The Choice is Ours.
Is American becoming, or has it always been, the land of hypocrisy?
“If the state will not trust its citizens to act temperately and sanely without restrictive legislation, let the state use its laws to enforce temperance and sanity. If the state will not allow the conscience to function, let the commands of conscience be unheeded, and commands of state are enforced-if possible. The state has arrogated to itself the power of defining goodness; let it now do its utmost to make its definition felt. If the power of defining goodness is substituted, let the enforcing agency of goodness be substituted, too; i.e., let the police, and not the conscience, make men good. “It is true,” in effect say the mass of people to the state, “we shall render your silly laws lip-service, for you are powerful, and such oral obeisance is expedient-and cheap. But further than that we will assume no responsibility; yours is the law-yours too is the duty of enforcing it.” So, the game begins. Men gravely nod their approval of paternalism when uncompromising zealots are present but thumb their noses and drain their cups when only laughing companions are near to see. Even what sincere observers of Prohibition there are violate with impunity other laws the rationality of which is certainly more evident.” (Ruddy, 1929)
“Hypocrisy is the art of affecting qualities for the purpose of pretending to an undeserved virtue. Because individuals and institutions and societies most often live down to the suspicions about them, hypocrisy and its accompanying equivocations underpin the conduct of life. Imagine how frightful truth unvarnished would be.” [Benjamin F. Martin, “France in 1938,” 2005] (Online Etymology Dictionary: “hypocrisy”, n.d.)
“John Stuart Mill when he observed:
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power. On Liberty 28 (1885).” (Furman v. Georgia – MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring., n.d.) (Furman v. Georgia – MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring., n.d.)
Today, in our Congress, those we elected, pay, and deserve respect from are working long hours on two major concerns in America:
- How to keep out borders open, eliminate all our national security and introduce a neo-Socialism.
- How to legalize infanticide.
Am I the only one to see the hypocrisy?
To attain these goals, the people who allegedly work for all Americans, are busy concealing facts, disregarding witnesses and ignoring experts in both the national security sectors and medical fields.
Those we trusted to protect us, are playing political games with the lives of every American citizen.
How, in the name of all that is sacred to our country and society are they getting away with this?
They can do it because American voters have surrendered to false promises and hypocrisy of radical Socialist agendas.
Here is a list of Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty.
18 U.S.C. 23326 Murder involving torture.
18 U.A.C. 1958 Murder for hire.
18 U.S.C. 111 First Degree Murder.
18 U.S.C. 1091 Genocide.
18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 248, 247 Civil Rights violations resulting in death.
My questions regarding this are:
Which, if any, Federal Laws would be broken by the recent enactment of the New York state Abortion law allowing for full-term abortions?
If a Planned Parenthood clinic receiving taxpayer money (Federal funds) to operate performed abortions which, if any of these Federal Laws would they have broken?
If a doctor working in a facility that received Federal Funding, which, if any of these laws would he or she have broken by leaving a delivered, full-term infant then setting it aside to die because the mother didn’t want it.
The same questions must be asked of the clinic staff and of midwives.
I, for one, feel that the use of taxpayer funds murder innocent children is a Federal Crime and should be treated as such.
Federal Laws Providing for the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 1, 2019, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
Furman v. Georgia – MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring. (n.d.). Retrieved 2 1, 2019, from law.cornell.edu: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/238#writing-USSC_CR_0408_0238_ZC1
Online Etymology Dictionary: “hypocrisy.” (n.d.). Retrieved 2 1, 2019, from Etymonline.com: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hypocrisy
Ruddy, C. J. (1929). Hypocrisy–A By-Product of Paternalism. Notre Dame Law Review, 4(6), 374. Retrieved 2 1, 2019, from http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4403&context=ndlr