Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should Republicans unite around one candidate or start a third party?

Posted by truthtalklive on October 10, 2007

Stu Welcomes Bob Enyart to Go head to head on this critical issue.

Bob’s site enyart.com

Advertisements

76 Responses to “Should Republicans unite around one candidate or start a third party?”

  1. Will D said

    Stu, if 2 people are trying to break into a school, and one wants to kill all the kids, and the other only wants to kill a few, who are you going to support?

  2. John said

    Frodo failed. The Republicans have the One Ring.

  3. James L. said

    I am 20 yrs old and in 2008 will voting in my first Presidential election. Obviously, this issue is very important to me otherwise I wouldn’t be writing.
    The fact is that everyone will stand before God and be judged(Hebrews 9:27). Both Christians and non-Christians will be held accountable for the actions they take and the decisions they make. Therefore, when I stand before God I want to be able to say that I voted for a person whose worldviews were scriptural and who sought to glorify Jesus Christ. Personally, I feel that I can vote for a Godly person and let God do the rest. After all,”…there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”(Romans 13:1) It seems that if every “Christian” were to put their vote where their mouth is, it would not be so unbelieveable to have a successful third-party candidate.
    In the end, every Christian needs to pray and seek God on the issue. Then, when they stand in front of that ballot box come 2008, they must remember that they too will be held accountable for that very vote. Thank you very much and God bless you guys.

  4. d said

    Will d, which one would you try to stop?

  5. Anonymous said

    “Will d, which one would you try to stop?”

    I hope that you would attempt to stop both by simply locking them out.

  6. Bob Enyart said

    James L, great post. And by the way, on Rom 13, yes, God all authority if from God. But don’t take that further than God meant it. God gave parents authority over children, elders authority over their church, and governing officials authority over citizens. That does not mean that if a dictator usurps power, that he has divine authority over a nation. Nor does it mean that if a man rapes a woman, he has authority over a child born as a result. Romans 13 reinforces the biblical truth that all authority flows ultimately from God. There are those in authority who should not be in authority, who should be removed from authority (a pastor committing adultery).

  7. Bob Enyart said

    Yikes, I can’t edit my typos on this blog!

    on Rom 13, yes, all authority ultimately flows from God.

  8. Will D said

    D said,
    “Will d, which one would you try to stop?”

    And the correct answer is: BOTH!

    You don’t support a child killer, because he wants to kill less kids than the other. You attempt to stop both. The way we can do that in the presidential election is by supporting Alan Keyes. I will not support the guy who wants to kill a few kids, will you?

  9. Troy said

    Bob, great post about Romans 13, possibly the most abused passage of scripture in America lately. Well stated.

    As for Christians rallying around a candidate or third party candidate, there is not a single Republican candidate running worthy of our support except Congressman Ron Paul, as I have pointed out in a few other threads.

    Consider this, if there were an ultimate third party choice today, it would arguably be Ron Paul anyway. He was the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1988, and is the most pro-life candidate running currently. As can be seen by his fund raising, straw poll wins, online poll wins, popularity on the internet and massive rallies around the country, Paul’s popularity has skyrocketed and he has become a true top tier candidate. This will only get bigger as his base of supporters are extremely dedicated and united in spreading his message and focused on the getting him the nomination.

    But that’s the Republican nomination so you have the best of both worlds… the ultimate third party candidate running for the Republican nomination. Any questions? Prayerfully check into him.

  10. Bob Enyart said

    Troy, thanks for the kind words. Now, please consider why I so strongly oppose Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it’s 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
    Pro-legalized abortion
    Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
    Pro-legalized homosexuality
    Pro-legalized pornography
    Pro-legalizing drugs
    Pro-legalizing suicide
    Pro-legalizing prostitution
    Etc. Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.

    Ron Paul beleives abortion is murder, but then he says that he would let the states decide whether to murder children. Thus, he doesn’t understand the God-given right to life. He doesn’t understand the foundation for law. Human rights trump states’ rights, and no government should allow any subdivision to own blacks, rape women, or kill Jews, Christians, or children. If Massachusetts legalized the lynching of blacks, the federal government should use every means at its disposal, even to the sending in of the Marines, to stop them. So too with the protection of innocent children, thus Ron Paul has little understanding of the utmost foundation of civil government, God’s enduring command, Do not murder.

    -Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

  11. Bob Enyart said

    Troy, AlanKeyes.com. Please, please, take the pledge! -Bob

  12. Troy said

    Mr. Enyart, For you to find fault with Ron Paul because of his association with the Libertarian Party is outright misleading and a weak reason to discount the only constitutionalist running. There are issues that party parts with him on. He is, so everyone knows, a Republican Congressman and is a Republican candidate.

    You are partly correct about Paul’s relenting any authority to state government not given to the federal government (as prescribed by the Constitution by the way and reiterated by the 10th Amendment for a reason,) but unfortunately you are either misinformed or acting so on his abortion stance. He is the strongest life candidate running, read on…

    You are correct, Ron Paul is staunchly opposed to abortion, personally, he believes it “is an act of violence” and “murder”.But you are incorrect about him stating that states should decide whether to murder children. I hope you are just misinformed otherwise this is very deceptive. Ron Paul believes that abortion, like most issues are the state’s responsibility to protect the unborn. (See legislation below) The idea that the federal government had the authority to make a choice in the first place is what has allowed a federal court case to keep it legal in the case of Roe v. Wade, that and gutless Republicans.

    You must check the fruit of the candidates. All Republicans say they are Pro-life (and a few say they are pro-choice at the same time),
    please refer to Ron Paul’s House bill “the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005” (for which he received little support) and now (reintroduced) the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (H.R.2597) that states:

    Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 – Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .

    Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

    Makes federal court decisions not binding precedent on the courts of any state or their subdivisions, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or their subdivisions.

    Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

    If you read that, as soon as that bill becomes law, ALL abortions would immediately be deemed illegal, states are only given jurisdiction to protect the unborn, it immediately removes any authority from the courts to legislate it again, and effectively voids Roe v. Wade.

    Post that on the front page of your site sir.

    Show us any other Republican that has even attempted something that effective. (fruit to backup the rhetoric.) Even if they could point to the partial birth abortion “ban”, that would mean they are merely for regulating some abortions. You yourself have written well about this and Ron Paul is the only Republican that I can find who raised any question (similar questions that you did in April, 07) about the “ban”. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

    I ask you again, Mr. Enyart to point us to any other candidate besides Paul, whom you imply is weak on abortion, who has actually put their political “money where their mouth is”. I can find none.

    Besides his attempted legislation, Ron Paul is an OB-GYN by trade, has delivered over 4000 babies personally. He states that from a medical perspective, life begins at conception and that he has never seen an instance when a decision had to be made between the mother and her baby (for those weak kneed Republicans who say they would support such an abortion situation.)post that on your site sir.

    Now Mr. Enyart, please ask yourself (or explain to us all) why Republicans had six new years of total federal control and still did nothing to end abortion? One Representative tried to actually do this effectively and that one person was Ron Paul. He had five co-sponsors in 2005 and not a peep from the Whitehouse to end abortion.

    You seem like a sincere and smart guy, with a platform Mr. Enyart. Please look at it again. Ron Paul is not your typical “Libertarian”. He is an enigma in politics. A pro life Christian with a voting record to back up his pro life, anti-abortion stance like no one else in politics at his level. Please do some homework before claiming someone is something they are not.

