Forget skeletons. Here is a truly scary Halloween thought!
What is at stake in the upcoming election?
Here is something to think about from LifeNews. My emphases and comments.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — In a Thursday interview with NBC News, Barack Obama repeated the pledge he’s made throughout the campaign. Obama indicated he would only appoint judges to the Supreme Court who support unlimited abortions, [That’s the issue, folks.] in what is a clear pro-abortion litmus test for federal justices.
"Well, look, I think that you — what you can ask a judge is about their judicial philosophy," he said when asked how he would make selections if he defeats John McCain on Tuesday.
"I can tell you that how a Justice approaches their job, how they describe the path of interpreting the Constitution, I think can tell you a lot," he added.T
"And so my criteria, for example, would be — [read carefully] if a Justice tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution — that means that they possibly don’t mean — believe in — a right to privacy ["right to privacy" discovered in the Constitution by the majority in Griswold v Connecticut was the basis for the Court’s eventual Roe v Wade abortion decision.] that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there," Obama said. [Uh huh … it’s CLEAR! It’s right there! In those penumbras formed by emanations.]
NBC News columnist Mark Impomeni understood the clear meaning of Obama’s words.
"No originalist judges need apply," Impomeni wrote in response. "The right to privacy is a code word for abortion rights. The focus of liberal jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade first conferred the right to an abortion has been the protection of that ‘right.’"
And with Roe guaranteeing virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reasons, based on the so-called privacy right, Obama is confirming his intent to only select pro-abortion judges who want no limits on abortion. [But not only abortion, folks. Think of the other things justices appointed by him might find in the penumbras formed by emanations. Think about it.]
Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, a pro-life legal group, understands the enormous impact of the presidential election on the Supreme Court [And not just because of abortion!] and how an Obama victory could keep unlimited abortions in place for decades.
"This is a historic election," she told USA Today. "With the next president having the opportunity to appoint one, two or even more justice on the life issue." [And not only the life issue. Start thinking about, well… eminent domain. Do you own your own home or land?]
The differences are clear, with McCain saying he wants judges who won’t make up law form the bench but who will respect the rights of the people and their elected officials to make the law on abortion.
In a February letter to the Federalist Society, McCain sounded out the kinds of themes that delight pro-life groups.
In the letter, McCain promised to nominate "judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat."
"When I was running for president in 1999 I promised that, in appointing judges, I would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity," the letter said.
For Obama, a pro-abortion litmus test is nothing new.
As early as a November 2007 debate with Democratic primary candidates, Obama confirmed he would only back pro-abortion Supreme Court picks.
"I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy," he said.
Penumbras formed by emanations, everyone. Penumbras formed by emanations.
Think about this.
Now think about scary things beyond the penumbras and emanations.
Cobwebs on the Constitution.
Federal judiciary vampires.
The tombstones of the unborn and elderly.