Oh yeah...so Abortion

SFCraig wrote:Was World War II worth fighting? How could one procure the release of the Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals that were held by the Nazis? Could we have purchased their freedom?

The South struck first. Lincoln struck back. The south did not want to give up the institution of slavery, even to the point of treason and violating the constitution they ratified.

We were attacked during WWII. Those dictators were on a mission to conquer the world, not just eradicate Jews, homosexuals etc. They would never have stopped.

The US South believed they were under attack politically and economically. Lincoln had other options at his disposal. You're trying to compare Lee & Davis to Hitler and Mussolini? You need a reality check.

Cato wrote:I know of no federal law, becasue the issue has always belonged to the states. anyways until 5 idiots in the Blackmum court over steped their bounds and took the issue away from the states.

That all maybe so, but your beloved Supreme Court took the issue of Abortion away from the states, now didn't it. They did so in violation of the 10th amendment.

We've had that discussion before, Cato, and your arguments on that have been mostly honest and honorable- if not totally convincing.

But I was just taking specific exception to your charge that:

(Cato)- First, Abortion was illegal since the inception of this naiton and the radification of the Constitution.

But that really is not correct at all. There was little, if any, law criminalizing abortion until well after the Constitution was ratified.

Stephanie wrote:The US South believed they were under attack politically and economically. Lincoln had other options at his disposal. You're trying to compare Lee & Davis to Hitler and Mussolini? You need a reality check.

Which is why they struck first militarily against the Union? As far as a reality check, last I checked the definition of treason is, "violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; the betrayal of one's country." Remember, you incorrectly used that word to describe peaceful protest? Lee et al. were traitors.

It's really just historical/neo-confederate revisionism.

Regarding abortion, if it is truly murder doesn't your support of the fringe candidate distract from unifying around McCain, who is truly pro-life/anti-choice (unlike many GOP leaders who secretly obtain abortions, while pontificating against them)? Remember the S.C. has a few old liberals on it. The Dems will control all branches of Government by this time next year; I suspect it will be by a real majority too. It will be a golden opportunity for them to stack the Court with real liberals.

This is the pro-life crowd's opportunity to finally end abortion or cement it into our culture for the next several decades. And here you are worried about war, the economy and the constitution.

shermangeneral wrote:"...a legal fiction, known as the right to privacy. That right does not exist, it never has. ..."

Above allegation is from Cato, aka "willie"....

My challenge to Cato (and other interested parties is to ponder the following:

"...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...shall not be violated..."

Now to me that says we have a right to privacy.

A rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.

And, in case you did not recognize the language, it is right there in the Constitution as originally adopted.

Fourth Amendment.

So the question as to whether we have a right to privacy has been addressed.

I suppose you could make a separate argument about whether interfering with your medical decisions constitutes an infringement of that right, but that does not negate the fact that the Founders and Constructors and Authors of the Constitution did in fact include an expectation of privacy.

So can I kill my children in the security of my own home, Sherm? I really need to know, they are being really loud!

I'm kidding of course, my point is that abortion is murder. If it is murder, then it doesn't matter whether someone's privacy is being violated (unless SFCraig can take to killing hookers in his basement) and if it is not murder, then there is no privacy issue at all because it is akin to getting an appendix removed.

"unless SFCraig can take to killing hookers in his basement"

Is that illegal now? Stupid regulations!

So Mike....what would you do if an adult person were being murdered next door? Would you let the process work it out....and be certain to vote for the candidate who runs strongest on an anti-murder platform?

SheikBen wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:
"...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...shall not be violated..."

Fourth Amendment.

So can I kill my children in the security of my own home, Sherm? I really need to know, they are being really loud!

I'm kidding of course, my point is that abortion is murder. If it is murder, then it doesn't matter whether someone's privacy is being violated (unless SFCraig can take to killing hookers in his basement) and if it is not murder, then there is no privacy issue at all because it is akin to getting an appendix removed.

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, ..... how about this: "my point is that religion is evil. If it is evil, then it should be outlawed and any practitioners should be imprisoned".

