[Jefferson]

AlanKeyes.com AmericanRightToLife.org

This is the show from Friday December 7th, 2007.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

Will Duffy: The church needs to take a stand and say [to the Republican party], "Until you give us a God-fearing candidate to run for president, we will not vote for you.

Jo Scott: That's right. And all it's going to take is one election where they don't get one of their God-hating candidates in because if the Christians won't vote, then the next election [the Republican party] will be listening [to the church]. They'll be listening hard and long.

SUMMARY:

* AlanKeyes.com is worthy of our support! If a presidential candidate is unwilling to use his authority as President to protect the innocent in our country, he is not qualified to be President of the United States.

* Candidates who think moral issues, such as abortion, should be decided by the states, are unwilling to protect the most defenseless among us and are therefore disqualified from holding the Presidency.

* Make sure to sign up at FamiliesAgainstPP.com or better yet, TheWeitzCompany.com!

Today's resource: This time of year can be financially difficult for an outreach like Bob Enyart Live. If you have a desire to see BEL continue to reach people with a biblical worldview, please consider giving. You can give online, a one-time or monthly recurring gift, or subscribe to one of the BEL monthly resources, or for either, you can also call 800-8Enyart, and while some staffers are out of town, you might only get through to voice mail, but please leave a message and we will get back to you!

[PastorKevin]

* Candidates who think moral issues, such as abortion, should be decided by the states, are unwilling to protect the most defenseless among us and are therefore disqualified from holding the Presidency.

EXACTLY! Breaker 1-9 Ron Paul ya got yer ears on?

[Vine&FigTree]

Anyone who takes an oath saying, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," and then creates a law against abortion, is taking the name of the Lord in vain in a solemn oath.

The Constitution does not give the President jurisdiction over abortion. That's an issue that remains in the custody of the states. This is why Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws against abortion.

The President can do nothing about abortion without violating his oath of office.

If you want to say the Constitution is defective beyond repair and we need a hereditary monarch with all the powers of all three branches of government, without balance or separation, who can stop abortion, fine. But don't ask me to vote for someone whose first act as President will be to take the Lord's Name in vain and violate his oath to support the Constitution.

Only Ron Paul opposes abortion AND understands the Constituitional doctrine of "enumerated powers."

[chatmaggot]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

Anyone who takes an oath saying, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," and then creates a law against abortion, is taking the name of the Lord in vain in a solemn oath.

The Constitution does not give the President jurisdiction over abortion. That's an issue that remains in the custody of the states. This is why Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws against abortion.

The President can do nothing about abortion without violating his oath of office.

If you want to say the Constitution is defective beyond repair and we need a hereditary monarch with all the powers of all three branches of government, without balance or separation, who can stop abortion, fine. But don't ask me to vote for someone whose first act as President will be to take the Lord's Name in vain and violate his oath to support the Constitution.

Only Ron Paul opposes abortion AND understands the Constituitional doctrine of "enumerated powers."

When you stand before God are you going to put your hope upon the constitution or the Word of God?

Why do so many worship the constitution as if it was written from God's own hand?

[Turbo]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

Anyone who takes an oath saying, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God," and then creates a law against abortion, is taking the name of the Lord in vain in a solemn oath.

The Constitution does not give the President jurisdiction over abortion. That's an issue that remains in the custody of the states. This is why Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws.

The Constitution does not give the President the power to create laws against abortion.

The President can do nothing about abortion without violating his oath of office.

If you want to say the Constitution is defective beyond repair and we need a hereditary monarch with all the powers of all three branches of government, without balance or separation, who can stop abortion, fine. But don't ask me to vote for someone whose first act as President will be to take the Lord's Name in vain and violate his oath to support the Constitution.

Only Ron Paul opposes abortion AND understands the Constituitional doctrine of "enumerated powers."

States do not have the right to allow the innocent to be slaughtered. God commanded, "Do not murder."

Even the Constitution makes this clear:

"No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

In other words, any law that authorizes the slaughter of the innocent (even if imposing "regulations" and "limits" on the slaughter of the innocent) is unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade was not wrong because it stepped on the toes of the states; it was wrong because it legalized the slaughter of innocent babies. Before Roe v. Wade, several states had already passed ungodly, unconstitutional laws that made abortion legal.


Alan Keyes honors God by seeking to outlaw abortion and by recognizing that no level of government has the authority to allow babies to be murdered.

It is you who is profaning God by asserting that He thinks each state should get to decide whether or not to allow babies to be slaughtered.

[PastorKevin]

Originally Posted by Turbo

States do not have the right to allow the innocent to be slaughtered. God commanded, "Do not murder."

Even the Constitution makes this clear:

"No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

In other words, any law that authorizes the slaughter of the innocent (even if imposing "regulations" and "limits" on the slaughter of the innocent) is unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade was not wrong because it stepped on the toes of the states; it was wrong because it legalized the slaughter of innocent babies. Before Roe v. Wade, several states had already passed ungodly, unconstitutional laws that made abortion legal.


Alan Keyes honors God by seeking to outlaw abortion and by recognizing that no level of government has the authority to allow babies to be murdered.

It is you who is profaning God by asserting that He thinks each state should get to decide whether or not to allow babies to be slaughtered.

Well said Turbo, but it always amazes me that no matter how many times you explain that to states rights, pro-Libertarian, or Ron Paul supporters, they never get it. They'll continue to make the same arguments over and over again and never really refute the one basic argument that trumps their position: The right to life supercedes states rights. The right to life supercedes the constitution. The right to life supercedes any form of government. Alan Keyes takes the Godly position NOT because of HOW he will do it, but simply BECAUSE he will make murder illegal unilaterally. This is the only way to win the battle. Anything else will set us back another who knows HOW MANY years. I'm not willing to wait!

Ron Paul should never be President.

[genomax]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

Well said Turbo, but it always amazes me that no matter how many times you explain that to states rights, pro-Libertarian, or Ron Paul supporters, they never get it. They'll continue to make the same arguments over and over again and never really refute the one basic argument that trumps their position: The right to life supercedes states rights. The right to life supercedes the constitution. The right to life supercedes any form of government. Alan Keyes takes the Godly position NOT because of HOW he will do it, but simply BECAUSE he will make murder illegal unilaterally. This is the only way to win the battle. Anything else will set us back another who knows HOW MANY years. I'm not willing to wait!

Ron Paul should never be President.

I agree the right to life supersedes any constitution, so how will Alan Keyes as the next president make murder unilaterally illegal?

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Turbo

States do not have the right to allow the innocent to be slaughtered. God commanded, "Do not murder."

Even the Constitution makes this clear:

"No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

In other words, any law that authorizes the slaughter of the innocent (even if imposing "regulations" and "limits" on the slaughter of the innocent) is unconstitutional.

This is not true. But I'll let you finish.

Originally Posted by Turbo

Roe v. Wade was not wrong because it stepped on the toes of the states; it was wrong because it legalized the slaughter of innocent babies. Before Roe v. Wade, several states had already passed ungodly, unconstitutional laws that made abortion legal.

Alan Keyes honors God by seeking to outlaw abortion and by recognizing that no level of government has the authority to allow babies to be murdered.

It is you who is profaning God by asserting that He thinks each state should get to decide whether or not to allow babies to be slaughtered.

No state legislature has a moral right to condone abortion. But under the U.S. Constitution, they have the legal right to do so, and no federal office-holder who takes an oath to support the federal constitution has a legal right to annul state legislation. None of you Alan Keyes supporters seem to understand the Constitution. As I explained here, 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 and punish it without going through "the process." It does not REQUIRE the federal government to make anything illegal -- even murder. 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 criminalize abortions. Read that last sentence again. Your understanding of the Constitution is completely backwards.

Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion AND Pro-Constitution. He has sponsored legislation to remove the power of the federal government asserted under Roe v. Wade to prevent the states from criminalizing abortion. Ron Paul can't do everything. He is a federal legislator. He cannot write laws for the states. He can only write laws which declare that the unborn have the full right to life from the moment of conception, and try to keep the federal government from preventing state legislatures from criminalizing their murder.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

But under the U.S. Constitution, they have the legal right to do so..,

No, they don't. The Constitution guarantees the right to life to all people who are not guilty of crimes worthy of death.

[Vine&FigTree]

I said that the states have a constitutional right under the federal constitution not to punish abortionists (even though they don't have a moral right under "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to condone abortion). Lighthouse responds:

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

No, they don't. The Constitution guarantees the right to life to all people who are not guilty of crimes worthy of death.

That's just your opinion until you quote the Constitution. Which clause of the federal Constitution gives the federal government the right to compel the states to punish baby-killers? Or anybody, for that matter.

[PastorKevin]

What is a more important document:

A. God's Word, the Bible
B. The US Constitution

Whose opinion should we follow if they are at odds:

A. The Founding fathers
B. God the Heavenly Father

EDIT: My answers are A and B

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

What is a more important document:

A. God's Word, the Bible
B. The US Constitution

Whose opinion should we follow if they are at odds:

A. The Founding fathers
B. God the Heavenly Father

EDIT: My answers are A and B

I totally and completely agree with that. But that's not really the question being asked on this thread. This thread is about Alan Keyes vs. Ron Paul, not the Bible vs. the Founding Fathers.

The question is, Who should a Christian (who follows the Word of God above the word of man) vote for: a candidate who will keep his oath to "support the Constitution," or a candidate who will take and then break his oath, taking the Lord's name in vain, and become an unchecked dictator who seeks to impose on America what he believes is "the will of God?"

I don't trust Alan Keyes to be my dictator. I trust Ron Paul to obey the Constitution and try to end abortion using the processes set forth in a Constitution written by men who all opposed abortion.

One thing I've observed about Alan Keyes during the debates is that he almost never respects the time limits. He believes that what he has to say is more important than the rules of the debate, and he ignores the rules and says what he wants to say, talking over the moderator. I suspect that if he were elected, he would put what he wants to do ahead of what the rules of the Constitution say he may do. That makes him a dangerous candidate, in my opinion.

We have to deal with legalized abortion because of Supreme Court Justices who violated their oath to support the Constitution. Ron Paul has shown us how to reverse this unconstitutional change, while keeping the Executive Branch "bound down with the chains of the Constitution" (to quote Jefferson).

Ron Paul is more likely to be elected than Alan Keyes. That means Ron Paul is more likely to prevent abortions than Alan Keyes. Ron Paul is also more likely than Alan Keyes to keep his oath to abide by the Constitution.

People on this thread are advocating a president who "unilaterally" (that is, unconstitutionally) ends abortion in the states. If you don't want to support the Constitution, don't take a solemn oath promising to do so.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

I said that the states have a constitutional right under the federal constitution not to punish abortionists (even though they don't have a moral right under "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to condone abortion). Lighthouse responds:That's just your opinion until you quote the Constitution. Which clause of the federal Constitution gives the federal government the right to compel the states to punish baby-killers? Or anybody, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Turbo

Even the Constitution makes this clear:

"No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

"No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process."

As I explained here, this means "No ABORTIONIST shall be deprived of life unless a STATE chooses to punish him, and adheres to 'the process' in making that law." This clause does not mean that the federal government has the right to write anti-abortion laws for the states. The Constitution would not have been ratified if it did. The federal government has no constitutional authority to make abortion a crime, or overrule state laws on the subject.

Here's the entire Amendment:

Originally Posted by Amendment V - U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This amendment protects baby-killers, not babies.

Sorry. Don't kill the messenger. I want to end all abortions as much as you do. But I'm not voting for a candidate whose first act as President would be to violate an oath to God.

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

One thing I've observed about Alan Keyes during the debates is that he almost never respects the time limits. He believes that what he has to say is more important than the rules of the debate, and he ignores the rules and says what he wants to say, talking over the moderator. I suspect that if he were elected, he would put what he wants to do ahead of what the rules of the Constitution say he may do. That makes him a dangerous candidate, in my opinion.

I caught a few moments of today's Re-Publican debate. I suppose I should be more sympathetic to Keyes and his refusal to abide by time limits. After all -- and he dramatically pointed out examples of this -- the mainstream media and debate organizers are deliberately excluding him from the public. Keyes is passed by in some rounds of questions, and given 30 seconds when Huckabee/Romney/Giuliani are given 60 seconds.

The same thing is happening to Ron Paul, but Paul doesn't make as big a deal of it, because he isn't quite the egotist that Keyes is.

"The Establishment" loves Huckabee/Romney/Giuliani because they will perpetuate the status quo. They are not really challenging "the powers that be." "We the People" are being manipulated by the media to support the candidates that "the Establishment" supports. Keyes made that really obvious in today's debate. Good for him! "The Establishment" hates Ron Paul and Alan Keyes, because Ron Paul directly challenges government tyranny, while Alan Keyes forcefully challenges government immorality and atheism. Too bad we can't have one candidate that does both, and does so with a winsome smile to attract the apathetic masses, but it wouldn't matter much, because the MainstreamMedia would exclude that candidate even more. And if he gained significant popular support despite the Media's best efforts of exclusion, the media would slander him and attempt to crush him. The Media is on the side of evil. Even FoxNews.