[Ganchrow]

While I personally disagree with Fox News's "Senior Judicial Analyst" Judge Andrew Napolitano on a variety of issues (his stance on abortion being but one), I found this interview he gave to the Libertarian magazine Reason rather compelling.

---

Americans: Sheep to the Constitutional Slaughter?

An Interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano
Brian Doherty | November 15, 2007

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of American media’s most tenacious defenders of Americans' rights. His official title at Fox News, where he appears regularly on Fox and Friends and The Big Story, is “Senior Judicial Analyst.”

But at the often Bush-besotted network, the decidedly skeptical Napolitano thinks of himself more as “House Civil Libertarian.”
He’s the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in New Jersey history, and a former teacher of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School. He also writes books alerting Americans to how their own government threatens their liberties, including The Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.Nick Gillespie interviewed Napolitano for our March 2005 issue.

Napolitano’s latest book is the pugnaciously and provocatively titled A Nation of Sheep. The book is certainly sharply critical of the Bush administration for its assaults on our freedom and privacy. But Napolitano also provides valuable historical context, showing there’s little new under the sun when it comes to the tendency of power to expand, even in a nation explicitly built to keep government powers as tiny oceans in a sea of individual rights.

He tells of Daniel Ellsberg’s brave stance against government wartime secrecy during Vietnam, former Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham's standing up to Abraham Lincoln (and subsequent arrest and banishment after a military commission trial for doing so), and Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon’s arrest for insulting President John Adams.

The book is wide-ranging in history and subject matter, containing entertaining (and often blood-curdling) takes on potential threats from ever-present surveillance cameras, the Transportation Security Administration, the government’s insistence that it can grab any private information a company may have collected about you, press pusillanimity, and our government’s yen for torture. It hits the pleasing tone of all-American barn-burning dudgeon that animated the Americans who, enraged with Lincoln’s treatment of Vallandigham, as Napolitano writes, “rioted and burned the local Republican building, cut down telegraph lines, and destroyed a bridge.”

I spoke to Judge Napolitano by phone on November 12, touching on some of the matters that most alarm him these days about America, a nation that has in his estimation become alarmingly close to a nation of sheep.

reason: Your book contains over 200 pages of alarming stuff (except for the part in the back where, for your readers convenience, you reprint the Declaration of Independence and Constitution), but let’s touch on some specific ills affecting the health of constitutional liberties in America. What, for example, is the “special needs exception” to the 4^th Amendment that 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Chester Straub invoked, as you discuss in chapter 2?

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Of course, there is no “special needs exception,” not in case law, not in the Constitution. But it’s an argument that big government makes whenever it feels constrained by the document that created it, namely the Constitution.

The government has dispatched its lawyers into federal court to make this so-called “special needs” argument. It says to the court—it’s the sort of pedestrian argument you and I hear every day—"Oh, the Constitution was written 230 years ago. These guys couldn’t have anticipated planes into buildings or wiretaps. They were not the subject of ethnic and religious hatred like we receive from Islamo-fascism today." So the “special needs” of public safety require us to find in the Constitution—and they never admit they are going around the Constitution—to find authority to do a, b, c, and d, which might be, oh, wiretap without a warrant, monitor the keystrokes on citizens’ computers, open mail, and use self-written search warrants.

And some judges regrettably have accepted this argument. [Former Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales did not make it up. Government’s been arguing this for years, though the phrase “special needs” is not a term of art in law; it’s just a handle used by federal prosecutors when they do not want to uphold their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

reason: The Patriot Act seems to be a special bête noire of yours. What’s the problem with it?

Napolitano: The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name “national security letters”] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime.

Remember that the British government permitted its soldiers to execute self-written search warrants. They called them “writs of assistance,” and they were one of the last straws that caused American colonist to rebel. It’s bitterly ironic that 230 years later a popularly elected government would authorize its own agents to do the same thing that when a monarchy did it, we fought a war of rebellion in reaction—which we won!

Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors' offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office.

