Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse said:
It's exceedingly consistent with e4e. And it's gotten very annoying. I'm trying to help him.

By the way, you misspelled "grammar."
Click to expand...
:doh: I really do know how to spell that. Oh well. I guess that's what I get. :chuckle:


:mock: Toolhouse
 
YahuShuan

YahuShuan

New member
Oh yes, we got to see who we prayed for, just so we know He answered, but the time isn't right, this is where the devil thinks he has won, stay tuned. The evil is about to increase dramatically. You will see two, and more than two, seemingly at war, come together in common cause, to totally and finally eradicate all truth and bring anarchy. The believers, they will be overcome, for they will refuse this evil to their deaths.

But remember, "FEAR NOT", I read the last chapter too, Yahushua WINS!
 
V

Vine&FigTree

Member
MLK and Roe v. Wade

MLK and Roe v. Wade

I assume Bob Enyart is a big fan of Martin Luther King, given his affection for our communist federal government.

The Trouble With Forced Integration by Congressman Ron Paul

From "On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade" by William L. Anderson:
Myth #2: The "Civil Rights Movement" and Pro-Life advocates are natural allies.

This is a myth that is pushed by conservatives, both secular and religious, who hold that if Martin Luther King, Jr., were alive today, he would be allied with those who oppose abortion. Such opinions represent wishful thinking, as King was a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood, the foremost abortion advocacy group in this country and currently the largest provider of abortions in the United States. (Planned Parenthood even awarded King its highest honor, the Margaret Sanger Award, in 1966.)

Before I look at Sanger and her beliefs (part of the next myth), let me first say that the process that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Roe vs. Wade was the same: the centralization of law, removing much law from the purvey of the states – where the U.S. Constitution of 1787 had put such matters – and transferring that power to the central government. For all of the accusations of racism against them, people like Barry Goldwater (and even Strom Thurmond) did not oppose the Civil Rights Act out of racial motives (both men were considered to be moderate to liberal on social issues of race) but rather because it was an attempt to use the Constitution’s Commerce Clause in an unconstitutional manner. (I am not saying that all opponents of this act were racial liberals who opposed the act out of legal principle, but rather that it was possible to believe without racial animus that such policies constitutionally were up to the states, not the federal government. Furthermore, I believe that one can believe in freedom of association and not be a racist.)

In fact, much of the "civil rights" establishment then and now has been tied to the sexual politics of the left, and especially Planned Parenthood. While there are some pro-life people who are supportive of a strong federal role in "civil rights" matters, they are and always will be in a minority. The "civil rights" movement as we know it today is a child of the Progressivist movement, which had its genesis in the late 19th Century. This is ironic, of course, as the Jim Crow laws of the states and federal government that arose during that period were very much part of Progressivism and had their ultimate fulfillment in the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the most virulent racist (other than Abraham Lincoln) ever to occupy the White House.

That these two movements would be wedded is not as strange as it might sound, since both sought to take powers from the states and give them to the central government. Both were part of the larger movements to destroy freedoms of association and freedoms of conscience, legal powers given to the state that are now so firmly entrenched that all organized religion is permanently imperiled in the United States.

Unfortunately, the modern Pro-Life movements also are seeking to create "federal solutions" to issues regarding abortion. From attempts to create the "partial-birth" abortion restrictions to establishment of a constitutional amendment banning abortions, pro-lifers have sought to use the very mechanisms that gave us Roe vs. Wade in the first place. In other words, they are attempting to implement legal tools that have destroyed individual freedom in the name of protecting freedom. Such actions, I believe, will only lead to more tyranny, even if they actually do help stem the tide of legal abortions (which I seriously doubt would actually be the case.)
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood - The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

The Myths of Martin Luther King -- The American View

Martin Luther King’s Adultery

Martin Luther King’s Plagiarism

Socialist "Saint" -- The New American

Dyson on King

MLK on Sanger - Planned Parenthood - Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood Founder

Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus Epstein

MLK as Twentieth-Century Jesus by Paul Gottfried

Martin Luther King Day by Paul Craig Roberts

For a Constitutional Conservatism: An Open Letter to Roger Clegg

Enough Holidays by Gail Jarvis

Character Counts -- The New American

VDARE.com: MLK Day: The Martin Luther King Cult

King's Communist Connections
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
A scandal-free Christian who advocates smaller government? A decent upstanding man free of the taint of politics?

Naturally, he's the one some people try to discredit...:kookoo:
 
P

Pi11ow

New member
Granite said:
A scandal-free Christian who advocates smaller government? A decent upstanding man free of the taint of politics?

Naturally, he's the one some people try to discredit...:kookoo:
Click to expand...
The ones scared of change and the ability to take action within their own hands.
 
V

Vine&FigTree

Member
Bob Enyart and Homosexuals

Bob Enyart and Homosexuals

What does Bob Enyart have in common with homosexuals?

Both oppose Ron Paul.

Both support the 14th Amendment.

Read this article in "The Advocate," which calls itself "The Award-Winning LGBT News Site." [link is G-rated; article has PG rating]

Leader of "Outright Libertarians" says:
Paul’s ideology is socially conservative/traditionalist/federalist. It’s not really Libertarian because it still supports government control over individual lives -- merely at the state, not federal, level. Paul is likable and principled, but his principles are biblical, not Libertarian or even Constitutionalist, because he ignores the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Click to expand...
This homosexual is more truthful in his description of Ron Paul than is Bob Enyart.

http://enyart.KevinCraig.us
 
elected4ever

elected4ever

New member
Vine&FigTree said:
What does Bob Enyart have in common with homosexuals?

Both oppose Ron Paul.

Both support the 14th Amendment.

Read this article in "The Advocate," which calls itself "The Award-Winning LGBT News Site." [link is G-rated; article has PG rating]

Leader of "Outright Libertarians" says:This homosexual is more truthful in his description of Ron Paul than is Bob Enyart.

http://enyart.KevinCraig.us
Click to expand...
If it is true that Bob Enyart supports the 14th Amendment as it is then Bob Enyart supports Abortion. It is the 14th Amendment that that supports the right for women to have an abortion. I don't think that Bob supports the 14th amendment as is.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
elected4ever said:
If it is true that Bob Enyart supports the 14th Amendment as it is then Bob Enyart supports Abortion. It is the 14th Amendment that that supports the right for women to have an abortion. I don't think that Bob supports the 14th amendment as is.
Click to expand...
Well, you can't spell, so I'm not surprised you can't read.
 
elected4ever

elected4ever

New member
Lighthouse said:
The 14th amendment does not allow for abortion, period. Especially in light of the preamble to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I wish that were so but it just isn't. By law, the courts have to rule in favor of the born (mother) over the rights of unborn life. It is not life that is the issue. It is the viability of the unborn life under constitutional law.
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
elected4ever said:
I wish that were so but it just isn't. By law, the courts have to rule in favor of the born (mother) over the rights of unborn life. It is not life that is the issue. It is the viability of the unborn life under constitutional law.
Click to expand...
No they don't. No person has the right, from God or the Constitution, to end an innocent life. Ever.
 
wholearmor

wholearmor

Member
Granite said:
What possible sense can this make, out of curiosity? A state of its own can't oppose abortion?
Click to expand...

I'm saying Ron Paul is pro-choice since he would give each state the choice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Kinda' like giving each woman the choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top