Especially since 1932, the Left has been “boiling us like a frog, 1-degree-at-a-time” toward a Marxist/Communist/Socialist-totalitarian end, now resulting in Barack Hussein Obama, farther Left than self-described Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (“Democrat”, Vermont), getting the Presidency.

Add now practically unopposed Leftist/Socialist government elitists in Congress, such as (Rep.) Nancy Pelosi, (Sen.) Harry Reid, and others; plus Obama’s Socialist plans, including to “remedy” the Constitution (according to him, a document of [quote] “negative rights, limiting government”, “written by ‘The Framers’ with ‘blind spots’”, “all of which must be remedied”, including “through the courts”), and, well, get ready to be in the U.S.S.A (United Socialist States of America)!

How is Obama such a Socialist government elitist?

For now, suffice it to say that some revealing things are, but not limited to, things Obama has written and said, in things he says, in his “voting behavior” in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate, and in his plans; plus the timeless principle, (which the Left is so opposed to consistently applying to him), that (quote) “You are who you associate with”, such as, but not limited to Obama’s (quoting him) “Mentor and advisor” Rev. Jeremiah Wright who spews Anti-American Black racist Socialism, unrepentant Terrorist bomber and (to this day) self-described “Marxist” Bill Ayers;  plus the fact that Obama has been endorsed by the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), and endorsed for President by the CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America), and of course they will endorse a Communist/Socialist government elitist like themselves, or the closest thing to one.

So now we certainly are in for Socialist-totalitarian (quote) “Change”!

Examples: Goodbye to more of our 1^st Amendment rights, including “freedom of speech, and of the press” as the Left makes regulation or law their so-called “Fairness Doctrine” for government control of “freedom of speech, and of the press” in radio, (in violation of the 1^st Amendment), which they sell under the old Communist/Socialist-totalitarian pretense of “countering” and “protecting from” (quote) “lies” and “hate speech”, etc, etc;

Goodbye to more of the 1^st Amendment “freedom of religion”, particularly the “free exercise thereof”, which the Left is manipulating and otherwise trying to make us forget, as evidenced by their multiplying efforts to ban the word “God” everywhere they can, and threaten teachers with their jobs for reading aloud things which our Founding Fathers wrote in which they exercised their “free exercise thereof” by making any reference to anything such as a “God” or “a religious people” (meaning people exercising their 1st Amendment "freedom of religion").

Plus, there is the Democrat effort in Congress to confiscate people’s retirement accounts (including 401(k)’s and IRA’s) through baiting and putting them under “Social Security Administration” in a Leftist/Socialist plan which not only confiscates the people's retirement accounts but also punishes incentive, investment, productivity, and success (including business and business creation, and thus also jobs and job creation), through confiscatory taxes and tax vulnerability against most everyone, thus lowering most everyone's incomes (except, of course, that of government), and altogether makes more people more dependant upon government.

Plus, goodbye to more of our 2^nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”, as the Left works to disarm the populace, one “regulation” and “gun ban” at-a-time, thus repeating history which shows that (quote) “Among the first priorities of tyrants is to disarm the populace”, even going so far as to dismiss the efforts of our Founding Fathers for our Constitutional “Bill of Rights (the 1^st 10 Amendments)”, including that of Thomas Jefferson who said (quote) “Laws that forbid arms, disarm only those neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes”, and (quote) “The beauty of the 2^nd Amendment is it shall not be needed until they try to take it away”.

In short, goodbye to more of our Constitutional freedoms, free enterprise, and personal responsibility, and hello to more government control, higher taxes, and more vote-buying spending programs and schemes bringing more dependence upon and control by Leftist Orwellian “Big Brother” government elitists.

Meanwhile, it’s being proven that, (quote) “A free and powerful people will remain so until enough realize they can vote themselves largesse from public funds, which is then followed by tyranny”.