So FBI agents can write their own search warrant with just the permission of their superior, no judge at all, nobody at the main Department of Justice, and serve it essentially on any entity they want, and if they serve this search warrant on your doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, and that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman tells you they received it, then that doctor, lawyer, grocer, or mailman, can be prosecuted for a felony, face five years in jail. What part of the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” do they not understand?

This creates a Soviet-style conundrum for the recipient, who can’t even tell his or her lawyer or general counsel about getting the search warrant. You can’t hire outside counsel to challenge it, you can’t mention it to your spouse on the pillow, to your priest in confession—not even to a federal judge in a federal courtroom where all language except perjury should be permitted. This is a conundrum the likes of which government has never visited even under the Alien and Sedition Act. If they prosecuted you for criticizing [President John] Adams you could complain about it to your heart’s content without being charged with another crime.

reason: The Patriot Act was sold as a necessary protection from terror. How has that worked out?

Napolitano: How many people has the DOJ convicted in a jury trial for terrorism based on evidence obtained from the Patriot Act? Zero. They’ve gotten people to plead guilty, to fold, and convicted many on drug trafficking, white slavery, prostitution, gambling, and political corruption, but haven’t gotten a single [terror] case where they presented evidence in a public court before a judge and jury and the jury found a defendant guilty under evidence obtained under Patriot Act.

The reasons stated by [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and the House Republican leadership for there being no debate on the Patriot Act was that terrorists were under every bed, behind every toilet, and inside every refrigerator. Therefore the Patriot Act was so necessary to keep the country safe that there was no time for debate. The most sinful aspect of its passage was how members of the House were not permitted to read it. It was posted on the House Intranet for 15 min [before the vote] and it’s 315 pages long. I read it twice, and it took me 20 hours each time. And you need in front of you not just it, but lots of other statutes, the full U.S. criminal code, to process it. It does lots of amending of other statutes, so you need to reread [those] statues to figure out what government has done by amending that statute.

I was speaking in the Midwest—I don’t want to tell you where, somewhere in the great Heartland—two weeks ago and at the end of my speech, after I said many of these things I’m saying here and in my book, there was a congressman in the audience. He and I socialized a bit, and he said, “Judge, I’m a little ill at ease. I didn’t know until hearing you tonight that the Patriot Act permitted self-written search warrants and criminalized speech about receiving them, and I voted for it twice.”

And I said—knowing how he was going to answer—I asked, “Didn’t you read it? You voted on it.” No, he didn’t have time, he only read the summary. And he didn’t remember the summary talking about self-written search warrants and criminalized speech. He told me many of his colleagues were in the same situation. I said, “WRONG—all your colleagues are in the same situation! No one in the House except maybe leadership read the Patriot Act you voted on!” It’s abominable for the government to tamper with our basic liberties—but it’s inconceivable that they would do so without any debate.

reason: Yet it happened. You called your book A Nation of Sheep, which indicates a pretty low opinion of the people who would let their elected representatives do this to them. But Bush’s approval ratings are pretty low—it seems as if there is something about his administration that’s begun to piss people off. You must have a lot of opportunity to hear from the public with your status as a big public voice on these issues—how upset are Americans about all this?

Napolitano: There is more widespread feeling [against these assaults on our liberty] than you would think, though I have discovered that widespread feeling after coming up with the title of the book! One place I’ve discovered a lot of it I didn’t expect…I speak to lots of right to life groups; I describe myself as “fiercely pro-life,” and I’ve found among right to life groups tremendous disdain with the president and the Congress about abuse of the Constitution, much to my surprise. If while talking about Roe v. Wade I make a comment about Bush and Congress tampering with the Constitution, I’m interrupted with a standing ovation at right to life gatherings, so there is this undercurrent of anger [over the Bush-era assaults on the Constitution].

