Seriously, I don’t think Tomi Lahren got the sign, to quote Bill Engvall. She’s been fired from The Blaze for her pro-choice stance, and yes, that is what she is promoting despite what she says. Earlier this week she put money and politics above the lives of millions of Americans who have been murdered with the full protection of the state saying that is not a war she wants to risk losing. Now, she’s come out and demonstrated a complete disregard for law, the Constitution, our Christians heritage and simple morals to state that overturning Roe v. Wade is an act of “religious judicial activism” and unconsitutional.
OK, first, if you didn’t read my piece on Thursday on the eye candy from Fox News, and that really is why she is there, then you should do yourself a favor and read it, not because I’m a know it all, but because this woman talks out of both sides of her mouth, just like a progressive. Of course, it’s due to indoctrination.
But I digress.
Lahren blasted conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists for seeking to have a judge on the Supreme Court who would actually acknowledge that the first and main right given to men by their Creator is the right to life saying that they should be more concerned about tax reform, foreign policy and the economy.
When called out on it, Lahren doubled down and went foolishly further claiming that if we seek to have a judge on the high court that actually believes in the intentions of the framers to protect life as a right given to us by our Creator, that amounts to “religious judicial activism” and is unconstituional.
First, listen to how she portrays Judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying he is a “textualist” and a “constitutionalist” when he is a precedent judge, and nothing more. Spouting the propaganda, Lahren states that Kavanaugh rules without “judicial activism.” I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe the government has the authority to regulate firearms, right Ms. Lauren? Or redefine marriage? Or promote a non-right to murder your unborn baby, right Ms. Lahren?
Lahren But how does he feel about Roe v Wade? We don’t really know. And guess what: that’s a good thing!, “But how does he feel about Roe v Wade? We don’t really know. And guess what: that’s a good thing!”
A good thing? Really?
Can I just say that Lahren would probably have been one of the Germans remaining silent on the issue of the Holocaust at the time? Seriously, If she will not stand up for 60 million Americans who have been slaughtered in the womb and say that not knowing a judge’s stance on that is a “good thing,” then I can’t see her actually standing up to tyranny at any time to be honest.
During an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Lahren said that judges should rule by strictly interpreting the law, not because they are on moral crusades on behalf of their favorite causes. Take a listen.
.@TomiLahren: Implying that we're sending a Supreme Court justice to the bench to carry out religious judicial activism is a mistake and unconstitutional. It’s not what conservatives stand for. pic.twitter.com/025CT3gZ9v
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 11, 2018
Lahren, like Milo Yiannopoulos, has been praised by conservatives as being conservative, but nothing could be further from the truth. While I don’t doubt we agree on many things like free speech, the fact of the matter is that both of these people promote what God condemns: abortion and sodomy.
True conservatives have never, ever, ever, never, ever promoted either of these crimes, and yes, they are crimes despite what words men write and call them laws.
What’s interesting is in the interview, Tomi says, “I believe Judge Kavanaugh is a constitutional conservative, not a religious judical activist, which is exactly what we want.”
Now, I don’t know if Lahren has a mouse in her pocket or not with the claim of “we,” but clearly Kavanaugh is not merely a “constitutional conservative” and neither is Lahren, but I doubt she could define that historically. And clearly, conservatives don’t buy into the lies she is peddling about them.
She claimed that wanting a judge who stood against Roe v. Wade was a “mistake” and “religious judical activism” and as a result, she says that is “unconstituional.”
“If we’re not going to uphold the Constitution on its merit, who will?” she asked.
Well, Ms. Lahren, can you cite the text that allows for the judicial activism that resulted in Roe v. Wade that was decided by a Republican populated Supreme Court, of which you say “we” need to control? I’ll bet you can’t. History, the Bible, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are against you. Let me demonstrate:
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. -Declaration of Independence
You shall not murder. – Exodus 20:13
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. – 14th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. – Fifth Amendment
What’s most interesting about her claims is that she never tells you why its unconsitutional. Do you know why? Because she can’t. She’s just throwing it out there just like Communists, Socialists and other anti-Constitutionalists. The only difference is she has conservative views on other issues. I’m not implyin that Lahren is a Commie, but on this issue, she is certainly opposed to the founders, Christians, conservatives, Constitutionalists and other people who simply value life.
