Ken Buck’s Abortion Stance Cost Him a Senate Seat

WELD COUNTY DA KEN BUCK SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO:

PROTECT YOUR DOPE = GOOD

PROTECT YOUR FAMILY = BAD

The Weld County District Attorney declined to press charges for second-deg­ree murder in the recent fatal shooting of one man, and the stabbing of another by Karen Eaine Cordova, 48, of Erie: known dope dealer. According to Ken Buck's spokespers­on, Jennifer Finch, the marijuana dealer will not be charged.

Mr. Buck has, however on March 9, 2011, arrested, jailed, and charged Craig Buckley, 49, of Longmont, with Harassment for attempting to fend off the theft of his home by former employers, Dream Stone, Inc., Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida Murphy. It is Buckley's understand­ing that Ken Buck intends to agressivel­y prosecute this case.

"I sued the employers for accrued wages which they owed me at the time they forced me to quit my job. They admitted the matter of accrued wages was before the Court, yet in a last ditch effort to strip me of my Due Process rights, they falsely swore befort the Court that the matter was before the Division of Labor, causing me to be stripped of all evidence necessary to prosecute my case a mere 16 hours before my scheduled deposition", states Buckley. "The employers, by fraud, obtained a default judgment for attorney's fees in excess of $20,000.00, than immediately used their fraud upon the Court to commit Class 3 felony theft by deception by slapping a fraudulently obtained lien on our home."

"We begged the Weld County DA, the Frederick

police, the Attorney General, and the Weld County Sheriff for help for months, all to no avail: we were ignored by all."

On April 7, 2011, Buckley met with Mr. Buck again. This time the Weld County DA's tone was much more menacing. Buck stated, of the fraudulent lien, "I don't care", "That's not my problem". Buckley was then escourted out of the DA's office by 5 armed Weld County Sheriff's Officers.

Craig Buckley still faces criminal charges for attempting to defend his family and home, and expects foreclosure on his property before the end of Summer.

Craig Buckley of CO 7:30PM July 13, 2011

Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and our laws prohibit denying a person's right to life. Abortion is not only barbaric, but it is also criminal.

Let's look at norris' post. He provides a scenario very similar to one of the four I examined early: a child that is conceived in a family that is financial broke and or unable to support the new member. He believe's that we are denying the mother her human rights by not allowing an abortion. First of all, the freedom and liberties we experience in America do have limits. Just because a person hates blacks, does not give that person the right to kill them. An American Muslim may express his extremist views all day long, but he does not have the right to take away the right to life from his fellow Americans. Thus, Mr. norris is incorrect. The mother's human rights have not been violated. Second, as I mentioned earlier the family's financial troubles are the problem. Is it really just and morally right to take the child's life because he/she was born to a poor family? Is it not morally better to fight poverty instead of using it as an excuse to continue supposed rights which do not exist? (When I say "supposed rights", I mean a woman's right to deny the right of life to her child.) Third, he believes the child will have to be supported by the bane of all conservatives: welfare. The idea of welfare is not bad, but the system is being badly abused. Again, this sounds more like a reason to fight poverty and fix our welfare system than abortion.

In ancient Palestine, people offered their children to "gods" and placed their infants on pre-heated arms of idols. Rome crudely performed abortions and some citizens threw their children over bridges. Spartans did the same thing with children that failed to meet their requirements. We view such civilizations with contempt because we are more modern and realize that they were living in the dark. Yet here we are today, killing our children with no real excuse as to why it is okay.

Patrick of LA 8:49PM November 06, 2010

Let's all remember that abortion kill a human being. No matter how you may try to philosophize or use scientific terminology, abortion is the destruction of a human life that has not committed a crime or a soldier in a war. Last time I checked, such acts are labelled as murder and or man-slaughter. But perhaps abortion uses admirable reasons to affirm its existence. Let's look at a few:

1) A couple get pregnate outside of wedlock. Dad doesn't want to pay for childcare/mom isn't emotionally or socio-economically ready to take care for her child. Abortion offers a way out without any of the expensive consequences of a kid. Problem: This situation indicates that the couple are unresponsible. They are not ready to accept the consequences for their actions and decide to have someone else, the unborn child in this case, to pay the price. Does this make any sense?

2) A poor family is having are hard time making ends meet and one thing leads to another and mom is pregnant. Great, one more mouth to feed and clothe. While abortions may not be cheap, one payment makes life easier than several payments on one kid. Besides, why make a child go through poverty like that? Problem: Millions of children are living in poverty and several of them are orphans, yet I have heard of a human rights group asking that we kill them to put them out of their misery. The child isn't the problem. The economic situation of the parents is. This should be the target, not the child.

3) A girl is raped by boyfriend/step-dad/whomever and is pregnant. The child in her reminds her of the man who raped her. She decides that aborting the child will fix everything. Problem: While the woman may indeed be in extreme trauma and deserves the pity, compassion, and love of those around her and hear her story. However, this scenario is the same as the first one. Someone did the wrong thing and the unborn child is the target of the consequences. Again, is this just? It isn't just to kill or discriminate someone for his/her skin color. Why then is it just to kill someone for how he/she was conceived?

4) Adoption and social services systems are broken. The child would be better off dead. Problem: Again, many kids are adopted, orphaned, and a part of social services. While these things are bad or imperfect, I haven't realized that killing these children will solve the problems of social services and adoption processes.

As we can see, there is no justifiable reason for abortion.

Patrick of KY 2:58PM November 06, 2010

As a Ken Buck supporter, I was saddened that the TV ads against him were so effective, claiming his pro-life position was radical instead of consistent, in one case, and in the other, smearing him because of a rape case that did not have a chance of winning. My conclusion is thus:

1. Colorado, suburban, mostly white women must have the option to abort their children, just in case.

2. Colorado, suburban, mostly white women follow the in-crowd, pro abortion opinion makers about who is acceptable or not. Joy Behar has more clout than the parish priest, when you can find one who isn't pro abortion.

3. The abortion issue was cynically used to overshadow the Fed's more pressing fiscal irresponsibility because it provided cover for Michael Bennett's reliable Obama votes, e.g. ObamaCare, which was enough to tilt the vote in the Democrat's favor. My opinion of women is lowered.

Too bad, and too sad. We get what we have coming to us. My only philosophical consolation is that people have to live with themselves, and that is often punishment enough.

Man of CO 8:40PM November 05, 2010