Another platform for that undercurrent is the campaign of Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has rejuvenated almost single-handedly the Goldwater wing of the GOP. Now Reagan tried, before [James] Baker and his boys advised him on how to behave. Now, I loved the man, but if you look at his record and rhetoric, they are two different things. But Ron Paul had made it legitimate again for small government, maximum individual liberty, Goldwater Republicans to come forth and complain about big government, and I am the recipient of lots of those complaints.

Now, for the most part the president and his colleagues in both parties have succeeded in scaring the daylights out of people. Government grows in wartime because people are afraid, and they accept the satanic bargain that government offers: Give us your liberty and we will keep you safe. Many people think that when government is suppressing speech or privacy or fair prosecutions, that since those usurpations are so drastic that they must be keeping us safer.

But when the president says that his first job is to keep us safe, He is dead wrong. Read the oath of office: His first job is not to keep us safe, but to keep us free [by upholding the Constitution]. When you have this value judgment between freedom and safety, I’d rather have freedom with danger than slavery with safety.

But the supposed tradeoff when it comes to civil liberties isn’t really there. Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School spent five years reading every judicial opinion in the history of the United States on freedom of speech. Of all the cases of people prosecuted and convicted of violating some law that regulated speech, his conclusion is there is not one, not one single instance in all American history, where America’s security was adversely affected because of too much free speech. When government says it is keeping you safer by criminalizing speech, it’s a canard. They are making their own job easier by criminalizing speech because they have less dissent to confront.

reason: It seems like you really stand out from the flock at Fox, a network with a reputation for being far more supportive of Bush than you are. In fact, in your book you are downright hostile, even referring to “impeachable offenses.”

Napolitano: The arguments I am articulating here are arguments I have made in the hallways of Fox every day. But I love my job here and my role as house civil libertarian. I am able to do at Fox what I hope to do with this book—help people awake from lethargy and a naive trust of government and question whether or not a government has the power to take rights away. I argue it doesn’t—that these rights are natural and we should be debating these issues before our rights are taken away.

My favorite part of working at Fox, and my books, is the arguments I present about the difference between positivism and natural law, between those who believe all rights come from government, and the natural law position which says that rights come from our humanity, not from government; that we are created by God in his image and likeness, and as He is perfectly free, our rights to speech and thought, and to say what we think and write what we say, to develop our personality, to travel, to privacy, are all as natural as the fingernails on the ends of our finger.

This is more than an academic debate. If our rights come from government, then the Patriot Act is lawful and constitutional because the government that gives freedom can take it away just by having the president sign a bill into a law. But if rights come from our humanity, as I argue almost every day on Fox, then government cannot take freedom away absent due process and a fair trial, where you are charged and convicted of violating someone else’s freedom.

The president had said he believes in natural rights. Unfortunately when he signs these bills that take away our rights, he reveals he either doesn’t know what he’s doing or he doesn’t really believe in natural rights. The Patriot Act is not only unconstitutional, it’s unnatural, since it purports to take away that which naturally belongs to us.

reason: In chapter six, you discuss the very alarming “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20/51” and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. What’s so bad about them?

Napolitano: Those basically allow the president to declare martial law whenever he thinks there’s a state of emergency. Then he—he or she—can use the military to enforce ordinary criminal law and even suspend the authority of state criminal enforcement agencies. This is wildly, fantastically unconstitutional because it allows one human being by declaring emergency–like Pervez Musharraf just did—to suspend rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and Americans don’t even know; there was very little debate or awareness of this.

reason: I noticed that “he or she” in your previous statement. Have you made any headway with your Republican friends on the matter of, well, they might believe in this whole “war on terror” and trust Bush needs these extraconstitutional powers to protect us, but what about when a president they don’t trust wants to use them for goals they don’t believe in?

Napolitano: Bill O’Reilly defended Bush on his declaration of three Americans as enemy combatants, before the Supreme Court told him he can’t do it—and Bush refused to even say why—but Bill said “I trust him, it’s good for him to do that.”

I asked him, “Would you give that power to Hillary Clinton? She could declare you an enemy combatant and dispatch you to Guantanamo.” He just said, “Would you come and visit?” I said, “No….they’d keep me down there too!”