Mike, read again Sherm’s quote by Willy, only the first part being necessary, to wit:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, …. “

Mikey, the defining key words therein are ……. “their persons”, ……. meaning themselves.

Thus, “The right of the people to be secure in themselves, …. “

Thus, all men, women and children are afforded the right to be secure in themselves, as are prostitutes.

And any female, pregnant or otherwise, is also afforded the right to be secure in ….. whatever “it” is in themselves, …… be it ... love, .... hate, .... compassion, .... religious belief, .... a tumor, .... a fetus, .... a cancer, ...... an IUD, ... etc.

Thus, in literal terms, ….. “secure in their persons” means ……. “what each person feels secure with”, …… feels secure with “it” in their body, …. or feels secure with “it” out of their body.

Thus, in literal terms,

The Fourth Amendment guarantees a pregnant female a right to abort her fetus if she feels insecure or insecurity because of its presence within her person (her body).

Therefore, it matter not a twit ...... what any person thinks, feels or believes to be "a secure or insecure feeling within another person".

Now, you Pro-Lifers and/or Anti-Abortionists ..... can chew on that one and I will be interested in what you "spit out".

And be mighty careful you "don't spit into the wind", ..... cause it will blow right back in your face.

cheers

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:The US South believed they were under attack politically and economically. Lincoln had other options at his disposal. You're trying to compare Lee & Davis to Hitler and Mussolini? You need a reality check.

Which is why they struck first militarily against the Union? As far as a reality check, last I checked the definition of treason is, "violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; the betrayal of one's country." Remember, you incorrectly used that word to describe peaceful protest? Lee et al. were traitors.

It's really just historical/neo-confederate revisionism.

Regarding abortion, if it is truly murder doesn't your support of the fringe candidate distract from unifying around McCain, who is truly pro-life/anti-choice (unlike many GOP leaders who secretly obtain abortions, while pontificating against them)? Remember the S.C. has a few old liberals on it. The Dems will control all branches of Government by this time next year; I suspect it will be by a real majority too. It will be a golden opportunity for them to stack the Court with real liberals.

This is the pro-life crowd's opportunity to finally end abortion or cement it into our culture for the next several decades. And here you are worried about war, the economy and the constitution.

First of all, it isn't revisionist to acknowledge the Union was placing an economic stranglehold on the South. The federal government was actively engaged in destroying their way of life. Secondly, we, the USA, regularly applaud, assist, encourage, etc....states and regions of other nations to rebel and declare independence. We're doing it right now on the other side of the world. So it's ok for everyone else, just not in our own house.

As far as the Democrats are concerned, I wouldn't be counting all of those Congressional seats and that Oval Office before the election is over. True, Bush the Republican is widely loathed, but public approval ratings of Congress is even lower. We have Democrats at various levels of government embroiled in a variety of scandals. Best of all for conservatives like me, Obama & Clinton are causing a divide in that party like nothing I have ever seen in my lifetime.

I won't vote for McCain. Endless occupation of Iraq, his eagerness to attack Iran, immigration, the economy, his utter disregard for our Constitution are issues I will not ignore simply because he says he will do X, Y, & Z.

I won't vote for the lesser of evils ever again. My husband was right, Ron Paul is right. When we vote for the lesser of evils, we are still voting for evil.

"Secondly, we, the USA, regularly applaud, assist, encourage, etc....states and regions of other nations to rebel and declare independence. We're doing it right now on the other side of the world."

Independence? Are you freaking kidding? We topple democratically elected governments, breed instability in regions, and rename right-wing paramilitary death squads "freedom fighters"!

We'll agree to disagree here re: Civil War. We'll start a new one re: Confederacy

SFCraig wrote:"Secondly, we, the USA, regularly applaud, assist, encourage, etc....states and regions of other nations to rebel and declare independence. We're doing it right now on the other side of the world."

Independence? Are you freaking kidding? We topple democratically elected governments, breed instability in regions, and rename right-wing paramilitary death squads "freedom fighters"!