Indeed the fact is Obama’s Socialist plan to “spread the wealth around” through higher taxes, as he “let slip” to “Joe the plumber” (who asked Obama a question and was subsequently attacked and ridiculed by Obama and his Leftist allies, including the media, for calling Obama’s answer what it is), is in fact based on “redistributionist” Marxist/Communist/Socialist government elitism.

Not only that, but as for Obama’s saying that he will (quote) “cut taxes for 95% of ‘families’ or ‘American workers’”, that was a purely deceptive ploy because the rather obvious fact is that there is no “cutting taxes for 95%” when more than the bottom 33% don’t end-up paying anyway, so of course Obama won’t (quote) “cut taxes for 95% of ‘families’ or ‘American workers’”!

Indeed, with Obama’s Socialist plans to “spread the wealth around” (take from those who pay and give it to others), create the biggest Leftist expansion of government since the “New Deal”, (Socialist health care, etc), and more, he will of course have to raise taxes through the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, not only against “the top 5%”, but also against most families and American workers!

Unfortunately for "We The People" and fortunately for Leftist/Socialist government elitists, the fact is there is no raising taxes, especially in an economic downturn (whether “The Revenue Act of 1932” which made “The Great Depression” even worse, or today), without making things worse.

If you still doubt these things, dare to think and research independently, which government elitists cannot truly stop, and you will find these things are true.

These days we hear some people asking (quote) “Should the government control talk radio to make it more 'balanced?”

There are two things immediately evident in that question:
#1. Deliberately orchestrated and manipulated ignorance of the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and what it says about (quote) “freedom of speech, and of the press”, and thus also,

#2, ignorance of the fact that Congress is thereby Constitutionally prohibited against making any law for government control of our (quoting the 1st Amendment) "freedom of speech, and of the press".

Now to know and understand what the 1st Amendment statement of (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" means and applies to now is to first take it in context of the fact that when the Constitution was written in the 18th Century (1700's), the 18th Century version of "mass media" (means of public dissemination of news, information, and views) were establishments which utilized "printing press" technology to physically print news, information, and views on pieces of paper, and thus the 1st Amendment term "the press".

Next, you have to realize that "the press" didn't stay so exclusively defined by and limited to "free speech" dissemination of news, information, and views from such as "word of mouth" to "the printed word", when the telegraph and telegraph technology reached the point by the mid-19th Century (1800's) when the press certainly could and did use it. At that point "the press" as the 19th Century version of "mass media" ceased to be limited to only "the printing press", as it then became a practical necessity for both the press itself and the means of the press to go beyond "the printing press" and include the telegraph and everything involved with it. So then came press telegraphers, telegraphing reporters, and telegraph offices; plus, because telegraph technology then depended upon "wire" technology; "wire services" became available, and that led to the inclusion of "wire services" and "wire service organizations", along with a new popular term "wire" as in "to send/receive a telegram/wire".  

After that, "radio" and radio technology came and was developed by the early 20th Century (1900's) to the point where the press certainly could and did expand into something new called "broadcasting" news, information, and views, etc, through "talking on the radio", instead of being defined by and limited to "the printing press, the telegraph, and newsprint only". Thus, the press did indeed grow to include and be defined by "the press" broadcasting news, information, and views, etc, through both "print" and "talking on the radio" before the phrase "talk radio" came into vogue. 

Since then, with the invention and development of such things as television, and computer/internet-based "new media", etc, "the press" has continued expanding and becoming more than just "the press which prints" and the press which broadcasts news, information, and views through “radio" since, with the invention and development of such things as television and computer-based "new media" entities and technologies, "the press" now includes and is defined by all of those things from "print", to "radio", to TV", to "new media", etc. Thus also we have the fact that those who present news, information, or even views, etc, through such as newspaper, television, radio, and "new media", are called everything from the (quote) "man (or woman) on the street" to "members of the press"/"media personalities", including those at any time and to any extent associated, involved, and/or interacting with such as "print media", television programs and talk shows, "talk radio shows", and "new media" internet outlets.