I’m not the only one that thinks so. David Harsanyi at The Federalist writes:
If Lahren wants to argue that focusing on Roe v. Wade is a mistake on political grounds, that’s her prerogative. She should feel free to take that up with a historically pro-life GOP that’s now running the White House, Senate and House. If she wants to argue that the GOP should avoid “tampering with social issues,” even though she seems exceptionally comfortable engaging in those debates elsewhere, go for it. But if she’s arguing that overturning Roe is an example of “religious judicial activism” — as Lahren does twice in this clip below — you’re not any kind of “constitutional conservative.”
For one thing, it’s a slur to claim that justices who are carrying out their charge to uphold the Constitution are engaging in “religious judicial activism” or something “unconstitutional” simply because their originalist and long-standing legal philosophy happens to align with their spiritual or religious positions on the sanctity of human life. One of the reasons social conservatives gravitated to “constitutional conservatism” is that it protects them from state intrusions. One position does not undermine the other.
Moreover, the central argument against Roe v Wade is not religious but rather that it was defectively reasoned; that justices invented a new constitutional right as a way to circumvent civil debate about the legality, morality, and science of abortion. As liberal pro-choicer Laurence Tribe once famously wrote, “behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Even pro-choice Republicans can, and should, view Roe v. Wade as a pristine example of judicial activism. It was, in fact, perhaps the most consequential act of legislating from the bench in American history. Not only did the decision nullify hundreds of existing laws dealing with the matter, it proactively created three-tiered legislation to ostensibly govern abortion (because in reality, there is no real limit, not even after viability), implemented without any genuine consideration for evolving technology or ethics.
Twitter erupted over her claims.
The liberals are projecting again b/c THIS is exactly what they would do if they were picking a SCOTUS nominee…it would be a person who rules by politics & hate of religion & not by law of the constitution. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump
— Aunt ChickChick (@cnjonesred) July 11, 2018
Don’t be shocked Joseph, she is merely eye candy in hopes that you will be led away by base lusts to embrace her damnable doctrines she is spewing.
However, the best responses to Tomi was this:
Being religious is not a requirement for being pro-life. It's not "judicial activism" to believe in the right to life.
— Jodie Augustine (@jojojoaugustine) July 11, 2018
That’s exactly right. This transcends religion or not religion as there are a myriad of people from both spectrums who recognize the right to life. However, it is based on, whether people know it or admit it, the law of God, namely the command, “You shall not murder.”
While I agree with her comments that we would do well to work at the local level to oppose abortion, namely in churches and our communities, that does not mean that seeking a judge, who is the minister of God (Romans 13-1-5), who recognizes both the law of God and the Declaration of Independence’s claim that our rights come from our Creator and that chief among them are the right to life, is somehow “religious judicial activism.”
Let me pull Lahren’s mask off for a moment: That’s a head on attack on Christianity and the law of God while claiming she is for law, and Fox News is promoting it be keeping her on air.
Other comments that I agree with on Twitter were:
This is Weapons grade stupid. Can @TomiLahren cite where in the Constitution that the framers wanted to be sure and deal with women's reproductive rights?
— Pettifogger In Chief (@dinomolonlabe) July 11, 2018
Some will take offense to the last one, but what other conclusion can you come to? She simply is fine with the federal government regulating abortion via Roe v. Wade, which is not a law, and yet claims she is against government regulation. Which is it Tomi?
The bottom line is that Tomi is a self-defined conservative and constitutionalist, but on the supreme issue of the right to life, above which all others don’t exist without it, she is neither.
If conservatives stopped watching her show, and yes, I only see parts of it on YouTube, then she would be out of a job again.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost