Roe v. Wade, the Abortion Decision: 41 Years Later and Its Evil Still Grips the Nation!

Donate to the Chris McDaniel Senate primary campaign in Mississippi
http://www.fourteenin2014.com/make-a-donation/donate-to-chris-mcdaniel/

NEWS FLASH:


www.amazon.com now has the exclusive right to sale my first e-book in its Kindle Store.

The title of the e-book is The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam


A paperback and hardcover version of the book was available since 2007. I believe it was since 2007. I do not know for sure. It was copyrighted in 2007. That edition had one comment and that comment was very negative receiving a one star rating.

The direct link to the e-book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KCWVHIK

Here is that comment in its entirety and without change from the site:

“A poorly self aggrandizing working of ficition. November 8, 2012
By Robert M. Stanford
Format: Hardcover

I should prefix this by saying that I know the author of this book. To start regardless of how this book this being marketed by the author, it is a piece of fiction, the author never served in the military in capacity. Where to start with this review, the book is very poorly written and the author clearly did not do much in the way of historical research on military tactics in general or the Vietnam war in particular. The book reads much like a bad war movie mixed with some kind of cheesy martial arts film, the battle scenes are ridiculously unrealistic. Including laughably bad claims like how the author was trained in hand to hand combat techniques where he would be able to kill some one with one punch in less than one second, he selected for the group because he was genius with Forest Gump like running ability, doing three hours of weight training for 6 straight days a week for months, claims of gun with finger printer readers that only let the owner fire them, act. Save yourself some money and avoid this book”

Robert does indeed know me. However, it goes a little deeper. Robert is my nephew—the first born of my younger sister. She is four years younger than I am. I was working for a living teaching school when she graduated from Illinois State University. She didn’t meet her future husband until she was working as a teacher. Therefore, Robert wasn’t even born during the time period of most of the book. Robert also never served in the military. Neither did his father or mother.

I do state that I have a tested I.Q. of 130 or above. Both of my children have tested I.Q.s of 130 or above. Does that prove that I do? Of course not. Therefore, before I wrote the book, I went to the public school district that I attended from first grade through high school. I asked for and received a copy of my school records including the results of an I.Q. test. I have written proof that I have a tested I.Q. of 130 or above. If I didn’t, I would not have put it in the book. However, I never said, anywhere in the book, that I am a genius.

As far as his statement that “the book is very poorly written.” That is, at best, an opinion. Read again what he wrote. How well written are his comments? I was a high school American government/economics teacher for ten years. Having been a teacher, I am use to negative comments from students. Most of those comments were from people who did not do well in my class. I expected the students to earn their grade through work and meeting my standards. If they did not, they suffered the consequences. Most did not like the consequences.

If you read the dedication page, I paid an English teacher to edit the work. We did each of the six chapters the same way. At the time, I lived in Tucson and she lived in Arkansas where she taught high school English. I mailed a chapter to her, she ripped it to shreds. I corrected and rewrote the chapter based upon her suggestions and sent the rewritten chapter back to her. She found more items to criticize and gave more suggested corrections. I corrected a second time and sent them back once again. She approved the chapter and mailed it back. When Robert states that “the book is very poorly written,” he criticizes her. I do not believe those criticisms are justified.

Concerning the publication of the book itself, I did not want to go through a regular publishing house because I did not want the book to be edited by the publisher. Since I did not know how to publish a book, I hired a publishing company to do the actual printing of the book and the creation of the front and back book covers. When the company rejected my print copy because the margins were wrong several times including after I went to a Peoria printer to have the margins done correctly by a professional, I wrote the CEO of the company saying I was cancelling the contract because the company was not fulfilling its obligation to print the book. Without my knowledge, the book was printed and offered to the public including on Amazon in paperback and hardcover editions. My guess is that a company lawyer told the CEO that he had better fulfill the contract. I did not know the book was in distribution until I received a royalty check from the company. The copyright date on this published version of the book is 2007.

In the mean time, after borrowing money from my mother, I went to the Peoria printer and paid that company to print my book under my Arizona established publishing company. I had established the company in Arizona before moving back to Illinois in 2004. I never planned to live in Illinois—the land of Barack Hussein Obama—permanently. Until this book was published, I had not actually published anything through the company. My book through my publishing company was published in 2008.

Here is a strange occurrence. Robert’s mother—my younger sister—purchased four books in 2008. There are four people in her family—mother, father, brother, sister. I would have thought that Robert would have first read the book in 2008. He certainly did not have to purchase it from Amazon.

