Cuccinelli: We're Positioned to Shock the Political World

Another example of how the ACLU uses the downtrodden for their political agendas was “Jane Roe” from Roe vs. Wade. In 1969, an impoverished unmarried, pregnant girl was approached in a Dallas courthouse by two ACLU feminist lawyers who convinced her to claim her pregnancy was the result of rape – the only way to obtain a legal abortion at the time.
The problem was that it wasn’t true, so the Texas court refused the abortion. This is the case the ACLU took to the Supreme Court resulting in abortion becoming a form of birth control in the United States.
The ACLU lawyers persuaded “Roe” she was a lesbian and for several years was kept by lesbian handlers. When she grew up in the 1980s, she asserted that she had been the “pawn” of the ACLU. She never wanted an abortion — she was seeking a divorce from her husband — but the feminist attorney Sarah Weddington used the case as a means of attempting to overturn a Texas’ law making most abortions illegal. Weddington took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which invalidated every pro-life state law in the nation protecting unborn children and the rest is history.
“Roe” actually never had an abortion – she gave the baby up for adoption. Many years later, she exposed the seamy, manipulative side of the ACLU and lesbian networking in a published book in 1984, ‘I Am Roe’. She ‘came out’ with her real name of Norma McCorvey, renouncing lesbianism and abortion.
In 2005 she petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the abortion law, arguing that the case should be heard once again in light of evidence that the procedure harms women, but the petition was denied. She was arrested on the first day of U.S. Senate hearings for the confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States of Sonia Sotomayor. –
 
abortion was legalized to sell more aborted fetal cells to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies because all the vaccines are grown out of aborted fetal cells. All the big pharmaceutical companies are majority stock owned by the us government. more than 36 percent of blacks are aborted. The leading cause of death in blacks is abortion. All this information is from Lethal Injection: The Story Of Vaccination Part 1 The definitive look into the history of vaccination. From cancer, to autism, to the purposeful sterilization of innocent people around the globe, find out why all of these things are perfectly legal according to U.S. CODE – why the government considers you no different than cattle in their own law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hITYIT02rA
 
Permission to have Babies People won’t be allowed to have babies just because they want to or because they are careless. Most families would
be limited to two. Some people would be allowed only one, however outstanding people might be selected and allowed to have three. But most people would be allowed to have only two babies. That’s because the zero population growth
rate is 2.1 children per completed family. So something like every 10th family might be allowed the privilege of the third baby. To me, up to this point, the words ‘population control’ primarily connoted limiting the number of babies to be born. But this remark about what people would be ‘allowed’ and then what followed, made it quite clear that when you hear ‘population control’ that means more than just controlling births. It means control of every endeavour of
an entire world population; a much broader meaning to that term than I had ever attached to it before hearing this. As you listen and reflect back on some of the things you hear, you will begin to recognise how one aspect dovetails
with other aspects in terms of controlling human endeavours.
Redirecting the Purpose of Sex Well from population control the next natural step was sex. He said sex must be separated from reproduction. Sex is to pleasurable, and the urges are to strong to expect people to give it up. Chemicals in the food and water supply to reduce the sex drive are not practical. The strategy then would be not to diminish sex activity but to increase sex contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to to more presidencies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they wont matter anymore: http://www.refusesmartmeters.com/NWO_Plans_Exposed_By_Insider_In_1969-1.pdf
 
They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known. But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done. What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now through abortion, birth control sterilization, and forced eugenics. source: Black Genocide in the 21st century: http://www.maafa21.com/watch-online/?key=89127818
 
MPCrh7m.gif

//
 
I am not a libertarian, I never have been and hopefully will never be. I support Ron Paul because of his economic views, most of his foreign policy views, as well as his support for the Constitution, particularly states' rights. A state certainly has the right under the Constitution to ban contraceptives.

In other words, as long as government stays out of YOUR wallet, you're perfectly fine with them using every resource available to police what goes on in the bedrooms of America. Small government, indeed. :rolleyes:
 
I would certainly support an end to no-fault divorce. If people are applying to the state for legal privileges based on a vow of lifelong fidelity, they'd better have a damn good reason to back out of the deal they voluntarily entered into and received compensation for. One more reason to get the state out of the marriage business.
 
I partly agree. The laws reflect the morality of the people, but laws which promote evil (such as legal abortion) will always corrupt the morality of the people. I don't see it as an either/or question. When you allow evil acts to take place with impunity, our sinful nature will capitalise on it.

I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.
 
I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.

Boom

Headshot
 
I know I'm a few pages late, but if you are a Christian, then you (should) believe that no sinful act goes with impunity regardless of civil laws. "For the wages of sin are death... The punishment for sin is given by God. The state is not God. The state exists to prevent rights from being infringed, not to judge the citizens' morality. If you truly are worried about the morality of the people, then it would probably be best to approach the people the same way Jesus did (with compassion and forgiveness), not by throwing people in a cage for sinning.

But he was referring to abortion with his comment, and it's necessary to ban abortion in order to prevent rights from being infringed upon. Protecting the right to life is a core function of government. On other social issues that don't involve force like pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc, I agree the government shouldn't be involved in those issues.
 
But he was referring to abortion with his comment, and it's necessary to ban abortion in order to prevent rights from being infringed upon. Protecting the right to life is a core function of government. On other social issues that don't involve force like pornography, prostitution, drug use, etc, I agree the government shouldn't be involved in those issues.

He used abortion as one example for "laws which promote evil", but that is not the reason he stated for such laws. He also supported outlawing contraception and gay marriage etc...
 
Last edited:
He used abortion as one example for "laws which promote evil", but that is not the reason he stated for such laws. He also supported outlawing contraception and gay marriage etc...


He also said we should move on and focus on areas where we agree. But there's no sport in that.
 
No. I think contraceptives are an intrinsic evil, just like abortion and divorce and homosexual 'marriage.'

Assuming you also believe that homosexuality in itself is an intrinsic evil, and given that you said something along the lines of 'owning a Prius is homosexual', does that mean that Prius owners are intrinsically evil?
 
Gay people getting married and banging each other while wearing condoms is such an insignificant issue to a person not involved in those actions that I just can't comprehend the desire to spend political to ban them.

Abortion can be an entirely different issue -- an argument can certainly be made that murder is being committed. But gay marriage and the use of contraception by consenting adults seems so trivial that I don't see how it makes sense, from a strategic standpoint, to even stand in opposition to them. I mean, really, if the Democrats hadn't been able to paint Cuccinelli as an anti-gay, anti-blowjob, candidate, he'd be running away with this thing and on the precipice of slashing taxes and the size of government in a significant state. To me that is so much more important than what two lovers do to each other at night.
 
Back
Top