Sounds like magic!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Last year, we permanently deprived over 1.2 million innocent Americans of their God-given unalienable rights. Among those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Such rights are at the very core of the great American experiment, and without them, none of our guaranteed Constitutional rights may follow.

Our republic was founded for the very purpose of securing those rights from any power or person who attempts to extinguish them. Yet, in 1973, the Supreme Court condoned a mother’s right to deprive her unborn child of those and all subsequent rights; moreover, it invented a constitutionally protected right to do so. Obviously, I am referring to the right to abortion on demand granted in Roe v. Wade.

The death toll since Roe v. Wade will reach 50 million sometime this year.

Roe v. Wade is bad law for reasons in addition to the moral issues raised in killing an unborn baby. Indeed, there are numerous constitutional issues involved as well. As was already stated, we are approaching 50 million Americans deprived of every right protected by the constitution and endowed by our Creator in the name of a woman’s right to an abortion, which is apparently inherent in their right to privacy.

One can search high and low in both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and neither document has anything to say about the right to an abortion or the right to privacy. This is not because abortion is some new modern marvel either. Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, noted in his opinion of the court that abortion dates as far back as the Ancient Greeks.

The truth is that some activist Supreme Court Justice invented this Constitutional right out of thin air. Such a scheme of inventing Constitutional rights is itself Unconstitutional. The United States Constitution lays out the amendment process in perfect detail in Article V. To totally ignore that process goes beyond usurping the power of the elected legislature. Such an endeavor confiscates the power of the people of the United States. The Constitution does not give the Judiciary such authoritarian power. On the contrary, the Court took it for itself.

Leftists argue that this is merely an act of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution – applying modern standards to an old document. Actually, Roe v. Wade goes far beyond interpretation. Creating a wholly unmentioned right to abortion on demand is far different from interpreting the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause to grant Americans the right to speak freely online. That would be an example of applying modern standards.

Roe v. Wade is some of the worst case law in American history. It belongs with the likes of Dread Scott v. Sanford. If the American people wanted a Constitutional right to an abortion, then we can amend the Constitution. Unfortunately for the Left, Roe v. Wade was initiated in response to a Texas statue outlawing abortion and enacted by the popularly elected Texas Legislature; furthermore, at the time that Roe v. Wade was heard and for at least a century prior, 45 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia had anti-abortion laws – all classifying abortion as a felony. This hardly seems like the fundamental right Justice Blackmun claims it to be.

If the Left cannot accomplish their goals at the ballot box, then they will shove their beliefs down our throats via an activist Supreme Court and a fill-in-the-blank Constitution; however, it is truly tragic that this belief of theirs will soon have resulted in the death of 50 million innocent Americans.

Some are arguing that since the Congress gave the MLB a pass on anti-trust laws that gives them a say in the affairs of drug use in the MLB. What a load of crap. Anti-trust laws, like them or not, were put in place to prevent necessary infrastructure companies, like oil and railroad companies, from acquiring so great a share of their market that they could dictate outrageous prices without fear of competition undercutting them. These types of companies are essential to the American way of life and business. Major League Baseball is not.

Controlling a private entertainment organization is beyond the original intent of those types of laws. This type of thing was a major concern with enacting anti-trust laws to begin with - that the laws would be unnecessarily extended into areas of private business. These anti-trust laws have now become a sickening way for the government to stick its nose in free enterprise. Most Americans don’t even realize that our Democratically controlled Congress has once again taken another step toward Socialism.

Even if Roger Clemens did use steroids, it is an issue between him, the New York Yankees, and the league. They can take whatever steps that they feel are necessary and face the consequences at the ticket box if the fans don’t like it. If its an issue of Roger Clemens being a national role model for youth across America, the league and the fans will take action as they did during the desegregation of baseball. It was they, not Congress, who desegregated baseball - 18 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which ended employment discrimination). The league was forced to respond to its fans or face the consequences at the ticket box. Moreover, the possibility of his drug use wouldn’t be widely known if it weren’t for government involvement and incriminating press coverage anyway.

This whole “controversy” is a media play for several House members to get airtime on TV. It’s a way for this pathetic, inept, and unaccomplished Democratic Congress to appear to be accomplishing something: the cleaning up of Major League Baseball - America’s favorite pastime. If American’s can just see this Socialist media show for what it really is, then it will only lower the Congress’s 20% approval rating even further.