So altogether, since the days when "the press" was indeed defined by "the printing press" and "words printed on paper" as a "mass media", what we have now is a “press" which has long since expanded into being "the press" which includes newspaper and other forms of print, plus radio, television, and computer internet “old (dominant) media” and "new media" sites, etc.

Therefore the 1st Amendment declaration of (quote) “freedom of speech, and of the press” now applies to and means the following:

We as U.S. citizens, including any of us in, and/or in any way associated/interacting with any part of the press (including radio), for any amount of time, whether “Conservative”, or “Liberal/Socialist”, or “None of the above” “Joe [or Jane] Citizens”, are Constitutionally protected and guaranteed to be free to exercise our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" as we choose, and as much as we choose, without government control.

Now one thing, among others, which drives those most determined to have government control of any part of the press, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, is the fact that now there is finally one major “new kid on the block” in the form of a certain relatively new major Network which has actually managed to become the first major network today to so succeed against the still dominant and verifiably biased media in basically the following two ways:

1. By actually daring to succeed through providing news, information, and views which are unavailable from the still dominant media with their cleverly practiced yet increasingly verifiable agenda-driven bias for which they do such things as omit things as "un-newsworthy", and "slant" everything else they present, etc, and 

2. by thus also becoming the first major Network today to so successfully defeat any and all efforts by the still dominant media to “crush them like a little bug and make them go away!”

Thus indeed the still dominant media are losing their former virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, actually as a consequence of their own formerly unchallenged, arrogant, condescending, biased agenda-driven antics and machinations, all of which are actually fueling the fact that they are actually losing against that certain relatively new major network, and the fact that they are also simultaneously losing readership, listenership, and viewership to other alternative sources including both "talk radio" and “new media” which are indeed succeeding against the still dominant media in the same way as that certain aforementioned major network is. To wit: Those alternative sources are also providing news, information, and views which are unavailable from the still dominant media with their verifiably agenda-driven bias.

So now the still dominant media are realizing that they are losing their virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, etc; so of course they are basically "screaming bloody murder" like spoiled children accustomed to having their dominance and power remain virtually unopposed, and so they are basically "throwing a temper tantrum" accordingly as if (A) they haven’t had a virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, and haven't been unfairly squelching and overwhelming alternative sources; (B) as if they aren’t still the dominant media trying to save what remains of their dominance and virtual monopoly, and (C) as if they, the still dominantly huge and entrenched media, who "wrote the book", as the saying goes, on unfairly squelching and overwhelming alternative sources of news, information,m and views, are the ones being unfairly squelched and overwhelmed by comparatively tiny and far from dominant alternative sources, including a comparative few in radio.

So now, contrary to both the Constitution and reality, the still dominant media, and others, are pretending and demanding as if they need “Big Brother” (the Federal Government) to “step in” and make law such things as their so-called “Fairness Doctrine” for government control of radio, in direct violation of the 1^st Amendment, in order to make still comparatively small, few, and far from dominant alternative sources of news, information, and views, such as "talk radio", “shut up and let them talk”, even though they know that they are still so dominant, and thus doing so much more of the "talking", that they still have most people relying on them for their news, information, and views…all of which, you should see by now, makes all of their pretending and demanding government control of radio both diabolically laughable and Unconstitutional. 

Yet here we are now today with far too many people proposing, and even demanding government control of radio, when the fact is that any such law for government control of any part of the press is in direct violation of our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control.

So of course any such law is no way for us to remain free people, in a free country, with (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press (including talk radio)", but of course any such effort for any such government control, including the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", most certainly is a way to kiss (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" goodbye and so descend further down into becoming yet another Socialist/Totalitarian country with government control of the press, a.k.a. "mass media", which includes radio.  

So how do we stop such an effort for government control?