    Lastly, there is not a Republican running nor a third party candidate that stands a chance of beating a Hillary Clinton next year besides Ron Paul. They will pound the pro-war Republicans into the ground because of the sentiment that America now has for a war entered into and gone wrong, especially with the bunch that the Republicans are offering as a choice. No matter what one’s position is on the war, this is a fact (as Hannity, Rush and our President have all said themselves, as if they want her to win.) Christians please pray that God will mercifully overcome this blatant one sided direction that the left vs. right “powers that be” are taking us. And look for yourselves about what I claim of Ron Paul.

    Mr. Enyart, feel free to post this response on your site (please) but do it in it’s entirety.

  13. Troy said

    Bob, on abortion – http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=21
    the above legislation – http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597
    http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com

  14. Bob Enyart said

    Dear Troy,

    Please answer this question, if you are wrong about Ron Paul, do you want to know?

    If I am wrong about Ron Paul, I will endorse him for president on my radio show that airs on America’s most powerful Christian station (Denver’s 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT). And I will take you up on your offer to post your comment on my homepage at KGOV.com, followed by this reply, which demonstrates from Ron Paul’s public and legislative position that he is committed to States’ Rights far more than to stopping children from being murdered.

    As evidence of Paul’s stand to prohibit abortion in all 50 states, you refer to Ron Paul’s H.R. 776 [States’ Rights] Sanctity of Life Bill. 776 is an obvious states’ rights bill, and utterly tosses the abortion issue to the states, with no prohibition to abortion, and explicitly by Ron Paul’s bills (776 & 2007’s H.R. 300), the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to strike down, for example, California and New York laws permitting abortion.

    Troy, you quoted a summary of H.R. 776, but I will quote the actual language, to show you are indefensibly wrong in your claim that, “as soon as that bill becomes law, ALL abortions would immediately be deemed illegal.”

    Here’s the text of Ron Paul’s 2005 States’ Rights H.R. 776:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005′.

    SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
    (a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
    (b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–

    1) the Congress declares that–
    A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
    (B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

    2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

    [Troy, this is a states’ rights claim. A State has the authority to protect lives, which means they can do so if they choose, this is pro-choice, state by state, but by Ron Paul’s position and this Bill, no state has the obligation to prohibit abortion. In fact, the next section prohibits the U.S. Supreme Court from striking down laws, for ex., in California and New York that permit abortion:]

    SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
    `…the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review… any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute…
    `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
    `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
    `(A) the performance of abortions; or
    `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’

    So, in this extremist example of States’ Rights, the federal courts would have to officially ignore state laws that regulate abortion (as, by the way, the entire medical profession is regulated). And every regulation inherently authorizes and allows behavior, in this case, the slaughter of innocent children. But in truth, human rights supersede states’ rights, and no state has the right to regulate the killing of Jews, raping of women, or aborting of children, because any such law would violate the fundamental rights to life and liberty, the upholding of which are every government’s primary function.

    And Troy, his bill states: “a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.” Likelihood? From conception? By 2005, the term conception had long been redefined in medicine [he’s a doctor and must know] and in law to refer to implantation, days after fertilization. And putting in federal law this likelihood comment shows how Paul’s misunderstanding of fundamental issues of governance and right and wrong undermine the truth that any nation should stand upon. Correct would have been: “The Congress finds that at the moment of fertilization, the living human being possesses the inalienable God-given right to life endowed upon each of us by our Creator.” Not: a likelihood from [implantation].

    Justice and valid principles of governance did not come into existence with the ratifying of the Constitution. Thus Ron Paul is handicapped because he is not thinking outside of that box. Throughout the world, when men make a Constitution, from God’s perspective, that is like a side deal between themselves, and that is acceptable, only if it complies with God’s principles of justice. And our Constitution has violated fundamental principles of justice and governance, and where it does, should be corrected. And Ron Paul allows his commitment to our American side deal to undermine God’s requirement that no nation should intentionally allow the shedding of innocent blood within their borders.

    Even Ron Paul’s 2007 H.R. 300 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-300 ) repeats the same egregious misunderstanding of the fundamental responsibility of government, by requiring the federal judiciary to tolerate any and all state pro-homosexual and pro-abortion legislation. By not condemning the Libertarian Party’s godless and immoral platform, Ron Paul is part of America’s secular humanist problem, not part of its solution.
    And I blame Christian leaders and talk show hosts for not making it clear that for two decades, many believers were being misled into thinking that the Libertarians are a good match with Christian values, while in reality, the Libertarian Party is officially sexually immoral, murderous and godless.
    Ron Paul’s 2007 H.R. 300 “Act may be cited as `We the People Act’ and would have required the federal courts to permit, well, read it for yourself:

    “The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court– (1) shall not adjudicate– (A) any claim involving the laws.. of any State… relating to… (B) …any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction…”

    Ron Paul is a true Libertarian, and his America could be crawling with sodomite child-killers, and he would say that the federal courts should simply look the other way. That is not principled leadership, but immorality based upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy.

    So, I will repeat, Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it’s 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
    Pro-legalized abortion
    Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
    Pro-legalized homosexuality
    Pro-legalized pornography
    Pro-legalizing drugs
    Pro-legalizing suicide
    Pro-legalizing prostitution
    Etc.

    Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.

    And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is Al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.

    -Bob Enyart
    KGOV.com

  15. Troy said

    This is to see is the blog is working… someone says they posted

  16. Bob Enyart said

    Dear Webmaster,

    I posted a reply to Troy earlier today and it hasn’t appeared above yet, and instead says:

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    Any chance that post can be marked for publishing?

    Thanks, -Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

    (Either way, we’ll be posting an updated vesion of it at KGOV.com by 7 p.m. E.T.)

  17. Bob Enyart said

    Troy, Ron Paul states explicitly that he is pro-choice state by state (see his answer below, to a question asked by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul’s his principles (actually, a lack thereof) and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder.

    Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007:

    Question: Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute…? [and that each state should define what they believe on their own? If the constitution defines a right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]

    Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don’t fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they’re charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it’s more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it’s whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn’t have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it’s very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it’s difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That’s why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it’s in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved, and the solutions will not be perfect. We don’t live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers.

