of the preamble is preposterous.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nevertheless, the Preamble as a statement of intent preserves the security of the Blessings of Liberty for those who conceived and, thereby, begin their life development.
HG says:
B. According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution. I didn’t say it was absolute.
Mr. Incredible says:
SCOTUS never said that abortion cannot be regulated.”
HG says:
And neither did I. What I said was: “According to the Supreme Court, the right of pregnancy termination is protected by the U.S. Constitution.” Which was, and remains, true; standing in stark contradiction to any supposition that embryos are constitutionally protected. (Especially by the preamble, eh heh heh heh!!)
Mr. Incredible says:
The Preamble gives us the meaning of the rest of the Constitution, that there must be a posterity to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty to Founders secured. The beginning of posterity is conception. That’s the beginning of the development of life. Life begins to develop there. Abortion destroys that potential and that posterity.
HG says:
In the preamble, they point out ONLY that the Blessings of Liberty are secured for those that follow.
Mr. Incredible says:
In order to follow, they must live. In order to live, they must be conceived. The process of life development begins at conception. Therefore the reality of posterity begins at conception.
HG says:
They could not presume to ensure, beyond their own reproductive powers, that any such Posterity would, in fact exist; only that, if a Posterity should exist, their Blessings of Liberty would remain secured by the text of the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
They would not have secured the Blessings of Liberty had they not expected a posterity. It’s not that they secured the Blessings of Liberty, not knowing whether there would be a posterity to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. They knew there would be a posterity, and they wanted that posterity to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. That doesn’t happen when abortion takes the life of that posterity. They understood that, when there is no life, there is no posterity. So, as I say, they expected a posterity cuz they say so in the Preamble.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 4:02 am


Tell us, HG, when is a woman pregnant? At conception? Birth? When the woman says so? When the doctor says so? When pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong choice fanatics say so?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 4:13 am


Pabst Blue Ribbon-breath Boris says:
I can’t produce an eyewitness to something that never happened and to a person who never existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, I have defeated you on this point cuz I have produced on-scene eyewitnesses — that is, either their direct testimony, or their reported testimony — who saw Him and heard Him while in His physical and spiritual presence. Even a Roman soldier who one would expect to testify against Him saw Him, heard Him and spoke to Him. Even your friends, the Pharisees, including Nicodemus, saw Him, heard Him and spoke to Him. Even Judas, another Jew — the one who betrayed Him — saw Him, heard Him and spoke to Him.
You cannot produce ANY testimony from that time that contradicts the on-scene eyewitnesses whose testimony I’ve produced.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 4:48 am


DSJulian says:
…there are more spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) caused by God…
Mr. Incredible notes:
God causes no abortions: Mark 12:27; 1 Corinthians 15:21



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 4:57 am


DSJulian says:
…the childish, opposed-to-everything-Obama-supports Republican jerks in Congress…the do-nothing Republicans…
Mr. Incredible again notes:
The Democrats have The White House. The Democrats have Congress by majority.
Even with all that power, they cannot get anything done. Incompetent to govern.
Libs were excited about change. That changed.
Now, this coming November, WE’re gonna change things, and, then, in ’12, we’re makin’ further correction.
DSJulian says:
If God Almighty doesn’t want every embroyo to be born, who am I to argue with that godly reasoning. And who are you? The Bible is very clear about this.
Mr. Incredible corrects again:
2 Peter 3:9
He wants ALL to live.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 5:04 am


Boris, the Bibber, says:
Your God is the biggest abortionist there ever was.
Mr. Incredible says:
God causes no abortions: Mark 12:27; 1 Corinthians 15:21
He wants ALL to live: 2 Peter 3:9



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 5:08 am


“Bock” Boris asks:
Why does God murder children with miscarriages then?
Mr. Incredible says:
He doesn’t murder. He doesn’t kill. He brings life, through Christ, His Son. He is the God of life, not of death. However, one must receive His offer. You don’t. So, that’s that.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 6, 2010 at 5:14 am


no what they’re talking about.—->know what they’re talking about.