So many of my Fox colleagues, whom I love working with, have such trust and faith in the heart and head of President Bush. But look at the calendar: He’ll be Mr. Bush in 14 months, and unless it’s Ron Paul, God knows what his successor will do with the powers Congress had purported to give him. And I say “purported” because they don’t have the right to actually do all the extraconstitutional things they’ve done.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty (bdoherty@reason.com) is author of This is Burning Man and Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

[Dead Money]

Great Find.

Some amazing stuff about the Patriot Act I wasn't aware of. Very scary what we have turned our country into.

This creates a Soviet-style conundrum for the recipient, who can’t even tell his or her lawyer or general counsel about getting the search warrant. You can’t hire outside counsel to challenge it, you can’t mention it to your spouse on the pillow, to your priest in confession—not even to a federal judge in a federal courtroom where all language except perjury should be permitted. This is a conundrum the likes of which government has never visited even under the Alien and Sedition Act. If they prosecuted you for criticizing [President John] Adams you could complain about it to your heart’s content without being charged with another crime."

[G. K. TEMUJIN]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo135.html

Required Reading for Ron Paul Freedom Revolutionaries

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo



DIGG THIS

After 9/11 the neocons who dominate the Republican Party commenced three separate wars: One in Afghanistan, another in Iraq, and the third against the civil liberties of the American people. As Judge Andrew Napolitano writes in his brilliant new book, A Nation of Sheep (p. xi):

[T]he Bush Administration has systematically attacked and diminished virtually every freedom and right guaranteed by the Constitution: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to privacy, the right not to self incriminate, the right to counsel, the right to speedy trials, the right to fair trials, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, even the right to be set free after acquittal! . . . . President Bush has broken laws he swore to uphold, and declined to enforce laws that he has himself signed into existence . . .

While the Republican Party (with the help of many Democrats) was waging this war on American freedom, its propagandists in the media endlessly repeated the nonsensical notion that the people who attacked America did so because "they hate our freedoms." In reality it is the neoconservatives who hate American freedom, as the above-mentioned "accomplishments" of theirs proves.

In A Nation of Sheep Napolitano gives us chapter and verse of how Americans have been neo-conned into acquiescing in such an attack on their own liberties. The book is the third in a trilogy, following Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks its Own Laws, and The Constitution in Exile. All three are required reading for Ron Paul Revolutionaries – and for anyone who wants to understand the meaning and significance of constitutional liberty in America, who its enemies are, and why they must be stopped.

All neocons play the Orwellian game of making pronouncements about the Constitution, pretending to be supportive of it, while actively supporting its destruction. They are especially fond of cloaking themselves in a few selected words of the founding fathers to give the impression that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison would somehow approve of their foreign policy imperialism. But consider this: At the heart of their phony constitutionalism lies the notion that, before the American Revolution, the founders said something like this to the King of England: "Your Majesty, all we ask is that you provide us with security and protect us from the French, the Spaniards, and any other hostile force. In return, we will gladly give up all of our personal liberties and the rights of Englishmen."

Of course, no such conversation ever took place. But this is exactly the philosophy of the neocon regime that rules America (and much of the rest of the world) today. As Judge Napolitano correctly points out, the slogan of the American Revolutionaries was "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death," not "Give Me Security and I Will Gladly Give UP My Liberty."

To make things even creepier, the administration claims that its war on American liberty has as its purpose the protection of "the Homeland," a phrase that was never used by anyone else to describe America, and which is much more commonly associated with Nazi Germany than any other society.

There is no tradeoff between liberty and security, as Napolitano says. The notion that there is, is "a one-way trip into slavery." The only legitimate purpose of governmental provision of "security" is to secure our liberty, period. And this can only happen if there are enough "wolves" in society, defined as those who "challenge government regulations, reject government assistance, and demand that the government recognize and protect their natural [God-given] rights." Unfortunately, writes Napolitano, "the majority of Americans are sheep" who "stay in the herd and follow their shepherd without questioning where he is leading them."