  18. Troy said

    Bob, frankly, your inclusion of the above interview with Ron Paul shows his understanding of the issue but more importantly his undeniable Pro-life stance. You are visibly putting words in Ron Paul’s mouth to say he is “pro-choice state by state”. The very first sentence in the transcript you posted is that he treats abortion like other “acts of violence”. I guess he means the legal kinds of acts of violence? Your view is overtly skewed by your distaste for Libertarianism. Ron Paul, although long associated with that political view and party, does not ascribe to all that the Libertarian party and many Libertarians promotes. Let’s remember that he has been a Republican Congressman for many years and is in fact running as the Republican nomination. To disqualify Ron Paul because of his association with the Libertarian party and speaking at their convention is ludicrous. If anything can be said about Libertarians it’s that they have a very broad spectrum of beliefs, some extreme some very conservative, like Paul’s. Let’s see, he spoke at the National Right to Life convention as well so following this logic, that proves he is Pro-life, right? Come on.
    In the transcript you cite above, he is more than clear that the federal government has proven what the founders knew. The states are where “all acts of violence are dealt with” and he clearly lumps abortion in with “murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter” for a reason, he clearly sees them as the same thing. In other words, abortion to him is already a crime to be dealt with at the state level.
    Ron Paul is for State’s Rights, as were the authors of our Constitution. But for you to imply that the Federal Government is more qualified at or has more authority from God to protect life than does the states is to deny the original intent and wisdom of the founding documents, despite their flaws. This is faulty policy as seen in the current position of the court. Abortion is “legal” now precisely because of the federal courts over stepping their authority. What in the world makes you think that this will change by giving the federal courts more power? If the federal court can give a right or authority, it can take it away. The founders knew the tendency of the federal government to merely increase in power and trample State’s as well as human rights, rights given to us by God, not man as acknowledged in the founding documents. Remember Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling. Restricting the court’s power is the antidote since men tend to ignore constitutional restraints altogether, particularly the tenth amendment.
    Ron Paul’s legislation which I directly referred to, H.R. 2597 has the wording to restrict the federal courts from “Roe v. Wade” style legislating.
    “(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.”
    “To protect lives”. It is not permission for states to legalize abortion, although lawyer types will undoubtedly argue this both ways, hence the need to “argue” the handling of the crime of abortion, closer to the people – at the state level. Paul’s point in your example above is clearly that abortion is illegal under the Constitution already and that the manner in which it is dealt with currently is inconsistent with the handling of other crimes, due to the Supreme Court’s meddling.
    This and the other wording in the actual bill text returns the power to the states to legally ignore Roe v. Wade along with any further federal judicial mandates that might come from the bench in regard to unborn humans, or anything else the Court wishes to “interpret” in the “spirit” of the Constitution rather than the strict construction of it.
    Again, why would legislation be needed to allow states to legalize something already viewed as legal across the country via the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling? The federal courts have already overruled human rights by assuming powers not vested them in the Constitution.
    Ron Paul is one of few politicians who understands that the Constitution is a limit on federal powers, period. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The authors’ main concern was a central government with too much power. They definitely were not for federal power to legislate morality or to form a Theocracy. Only God could justly rule by that means. The founders knew all too well the end result of excessive centralized power and thus were focused on limiting it. For you to imply that a federal Judiciary would remain in favor of protecting life better than the states, you have to ignore the last several decades of pro-abortion rulings from the very courts you seem to want to trust… courts controlled by “conservative” as well as liberal judges. You must be consistent with much of what you have spoke out against in regard to the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” which I agreed with you on almost completely. Federal regulation of most issues usually compounds the problems that already existed and solves nothing, ex. The “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc, and only results in money being wasted and stolen “in the name of” those programs. This is undeniable.
    The Supreme Court is a part of the problem, not the solution. In Federalist 45, James Madison states the constitutional principle that Ron Paul understands and that is clearly stated in our Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce … The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” [Italics added]
    Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 81, makes it clear that the Supreme Court, under the Constitution, is not a completely separate and independent body else it would have the ability to “write” law and thus be more powerful than any branch.
    “The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous.”
    He goes on…
    “In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”
    Reading the entire paper gives you the insight that is needed and the justification for limiting the Supreme Court greatly. Abortion is no different than any other form of murder which is dealt with at the state level. It belongs there, like the death penalty, according to the Constitution.

    The alternative is exactly where we find ourselves and is why Ron Paul introduced House bill H.R. 300, “We the People Act” which restricts the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to Constitutional levels. This is only necessary because the Supreme Court ignores their Constitutional restraints.
    The real problem in understanding here is that many conservatives now follow a neo-conservative mindset that has been brought on gradually. That the solutions to our country’s wrongs are to be found and implemented by the federal government. This way of thinking has snuck into the GOP as well as the Church and looks as much like liberalism or socialism as it does anything. The idea that the federal government can solve any social problems, provide any benefit effectively and handle controversial interpretations is absurd and fails miserably in the test of time. The suggestion that the federal government can be trusted with matters of protecting individual life is equally illogical. If it can define life, it can most certainly declassify it.
    The only resolution given to us by our founding documents for the punishment for abortion is the same as punishing capital crimes, which the Constitution permits and is delegated to the states. I must qualify that with the premise that murder is already illegal and that life is already endowed by the Creator and guaranteed us by the Constitution (except in matters where the Supreme Court has “interpreted” it away.) And for us to return to the constitutional protection of life to be carried out and prosecuted by the states, the abortion “debate” must be removed from the Supreme Court, which decided it oligarchically by fiat ruling already. This is the purpose of Ron Paul’s H.R. 2597 “the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007”.

    Please consider having Ron Paul, the Libertarian, on your show for an interview/debate. I think that would be great, don’t you?

  19. Troy said

    I apologize, my formatting failed in the last post. I’ve posted it at http://patriotbeliever.com/dnn/Default.aspx?tabid=37&EntryID=34 as well.

  20. Troy said

    And let me add this in light the insistent point of Paul’s libertarian leanings:

    Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
    by Congressman Ron Paul – 1981

    Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.

    Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

    We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

    A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

    Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

    Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

    The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

    A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the “right” of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

    Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

    We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

    I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

    Originally published as a 1981 article in LFL Reports: #1.

    Ron Paul, M.D., was born in 1935. He is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University, and served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard.

    Congressman Paul (R-TX) and his wife Carol have five children. They make their home in Lake Jackson, Texas, where the Congressman practiced obstetrics and gynecology.

    Convinced that the size, power, and cost of the Federal government had to be cut for our free society to survive, Dr. Paul ran for Congress and won a special election in April 1976. He was sworn in for his first full term in January 1979, representing the 22nd District until 1984. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. In 1996, he returned to the Republican Party and again won election to Congress.

  21. Troy said

    And the pertinent portion again, just to be clear, in case someone missed it, in light of Mr. Enyart’s above accusations concerning Dr. Paul…

    Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

  22. gus b. said

    I will consider supporting Ron Paul. First, I need to know, what would he do IF California, at the state level, legalized abortion on demand.

  23. Troy said

    Gus, a tough hypothetical to be sure, particularly if a President were to strictly limit himself according to the Constitution, as I believe Ron Paul will. The closest I can give you to an answer is found in Ron Paul’s own words in his speech in the House :
    Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle – Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 4, 2003
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

    and here: Pro-Life Politics? – Ron Paul – March 28, 2005
    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst032805.htm

    and here: Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law – Ron Paul – April 30, 2001
    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst043001.htm

    The importance of this is quoted by Paul…

    Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”

    M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”

    …please check out the linked pages above.

  24. Troy said

    It’s important to note Paul also offers this in the above:

    State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

  25. gus b. said

    Troy, I don’t know if you were responding to my post or continuing with your interesting discussion with Bob Enyart. But the “non encroachment” is troubling. Do you agree?

  26. Troy said

    Gus I was responding to you, sorry.

    I assume what you mean is the federal government (not) coming in and forcing a state to “do what’s right”?

    I guess I find troubling the idea that the federal government, that currently endorses and funds “legalized” abortion in real life, in real America, is somehow the savior in a hypothetical situation. No offense.

    So until Roe v. Wade law is overturned, negated or the Constitution amended to recognize human life at conception as a human being, such devil’s advocacy misses the point to me.

  27. Bob Enyart said

    Troy, you didn’t answer my first question, if you are wrong about Ron Paul, do you want to know?