report abuse
 

HG

posted March 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm


“They would not have secured the Blessings of Liberty had they not expected a posterity.”
Certainly they would have! ‘To secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and our Posterity’– shows very clearly they wanted to secure Liberty for themselves. Posterity benefits from the document securing Liberty to them only so long as the Liberty is left intact. If we take away Liberty secured to us within the Constitution, we adversely impact a goal set within the preamble. One Liberty secured to The People within the text of the Constitution IS a personal liberty allowing them to choose to abort a pregnancy. (Boris was absolutely correct when he stated, elsewhere, that a consensual sex act is not, in any way, a contract for parenthood.) This has been established by the SCOTUS, which was established within the Constitution for that purpose. It’s done.
Now, you think the SCOTUS erred in Roe v Wade. I understand. I think they erred in ruling that “corporations are people”. I can jump up and down and say it isn’t so as much as I want, but come election season, those corporations are going to be out purchasing representation with expanded free speech capability whether I like it or not. I can encourage legislative regulation in an attempt to curtail the impact of this ruling (in much the same way as the anti-abortionists have done); but I must live with what I think is a poor finding in much the same way that you must. Neither of us has the legitimate power to overturn Supreme Court rulings.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 6, 2010 at 8:16 pm


Incredibly Evasive,
Why do you continue to avoid my questions? That’s a rhetorical question. You and I and all the readers know very well why you can’t answer my questions. Why DOES God cause so many miscarriages? You can’t claim God is in control of just the things you want him to be in control of. It’s all or nothing when it comes to your God.
In Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 contains the description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife suspected of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
In Numbers 31:17 Moses said: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be “ripped pen”. And the fundamentalist Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered and still claim abortion is wrong?
1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.
In Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 God is praised for slaughtering little babies.
In Psalms 137:9 God commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.
Clearly the God you worship is NOT pro-life. Had you actually ever read the Bible you would know that. Humiliating to learn the truth from an atheist isn’t it? ROFL!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 7, 2010 at 2:38 am


Mr. Incredible says:
They would not have secured the Blessings of Liberty had they not expected a posterity.
HG says:
Certainly they would have! ‘To secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and our Posterity’– shows very clearly they wanted to secure Liberty for themselves.
Mr. Incredible says:
And not only for themselves but, also, their POSTERITY.
HG says:
Posterity benefits from the document securing Liberty to them only so long as the Liberty is left intact.
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant here. The only issue here is that the Founders wanted their posterity to enjoy the same Blessings of Liberty they secured for themselves. That’s all the statement says.
HG says:
One Liberty secured to The People within the text of the Constitution IS a personal liberty allowing them to choose to abort a pregnancy.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is nowhere to be found “within the text” of the Constitution.
HG says:
(Boris was absolutely correct when he stated, elsewhere, that a consensual sex act is not, in any way, a contract for parenthood.)
Mr. Incredible says:
It is a Moral contract with the one who is conceived.
HG says:
Now, you think the SCOTUS erred in Roe v Wade.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not necessarily, given the circumstances.
The Roe Court says that it would’ve had rule the other way at “personhood” of the unborn been before the Court. It was not. The only person before the Court was the woman. Therefore, the Court could not consider the personhood of the unborn cuz nobody brought the law defining the personhood of the unborn. However, the Court says that the so-called “Right” to abortion is not absolute and that it may be regulated IF it can be shown that the State has legitimate interest in regulating it. What is that legitimate interest? DUE PROCESS.
SCOTUS, then, said, in other words, that if the personhood can be shown through law, what is now an undue burden on the woman becomes a due burden.
So, since the Constitution protects only persons, and the woman was the only person before the Court, only the woman was protected by the Constitution.
If there is a law that defines the unborn as a person, and, since the Constitution protects persons, the unborn are protected by the Constitution. Again, the woman’s burden becomes due.
And, so, there IS a law. It says that the unborn, beginning at conception, has what it calls “future interests.” The unborn is treated as a person. The law calls this “jural personhood.” If we can say the corporations are persons, for the purpose of the law, we can say that the unborn are persons. And, so, the law does treat the unborn as persons.
Since SCOTUS gave pro-life a gift in that rolling, telling us that all we need to do is “establish a suggestion of personhood,” then, that’s all we have to do. There are a handful of states working on this as we write. And nobody can contest it cuz SCOTUS has already given us a legal argument.
HG says:
I think they erred in ruling that “corporations are people”.
Mr. Incredible says:
No court has said that corporations are people. Court rulings have said that corporations are persons. Jural persons. They are treated as persons. And notice that, under the law, they are persons and they haven’t even been born.
HG says:
I can jump up and down and say it isn’t so as much as I want, but come election season, those corporations are going to be out purchasing representation with expanded free speech capability whether I like it or not.
Mr. Incredible says:
All you have to do is elect representatives and senators to do what you want. Oh, that’s right! You people did that the last time, and it didn’t help. Oh, geez.
HG says:
I can encourage legislative regulation in an attempt to curtail the impact of this ruling (in much the same way as the anti-abortionists have done); but I must live with what I think is a poor finding in much the same way that you must.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m not living with it. As I say, a handful of states are working on it; and everywhere I go, under the right circumstances, I spread the word about “personhood.” It’s a very positive message, positively accepted, even by SCOTUS.
HG says:
Neither of us has the legitimate power to overturn Supreme Court rulings.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s what lobbying and elections are for. And just wait for November and 2012.
As a matter of fact, you don’t have to wait for November, you can see resistance right now, in the healthcare debate. A dozen Democrats, themselves, are holding things up for the right Cause. And, if that ultimately fails, Republicans will, as they’ve said, stick amendments to the bill that will bog it down so it can’t get through, per the wishes of most Americans.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 7, 2010 at 2:59 am