It was family squabble time. In 2004, I moved back to Illinois to care for my mother after my father had died. My two sisters and I had a verbal agreement that I would stay in Illinois until mom dies, caring for her in her home. She would not be put into a nursing home. After a series of minor strokes over a period of about a year, my sisters broke the agreement and put her in a home. Conflict resulted over my staying or leaving the house and the State. Discussion was done by e-mail. I stated in one e-mail that I was going to write more Black Sword books—five in total—and the next one would include the current dispute.

In early January of 2012, I received an eviction notice. The process continued through the year until a court date was set for November 30, 2012. (I believe that is the correct date. I did not bother to check to make sure.) On October 15, 2012, my oldest sister died after a brief illness. On November 8, 2012, Robert posted his criticism of the book. Coincidence? On November 30, 2012, I was court ordered to leave the house by midnight on December 31, 2012. On December 31, 2012, I moved out of the house.

If Robert meant to hurt sales of the book, I hope he did. I want the other company to stop selling my book. And the company did send me notice that I am being dropped. Good! I had told them not to publish.

If you read this blog regularly, you may know that I actually write five blogs, six days a week. Not on Sunday.

http://christiangunslinger.blogspot.com—pro-life

http://christiangunslinger1.blogspot.com—politically conservative

http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com—politically conservative

http://christiangunslinger5.blogspot.com—pro-traditional family

http://christiangunslinger7.blogspot.com—politically conservative concentrating on the primaries and the upcoming general election

By the very nature of my blogs, I expect the radical Left, pro-abortion/unborn baby MURDERERS, and pro-homosexual behavior advocates to attack my e-book as well as anything else I wrote and publish. Robert may be the first but I do not expect him to be the last.

The e-book costs only $3.00. The only cheaper price is $2.99 and I do not price my books that way. Everyone should know that $2.99 is actually $3.00. What a sad marketing ploy! Spend the $3.00 to determine whether or not Robert is correct. If a member of Amazon prime, the book is a free selection. You just might be pleasantly surprised. I have received very positive comments from readers including people who have actually been in the military unlike Robert and a student at the United States Naval Academy located in Annapolis, Maryland who is the grandson of a friend.

And finally, I would like nothing better than being reconciled with my sister and the rest of my earthly family. The theme of the second book is family. Planned publication date 2015. The theme of the third book is politics with the planned publication date being 2017. The fourth about education in 2019. And the last and final book in the series, on the church of JESUS, the CHRIST in 2021.

The direct link to my e-book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KCWVHIK

—

Primaries in June:

01) Alabama Primary: June 3, 2014 ~ Run-off: July 15, 2014

05) California Primary: June 3, 2014

15) Iowa Primary: June 3, 2014

24) Mississippi Primary: June 3, 2014 ~ Runoff: June 24, 2014

26) Montana Primary: June 3, 2014

30) New Jersey Primary: June 3, 2014

31) New Mexico Primary: June 3, 2014

41) South Dakota Primary: June 3, 2014


—

05) Chris McDaniel | Mississippi | Primary June 3

Website: https://mcdaniel2014.com/

Donate: https://mcdaniel2014.com/donate/

—

06) Joni Ernst | Iowa | Primary June 3

Website: http://www.joniforiowa.com/

Donate: https://secure.joniforiowa.com/donations/contribution/?customAmount=5

—

From: http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/29/the-unbearable-wrongness-of-roe-v-wade/

“The Unbearable Wrongness of Roe v. Wade
by Paul Stark | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/29/14

Michael Stokes Paulsen, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas here in Minnesota, wrote for Public Discourse about Roe v. Wade (The Supreme Court case that unconstitutionally, illegally, and immorally “legalized” the MURDER of unborn children!—my addition) and its consequences.

‘After nearly four decades, Roe’s human death toll stands at nearly sixty million human lives, a total exceeding the Nazi Holocaust, Stalin’s purges, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. Over the past forty years, one-sixth of the American population has been killed by abortion (Almost 17%! It is insane and yet some insanely and with evil in their heart declare it is a “right” to deliberately MURDER your own child! Does that even register? IT IS A “RIGHT” TO DELIBERATELY murder YOUR OWN CHILD!—my addition) . One in four African-Americans is killed before birth (25%! And yet, the NAACP, which claims to be the premier voice for Blacks, champions the MURDER of it own people by their mothers. Is that insanity?—my addition). Abortion is the leading cause of (unnatural) death in America (It is also by far the leading method of MURDER in the United States!—my addition).”