    He is supportive of the sexually immoral, murderous, and godless Libertarian Party. Incidentally, driving to a pro-life event with our general manager Will Duffy on Friday, October 12, we saw a Ron Paul bumper sticker on a car that had a hate bumper sticker, the one that mocks Christianity by usurping the Christian fish symbol to promote Darwinism.

    Troy, will you now admit that Ron Paul would allow children in California and New York to be systematically mass murdered? That is EXACTLY what his 2007 bills state.

    For others, here’s an abbreviated version of Paul’s YouTube interview:

    Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w

    Question Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute?

    Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. …they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be… So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations… …we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level [i.e., no Do not murder].

    -Bob Enyart
    Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

  28. gus b. said

    Thanks Troy, for taking the time to answer. I’m just somewhat confused by Dr. Paul’s stance as a policy maker; is his “political” stance at odds with his “personal” stance? No offense taken; I see your point about the federal government. I just don’t know if “fifty” tyrants are better than “one”. I would feel better if Dr. Paul stated, without equivication, that aboration is murder and he would do everything from the “bully pulpit” to further that concept. I think, instead, (correct me if I’m wrong) he advocates 50 “bully pulpits”.

  29. Troy said

    Bob, of course I am interested in truth. If I were wrong about any candidate, I would want to know and act accordingly. I have done this in respect to George W. Bush, whom I supported originally.

    Your continued attempts to insinuate that Ron Paul is evil because of association with libertarians and now, what, a bumper sticker on a car? This is revealing. I know someone who has the Christian fish with two Ron Paul stickers. What’s the point? It is no secret that he has undeniably the broadest spectrum of political supporters. Perhaps some of them will come to Christ through associating with the many Christian supporters that are active in promoting Paul. What an opportunity, thanks for pointing it out.

    As for your analysis of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007, I disagree with your interpretation completely. You even pointed to the “significant likelihood” statement that does not exist in the version I specifically referenced (the current version H.R. 2597). You are reading into the bill to try and reverse the meaning of words. This is odd. The sections you criticized are specifically targeted at the Supreme Court. This is the purpose of the Act, it even says so in the bill, to repair what is broken, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized, at a federal level, abortion… the current law of the land.

    I pointed out in subsequent replies plenty of common sense from founding documents that completely support authority being returned to the states to protect life (as it is worded in the legislation as well.)

    Mr. Enyart, you are simply inaccurate in your statement and ridiculous assumption that children would be “systematically mass murdered” (like is currently occuring across the country?) in CA and NY under Paul’s 2007 bill. What a concoction. It specifically gives authority (back) to the states to protect life, that is what it says. Thousands of abortions per day are happening right now in the real world under the authority of the Supreme Court, which this bill specifically seeks to stop.

    Wording aside, what evidence is there that the federal government will ever prohibit abortion effectively? The best thing that a completely Republican (conservative) government has been able to do is regulate the methods of abortion, giving a walkthrough to the abortionist. Although you were correct on your analysis of the incredibly awful and overt Partial Birth Abortion Ban, frankly I find it hard to believe this is the same Bob Enyart. I am perplexed by the contrast.

    H.R. 2597 is there for everyone to see for themselves. Just consider one last thing, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban got major support far and wide by “conservatives” both political as well as evangelical, the Sanctity of Life Act receives and will receive, little to no support… for a reason – it would do away with the issue that every “conservative” loves at election time, at the federal level anyway, but never any other time in politics.

    As for the YouTube clip, as I already stated, it is a great clip and illustrates, regardless of your spin, Ron Paul’s opposition to abortion from a credible OB-GYN stand point.

    Here’s another one while we’re at it.
    Ron Paul at the National Right To Life Convention

    I have provided ample references to a plethora of writings and speeches by Ron Paul himself concerning abortion above for anyone to see.

  30. Troy said

    Gus, I don’t think Ron Paul wants 50 tyrants either. This quote addresses most of your questions I think:

    Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states’ rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.

    Bob, while we’re at it, I think Ron Paul would be a great guest on your show. He’s running for President for crying out loud… and you have a radio show, should be able to get him on before the primaries. Then you can tell him how evil he is for having stickers on cars with Darwin fish eaters and the like. (I’m kidding). But I think he would be a great guest for you, don’t you.

  31. Troy said

    Above quote is from http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst043001.htm
    (really wish you could edit replies somehow)

  32. David B said

    Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves.

    Bob, with all due respect, that really sounds like pro choice state by state candidate! Right!!!!!!

  33. Anonymous said

    Troy,

    God, in His Word, gives the government the responsibility of protecting innocent life. This responsibility takes priority over compliance with any man-made guidelines (such as your assertion that the Constitution forbids the Federal Government from legislating abortion). If Ron Paul esteemed the Lord more than the Constitution he would elevate the right-to-life (important to God) above states’ rights (irrelevant to God).

    In the Bible God presents a framework and a foundation from which Christians should think about the role of government. If you would view the political world from this foundation your passions would change from “a commitment to U.S. forefathers” and “beat Hillary” to “fear and honor the Lord” and “protect the weak and innocent”.

    Troy, can you see how your advocacy of Ron Paul’s strategy elevates the U.S. Constitution above God’s Holy Word? I’m not saying that protecting the innocent is not important to you. But I am saying that it is not as important to you as adherence to the Constitution. Thereby placing your trust and faithfulness to the vision of our forefathers above your trust and faithfulness to our Creator and Lord.

    -Joe

  34. Troy said

    Exactly as David has said, but I think since it is ignored, more of the quote is important to reiterate:
    (from http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=912)

    “…A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

    Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

    Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder…”

  35. Troy said

    Anonymous,

    Your statement is based on one fundamental fallacy, total blind trust in human government to carry out God’s will (especially by force) is not scriptural, contrary to popular belief.

    Of course my trust in the Constitution and the founders of America is subservient to my trust in God. Christians who bring this up act as though the Constitution matters little in our country. Although it is not scripture nor should it be elevated as such, it is the most important national document and is still in effect as the “law of the land”. This argument always comes up and I think it is because believers as well as non believers have no idea what the Constitution means to them let alone what it says.

    I never said the Constitution forbids the “legislating” of abortion. In fact, I have acknowledged again and again that it protects life the way it is written, it’s fundamental to freedom. The point is where the authority is placed to enforce and punish abortion as a crime. Because it has been misapplied, we have Roe v. Wade and other pro abortion rulings making abortion federally legal.

    How is it then, that we can argue against returning the authority of enforcing the protection of life to the states where, constitutionally it belongs? States must be allowed to outlaw abortion, not the federal government – they have already spoken and no conservative force has moved to strike it down effectively. Standing on sidewalks one hour a year is not going to do it. Having a Republican/”Conservative” controlled Supreme Court is not doing it and six years of “pro-life” Republican control of the entire federal government did not do it either.

    The “role of government” discussion usually comes up when people have been falsely taught that scripture somehow admonishes blind loyalty to any earthly authority (based on misapplying Romans 13 for example). Our representative republic is unique in history, is based on biblical ideals, but most believers have no idea what that implies in the way of their role and responsibility in that representative government.

    My “advocacy” for Ron Paul elevates the Constitution to it’s proper place, the law of the land, and based on God’s word, you are correct… we must follow it… or amend it.