Barhop Boris says:
Why do you continue to avoid my questions?
Mr. Incredible says:
I haven’t avoided your questions. You’re just not satisfied with the answers. That’s too bad.
Barhop Boris says:
That’s a rhetorical question.
Mr. Incredible says:
All your questions are rhetorical; that’s why you don’t accept answers.
Barhop Boris says:
You and I and all the readers know very well why you can’t answer my questions.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I HAVE answered all of your questions. You just ignored all the answers. That’s not my problem.
Barhop Boris says:
Why DOES God cause so many miscarriages?
Mr. Incredible says:
He doesn’t.
Barhop Boris says:
You can’t claim God is in control of just the things you want him to be in control of. It’s all or nothing when it comes to your God.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil is the prince of this world. The Devil has no control over God; however, God has given jurisdiction on Earth to Man. That’s the agreement between God and Man. What men loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven, and it is so because God gave authority to Man and God has to go along with it, for the most part, because that’s the agreement. Man — and now far too many men — gave that authority, via Adam and Eve, in the first instance, to the Devil.
Barhop Boris says:
In Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea…
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand why you quote only Old Testament verses. The Pharisees did essentially the same thing. They always quoted the Law, the ministry of death. However, those were born again are saved by Grace, not by Law.
The rest of that story is that the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Old Hebrew, where there is no permissive sense. There is only causive sense. So, it is not that God caused those things, rather that He ALLOWED them. That’s cuz His agreement with Man was that, if Man followed Him, Man would be protected. Man did not follow Him. Therefore, God, by agreement, had to ALLOW hurts, even the ones men imposed on themselves. It still the case today for those who are not born again. You don’t have to like it.
Barhop Boris says:
Clearly the God you worship is NOT pro-life.
Mr. Incredible says:
Clearly, He is. The New Testament proves this. Again, you don’t have to like it.
Barhop Boris says:
Had you actually ever read the Bible you would know that.
Mr. Incredible says:
I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s what I know.
Barhop Boris says:
Humiliating to learn the truth from an atheist isn’t it?
Mr. Incredible says:
YOUR “truth.” God, through Christ, is my Shepherd, not you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 7, 2010 at 4:09 am


Barfly Boris says:
Clearly the God you worship is NOT pro-life.
Mr. Incredible says:
When you come outta your beer fog, consider this:
Deuteronomy 30:19 — “Choose life.” That’s God talkin’.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 7, 2010 at 6:15 am