Well for one thing, hopefully there are enough people to alert others and help stop such efforts for government control of our (quoting the 1st Amendment) "freedom of speech, and of the the press", such as the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", including those who can help alert the people through remembering and telling people about being in school in the U.S. and learning, until recent years at least, about Socialist/Totalitarian countries where there is indeed such government control of their press (including radio) through laws which are also claimed to be a "countermeasure" against “imbalance” and "lies”, etc, and how our government didn’t control our press (including radio) here then, and how that would never happen here in the U.S. because of our Constitutionally guaranteed and protected (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press", which, as correctly stated both then and now, includes radio.

Meanwhile, both we and those whom we alert must all defeat any efforts for government control of our freedom of speech and any part of the press, including radio, because any such efforts are quite clearly and obviously in blatant and direct violation of our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control of our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press", and we must all insist and see to it that Congress obey our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control of our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" by refusing to make any law for government control, including the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for government control, and thus "preserve, protect, and defend" what remains of our Constitutional 1st Amendment "freedom of speech, and of the press", which includes "talk radio", without government control.

People ask the question: How small of a car is too small?

As this involves the ultimate comparison between the both real and potential value of a human life vs. that of a gallon of fuel (or any other liquid, solid, or gas, for that matter), this is one of those times when, like the saying goes, (quote) “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with the ultimately right and true answer to this question”

Indeed this is one of those times when getting the ultimately right and true answer to this question is no more difficult and complicated than that illustrated by Thomas Jefferson when he said (Quote): “Present a problem to a ploughman (plowman), and a professor; the former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules".

For example: All it really requires is to have enough common sense to understand a basic law of physics which can be stated as follows: “In a collision, the greater (larger and heavier) of two masses will prevail".

In other words, for example, in a collision involving a brand new BMW Mini Cooper and a brand new Ford Escape, the reason why the relatively small Ford Escape and its’ occupant(s) will most likely come out better than the even smaller Mini and its’ occupant(s) has absolutely nothing to do with so-called “unfair advantage” and everything to do with the basic law of physics as stated above, (quote) “the greater of two masses will prevail”, no matter how "stiff" or “tough” or anything else the “engineers” may try to make the bodywork or anything else about the BMW Mini Cooper, or any other smaller of any two vehicles involved in collisions.

Of course some, such as auto engineers, auto manufacturer's marketing divisions, and dealership salespeople, will strive to insist to the contrary against such a basic law of physics in order to sell smaller cars, and so engage in all sorts of efforts to overcome or otherwise contradict that law and conjure-up any “data” accordingly, similar to a number of [quote] “modern, up-to-date” people who insist the earth is flat, presenting any amount of specious (having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious) claims as if to prove it is flat, and declaring that any information to the contrary is a [quote] "deliberate campaign of misinformation", but nevertheless the basic law of “the greater of two masses will prevail” still remains true, as does the earth’s practically spherical shape.

So, how small of a car is too small?

The fact is that, even with all things considered, one single overruling and overriding law of physics makes it so that any vehicle smaller than that which you could afford is too small, exactly because the VPHL (Value Per Human Life) in your vehicle is worth more than any MPGR (Mile Per Gallon Rating).

The question is asked: Should grass lawns be banned in water restricted areas?

In other words: Should our Constitutional private property rights be "banned in water restricted areas"?

Of course since the answer to that second question is "No” the answer to the first question is thus also of course "No."

Indeed “We The People” see and hear those critters speaking their “Bovine-Scatology-ese”, “in the name of the environment/precious resources” of course, at both the unfortunately apathetic majority of citizens and too many misled voters, making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution and our Constitutional rights and freedoms, which include our private property rights.

The fact is, as much as they hate to hear it, the last time “We The People” checked, we’re supposed to be a nation based on “the rule of Constitutional law” instead of a nation based on “making exceptions”, “in the name of the environment”, or anything else!