    The other problem with your statement is your implication that somehow the Federal government is capable of protecting the life of the unborn human. I propose the proof against that is what we currently have abortion is legal right now. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the federal government is currently proving the point that it cannot and will not protect the life of the unborn – Abortion is legal right now, in today’s America at the federal level, because it becomes more difficult to effectively influence the federal government enough to prevent the Supreme Court from judicial activism that invented the law we have (Roe). This is the issue, not whether individual states “may” legalize abortion. The founders were mindful of the inability of a large centralized government to protect the most basic unalienable rights of man, thus the states were where they placed the ability to do just that.

    sorry, break is over

  36. Troy said

    Oh my, I just learned that Bob Enyart stated that Ron Paul is a secular humanist. Is this true Bob, have you stated this? False claims only hurt your position. That is a serious thing to say about someone who claims the opposite. I really think you should get Ron Paul on your show so you can make these assertions directly to him.

  37. Anonymous said

    Troy,

    On how to outlaw abortion you said:

    And I say AMEN to that brother!

    And I’ll add another – having each state utilize it’s autonomous authority will not do it either. That we might have to live through the realization of this fact, at the expense of the lives of millions of innocent babies, is an enormous tragedy. When will Christians stop with this foolishness?

    Stop lying to yourself Troy! If California ended up legalizing abortion Ron Paul would do nothing about it. Even though that would violate God’s “law” Ron Paul would be content because it satisfied the U.S. Constitution’s “law”. He (and you) elevate the responsibilities of a governor above that of a Christian. So that when the two conflict He (and you) obey man rather than God.

    -Joe

  38. Anonymous said

    Troy,

    On how to outlaw abortion you said:

    Having a Republican/”Conservative” controlled Supreme Court is not doing it and six years of “pro-life” Republican control of the entire federal government did not do it either.

    And I say AMEN to that brother!

    And I’ll add another – having each state utilize it’s autonomous authority will not do it either. That we might have to live through the realization of this fact, at the expense of the lives of millions of innocent babies, is an enormous tragedy. When will Christians stop with this foolishness?

    Stop lying to yourself Troy! If California ended up legalizing abortion Ron Paul would do nothing about it. Even though that would violate God’s “law” Ron Paul would be content because it satisfied the U.S. Constitution’s “law”. He (and you) elevate the responsibilities of a governor above that of a Christian. So that when the two conflict He (and you) obey man rather than God.

    -Joe

  39. Anonymous said

    [I’ll try to get the formatting correct one last time :)]

    Troy,

    On how to outlaw abortion you said:

    Having a Republican/”Conservative” controlled Supreme Court is not doing it and six years of “pro-life” Republican control of the entire federal government did not do it either.

    And I say AMEN to that brother!

    And I’ll add another – having each state utilize it’s autonomous authority will not do it either. That we might have to live through the realization of this fact, at the expense of the lives of millions of innocent babies, is an enormous tragedy. When will Christians stop with this foolishness?

    Stop lying to yourself Troy! If California ended up legalizing abortion Ron Paul would do nothing about it. Even though that would violate God’s “law” Ron Paul would be content because it satisfied the U.S. Constitution’s “law”. He (and you) elevate the responsibilities of a governor above that of a Christian. So that when the two conflict He (and you) obey man rather than God.

    -Joe

  40. Goriller said

    Let’s cut through the mountain of legalese and summarize this bill.

    Ron Paul’s bill says that states have the right to decide whether or not they want to murder children in section 2 when it says…

    “the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.”

    Notice it does not say the states are REQUIRED to protect the lives of unborn children.

    And worse than that, the next section says if a state decides to keep abortion legal, the U.S. Supreme Court can not overturn that decision:

    “…the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review… any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute…(2) regulates…(A) the performance of abortions;”

    Clear enough for you? Sick enough for you? Evil enough for you? Ron Paul isn’t even qualified to lead a Sunday school class.

  41. Troy said

    You can hypothetical any view to death. Like the liberal arguments “what if a woman gets pregnant by no fault of her own by XYZ… (fill in the blank)”. It goes on and on and on. But abortion is still murder. This is what the “CA and NY would have mass murder of babies…” hypotheticals sound like. Hey maybe we should count on Jack Bauer from 24 to end abortion, one presidential hopeful has suggested calling him to stop FoxNews’ fictional nuke from going off. But I digress…

    Look, Anonymous… neither myself nor Ron Paul (I believe) would obey man or man’s law over God, I explicitly have stated that, in my case, with scripture.

    The FACT is that the alternative to States having the right to outlaw abortion, is what we already have, federally legalized abortion, why shouldn’t we assert your logic right now? You and I live in a country right now where it is federally legal to murder babies, right now. Why don’t we all follow God’s law rather than man’s and physically stop them ourselves? Why don’t churches gather outside the killer’s businesses and physically stop them? Tear the places down? I could understand not wanting to do that and look for a “solution”, but to keep implying that the solution lies at the federal level is more crazy than that. Your solution already deemed abortion legal. Don’t you see the problem (besides personal immorality)? The federal government proves in inability to protect life every chance it gets. What happens in national disasters and crisis’s? The local authorities do infinitely better at them than the federal agencies. States prosecute all other capital crimes because the federal government could never get through them all. You think enforcing and prosecuting abortionists would be any different? You would need a whole new agency.

    If you don’t allow states to be authorized to outlaw it, it will not change. You’ll keep waiting on a “pro-life” President to appoint “pro-life” judges, but wait we tried that, in fact we still have that. Guess what, abortion is still legal.

    Why are abortion clinics and abortionists allowed to continue killing more than 4,000 babies a day today? Because your federal government, which you want to trust to prevent it rather than the states, currently requires that states allow the abortions. So you are waiting on a legal solution to stop the legal abortions by the federal government, from the federal government? What insanity.
    Passing the Sanctity of Life Act is currently the only legislation in Congress that would attempt to do it. It has to limit the Supreme Court’s ability and only Congress has that power. Read way up in the thread where I explain this. Show me another legal action, at the federal level that currently has the ability to do this. Anyone. Any bills out there pending? No. Ask yourself why.

    Goriller, the bill does not say “REQUIRED” because the Congress should not have that authority and the Constitution already REQUIRES” it that protection. But a strict reading of the legislation does not give authority beyond to “protect lives of unborn children”. Good grief, how this would not be better than the current “states have NO authority to protect the unborn” is beyond me. Even with all of your worst case scenarios, you would go from and entire nation of abortions to whatever number of states you guys keep theorizing would become the country’s abortion mills. And by the way, if you want to call it baby murdering only when referencing if a state legalized abortion, why not use that terminology consistently, because it is currently nationwide baby murdering (which I agree it is).

    I think most here would interpret that a complete abortion ban already exists in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Supreme Court circumvented this by fiat legislation. The Supreme Court restriction in the above bill is thus required. The enemy is lying to you guys.

    Leave the word meaning reversals and double speak to the lawyers. The Sanctity of Life Act would remove the completely unconstitutional Roe v. Wade from effect and would seek to limit the courts on abortion, this is a good thing based on the fact that the Supreme Court has proven it will abuse it’s “power”.

    Ron Paul is not running to be your Sunday school teacher – it’s an urban legend.

    Guys, agree to pray with me about this. I do and will. Please. I wish the discussion would be this rich in the churches and pulpits.

  42. Troy said

    In searching for myself to be sure that there is currently no other legislation related to real change of the current pro abortion policy at the federal level, I could only find another of Ron Paul’s recent bills that has not been mentioned: (If anyone knows of any others please let us know?)