If we look around the world, we find no precedents for the abolition of liberty leading to more security. It hasn’t worked for Israel in its struggles, nor did it work for England in its battles with the Irish Republican Army, says Napolitano.

In A Nation of Sheep Napolitano presents a long litany of the destruction of liberty that has occurred in just the past few years. The following is a sampling:

Police departments routinely conduct random bag searches on buses and subways, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Government bureaucrats can now write their own search warrants, called "National Security Letters."
If you want to go to say, Disneyworld, you are required to be fingerprinted, and your prints may end up in the files of the FBI
Government now has the ability to acquire all financial information about your life, without your permission or knowledge.
Peaceful protesters have been mass arrested.
Artists have been arrested for writing such things as "Giuliani = Police State" and "God Bless America" on sidewalks (with erasable chalk).
Government schools crack down on speech the state does not like, suspending students who utter it.
Government officials can now search your home or office without notifying you.
Persons served with "National Security Letters" are prohibited from telling anyone about it.
Government is tracing email conversations through its "Carnivore" technology.
The president has been given the authority to essentially declare himself dictator after declaring "a state of emergency" as a result of the "National Continuity Policy."
The president has been given the ability to station military troops anywhere in America to "restore public order," reversing hundreds of years of constitutional restrictions on the use of the military on American citizens.
The president believes he is allowed to simply ignore the Geneva Conventions.
The government now has a "domestic surveillance program" that enables it to spy on Americans’ phone calls, e-mails, and all other electronic communications without a search warrant.
Government surveillance cameras are everywhere (including 142 of them in the Greenwich Village and Soho neighborhoods of New York City alone).
"Red light cameras have been placed in thousands of intersections, causing thousands of accidents as motorists speed up to avoid having the camera snap a picture of their license plates should they pass under a red light. If your license is photographed by one of these cameras, you have no right to confront your accuser since the "accuser" is a camera, and, you must prove your innocence and are not presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Airport "security" has become a Gestapo-like nightmare that does nothing to make traveling any safer.
The government can deny anyone the right to due process by declaring him an "enemy combatant."
The Bush administration is guilty of torturing prisoners in violation of U.S. and international law.
News about the Iraq War has been vigorously censored. All reporters must be "embedded" with the military, which then takes them on Potemkin Village tours.
Some reporters who have had the courage to report on some of the items on this list have had their phones and emails wiretapped.
Government scientists can turn on your cell phone remotely and without your knowledge and track your location.
To make matters worse, other countries have begun to copy some of these policies. This is bound to create even more resentment of Americans around the world.

The Great Perverter of the Constitution

A Nation of Sheep also gives the reader an historical perspective on governmental attacks on personal liberties. It started almost at the very beginning of the republic, as the Adams Administration used the Sedition Act to arrest numerous critics of the government. When Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams he pardoned everyone who had been unjustly imprisoned by the Federalists. But, writes Napolitano, "the progress made by Jefferson receded once President Lincoln took office." He mentions Lincoln’s shutting down of the opposition press in the North, his illegal suspension of habeas corpus, and his censoring of telegraph communication. He also focuses on Lincoln’s deportation of Ohio Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham for speaking up against the Lincoln regime’s abuses of constitutional liberty.

Napolitano quotes the speech that Vallandigham made back home in Dayton, Ohio, on August 2, 1862, that eventually led to his arrest and imprisonment (without due process). "No matter how distasteful constitutions and laws may be, they must be obeyed," said Vallandigham. "I am opposed to all mobs, and opposed also . . . to violations of [the C]onstitution and law[s] by men in authority – public servants. The danger from usurpations and violations by them is fifty-fold greater than from any other quarter, because these violations and usurpations become clothed with [a] false semblance of authority."

Vallandigham "hit the nail on the head here," Napolitano correctly states. Lincoln, who is described by Napolitano as "The Great Perverter of the Constitution," responded with slick and deceiving language to say: "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, and not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?"