Of course there both have been and are those who insist on “making (and/or being) exceptions”, such as the late former President Richard Nixon who had to resign to avoid being Impeached for trying to make and be an exception in connection with one thing ("Watergate”), and there is a certain recent former President from Arkansas who made a habit of doing so, and ended-up being Impeached (convicted) by the House of Representatives, which is what the House has the Constitutional authority to do. Note: He was indeed Impeached by the House (which means "convicted") on 4 counts of violating Constitutional laws, including perjury and subornation of perjury, but then the Senate simply wasn’t equally faithful to those laws and the principle of "equality under the law" (instead of "making an exception for him" as if he is "above the law") enough to “remove from office” accordingly, albeit it is the Senate’s Constitutional authority to decide whether or not to “remove”).

At any rate, you should already be at least beginning to see that any "exception making" for any "Yes" answer to the question at hand is Unconstitutional, in violation of what are our Constitutional private property rights; those rights are not there to be a “pick and choose buffet of exceptions to make” out of them, and therefore the answer to the question at hand is indeed “No, grass lawns should not be banned in ‘water restricted’ areas”.

The fact of the matter is that our Constitutional private property rights are most certainly not a “Pick and choose buffet” for “making exceptions” whenever it suits the fancy of politicians and others who would so violate them, including certain politicians and others who would do so (quote) “In the name of the environment” or any part of it.

Further, even I have experienced how such governmental/bureaucratic violators operate, such as in a certain Southeastern State where I resided for most of my life, where their actions and the consequences of their actions are are indeed prime examples of the Unconstitutional, anti-private property attitudes and efforts of certain politicians, bureaucrats, and others, throughout the U.S.

How so? Ok, first some pertinent clues about that certain Southeastern State, as pertains the question at hand:

Even the weather in that certain Southeastern State is so notoriously wet and hot ("humid and hot"), year-round, that it truly has practically no "seasons" other than what could be called "hot, and hotter"; most of the Southern half of it is virtually covered by water in the form of swamps and wetlands; that State also features the 2^nd largest freshwater lake wholly within the Continental U.S., and of course lakes are filled with water; that State also features water at more than one level underground; that State leads the Continental U.S. in lightning strikes; of course lightning strikes are not associated with sunshine but are instead associated with rain; so indeed that certain State, especially the Southern half of it, has been known to surpass, and is more than capable of surpassing  “the rainy Northwest (Oregon and Washington)" in both rain and rainy days, and so altogether that certain Southeastern State has at least a bit of a tendancy to feature more water in all its' forms, along with associated lightning strikes, than any other State except Hawaii.

However, about eleven years ago or so in the Southern part of that certain Southeastern State, certain “water control” bureaucrats imposed so-called “temporary” (insert laughter here) water restrictions because of a relatively appreciable drought. Result? Dead lawns and greenery everywhere! Note: Why "insert laughter" between "temporary" and "water restrictions"? Because, as is practically always the case, the nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a governmental/bureaucratic “program” (power-grab), all too often including "temporary water restrictions", as shown in this case.

So then of course the only people who could practically counteract the deliberately ridiculous “watering hours", etc, were those people with their own built-in sprinkler systems on timers, including many of those same "water control" bureaucrats, and you can bet they did so!  

Very soon afterward the "normal" rains returned, but of course those water control bureaucrats had already declared their "temporary" water restrictions “permanent”; then, lo and behold they let the water levels rise to the point where numerous animals, such as those in the swampland which nearly covers the whole Southern part of the State, drowned; then, because of all the "bad press" they got for that one, they actually managed to lower the water levels enough to stop the drowning, never mind it was already too late for all the drowned animals, and yet, all the while, they kept posing and preaching about "precious water resources” of course.

Thus, private property rights aren’t the only things “water control” bureaucrats get away with “drying up” and "drowning", etc, "in the name of precious water resources”, of course!

Now lest anybody try to say "Well our water control bureaucrats don't do that where we live", well, do enough real honest-to-goodness investigating and you will find that your Constitutional rights, including your private property rights, don’t exactly escape similar and other governmental, bureaucratic, and other politically-driven "environmentalist" abuses and attacks.