    H.R. 1095: Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2007

    HR 1095 IH

    110th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 1095

    To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    February 15, 2007

    Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FEENEY, and Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

    A BILL

    To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2007′.

    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POPULATION CONTROL.

    No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity (including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such program or activity is foreign or domestic.

  43. Troy said

    Alright, so Bob Enyart did actually say that Ron Paul is a Secular Humanist. I think most secularists would disagree. I will let Paul’s own words show what he thinks of secular humanism in America.

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

    In case that’s not enough, Ron Paul condemned a 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Here’s Paul’s condemnation:

    The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment,” Paul stated. “It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.”

    “The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis,” Paul continued. “Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.”

    Maybe that’s why the Secular Coalition for America gives Ron Paul a 20% rating.

    Bob, your secular humanist label of Ron Paul is completely unmerited.

    For more on this from athiest/agnostic defender Austin Cline go here:
    http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

    You can’t both be right

  44. Goriller said

    Troy:

    You conveniently ignored the second half of my post. Here it is again:

    “…the next section says if a state decides to keep abortion legal, the U.S. Supreme Court can not overturn that decision:

    ‘…the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review… any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute…(2) regulates…(A) the performance of abortions;'”

    Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state. The above quote from his own bill proves it.

  45. Troy said

    Goriller, you like Bob, have ignored an entire thread and twenty years of Ron Paul legislation, statements and credible endorsements.

    I’ll repeat one more time, the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of Abortion. Why would you think for a second that they would rule in favor of life against a (hypothetical) pro-abortion state? The current “conservative” court is no different. The supposed conservatives that have been appointed under Bush have even proven that they will rule for abortion (one example – Alito http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=472) How much hard evidence can I pile on one blog vs. the same old statement?

    The bill you keep trying to interpret limits the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to be equal in power to the legislative, back to constitutional levels. Your argument places much more faith in men (judges who have a record of pro-abortion rulings) and not God, or the people.

    Did the Supreme Court legalize abortion or not?

    (answer is obvious) You are denying that the Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade with your argument.

    Ok, let’s trust it, then, against the founders warnings, the Constitution, scriptural admonition to obey God rather than man, and let the Supreme Court retain the power it has hijacked in our country. Ok, you still have nation wide legalized abortion.

    Brilliant.

    Please site as much evidence by anyone in government as I have presented on Ron Paul’s undeniable pro-life stance here (despite his “evil” libertarian association) for everyone to see. Please, just one person and the bills, speeches, statements, something. Please

    Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself.

  46. Goriller said

    Troy:

    According to the following excerpt from Ron Paul’s bill, does every state have the authority to keep abortion legal in their state? Yes or no?

    “…the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review… any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute…(2) regulates…(A) the performance of abortions;”

  47. Goriller said

    Troy:

    All I’m asking for is a 1 word answer. Yes. Or no.

  48. Troy said

    No

  49. Troy said

    …because it removes appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court, to prevent the overturn of the bill. If passed it would ban abortion nationwide and restrict the Supreme Court. I’ll bore everyone and post the entire text of H.R. 2597. this business of take a line and twisting the context is ridiculous. Read the whole bil, it is in clear english.

    again the words you point to, in context of the bill itself removes appellate jurisdiction from the U.S. Supreme Court, to prevent the overturn of the bill. This is mandatory for the bill to be effective, and is the constitutional stance.

  50. Troy said

    HR 2597 IH

    110th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 2597

    To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    June 6, 2007

    Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007′.

    SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

    (a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

    (b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–

    (1) the Congress declares that–

    (A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

    (B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

    (2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

    SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

    (a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

    `Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

    `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–

    `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

    `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–

    `(A) the performance of abortions; or

    `(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

    (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    `1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.

    SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

    (a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

    `Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

    `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

    (b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    `1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.

    SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.

    Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of–

    (1) any State or subdivision thereof;

    (2) the District of Columbia; or

    (3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.

    SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

    SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance, is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

  51. Goriller said

    Troy:

    You said, “If passed it would ban abortion nationwide…”

    Then how are the states supposed to “regulate” [Sec. 3(2)] that which does not exist?

  52. LC said

    Hello all, just read through this discussion and wanted to chime in just once… I am a Christian and Ron Paul supporter. I voted for GW in both elections along with most other Christians out there. Why, because as a fellow Christian, I though he would take a strong moral stand against all the immoral atrocities in our supposedly 80% Christian nation. Sorry, it didn’t work. In fact, from a Christian perspective, one might say his presidency has been a dismal failure. Is this Bush’s fault?… Yes but not entirely. How has the church as a whole held government accountable? I may have missed it but I don’t recall seeing million’s of Christian marching to Washington for change. Simple fact of the matter is, most of these guys are professional politicians who will pander to any audience to get elected and it apparently works. This is where Ron Paul is the only exception in this race. He has a consistent record that goes back decades. Sure, you may disagree with some points but his story does not change and there will be no surprises. (Like with Bush)

    I really can’t fathom the debate that’s been going on about abortion. Why would Bob pick apart Ron Paul’s attempts to overturn Roe Vs Wade when he’s the only fellow making any attempt. Bush has had almost two terms to get something going and has done little or nothing. If fact planned parenthood has received more funding under this administration than previous ones!

    I completely agree with Troy and Ron Paul that abortion should not be a federal issue. Making it a federal issue is what originally made the mess we have now.

    From my point of view, this all boils down to apathetic Christians. If the church was doing it’s job, we would not have a welfare state. If the church was doing it’s job, abortions would be minuscule at best. If the church was doing it’s job, Christian divorce rates would not equal that of the world. Bottom line is, we’ve gotten lazy. Churches have become social clubs, not places of one on one ministry. It’s much easier to send our money in to the government in the form of taxes or off to missions abroad and let someone else do the real work. If Christians really wanted to see changes in the abortion policies in this country, it could be done but with time, effort, and organization.

    One of the most attractive things about handling these issues at a state level is how much easier it is to organize and push the changes through.

    It seems Mr. Enyart would throw the baby out with the bath water on this but I believe Dr. Paul is wise enough to realize people at a local level can create the changes needed. All he’s trying to do is set the stage and make it possible. As it stands now, we have little chance unless we organize on a national level and agree to work together. So far, this has not materialized and there’s no one to blame but ourselves.

    Abortion is murder plain and simple. It has killed more Americans than all our foreign wars combined. This should be our main focus. On the other social issues mentioned, prostitution, drugs, and the like, I don’t recall Jesus setting an example of trying to stamp out social ills. His policy was simply hate the sin but love the sinner. It worked well for Him and it would work well for the church if we could just get back to it. Instead, we elect “Christian” presidents like George W. Bush to do the work of outlawing all the things we don’t find palatable. Again, abortion is an exception to this but the more the church goes about trying to stamp out social problems with laws and mandates, the less attractive we look to the sinners we are trying to convert. It’s time to start taking a stand for what’s right, one on one, with folks at a personal level rather than grandstanding and trying to outlaw sin on earth.

  53. Goriller said

    Troy:

    Here’s a clearer question for you. What is it in [Sec. 3(2)] that the states are supposed to “regulate?”

  54. Troy said

    Goriller, The clear context of this legislation is the legal recognition of human life beginning at conception and the state’s authority to protect it. [Sec. 3(2)] is directed at restricting the Supreme Court’s (current) ability to turn right around and “veto” it if you will. I think I’ve had to point this out a few times.

