Romney, Thompson, Paul, and Tancredo

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Romney, Thompson, Paul, and Tancredo

This is the show from Tuesday November 27th, 2007.

SUMMARY:

* V. P. of American Right To Life: Steve Curtis and Bob Enyart discuss the false claims of Republican primary candidates like Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul. They contrast those men with Tom Tancredo's politically courageous statement against supporting the eventual nominee, even if he were, for example, pro-abortion like Rudi Giuliani. The Wall Street Journal provided this transcript from the October 9th republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan, regarding whether the candidates promise to support the eventual nominee of the Republican Party:

Christ Matthews: "Mr. Tancredo, would you pledge now to support the nominee of your party?"

Tom Tancredo: "I've said, I don't know how many times, that I am absolutely tired, and sick and tired, of being forced to go to the polls and say I'm going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils. I really don't intend to do that again. I am hoping, of course, that whoever we nominate will be the principled flag carrier for the Republican Party. But if that is not the case, no, then I will not support them."

Mr. Matthews: "Senator Brownback, same question: Would you support the nominee before you know who it is?"

Mr. Brownback: "Yes, I will support the nominee of this party. I think it's a big party that has a lot of different people and a lot of different philosophies..."

* If You are Excited About American RTL: and would like to help us raise $100,000, please call 303 463-7789 and ask for their Large Gifts Coordinator, Brian Enyart, and between us, we'll give ARTL the launch it needs to fight to end child killing in America!

Today's Resource: You can enjoy one or two of Bob Enyart's entertaining and insightful videos each month, mailed to you automatically, simply by subscribing to the BEL Monthly Topical Videos service! Also, you can check out the other great BEL subscription services!

* Post-Show Notes on Ron Paul: Bob Enyart has said, "If I am wrong about Ron Paul, I will endorse him for president on my radio show." Interested Paul supporters can read his analysis of the pro-choice nature of Paul's Sanctity of Life and We the People acts, and listen to Bob debate Ron Paul supporters. 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 confused notion that authority flows uphill, and also upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy. 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. 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.
 
Ron Paul is Conservative, Christian, Anti-Abortion

Ron Paul is Conservative, Christian, Anti-Abortion

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 confused notion that authority flows uphill, and also upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy. 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. 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.
This is not just a logical fallacy, it's a violation of the Ninth Commandment. To smear Ron Paul's name with labels like "sodomite child-killers" is evil.

Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is not just a logical fallacy, it's a violation of the Ninth Commandment. To smear Ron Paul's name with labels like "sodomite child-killers" is evil.
You must not have read Bob's analysis linked in the post you quote.

If you had, you would have seen the quote from Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life" bill states that "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"

Something that is regulated is something that is legal. (Do a Google search for legalize and regulate and you'll find those terms coupled all over the place by people who want marijuana to be legal.) Furthermore, when a state "limits... the performance of abortions," that means that there will be some abortions that take place legally. Those limits could even be very loose: No abortions on Sunday. No more than five abortions per woman in her life.

Ron Paul believes that states should be allowed to keep abortion legal and that the federal government has no authority to prohibit states from legalizing child-killing. His view is not only ungodly, for no level of government has the authority to legalize and "regulate" the slaughter of the innocent; but it is also unconstitutional, for our Constitution rightly states that "No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

Even in the page you linked, Ron Paul is quoted saying, "Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

Ron Paul believes that whether or not abortion should be legal is a state matter, and if a state wants abortion to be legal, the federal government has no business stepping in.


Is that your view as well? :think:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
It's bizarre how Enyart gets so obsessive once he chooses to sink his teeth into a subject. Paul's a noble, decent candidate, and naturally one that Enyart can't stand.

Why exactly should Enyart care so much about a political process he evidently hates, anyway?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's bizarre how Enyart gets so obsessive once he chooses to sink his teeth into a subject. Paul's a noble, decent candidate, and naturally one that Enyart can't stand. Why exactly should Enyart care so much about a political process he evidently hates, anyway?
I care about it and I've never even been to the States...
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Don't know. What does the constitution say and why is it more important than what anyone else says?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Ron Paul will not support the Republican nominee either, so why he is even mentioned as supporting the nominee is not being truthful
 
Ron Paul: Pro-Constitution, Anti-Abortion

Ron Paul: Pro-Constitution, Anti-Abortion

You must not have read Bob's analysis linked in the post you quote.
I read it.
If you had, you would have seen the quote from Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life" bill states that "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"
Back up. The FIRST thing the bill does is declare that
H.R.1094 said:
(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);
THEN it says,
H.R.1094 said:
the [federal] Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
FINALLY, the bill removes the power of federal courts to strike down state anti-abortion laws which protect the lives of unborn children.