The fact is that our private property rights, along with others of our Constitutional freedoms and rights, are indeed under persistent abuse and attack, including through the question at hand, in the name of various things including (but not limited to) “precious water resources”, etc.

Thus we face no better in Obama than we do in Hillary when we face facts including, but not limited to, the follwing about Obama:

"Mr. Change" tries to play “The Artful Dodger" when he is asked questions which would force him out from behind his rather platitudinous slogan about “Change”, at which point he responds with cunningly evasive “politician’s answers (answering questions without really answering questions)”, and so, thanks to that and his other antics, people are realizing those things and asking “Just how does Obama propose to do what he says? Who is he really, and what really is his attitude and aim?”

“Mr. ‘I’ll get us out of Iraq immediately” again plays “The Artful Dodger” about just how he proposes to do that, when the fact is that if “Pulling out of Iraq immediately” really were a realistic and responsible option, well, for two years both he and his Liberal Comrades (including RIPO’s [Republicans In Party Only]) have presumed to have the authority and votes to “de-fund”, override Presidential veto, and pull us out of Iraq, yet they still don’t do it because it is no such option.

“Mr. ‘My mentor, and spiritual advisor is Reverend Jeremiah Wright'" is now both denying he said that, and desperately trying to disassociate himself from the teachings of his "mentor and advisor (Wright)". How?

Altogether, dishonesty is “a worn-out issue”?

Such Liberal/Leftist politicians and voters remind of a Fleetwood Mac song where it says “Tell me lies!”

There are those who are asking the question (Quote): “Should the U.S. allow for more lenient immigration policies toward highly skilled workers?”

In other words: Should we in the US continue, yet again, to "except" our way further out of being a Nation based on equality under the rule of law and equal opportunity, and down into being nation based on "making exceptions", such as that in a "caste" system (caste: separated from others by distinctions of hereditary rank, profession, etc. [or political expediency, "political correctness"], etc), and thus also continue further down into falsely claiming and pretending that much more to be a nation based on equality under the rule of law and equal opportunity?

If the answer is "Yes”, then why did we ever bother with our Revolutionary War to, among other things, separate ourselves from such systems where "exceptions" based on such things as "profession/skill level", etc., were the rule, and instead become a Nation based on equality under the rule of law and equal opportunity, where any child born here could grow up to be "President" and, until relatively recently, parents could educate their children as they saw fit, and nobody had to worry about the government making exceptions for people, such as that based on such as "skill level", etc?

Likewise, if the answer to the question at hand is "Yes", then what about the disincentive such "making exceptions" presents to the (as of yet) overwhelming majority of native-born U.S. citizens (including students), against their being and/or becoming "highly skilled", and indeed against their pursuing/completing any further education and/or training to become so?

 
Also, what about the further limiting effect on business/job market opportunities caused by such “exception making” for "immigrants" and thus, in the real world, consequently against native-born U.S. citizens, whether there may or may not be such as "an employer’s job market (more job applicants than there are jobs)" at times?

Now you should at least begin to see that if you would say "Yes" to the question at hand, you would not only be adding fuel to that diabolical fire of disincentive and unequal opportunities but you would thus also have us continue to move, yet again, that much further away from being a Nation based on equality under the rule of law and equal opportunity, and further down into being another nation "making exceptions" based on "profession/skill level, etc" which is exactly what, among other things, we fought our Revolutionary War to distinguish and separate ourselves from!

"We The People" are already shocked, amazed, and increasingly infuriated by such formerly unimaginable, Leftist/"progressive" political expediency-driven, public and national policy practices, efforts, and propositions which, when implemented, repeatedly "yield the fruits" of, among other diabolical consequences, the fact that such "social engineering", and the promotion of it, is essentially the "stock-and-trade" of Leftist/"progressive" politicians, and their allies in academia and the media, for the gathering and cultivation of masses of thus beholden, obliged, dependant, and/or otherwise allied voters, followers, readers, and viewers, etc.