    LC has stated the bigger picture that we Christians have been taught to ignore. Somehow the body of Christ believes that words (of men) are truer than their actions in regard to their beliefs and intentions. We must break out of this with the help of the Lord. It’s called fruit and not many politicians can point to any that lines up with their statement.

    Ron Paul has overwhelming good fruit to back up his statements. This is why so many are flocking to him and why the media is resisting recognizing it so much. Americans are starved for someone that is for real and that is one thing he is.

  55. Troy said

    Oh and to answer Goriller’s question more directly, I’ll just quote:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. – 10th Amendment, the Constitution

  56. Donna said

    Perhaps all the Christian media world instead of just talking should put together a platform of our stand on the top issues we Christians stand for such as: abortion, euthansia, stem cell research, getting out of the UN/World Court, protect our borders, keep our sovereignty, defining marriage as one man/one woman only, deporting illegals, etc., doing away with no fault divorce, getting God back into our schoos, etc, etc., then find one good person to run on this platform for every election federal, state and local, including president, up for vote next Nov. We could have all of the approved and verified candidates sign a pledge to vote for this agenda immediately after the elections or be subject to recall. They could run under the Republican name so as to keep a third party from splitting the vote so to speak. Surely we have enough people in this country to run for God not against God. We have little time – all you heads of Christian organizations could pull together a top urgent – emergency meeting in the next few days to discuss, come up with a campaign, solicit the candidates and put together a database of these candidates any voter could pull up for their district and take that list to the voting booth. Only God could bless such an undertaking – are we up to the challenge. We could add a candidate to the Republican presidential race – where are all the high-profile, good looking, intelligent leaders – surely there is one who will step up to the plate and go to bat !!! We must all get together – I can volunteer with the data entry – what can you do ?

  57. Anonymous said

    “Perhaps all the Christian media world instead of just talking should put together a platform of our stand on the top issues we Christians stand for…” (Donna)

    Donna describes the Bible.

  58. Anonymous said

    I think Donna expresses the Fundamentalist Christian politics perfectly. Let’s summarize: fundamentalist theocracy.

    Thank God for the separation of church and state.

  59. John said

    This is great!
    Donna, do share with us all of you’re data and related information.
    With an emphasis on who we SHOULDN’T vote for or otherwise support, and why, if you’d be so kind.I’ll do my best to spread the word to others[big grin].Really.

  60. Donna said

    Separation of Church and State is a falacy that Christians, in fact all Americans, have been duped to believe. The truth is that the constitution prohibits the a a state denomination of Christianity not that we should separate our Christianity and our politics. Such as is the case in the UK with Anglicans or in Italy as the Catholics. Perhaps you are unaware that in our early days one could not even vote if you were not a Christian. This past generation has been so brain washed by our godless government schools with their revisionist history that the truth has been lost ! Its time for a truth revolution in this country.

  61. Troy said

    To further to evidence, hot off the presses. David Brody of CBN/700 Club video interview with Ron Paul yesterday concerning this very important issue. Straight from Dr. Paul’s own mouth, the explanation: Watch it.
    http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/254048.aspx

  62. Troy said

    Also dug the following up for you: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst013006.htm

    Federalizing Social Policy
    Rep. Ron Paul
    January 30, 2006

    As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

    Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

    Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

    The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

    Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it’s far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

    Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don’t fight for them ourselves.

  63. I am a Christian and I supported President Bush in 2004, until three weeks before the election. I think only two people have said it, if our “Christian” President was seriously pro-life, why wouldn’t he back Ron Paul’s bill and immediately end FEDERAL FUNDING of abortions? The “Pro-life” Republicans had 6 years! to get something done with abortion and they FAILED! It is POLITICS as usual in Washington D.C. and there is only one man that isn’t playing their games…Dr. RON PAUL! Dr. Paul is the only candidate that I will vote for as President in 2008. There is not ONE other Republican or Democrat I would consider voting for. The “Christian” church in America is a failure! We are having to rely on our government now to “SAVE OUR BELIEFS” because we are too lazy to follow Jesus’ command and “go into all the world”. If the “Christians” in America weren’t so lazy, we wouldn’t even be debating this issue now.

  64. ADB said

    With all due respect, if we depend upon the government to save our beliefs we soon will have no beliefs. Government simply cannot do everything that we might wish that it would, simply because it can’t. For practical reasons, there are so many in government that hold antithetical viewpoints to our prolife stance. Second, the church has gotten into serious trouble whenever it has been too deeply wedded to the government. We simply do not live in a theocracy so we can’t expect Washington to simply obey God. There will always be rotten scoundrels of all sorts, plus good honest people who just happen to disagree. Concerned Christians should vote in every election, and those votes should reflect their theological beliefs, but we cannot think that we can expect Washington to bail us out.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  65. Troy said

    Scott and ADB,
    Well stated.
    Our federal government was meant to be one of limited authority so that we (Christians included) could conduct our lives, influencing government closer to us at the state and local levels without the interference of a controlling centralized government. To return America to this wise way of governing would allow the church to become so much more effective, with a little faith, hope and love. Just imagine if pastors did not feel the need to “watch what they say” for fear of losing non-profit status with the government, wow.
    Be in prayer with me for this return to the representative system that made America so unique in history.

  66. Anonymous said

    ABD!!! (polite applause)

  67. Goriller said

    Troy:

    If a state violated the U.S. constitution and kept abortion legal, under Ron Paul’s bill, who would have the authority to overturn that decision?

    By the way, Ron Paul just lost another supporter. See http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42787

  68. Troy said

    Goriller in an America where the constitutional balance of powers had been retained, the Supreme court, unfortunately that has been flushed down the toilet by a court out of control. This is exactly the problem with continuing to argue that the solution lies with the same institution that couldn’t rule properly even with “conservatives” outweighing “liberals”. Short of the constitutional amendment that just about every pro-lifer would love to see, legislation to prevent limit the Supreme Court on abortion is necessary.

    I’ve challenged the supporter you refer to over at theologyonline for specifics. We’ll see. I’ve also challenged Bob Enyart (several times) to actually get Ron Paul on his show. He says his producer will do this. Again, we’ll see. At that time Bob Enyart needs to tell Ron Paul that he believes he is Pro Abortion, pro baby murderer and a “secular humanist” in those terms, because those are the claims he has made about him. Again, we’ll see.

    The solution is not in the Supreme Court, who has proven to be the problem. Use some logic.

  69. Troy said

    Oh Goriller, you say Ron Paul lost “another” supporter…? Do you know of many? What is interesting is the vast numbers to the contrary. I recently volunteered at a festival passing out literature, and talking to people about Paul. The thing that was most amazing was the many folks that where coming to support Ron Paul from all different political backgrounds. Most were Republicans and Democrats. Many Republicans that had left the party were coming back to support Ron Paul. Many Democrats and independents were changing parties to support him. I have had, on more than one occasion, liberal Democrats actually state that they are willing to overlook his stance on abortion to support him. Where are the other supporters leaving the Ron Paul camp, as you imply?

  70. The fact that the churches have signed the papers and followed the Federal government by making the tithes “tax deductible” shows me most churches are more concerned with a “love for money” than they are with being free to preach the Word. Why in the world should it matter whether or not my tithe is “tax deductible”. If I stopped giving because it wasn’t, I’m being disobedient to God. I believe Churches are following the money when they sign the 501c3 papers instead of following God.