We'll agree to disagree here re: Civil War. We'll start a new one re: Confederacy

Yes, we do all of those things. I was speaking specifically of Kosovo.

The point is, it's the height of hypocrisy to declare Lincoln was the savior for preserving the Union at such a high cost when we celebrate Kosovo, not to mention everything else.

It is hypocrisy, yes. When is revolution (and resultant deaths) justified?

It's all a matter of perspective, as anything is.

Political revolutionaries are revolting against some sort of oppression or injustice. The American Revolution was just, England could have just let the colonies go. Of course that almost never happens.

Sometimes the revolutionaries go too far. France comes to mind. The revolution itself was justified, but those who revolted went too far, or at least that's how it appears to this 21st century opiniated housewife.

Certainly I oppose slavery. It's shameful to me that the country I love was built, in large part, at the expense of other human beings. I can't fix that. I can't turn back the hands of time and change our history.

Likewise, I can't fix what Lincoln did. I reject the notion that 19th century America should have been kept whole at any cost. I don't believe the cost was worth it. Still, it's done and I, just like everyone else, have to live with our shameful past.

This evening I was watching a report on NBC news about Rwanda. Apparently, the Tutsis and the Hutus are now living in peace. The Hutus are forgiving the Tutsis for all the horrors committed against their tribesmen, their sons, daughters, etc. They say they are one people now.

They are only able to accomplish this because the victims are willing to forgive and the murderers are willing to ask for that forgiveness. There isn't any talk of reparations or affirmative action, just reconcilliation.

Isn't it a pity that 150 years later, Americans haven't figured out the power of forgiveness?

Isn't it a pity that 150 years later, Americans haven't figured out the power of forgiveness?

Or rather, that we've learned that hate is much more powerful.

So, if the American Revolution was good, why not the Cuban revolution? Or the Russian?

How did France go too far?

SFCraig wrote:Isn't it a pity that 150 years later, Americans haven't figured out the power of forgiveness?

Or rather, that we've learned that hate is much more powerful.

So, if the American Revolution was good, why not the Cuban revolution? Or the Russian?

How did France go too far?

The Cubans and the Russians suffered terrible oppression after those revolutions. We can agree that is bad, can't we?

If you haven't studied the French Revolution at all, didn't you at least read a Tale of Two Cities? It may not be the most historically accurate book ever penned, but it is one of my favorite books of all time and does provide some insight as to just how barbaric the French revolutionaries were.

Stephanie wrote:
The Cubans .......... suffered terrible oppression after those revolutions. We can agree that is bad, can't we?

I can't agree with you about Cuba because the Batista regime was more like Czarist Russia with two (2) classes of people, …. the very, very rich ……. and the very, very poor. And all the poor were treated like ‘indentured servants’ that were forced to do any and all things that the ‘rich’ told them to do.

Few Americans knew or cared that Senator and General and ex-President Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar overthrew the government of Dr. Carlos Prío Socarrás in two hours on March 10, 1952. Time magazine, the newsweekly, even showed him on its cover on April 9, 1952 but only a small minority of people in the United States read Time. Cuba was that shark-shaped island off the Florida coast where tourists went to see the sites, gamble, drink, sun bathe, and whore. It was the source of sugar, rum, fine cigars, "Latin" music, and Ricky Ricardo, the husband and bandleader on the "I Love Lucy" television show.

Those a little more knowledgeable knew that US gangsters had used it as a base and a resort since the 1930s when things got too hot for them in the United States. Others knew of its propensity for violence, both public and private. Its university students demonstrated against the government, beat and killed their opponents while their US counterparts exacted their revenge on their enemies through intercollegiate football games. Students had no monopoly on the use of violence; older Cubans could be ………….

The conservative President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the Batista government on March 27, 1952, clearly that it was not as much interested in democracy as having a docile, pro-American government. …………………………..