Lincoln’s clever catch phrase led many to accept this particular act of tyranny (deporting Vallandigham), but the truth is, as Napolitano states, the "Constitution which is the sole source of all presidential power, gave him neither the right to ‘shoot a simple-minded soldier boy’ nor the right to impair in any way ‘the wily agitator’ using his First Amendment protected rights," as Vallandigham was doing.

Lincoln’s actions in the Vallandigham affair, writes Napolitano, were "a classic formulation of the argument against freedom, the argument that security and stability come at the expense of the laws and the freedoms that our Constitution was intended to guarantee. Those frightened by war and conflict . . . are, like Lincoln, dead wrong. When all our liberties are gone, there will be nothing left to protect."

In his concluding chapter Napolitano notes that, as of his writing, there were sixteen politicians competing nationally to replace President Bush. Sadly, "With the exception of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), in terms of fidelity to the Constitution, it does not matter which one of them wins. Except for Congressman Paul, they all love power for its own sake, believe that Big Government should redistribute wealth, regard the Constitution as a quaint obstacle, and would enforce or disregard laws as they saw fit . . ."

Judge Andrew Napolitano is an alpha male wolf in a nation of sheep. We can only hope that books such as this one will awaken enough sheep to assist in the defense of liberty before it is too late.

[Willie Bee]

Judge Andrew Napolitano >>> "It’s abominable for the government to tamper with our basic liberties—but it’s inconceivable that they would do so without any debate."

Amen! Lots of sheep out here, that's for sure, and they're all following the corrupt ewes and rams with bells around their neck who occupy both houses of congress.

[ShamsWoof10]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

While I personally disagree with Fox News's "Senior Judicial Analyst" Judge Andrew Napolitano on a variety of issues (his stance on abortion being but one),

Why do so many people in the US care about an issue that on a global scale is meanningless...? The two parties throw out meaningless issues like this for people to debate over while they execute policies to go kill other countries citizens/babies.. Give me a break!!!

Isreal leads the world with the highest abortion rates... They encourage it actually....

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by ShamsWoof10

Why do so many people in the US care about an issue that on a global scale is meanningless...?

I think there are many people worldwide (spanning the belief spectrum) who would tend to disagree with your flippant assessment of abortion as a "meaningless" issue.

Originally Posted by ShamsWoof10

Isreal leads the world with the highest abortion rates... They encourage it actually....

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

[milwaukee mike]

ganchrow it's not "meaningless" but both sides have a decent point on abortion.
it's murder, plain and simple, but our cities like milwaukee are much more livable than in the early 90s - primarily because like freakonomics explains there are less unwanted kids on the streets.
crime way down from 15 years ago, especially in the cities.

but there is no logical argument to bombing sovereign nations and claiming they are threats, especially when we established their leaders and gave them their weapons.

[milwaukee mike]

so they continue playing their puppet games and arguing over relatively meaningless things, while they steal our money for wars and interest and turn us into slaves.

[BatemanPatrickl]

Originally Posted by milwaukee mike

so they continue playing their puppet games and arguing over relatively meaningless things, while they steal our money for wars and interest and turn us into slaves.

Funniest statement I have read all day.

[ShamsWoof10]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

I think there are many people worldwide (spanning the belief spectrum) who would tend to disagree with your flippant assessment of abortion as a "meaningless" issue.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Seriously who cares about abortion..??? You will never have to do it... You can save more lives by stopping the wars... Do you think more llives were lost due to abortion or wars in the last 5 years..??? I am not saying you are one but I hate to see these "support the troops" people that are anti-abortion... People don't say sh*t when the military drops bombs and kills many civilians (babies included) but they are worried about the girl here that wants to abort a child she doesn't want... Get a real f*ckin' issue.... Crist!

Well you are a smart dude look it up... By the way pay close attention to 1999 or was it 1998... 36THOUSAND REPORTED abortions in Isreal that year...