Pop-a-Top Boris says:
Humiliating to learn the truth from an atheist isn’t it?
Mr. Incredible says:
Yours is an Earth sign, isn’t it. It appears to me that yours is an Earth sign cuz your arguments are dirt.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
I haven’t avoided your questions. You’re just not satisfied with the answers. That’s too bad.
Boris says: Calling my questions irrelevant is avoiding my questions, not answering them.
Mr. Incredible says:
All your questions are rhetorical; that’s why you don’t accept answers.
Boris says: I burn your answers and throw them back in your face, which humiliates you to no end. You continue to make a fool of yourself with your own words. I’m just fanning the fire.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I HAVE answered all of your questions. You just ignored all the answers. That’s not my problem.
Boris says: When you do answer my questions I refute your answers and make you look very foolish doing so. Everyone on this blog including you knows this too. Eventually I’ll run you off this blog as I’ve done so many times before. I could push you over the edge any time I want to.
Mr. Incredible says: He doesn’t.
Boris says: Why do miscarriages happen then?
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil is the prince of this world. The Devil has no control over God; however, God has given jurisdiction on Earth to Man. That’s the agreement between God and Man.
Boris says: No it isn’t. Man has made no agreements with any God. Prove there’s a devil.
What men loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven, and it is so because God gave authority to Man and God has to go along with it, for the most part, because that’s the agreement. Man — and now far too many men — gave that authority, via Adam and Eve, in the first instance, to the Devil.
Boris says: Your religious yammering is just insane.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand why you quote only Old Testament verses. The Pharisees did essentially the same thing. They always quoted the Law, the ministry of death. However, those were born again are saved by Grace, not by Law.
Boris says: We understand why you have to misquote Old Testament verses too and lie about what they really say.
The The rest of that story is that the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Old Hebrew, where there is no permissive sense. There is only causive sense. So, it is not that God caused those things, rather that He ALLOWED them. That’s cuz His agreement with Man was that, if Man followed Him, Man would be protected. Man did not follow Him. Therefore, God, by agreement, had to ALLOW hurts, even the ones men imposed on themselves. It still the case today for those who are not born again. You don’t have to like it.
Boris says: The only thing you know about ancient Hebrew is that you can’t read it. ROFL!
Mr. Incredible says:
Clearly, He is. The New Testament proves this. Again, you don’t have to like it.
Boris says: Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)
Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.
In conclusion I shall end this list with a verse that should keep the pro lifers in check. It is Romans 13: 1-7
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he shall commend you. For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Clearly it is the job of Christians to obey the laws, and the laws of this country clearly state that abortion is legal. So too should Christians respect and honor that law. God commands them to NOT disobey, which entails attempting to get the law overturned. If god wanted abortion to be illegal he wouldn’t have appointed authorities to make it legal.
Mr. Incredible says:
I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s what I know.
Boris says: You can tell yourself that all you want. But we both know I know a lot more about the Bible than you do. The proof of that is all the problems I’ve pointed out in the text that you have no answers for and didn’t even know existed. The intellectual beat downs I’ve given you are also proof that you haven’t a clue about the Bible.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOUR “truth.” God, through Christ, is my Shepherd, not you.
Boris says: So you’ve been told by OTHER PEOPLE.
Mr. Incredible says:
When you come outta your beer fog, consider this:
Deuteronomy 30:19 — “Choose life.” That’s God talkin’.
Boris says: “There is a sort of transcendental ventriloquy through which men can be made to believe that something which was said on earth came from heaven.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. God talking. Sure. Hahaha.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yours is an Earth sign, isn’t it. It appears to me that yours is an Earth sign cuz your arguments are dirt.
Boris says: So like Ronald Reagan you also believe in astrology. Not biblical dude. Have fun burning in hell.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 8, 2010 at 7:27 am