Prosperity was uneven. For the sugar cane working who was unemployed half the year and discouraged from finding other employment so as to be available when the plantation owner needed him, life did not improve. Even though Cuba had the fourth highest standard of living in Latin America, that was not high. Besides, Cubans compared themselves to the US not Honduras or Bolivia. Illiteracy was high; schools too few; affordable medical care almost impossible for the average person to get; and housing substandard. Rural areas suffered more than urban areas because Cuban presidents had always feared the cities more. In short, social justice was a victim of the Batista years.

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=684

Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. The Real CIA. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.

Fidel Castro had taken over the government of Cuba on January 1, 1959. By the time Batista fled Havana, he had lost the support of most of the Cuban people as the result of the progressive tyranny and terror he imposed in a frustrated and futile effort to suppress the July 26 movement. I was very familiar with this as I had made trips to Cuba in 1956, 1957, and 1958 in an effort to help the government establish an effective organization to fight Communism and had watched the progressive deterioration of Batista's strength. .................................................

After listening to an extensive CIA briefing in the fall of 1960, in which no clear answer appeared as to whether Castro was or was not a Communist, he summed it up in a few words: "Well it really doesn't matter, does it? He acts like one." .......................

Thus was born the Bay of Pigs.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuban-rebels/kirkpatrick.htm

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
The Cubans .......... suffered terrible oppression after those revolutions. We can agree that is bad, can't we?

I can't agree with you about Cuba because the Batista regime was more like Czarist Russia with two (2) classes of people, …. the very, very rich ……. and the very, very poor. And all the poor were treated like ‘indentured servants’ that were forced to do any and all things that the ‘rich’ told them to do.

Few Americans knew or cared that Senator and General and ex-President Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar overthrew the government of Dr. Carlos Prío Socarrás in two hours on March 10, 1952. Time magazine, the newsweekly, even showed him on its cover on April 9, 1952 but only a small minority of people in the United States read Time. Cuba was that shark-shaped island off the Florida coast where tourists went to see the sites, gamble, drink, sun bathe, and whore. It was the source of sugar, rum, fine cigars, "Latin" music, and Ricky Ricardo, the husband and bandleader on the "I Love Lucy" television show.

Those a little more knowledgeable knew that US gangsters had used it as a base and a resort since the 1930s when things got too hot for them in the United States. Others knew of its propensity for violence, both public and private. Its university students demonstrated against the government, beat and killed their opponents while their US counterparts exacted their revenge on their enemies through intercollegiate football games. Students had no monopoly on the use of violence; older Cubans could be ………….

The conservative President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the Batista government on March 27, 1952, clearly that it was not as much interested in democracy as having a docile, pro-American government. …………………………..

Prosperity was uneven. For the sugar cane working who was unemployed half the year and discouraged from finding other employment so as to be available when the plantation owner needed him, life did not improve. Even though Cuba had the fourth highest standard of living in Latin America, that was not high. Besides, Cubans compared themselves to the US not Honduras or Bolivia. Illiteracy was high; schools too few; affordable medical care almost impossible for the average person to get; and housing substandard. Rural areas suffered more than urban areas because Cuban presidents had always feared the cities more. In short, social justice was a victim of the Batista years.

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=684

Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. The Real CIA. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.

Fidel Castro had taken over the government of Cuba on January 1, 1959. By the time Batista fled Havana, he had lost the support of most of the Cuban people as the result of the progressive tyranny and terror he imposed in a frustrated and futile effort to suppress the July 26 movement. I was very familiar with this as I had made trips to Cuba in 1956, 1957, and 1958 in an effort to help the government establish an effective organization to fight Communism and had watched the progressive deterioration of Batista's strength. .................................................

After listening to an extensive CIA briefing in the fall of 1960, in which no clear answer appeared as to whether Castro was or was not a Communist, he summed it up in a few words: "Well it really doesn't matter, does it? He acts like one." .......................

Thus was born the Bay of Pigs.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuban-rebels/kirkpatrick.htm

Sam,

Are you saying you believe the Cuban people are better off with Castro? They don't appear to agree.