What's wrong with that?
Something that is regulated is something that is legal.
Isn't it better for a state to "regulate" abortion than to leave it "unregulated?" Isn't the obvious purpose of the bill to give states the "unregulated" power to "regulate, limit or prohibit" abortions? If you've ever heard the phrase "legislative history," you know that the momentum created by Congressman Paul's legislation is in the direction of regulating, limiting and prohibiting abortion, and removing the power of the federal government to strike down state efforts to do so.

What's wrong with that?
(Do a Google search for legalize and regulate and you'll find those terms coupled all over the place by people who want marijuana to be legal.)
I'll bet you think the war on drugs is constitutional.
Furthermore, when a state "limits... the performance of abortions," that means that there will be some abortions that take place legally.
It means there will be LESS abortions taking place. FEWER children murdered.

What's wrong with that?
Those limits could even be very loose: No abortions on Sunday. No more than five abortions per woman in her life.

Ron Paul believes that states should be allowed to keep abortion legal and that the federal government has no authority to prohibit states from legalizing child-killing.
This is a truly evil and perverse characterization of Ron Paul's intent. You really need to repent of this kind of thinking.
His view is not only ungodly, for no level of government has the authority to legalize and "regulate" the slaughter of the innocent; but it is also unconstitutional, for our Constitution rightly states that "No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."
Happily for you, ignorance of the Constitution is no sin. The Federal Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to make abortions or marijuana illegal. The phrase you quote RESTRICTS the power of the government; it does not expand it. It says the federal government cannot make something illegal without going through "the process." It does not REQUIRE the government to make anything illegal. It says THE GOVERNMENT cannot deprive anyone of life. This usually means "as a punishment" for some alleged crime. IOW, the phrase you quoted limits the power of the government to punish abortionists; it does not give the feds the power to interdict abortions. Your understanding of the phrase is completely backwards.

You may wish to say "Well that just proves that the Constitution is unGodly." Fine. I can respect that argument. But if you want to change the Constitution, there's a process for amending it (Article V). Use it. But don't get yourself elected President, take an oath to God to "support the Constitution," and then break your oath.
Even in the page you linked, Ron Paul is quoted saying, "Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

Ron Paul believes that whether or not abortion should be legal is a state matter, and if a state wants abortion to be legal, the federal government has no business stepping in.


Is that your view as well? :think:
Yes, that's my view as well. I don't want to give the federal government any more power.

Imagine a candidate who says, "Abortion is evil, and we need to use all the force we can to eliminate it. I propose that we hire the Zetas and Mara Salvatrucha to intimidate abortion clinic workers from showing up to work." Might stop some abortions. I don't think it's a good idea. Getting the federal government to invade California to stop abortions is not a good idea either. And it's not an option for someone who has taken an oath to "support the Constitution."
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Keep in mind a lot of people who oppose Paul's candidacy aren't exactly constitutionalists...
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I don't see anywhere that Bob called Ron Paul a sodomite child-killer. He just said that the US would be crawling with them if we used the laws Ron Paul is proposing.
 
Ron Paul: Pro-Constitution, Anti-Abortion

Ron Paul: Pro-Constitution, Anti-Abortion

So Alan Keyes wasn't there.
No, he wasn't, but is he pro-life? He has said:
Alan Keyes said:
I MAKE an exception only for the physical life of the mother. Given the unalienable right to life (i.e., self-preservation) I see no way in
principle to avoid making this exception. I would ACCEPT the rape and incest exceptions only as a matter of political necessity if that is the best legislation we could achieve at the time. I see no grounds in principle for making these exceptions, but as a matter of political
prudence it would be suicidal for the pro-life movement to reject these people.
Source: Letter to David Quackenbush Jun 30, 1995
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Alan_Keyes_Abortion.htm
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has said this:
Ron Paul said:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the
American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record
demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an
abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a
pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as
beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect
of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere
with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct
approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our
constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the
unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used
for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore
protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience
has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read
my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there
cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are
protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in
observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
Ron Paul appears to me to be more consistently pro-life than Alan Keyes.
P.S.
Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life.
So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath? Frankly, I don't want the federal government to have any more "say" than it does. Nor do I want the Mexican Government to have a say in what the states do about abortion. Nor the "North American Union."
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Vine&FigTree:

That quote from Keyes allowing for abortion in cases of rape or incest was way back in 1995. Keyes has since repented of that view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top