Mr. Incredible says:
I haven’t avoided your questions. You’re just not satisfied with the answers. That’s too bad.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Calling my questions irrelevant is avoiding my questions, not answering them.
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, I have answered all of your questions, unlike you who has given answers. Quite a difference.
Mr. Incredible says:
All your questions are rhetorical; that’s why you don’t accept answers.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
I burn your answers and throw them back in your face…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which goes to prove what I said in another post, that you preclude yourself from accepting anything we say. So, there is no point going into any detail in answering you.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
…which humiliates you to no end.
Mr. Incredible says:
You can believe me when I say that I am not humiliated by you.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
You continue to make a fool of yourself with your own words.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Oooooooo, Babbling Boris thinks I’m a fool! Oh, geez, what will I do???”
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
I’m just fanning the fire.
Mr. Incredible says:
And I’m the blowback in your face.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that I HAVE answered all of your questions. You just ignored all the answers. That’s not my problem.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
When you do answer my questions I refute your answers…
Mr. Incredible says:
You have yet to do so.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
… and make you look very foolish doing so.
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t done so yet.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Eventually I’ll run you off this blog…
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t done so yet.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
…as I’ve done so many times before.
Mr. Incredible says:
As I say, you haven’t done so yet.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
I could push you over the edge any time I want to.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, what’s keeping you? Please try. What’s holding you back? It can’t be decency.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Why do miscarriages happen then?
Mr. Incredible says:
God is the God of the living, not of the dead. He calls us to life, not death.
Therefore, death must be the result of “the other one,” the one YOU’RE most familiar with.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Devil is the prince of this world. The Devil has no control over God; however, God has given jurisdiction on Earth to Man. That’s the agreement between God and Man.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
No it isn’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes, it is.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Man has made no agreements with any God.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s correct. Man did not go to God with any offers. God offered Man. God made Covenant with Man.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Prove there’s a devil.
Mr. Incredible says:
All anyone has to do is read your posts.
Mr. Incredible says:
What men loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven, and it is so because God gave authority to Man and God has to go along with it, for the most part, because that’s the agreement. Man — and now far too many men — gave that authority, via Adam and Eve, in the first instance, to the Devil.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Your religious yammering is just insane.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s a good sign that you have no answer.
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand why you quote only Old Testament verses. The Pharisees did essentially the same thing. They always quoted the Law, the ministry of death. However, those were born again are saved by Grace, not by Law.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
We understand why you have to misquote Old Testament verses too and lie about what they really say.
Mr. Incredible says:
Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and, so, anything you say have to be a misquote.”
Mr. Incredible says:
The The rest of that story is that the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Old Hebrew, where there is no permissive sense. There is only causive sense. So, it is not that God caused those things, rather that He ALLOWED them. That’s cuz His agreement with Man was that, if Man followed Him, Man would be protected. Man did not follow Him. Therefore, God, by agreement, had to ALLOW hurts, even the ones men imposed on themselves. It still the case today for those who are not born again. You don’t have to like it.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
The only thing you know about ancient Hebrew is that you can’t read it. ROFL!
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, no answer. That’s good.
Mr. Incredible says:
Clearly, He is. The New Testament proves this. Again, you don’t have to like it.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him.
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven.
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.
Mr. Incredible says:
If a person is not born again, he is under the Law. If the Jews were still under the Law, He asked why they wouldn’t kill them. They disobeyed the Law.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
In conclusion I shall end this list with a verse that should keep the pro lifers in check. It is Romans 13: 1-7
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
“… has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god…”
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
“… Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god…”
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
“… has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he shall commend you. For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s…”
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
“… servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Clearly it is the job of Christians to obey the laws, and the laws of this country clearly state that abortion is legal. So too should Christians respect and honor that law. God commands them to NOT disobey, which entails attempting to get the law overturned. If god…
Mr. Incredible says:
Which one?
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
wanted abortion to be illegal he wouldn’t have appointed authorities to make it legal.
Mr. Incredible says:
He is talking about GODLY laws. GODLY authorities.
God calls us to life, not death. Therefore, He does not support authorities and laws that call us to death.
Mr. Incredible says:
I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s what I know.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
You can tell yourself that all you want.
Mr. Incredible says:
You demonstrated it.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
But we both know I know a lot more about the Bible than you do.
Mr. Incredible says:
You persuaded yourself that you think you know more. I know that you’re full of c r a p.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
The proof of that is all the problems I’ve pointed out in the text that you have no answers for and didn’t even know existed.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, you mean that list of things that you copied and pasted as not your own?
I answered all of what you call “problems.” The only problems are the ones in your head, or both of them.
It goes to show that you don’t accept anything we say. That’s not a problem for us, rather for you.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
The intellectual beat downs I’ve given you…
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ve done nothing of the kind. That street pharm you go to be doin’ you no good.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
… are also proof that you haven’t a clue about the Bible.
Mr. Incredible says:
I demonstrated that I know more about the Word of God than you do. After all, as a Jew, you have accepted only part of the Word, the part that does not rule in the lives of those who are born again. And, as you have demonstrated, you don’t acct THAT part. That’s not my problem.
Mr. Incredible says:
YOUR “truth.” God, through Christ, is my Shepherd, not you.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
So you’ve been told by OTHER PEOPLE.
Mr. Incredible says:
By other “people” named GOD.
Mr. Incredible says:
When you come outta your beer fog, consider this:
Deuteronomy 30:19 — “Choose life.” That’s God talkin’.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
“There is a sort of transcendental ventriloquy through which men can be made to believe that something which was said on earth came from heaven.” – Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. God talking. Sure. Hahaha.
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
Mr. Incredible says:
Yours is an Earth sign, isn’t it. It appears to me that yours is an Earth sign cuz your arguments are dirt.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
So like Ronald Reagan you also believe in astrology.
Mr. Incredible says:
No, I don’t.
Brewski-by-the-Gallon Boris:
Have fun burning in hell
Mr. Incredible says:
Thanks, but Romans 8:1 [KJV]