Stephanie wrote:
Sam,

Are you saying you believe the Cuban people are better off with Castro? They don't appear to agree.

Steph, you have apparently been paying too much attention to those "Castro Hating" Cubans that live in the Little Havana section of Miami. The ones that "got the hell out of town" when Batista was overthrown. And also the US Government "propaganda mill".

Steph, I know it is somewhat of a 'miracle' but even the Gazette Editor agrees with me on this, to wit:

February 20, 2008

Cuba - End the blockade

NOW THAT old, sick Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is relinquishing power, Washington finally should drop its cruel embargo, which never impaired the island's communist government, but hurt Cuba's people.

NOW THAT old, sick Cuban dictator Fidel Castro is relinquishing power, Washington finally should drop its cruel embargo, which never impaired the island's communist government, but hurt Cuba's people.

For nearly half a century, the U.S. trade ban - even outlawing food and medicine, along with tourist travel - has made America seem like a huge bully mistreating a tiny neighbor.

As we've said before, if American businesses and travelers had been allowed to flood the offshore land with free-flowing U.S. dollars, Cuba probably would have abandoned collectivism and embraced capitalism long ago.

William Redpath, chairman of the U.S. Libertarian Party, commented Tuesday:

"There have been two victims of the 45-year embargo on Cuba, and neither are the Cuban government. American agriculture and trade industries have been throttled by the U.S. sanctions on Cuba by restricting their ability to trade freely. The loss of trade with Cuba in turn harms the Cuban people, who would enjoy higher-income salaries through trade with American corporations and through increased American tourism. Instead of the Cuban government suffering from U.S.-Cuba foreign policy, it has been American enterprise and the Cuban society."

Naturally, President Bush greeted news of Castro's retirement with his same old hard-nosed hostility to Cuba. The White House said the embargo will remain firm. Undoubtedly, this rigidity is designed to please Cuban expatriates in Florida, mostly rich families who fled the 1959 communist takeover of their homeland.

Political strength of the Cuban-Americans evidently scares other politicians as well. All three top presidential aspirants - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain - said Tuesday that the U.S. blockade shouldn't end until Cuba allows democracy.

The Cuba embargo is a relic from the long-dead Cold War, just as Castro is. The old order is passing. It's time for fresh ideas in the 21st century.

http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200802190494

Steph, the US embargo of Cuba ...... is solely a "US political thingy", ..... nothing more, ..... with three (3) primary factions funding $$$$ it.

1. Those rich Cubans in Florida.
2. Cubans that control sugar production and those controlling cigar, etc. sales in the US.
3. Resort Operators along the Florida, Key West and Gulf coasts.

Stephanie, another 90 miles South and your winter vacation in the Sun n' Sand ..... would co$t you probably 1/4th less.

But you can't get there from here.

.

Of interest to some, forty-four days before Castro seized control in his bloody coup, Bob Byrd was seated in the U.S. Senate on January 3, 1959.

Sam,

If you're suggesting one reason things are so bad in Cuba is because of US policy, well I can't argue there. On the other hand, I don't believe Castro would have been all warm and fuzzy to his own people no matter what we did.

Interesting little factoid there, Jimmy.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

If you're suggesting one reason things are so bad in Cuba is because of US policy, well I can't argue there. On the other hand, I don't believe Castro would have been all warm and fuzzy to his own people no matter what we did.

Well, "warm n' fuzzy" is not important to the Cuban people as this is:

Following the Revolution, the new Cuban government asserted that universal healthcare was to become a priority of state planning. In 1960 revolutionary and physician Che Guevara outlined his aims for the future of Cuban healthcare in an essay entitled "On Revolutionary Medicine", stating: "The work that today is entrusted to the Ministry of Health and similar organizations is to provide public health services for the greatest possible number of persons, institute a program of preventive medicine, and orient the public to the performance of hygienic practices."[9] These aims were hampered almost immediately by an exodus of almost half of Cuba’s physicians to the United States, leaving the country with only 3,000 doctors and 16 professors in University of Havana’s medical college.[10] Beginning in 1960, the Ministry of Public Health began a program of nationalization and regionalization of medical services.[10]