  71. Troy said

    Scott, I’m not going to disagree with you on that.

  72. Goriller said

    Troy:

    You asked, “Where are the other supporters leaving the Ron Paul camp, as you imply?”

    Me for one. I’ve been a subscriber to Ron Paul’s newsletter for years.

  73. Troy said

    Goriller, that’s too bad. Then you have to know that he is the only candidate that is trustworthy, has the voting record to back up everything he says, and despite all of the twisting here, is the most pro-life individual running in the GOP. Just the references I have made throughout this thread shows he has mastered the topics and regardless of the hypothetical fear that states would make matters worse (I don’t see how you can get worse than 100% legalized abortion we have now)his legislation is the only thing currently or in the recent past that would make it possible for abortion to begin to be outlawed, by allowing the States to outlaw it now.

  74. Bob Enyart said

    Hey Troy, I thought I’d follow up with you about Ron Paul. (And hello to Stu and the everyone else!) Yesterday, on BEL, a Missouri Libertarian Party candidate Kevin Craig admitted the truth about Ron Paul. Craig is running for a U.S. House seat, and he admitted the obvious truth, that Ron Paul would allow the states to continue the killing of unborn children. Also, Craig admits that as a Libertarian Candidate for a federal seat, he is opposed to the fourteenth amendment, because it requires equal protection of all persons under the law. This Libertarian candidate therefore approves of Ron Paul in large part because even though Paul believes an unborn child is a person, and to intentionally kill that child is murder, even still, Ron Paul would not enforce the U.S. Constitution and its requirement of equal protection for all persons.

    Thus, this Libertarian Party candidate helped established the truth that Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state. Like Paul (and like John Kerry, etc.), many of his supporters appear to be personally against abortion, but willing to allow the states to systematically murder innocent children. Unlike Kerry, a major claim of Paul’s (and his supporters’) is that he will uphold the Constitution. Pro-lifers around the country are now exposing even this as false. To get the vote of conservative Christians, Ron Paul uses rhetoric referring to abortion as murder, and giving lip service to the right to life of the fetus, claiming that he believes that a fetus is not just tissue, but a living human being. However, it turns out this represents his “personal view.” When it comes to law, Paul states that the federal government should tolerate any state that legalizes abortion. Of course, the Constitution forbids such genocidal apathy. The federal government has the obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which 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.”

    And the Fifth Amendment:

    “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

    A perverse official could deny that a black person, or a child, is a person. But supposedly, Ron Paul, as in his own Sanctity of Life bills, would have the federal government declare that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” And then in the most obvious hypocrisy against both God’s law and even the Constitution, Ron Paul argues, and as head of the Executive branch he would put into law:

    “any State has the right to deprive any unborn person of life, for any reason, and by my own hypocritical oath as a doctor, and now by my pledge as a presidential candidate, I will not enforce the 5th or 14th amendments of the very constitution I claim to support, because my lust for power supersedes any other commitment I claim, whether to our man-made constitution or to God’s command, Do not murder.” -Ron Paul (on Truth Serum)

  75. Troy said

    Well, looks like Bob decided to revisit this thread a few months later to get the last word with more twisting of the truth about Ron Paul. I’ll attempt to deal with this in reverse…and as briefly as possible. Frankly, the information I have placed in the thread previously is more than enough evidence to show Bob’s fallacy.

    Bob, to twist a man’s words to make your point sound valid is bad enough but your having stooped to actually creating a quote (Ron Paul “on Truth Serum”?) is flat out obsessive of you.

    The fact, based on the record of Ron Paul alone, not to mention his statements, is that he remains the only candidate that understands and takes seriously both his oath of office and the Constitution which you have tried to say he would go against.Not to mention logic dictates that what you assert is false as Dr. Paul has delivered over 4000 babies and never performed an abortion himself, claiming he never considered aborting a baby even to save the mother’s life. Everyone that knows about Ron Paul and his positions and fruits in congressional voting knows this to be true. You are only making yourself look bad.

    The rest of your last reply is hardly worthy of a response. When you have to keep speculating on what Ron Paul might do as president while using the words of another person, in this case one Kevin Craig, to back that speculation up, you expose your obsession to associate Ron Paul with the Libertarian Party as his primary fault. How ridiculous.

    Please find the book by Dr. Paul titled “Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue” and then come back to the table.

    The Christians in America have been inoculated from ever demanding any real end to national legalized abortion through false solutions when the real protection of the unborn already existed in the US Constitution and the individual states. Christians are complacent with abortion and content for it to continue, as long as they can talk about it being wrong and as long as a Republican candidate says he is against it. It is a great campaign issue.

    The church lumbers along nodding their heads to all the “pro-life” rhetoric at election time and once a year when a few Christians stand on the sidewalk for ONE HOUR holding signs in a SILENT protest… and these sheepish souls really believe this will end abortion. ONE HOUR a year!

    Of course the more “politically astute” and “mature” Christians talk of a constitutional amendment to save the unborn while a larger, more optimistic group of believers place hope that the current Republican front runner MIGHT nominate a conservative judge that will surely tip the court’s scales and “overturn” Roe v. Wade. It is not going to happen that way. Considering that conservative courts have always maintained the current “law” of legalized abortion (since the Roe decision), including the current crop, this is insanity to believe. As for the constitutional amendment “solution”, even a brief study of constitutional amendments and constitutional conventions is enough to realize that those believers have been sent away on a rabbit trail that leads to nowhere. Constitutional amendments are rare, long drawn out processes and extremely difficult get started not to mention ratified BY THE STATES. That’s right, an amendment places the remedy to abortion in the hands of the very STATES that you and so many others fear will make the wrong decision when it comes to outlawing abortion (if given the chance again) in the first place. But until a state even has the ability to protect the unborn, we’ll never know.

    Ron Paul, who was the only candidate this year to even bother to show up at the March for Life in Washington this year, is also now endorsed by Norma McCorvey (the Roe of Roe v. Wade) for a reason. If you do not know her story or her ministry against abortion, please learn about her conversion and reversed opinion on abortion to understand the significance.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president that has truly done anything to end abortion in American government, including his legislation to actually deal with abortion NOW by giving states the authority they all seem to not have to once again protect the unborn. That would truly overturn Roe v. Wade now and take the issue out of the hands of the federal courts (remember they are the problem here – Roe v. Wade). Then all those hopeful Christians could still wait for their constitutional amendment, or their judicial savior judge, or their Christian dictator president or whatever. In the mean time, Paul’s legislation would begin protecting the unborn now through states that could begin protecting unborn babies.

    And finally, again, if you have not read “Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue” by Dr. Ron Paul, you truly do not understand Paul’s position and uniquely informed understanding of the Abortion problem and the solution. He’s been in the battle unlike most of us could dream of. He has been fighting abortionists on a level few understand, unlike most of us who mostly talk about it and that’s it.

    Bob you are so off base on this it’s ridiculous, find his book and read it. I’ll look for a response someday, a few months from now. But please, find something better than a libertarian that says something about Paul, or the same tired argument that because Paul is Libertarian, or that the states MIGHT not protect the unborn IF GIVEN THE CHANCE.

    Ron Paul for President.

  76. […] is a continuing discussion on TruthTalkLive.com (go here to see the entire thread) with talk show host Bob […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: