[Jefferson]

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.

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

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]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

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."

Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion

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?

[Stripe]

He's a liar as well as a child killer.

[Granite]

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]

Originally Posted by Granite

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...

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by stipe

I care about it and I've never even been to the States...

Care about what exactly?

[Stripe]

The political process.

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by stipe

The political process.

Cool. You do know that we as a nation do not currently operate on the political process as described in the Constitution?

[Stripe]

Don't know. What does the constitution say and why is it more important than what anyone else says?

[drbrumley]

Ron Paul will not support the Republican nominee either, so why he is even mentioned as supporting the nominee is not being truthful

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by stipe

Don't know. What does the constitution say and why is it more important than what anyone else says?

Maybe because the Constitution is the law of the land. Or I should say was.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by drbrumley

Maybe because the Constitution is the law of the land. Or I should say was.

Sure, but a person wrote those laws, right?

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Turbo

You must not have read Bob's analysis linked in the post you quote.

I read it.

Originally Posted by Turbo

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

Originally Posted by H.R.1094

(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,

Originally Posted by H.R.1094

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?

Originally Posted by Turbo

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?

Originally Posted by Turbo

(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.

Originally Posted by Turbo

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?

Originally Posted by Turbo

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.

Originally Posted by Turbo

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.

Originally Posted by Turbo

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?

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]

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