In 1976, Cuba's healthcare program was enshrined in Article 50 of the revised Cuban constitution which states "Everyone has the right to health protection and care. The state guarantees this right by providing free medical and hospital care by means of the installations of the rural medical service network, polyclinics, hospitals, preventative and specialized treatment centers; by providing free dental care; by promoting the health publicity campaigns, health education, regular medical examinations, general vaccinations and other measures to prevent the outbreak of disease. All the population cooperates in these activities and plans through the social and mass organizations."[11]

Cuba's doctor to patient ratio grew significantly in the latter half of the 20th century, from 9.2 doctors per 10,000 inhabitants in 1958, to 58.2 per 10,000 in 1999.[12] In the 1960s the government implemented a program of almost universal vaccinations. This helped eradicate many contagious diseases including polio and rubella, though some diseases increased during the period of economic hardship of the 1990s, such as tuberculosis, hepatitis and chicken pox. Other campaigns included a program to reduce the infant mortality rate in 1970 directed at maternal and prenatal care.[12]

In 2007, Cuba announced that it has undertaken computerising and creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images. Cuba is the second country in the world with such a product, only preceded by France. Cuba is preparing a Computerised Health Register, Hospital Management System, Primary Health Care, Academic Affairs, Medical Genetic Projects, Neurosciences, and Educational Software. The aim is to maintain quality health service free for the Cuban people, increase exchange among experts and boost research-development projects. An important link in wiring process is to guarantee access to Cuba's Data Transmission Network and Health Website (INFOMED) to all units and workers of the national health system. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

Or as important as this is:

In 1961, the Cuban government embarked on a nationwide campaign to tackle illiteracy among its citizens.[10] More than 100,000 student volunteers, almost all between the ages of ten and nineteen, traveled throughout the country to teach reading and writing. The volunteers became ...... during the year-long national effort 707,212 people became literate, or achieved a level of reading and writing equivalent to that of a first-grader. ............... Before 1959 over 40% of children did not go to school, by 1961 all but 20% did, ..............

School attendance is compulsory from ages 6 to 15 or 16 (end of basic secondary education) and all students, regardless of age or sex, wear school uniforms with the color denoting grade level. Primary education lasts for six years. Secondary education is divided into basic secondary education and pre-university secondary education. The curriculum in primary and secondary schools is based upon principles of "hard work, self-discipline and love of country".[20]Education in Cuba At the end of basic secondary education, pupils can choose between pre-university education and technical and professional education. Those who complete pre-university education are awarded the Bachillerato. Technical training leads to two levels of qualification - skilled worker and middle-level technician. Successful completion of this cycle gives access to the technological institutes.[21]

Although education is free to Cuban citizens, foreign students wishing to study in Cuba pay tuition fees of between US$4000-7000. Foreign students must hold ............ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

One can't argue with Castro and Communism's accomplishments in that tiny island, in spite of the world's most powerful nation's concerted and terroristic efforts.

Universal health care, an amazing lack of homeless, high literacy rates and low infant mortality. Black babies have a higher likelihood of surviving in Cuba than in the U.S.

Blacks in Cuba also have a higher literacy rate than in the U.S.

RE: Revolution: So, Americans were justified in firing upon other Americans because of economic issues? As Sam said, nearly all of these Revolutions were due to the same issue. Can I start wearing my Che shirt now, with your approval?

"Political revolutionaries are revolting against some sort of oppression or injustice. "

And insofar as those ideologies pose a threat to the moneyed interests in America they are labeled as blood-thirsty; if they are fighting for Coca-Cola or Exxon they are "freedom-fighters".

OH, ..... WOW, ....... and the Daily Mail Editor did also, to wit:

Wednesday February 20, 2008

After Castro, perhaps freedom

He made an economic wrong turn that cost Cuba for two generations
ON Sept. 4, 1933, a military coup called the "Revolt of the Sergeants" overthrew the government of Gerardo Machado, and installed Fulgencio Batista as the leader of Cuba.

