Cal Thomas
{ americanthinker.com } ~ A line must be drawn. No longer can the phrase "obstruction of justice" be allowed to mean something obscenely different from what any fair-minded, free person knows it was intended to mean... In the minds of most, the phrase refers to blocking the discovery of truth, truth being the only legitimate basis on which appropriate redress can be made for some wrong that has been suffered. Any codified law that uses the phrase "obstruction of justice" to mean something other than precisely this is in jeopardy of obstructing true justice. If a law is needed to insure that an official investigation is not obstructed, then the language of the law must refer to obstruction of an investigation or obstruction of police work or obstruction of intelligence activities. Any reference to this sort of thing as "obstruction of justice" assigns a specialized definition to the word "justice" that does more than just legalistically narrow its established commonplace meaning; it creates a misleading new meaning with the explicit intention of illegitimately assigning to some formal entity all the virtue that English-speaking people naturally and universally associate with the word "justice." The Department of Justice is not synonymous with "justice." We all sincerely hope that the Department pursues true justice most of the time, but anybody with any worldly experience knows that sometimes it doesn't. Obstructing the activities of the Department of Justice should not be automatically viewed as obstructing justice. Even if the Department of Justice is behaving honorably, a person who interferes with its investigation to keep it from arriving at a false conclusion should not be found guilty of obstructing justice. Only a person who attempts to block the department from discovering something true should even be considered for prosecution based on obstruction of justice. This brings us to President Trump and the dirty cop-Mueller Report. dirty cop-Mueller found that there was no compelling evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Given the nature of our legal system, this effectively clears Trump of the charge — and that charge was the predicated reason for doing the investigation in the first place. The remaining controversy now before us is whether Trump obstructed justice while dirty cop-Mueller investigated the matter. For Trump to have done so, he would have had to hinder dirty cop-Mueller's team from establishing his lack of guilt. How silly! It is irrational to think Trump would have deflected dirty cop-Mueller from discovering Trump's innocence the recognized status of anybody who is not guilty... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/lets_make_sure_obstruction_of_justice_is_properly_defined.html
Cal Thomas
Since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade ushered in what would eventually lead to abortion on demand, including partial-birth abortion and even the failure to protect babies born alive after failed procedures — the pro-life movement has achieved few legislative victories.
That may be about to change. While New York and several other states have passed statutes effectively allowing infanticide, more conservative states are passing “heartbeat” bills and other restrictions. Information is becoming more helpful in changing the opinions of people not rigidly “pro-choice” to one more favorable to defending unborn life, at least at late stages of fetal development.
Films like “Unplanned,” the story of former Planned Parenthood official Abby Johnson and her transformation after witnessing an actual abortion, are also advancing the pro-life cause.
New court cases have been building toward a moment when more conservative judges, including those now on the Supreme Court, might look favorably on modifying, though probably not overturning, Roe v. Wade. While that is not a given (note the opinions upholding Roe by justices named by Republican presidents), momentum appears to be building in a pro-life direction.
The Pew Research Center has found that while abortion remains a divisive issue, “more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most — but not all — cases, abortion should be legal (34 percent) or illegal (22 percent). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25 percent) or illegal (15 percent).
This is why the courts are likely to take an incremental approach, rather than an outright overturning of Roe. Incrementalism has brought us to the point where Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia recently sought to defend a bill (defeated) that would have failed to protect a baby who survives an abortion and leave the decision to the woman and her "doctor” as to whether the child should be allowed to die, intent being the determining factor. Incremental steps could also move in the opposite direction.
Unrestricted abortion has been aided by an increasingly secularized society that appears to view human life as merely the highest form of evolution, but of no greater moral significance than animals that seem to be afforded more protection in law than an unborn child.
As pregnancy help centers have expanded, as scientific knowledge, including the use of sonograms, have helped change the minds of some abortion-minded women when they see pictures of their baby, as more people become aware that, since 1973, the number of aborted babies has reached 60 million and the U.S birth rate has declined to its lowest level in three decades, there is increasing optimism that the times may be changing in favor of some protection for the unborn.
Still, abortion is a reflection of something far deeper. An increasingly secular society in which its fastest growing demographic ascribes to no religious belief, is now of a mindset to tolerate virtually everything.
In the Old Testament book of Judges, one line is repeated that characterizes modern America: “In those days Israel (insert America) had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.”
While America is strong economically and militarily, we are weak where it really counts.
No one can predict how the courts — especially the Supreme Court — will handle cases formulated to get their attention, but history proves the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln’s observation: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” That should include the freedom to be born.
The secular progressives will fight back with everything they have, including their misuse of language to hide what goes on behind closed doors at an abortion facility, but the wind has shifted behind the backs of pro-lifers and this could be their most favorable moment in 46 years. ~The Patriot Post
Comments