‘It is almost too much to contemplate: the prospect that we are living in the midst of, and accepting (to various degrees) one of the greatest human holocausts in history. And so we don’t contemplate it. Instead, we look for ways to deny this grim reality, minimize it, or explain away our complacency—or complicity.’

Paulsen discusses what Roe held, why constitutionally it was an ‘utterly indefensible’ decision (Completely! GOD IS NOT WAS NOT FOOLED!—my addition), and how morally its results are simply catastrophic. Below are some notable excerpts.

On what Roe actually did:

‘The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill (MURDER—my addition) other human beings. I do not mean for my description to be provocative, but simply direct—blunt about facts. One need not presume that the human fetus has a right not to be killed in order to recognize that, as a descriptive matter, Roe creates a right for one class of human beings to kill other human beings.’

On the constitutional basis for Roe:

If the U.S. Constitution actually protected such an extreme personal legal right to kill the human fetus, that would be troubling enough, but the trouble would be with the content of the Constitution. The further problem with Roe is that it has absolutely no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution (Of course not! It was and is a fabricated LIE! A LIE straight from satan!—my addition). No rule or principle of law fairly traceable to the text, discernible from its structure, or fairly derived from evidence of intention or historical understanding of an authoritative decision of the people, remotely supports the result reached in Roe. In terms of fair principles of constitutional interpretation, Roe is perhaps the least defensible major constitutional decision in the Supreme Court’s history (NOT perhaps! It is indefensible under any and all circumstances! Only a completely evil person would believe otherwise! And yet it stands!—my addition).’

‘Roe’s reasoning, distilled to its essentials, is that the Constitution creates a ‘privacy’ right to abortion, on the premise that the right not ‘to bear’ a child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. No serious constitutional law scholar thinks this is a plausible reading of the Due Process Clause (Of course not! It was a made-up, concocted theory with no valid substance then or now! It was 7 Justices doing what they wanted to do without a shred of constitutional justification. It made and makes a mockery of the Constitution!—my addition). That clause forbids government to ‘deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.’ Without due process of law are crucial words. The Due Process Clause does not say that government never may deprive a person of life, liberty or property. It only says that government may not do so ‘without due process of law’—that is, arbitrarily, lawlessly, not in conformity with duly enacted laws and accepted procedures for their application.’ [PS note: The government rightly deprives people of the ‘liberty’ to murder, rape and steal.]

On Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion invented in Roe:

‘If Roe was radical, Casey was craven. A majority of the Supreme Court apparently believed that Roe was wrongly decided, fully understood the moral and human consequences of the decision, and deliberately adhered to it anyway. Stare decisis has never been thought required by the Constitution, before or since, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) famously repudiated Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) on the question of whether racial segregation was consistent with ‘equal protection of the laws.’ The Court has overruled scores of its own precedents. Indeed, it overruled two cases in Casey. Casey’s reaffirmation of Roe, in the name of stare decisis, was a sham—perhaps the most transparently dishonest major judicial decision since Dred Scott (Every decision confirming the “right” to MURDER has been a sham!—my addition).’

On what makes Roe unbearable:

‘Roe is a radical decision and a legally indefensible one. But what really makes Roe unbearably wrong is its consequences. The result of Roe and Doe has been the legally authorized killing (MURDER—my addition) of nearly sixty million Americans since 1973. Roe v. Wade authorized unrestricted private violence against human life on an almost unimaginable scale, and did so, falsely, in the name of the Constitution (It is a LIE! An indefensible LIE!—my addition).’

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

On our response:

‘Faced with this prospect, many of us—maybe even most—flee from the facts. We deny that the living human embryo is ‘truly’ or ‘fully’ human life, adopt a view that whether the embryo or fetus is human ‘depends,’ or can be judged in degrees, on a sliding scale over the course of pregnancy; or we proclaim uncertainty about the facts of human biology; or we proclaim moral agnosticism about the propriety of ‘imposing our views on others’; or we throw up our hands and give up because moral opposition to an entrenched, pervasive social practice is not worth the effort, discomfort, and social costs. The one position not on the table—the one possibility too hard to look at—is that abortion is a grave moral wrong on a par with the greatest human moral atrocities of all time and that we passively, almost willingly, accept it as such (Speak for yourself! There are some of us who do not! Who will not!—my addition).’

Read the whole piece at www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4577

LifeNews.com Note: Paul Stark is a member of the staff of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a statewide pro-life group.”

Roe v. Wade was and is the gravest sin perpetuated upon the United States other than the MURDER of the SON of GOD. That MURDER had to happen. These MURDERS do not!

Stop the murder of unborn babies NOW!