Batista would preside for the next 25 years over a nation of sugar plantations and casinos, most of them run by American gangsters.

The disconnect between the governors and the governed grew. Attempts at revolution marked the 1950s, until Batista fled the country on Jan. 1, 1959.

The departure of the corrupt Batista cleared the way for communist Fidel Castro, who promised reform but instead delivered one-man rule.

Under President Kennedy, CIA-backed insurgents tried to overthrow Castro in 1961. The Bay of Pigs initiative turned out to be a disaster.

In the summer of 1962, the Soviet Union installed nuclear weapons on the island. That fall, the Cuban missile crisis pushed the United States and Soviet Union the closest they would get to nuclear war.

President Kennedy backed the Russians down. The Russians removed their missiles, and Kennedy agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove missiles in Turkey.

The United States cut off trade with Cuba, but the rest of the world did not. Still, over the next 40-plus years, Cuba's economy failed.

Castro cast the lot of his people with that failed economic philosophy called communism.

For the Cuban people, it has meant 49 years of poverty. In announcing that he will step down as president this year, Castro made many people happy, especially Cuban exiles in Miami.

"The international community should work with the Cuban people to begin to build institutions that are necessary for democracy, and eventually this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections," said President Bush.

Cuba has suffered for half a century not because of the United States, but because of Castro, who did no better than Batista in improving the lot of the Cuban people.

Only freedom brings about growth and dignity.

Except for a few anti-American radicals, no one will miss Castro.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorial/200802200200

(DM Editorial above) The departure of the corrupt Batista cleared the way for communist Fidel Castro, who promised reform but instead delivered one-man rule.

Now was "communist Fidel Castro" a Communist .... before the following events occured?

The US government recognized the Batista regime, permitting free travel and trade with Cuba.

Fidel Castro and his Revolutionaries took over on Jan. 1, 1959.

Castro promised the Cuban people reform of the Batista atrocities.

The US government wanted to tell Castro how to run Cuba and what reforms to implement.

Castro refused and told the US to mind its own business.

President Kennedy thus decided Castro needed to be replaced, eliminated, killed.

Castro Assassination Plots were conceived and attempted in late 1959 and 1960.

The CIA was ordered to implement a coup by using anti-Castro Cubans who had fled to Florida.

The anti-Castro Cuban insurgents tried to overthrow Castro in 1961 with their “invasion of Cuba”.

This “invasion”, known as The Bay of Pigs initiative, turned out to be a disaster.

The CIA attempted other Castro Assassination Plots from 1960 through 1963.

Well now “DUH”, almost from the very beginning, the US Government and/or interests therein set out to depose, assassinate and/or eliminate Castro and his merry band of Revolutionaries.

Thus, given the above, is it in wonder that Fidel Castro came down with a “heavy hand” on any resident Cubans that opposed his “ruling party” or why he formed an alliance with the Russians?

Is it any wonder that Fidel Castro, …… who first promised the Cuban people reforms, …… but instead delivered one-man rule?



.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees a pregnant female a right to abort her fetus if she feels insecure or insecurity because of its presence within her person (her body).

Irritating as you can sometimes be, it is gems like this that keep me reading your posts.

I would also point out that your right to be secure in your person also keeps the state from seizing your body to keep another "person" alive.

TRC, the wording of the 4th is:

FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

And some could claim that doesn’t pertain to “parts of your body” or “what is in your body”, …… but, …… “case law” states otherwise, to wit:

Unreasonable Searches And Seizures.

Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy');…………

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even …………………..

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

And if you "couple" that with "case law" which gives a person the "right" to receive medical treatment or to refuse medical treatment for themselves ........... it appears the "door has been opened" that gives a person "control over their own body" as to what they feel secure with what is in it or not in it.

Lyposuction and breast reduction to decrease "body mass" are both legal medical procedures.

cheers