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 8, 2010 at 10:15 am


“Beer-barrel-o’-laughs” Boris “commands”:
Prove there’s a devil.
Mr. Incredible presents:
“Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves.” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to ‘teach!’” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“[E]motionalize and mythologize their science [sic] to such an extent that what is, in effect a belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to believe in the Enemy.” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that ‘devils’ are predominantly ‘comic’ figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in the mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“One of our best weapons, contented worldliness…” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
“All the ‘habits’ of the patient, both mental and bodily, are still in our favor.” — Screwtape, “The Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis
Doctor Faustus to Mephistophilis, the demon: “I think Hell’s a fable.”
Mephistophilis: “Ay, think so still ‘til experience change thy mind.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 8, 2010 at 11:54 am


Goofy Boris keeps repeating the same, trite slogans. Is somebody squeezing him, or pulling a string in his back, or winding a crank?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 9, 2010 at 1:02 am


Everyone check the times on Incredible’s posts. He was on the computer all morning, about six hours trying to refute my last posts. I KNEW I could make him dance like a puppet for me. Now to add insult to injury Incredible, I’m not even going to read your posts. I can’t. I’m laughing too hard. Once I saw just how much time you spent in your desperate deluded attempt to discredit me and the findings of modern science… well all I can say is smells like another victory for the atheist over the creationist. Dude how many more times do I have to humiliate you off of this blog? You’d think he’d learn by now folks. But as we all know once one becomes a creationist they can no m longer learn and they’ll fall for ANYTHING. Even my obvious tricks. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 9, 2010 at 1:08 am


Your very best evidence for the existence of Satan is the Screwtape Letters? You get more delirious by the day.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:49 pm


“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
Everyone check the times on Incredible’s posts. He was on the computer all morning, about six hours trying to refute my last posts.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, for each, individual post, I spent a mere few minutes. Malt liquor-breath Boris wants you to believe that I spent the time from the first post to the last post that day just answering his pitiful posts. As I say, for each, individual post, I spent only a few minutes. For me, it’s THAT easy. If only you knew how easy it is.
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
I KNEW I could make him dance like a puppet for me.
Mr. Incredible says:
You haven’t yet. It’s all in your two heads.
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
I’m not even going to read your posts.
Mr. Incredible asks:
What else is new?
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
I can’t.
Mr. Incredible says:
We know that already.
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
I’m laughing too hard.
Mr. Incredible says:
Maybe you oughta moved to another room where there are no open paint cans.
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
Once I saw just how much time you spent in your desperate deluded attempt to discredit me and the findings of modern science… well all I can say is smells like another victory for the atheist over the creationist.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, just like Enron, you are inflating the value of your analysis. It’s all junk.
I spent mere minutes on each of your posts. I was in here for all of those six hours but I spent so little time answering you that is ridiculous. If only you knew how easy it is for me. Hardly any effort at all.
“Ridin’ High on Pink Elephants” Boris says:
Dude how many more times do I have to humiliate you off of this blog?
Mr. Incredible says:
So far, you’re battin’ zero.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted March 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm


Blitzed Boris aks:
Your very best evidence for the existence of Satan is the Screwtape Letters?
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s enough to get the message across. However, we know YOU don’t get it.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.