So of course "We The People" should be infuriated and determined to the point of action to stop any more of such “making exceptions” so subversive to equality under the rule of law and equal opportunity, such as that in accordance with a "Yes" answer to the question “Should the U.S. allow for more lenient immigration policies toward highly skilled workers?”.

While you're in a room, investigating a certain type of case, with (for example) a person, or persons, to each side of you, you could play the part of "Detective Sgt. Joe Friday" (of the original 'Dragnet' TV series fame), and ask "Ok, what's going on here? And please, just the facts."; Then one witness to one side of you could begin to describe exactly, but before that first witness could get beyond the first five words, some other would take offense at the first witness so matter-of-factly calling "a spade, a spade", and soon enough launch into attempts to eliminate the first as a factual witness, (including personal attacks, even name-calling, such as "Religious fanatic" [regardless of whether the first witness is, in fact "religious" or not], "Close-minded", "Void of 'Understanding' ", or even "NAZI [as if NAZI is a noun instead of an acronym]", "etc., etc., etc."; and then they would try to change the uncomfortable & inconveniently specific calling a spade "a spade", into a much more comfortable, convenient, and not so specific calling it an "agricultural implement".
Yes, there may be examples of "extremism" on both sides.
For example: On the one side, (among so many who hold both conceived & infant life so equally precious), there are a few who go too far and vandalize places where human life is not held so precious; And yes, of course swift & sure punishment should follow such cases of vandalims or arson.    
On the other side, there are many, (among the number favoring "termination on demand" [for anything in addition to a Direct And Immediate Threat To The Mother's Life, Inscest, and Rape]), who do anything from at least condoning, to demanding "termination on demand", including "Partial Birth Abortion"...the undebatable murder of well advanced, or fully formed human beings! 
Yes, the subject here is "abortion". 
HOWEVER!
Before anybody "cuts & runs" in either direction "for" or "against", be "Fair & Tolerant" enough to hear this out, then go as you please! 
Now...Do not mistake the following as advocating vandalism to, or arson of,  clinics, it is most certainly not!!  So, even with private property rights, and the swift & sure punishment which should follow vandalism to or arson of a building, which one is actually irreplaceable...such a building, which can be repaired or replaced, or a human life, which cannot be replaced?".  Again!...Do not mistake that as anything even remotely advocating vandalism to or arson of a building, because it is most certainly not!  What it is, is essentially to ensure clear & accurate perspective with regard to every body involved (and yes, I mean every...body). In other words:  "Which is irreplaceable:  Your mother, or a building (or car, for that matter)?; Your child, or a building (or car, for that matter)?  Again (Third time!)...This is not to be mistaken as anything even remotely advocating vandalism or arson of any clinic...it is most certainly not advocating any such thing! 
O.k, so there are people on the other side of the room, in this "investigation", those who "took offense" at the first witness "calling a spade, a spade", instead of "an agricultural implement"; or "a murder", "a murder", instead of something more comfortable & convenient, such as "an unquestionable right! to do so at will!"; i.e., those who demand, advocate, favor, or are at least amenable to Abortion On Demand " (For anything in addition to the causes described above).  Indeed, you hear them pose the question: "When is a human life, a human life?" In other words, they want to say "What Is/Is Not a Human Life".
Those who would pose "What Is/Is Not a Human Life", bait their hook likewise; and sure enough, too often those who hold both conceived & infant human lives equally precious , go for it, and are reeled into  debating "What Is/Is Not a Human Life"!
Well, here is something which should void that debate, or at least help those who will, leave such semantics to those so determined, like Crabs-In-A-Bucket, to drag everybody else down with them, into the Dark Side which is as follows: 
"That society found debating what is and is not a human life, will be found destroying it!"
So!...We're debating??? 

 To say "There are no absolutes" is to throw away the map; To say " There is no right and wrong" is to throw away the compass;  and then be found wandering, lost, even shocked and amazed at the consequences, such as:  The Menendez brothers, and students saying "I just wanted to see what it's like to kill somebody"...Need I say more?