Anyone who is interested can read more about it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928826/posts
Romney's 'executive experience' now has a body count.
Posted on 11/21/2007 9:37:54 AM PST by restornu
For some, it is a feeling in the gut, while others call it common sense. Give it whatever name you wish, but it is that God given inner voice that whispers advice whether we want it or not. The louder the little voice gets, the more likely it is correct. So often, we ignore the little voice, and then stand in amazement as misfortune runs over us like a runaway freight train.
Now I am going to address someone directly, which is a bit unusual. Normally, when I have something to say about a political figure, my ulterior motive is to speak to my fellow underlings ( a.k.a. citizens like me who vote). In this case; however, Fred Thompson is a candidate in whom I find a lot of comfort.
My little voice has given up whispering, and has taken to screaming as of late. I fear that Fred Thompson has, for whatever reason, failed to listen to his own on the subject of abortion and State's rights. Understandable I suppose, because most of what he believes regarding the separation of Federal and State authority is right on the money; however, it is possible to rake too deeply while attempting to clean up a horrible mess.
Let me illustrate what I mean by simply laying out the proper assignment of authority, regarding the Federal government versus individual State governments. This, of course, flies in the face of the voluminous history of such arguments; nevertheless, the little voice has a great way of simplifying the issue and is worthy of weighty consideration.
The Federal Government is responsible for raising and maintaining a military, for the protection of the states, which collectively form our federation, and our Nation.
The Federal Government should organize and regulate trade, or commerce, as it relates to the overall good of the Nation, and should serve to resolve disputes concerning such trade and commerce between the States.
The Federal Government should serve to resolve disputes between States, as it relates to any issue that pits one State against another. Such issues may involve disputes over differences in recognizing human rights, or decisions that would clearly ignore the agreed upon constitution.
That is pretty much it as far as I am concerned, and the fact that our Federal Government has wormed its way into nearly every facet is disgusting to say the least. This has happened for one simple, identifiable reason. The professional career politician has no way to justify what he or she does, unless the professional politician is messing around with the laws of the land.
Okay Fred, now plug the idea of infanticide (or the sterilized term for it, abortion) into the above equation. You have quite eloquently described your eye-opening moment, when you began to see the absurdity of abortion, yet you believe that the matter should be left for individual states to decide. This would not be a problem if we knew that all states were driven by moral people, fully in tune with their inner voices; however, the sad fact remains that some states would choose to uphold abortion as a matter of choice.
Given the authority to decide for themselves, some misguided States would leave abortion on the books as a perfectly viable birth control option. Those who could afford to do so would travel to those states in droves, and considering the number of abortions performed in this country every day, the resulting carnage concentrated in these liberal bastions would rival the vilest periods in the memory of mankind.
Fred, we cannot allow Iowa to reinstate slavery, regardless of the will of Iowa's legislators. Regarding slavery, today's social conscience recognizes that the practice is barbaric, and contrary to anyone's God given human rights. Therefore, it is not a far stretch to insist that government sanctioned infanticide also flies in the face of God given human rights, amounting to nothing better than genocide of a class of human beings; those being the most helpless and voiceless in our midst.
This is an issue which pits one State against another, and which serves to ignore the human-rights plight of a class of people. This is exactly the role of the Federal Government, to step in where necessary, to eliminate the ability for individual states to interfere with the greatest law of the land, the law of God given human rights.
Fred, we know that the Federal Government must be reeled in, and I know that you are committed to that process. Please listen to your tiny inner voice of reason on this issue of abortion, and apply the proper role of Federal authority to your position. That is a common sense approach, and it is a position that does not violate the overriding notion of State determination.
Just for you co hearts
Anyone who is interested can read more about it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928826/posts
Romney's 'executive experience' now has a body count.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress.
IMHO, as a foreigner, I think Fred’s approach is most likely to get positive results. To say nothing about the principle of federalism.
Oh and memo to you, Yoda. Fred Thompson is the NRTL endorsed candidate. So whine all you want about how he’s not pro-life enough for you. He’s pro-life enough to be the endorsed candidate of the largest pro-life organization in the world.
So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Tell that to the partial birth!
For years it has been highly publicized by the major pro-life organizations that their goal is to get Roe vs. Wade overturned so they can get the abortion issue back in the state legislatures where they can pick off states one at a time. Roe vs. Wade took the issue away from state legislatures. Overturning Roe would give it back to the states. Those who oppose Fred's position, therefore, also oppose overturning Roe vs. Wade...and providing abortion on demand at any stage of a pre-born's development for the bargain basement price of a mere $50. Not a bad price to murder your pre-born. Thanks Mitt.
Fred voted against partial birth abortion. Mitt Romney didn’t do a damn thing about partial birth abortion.
Mitt Romney is a phony conservative.
The problem as I see it is this: not everybody believes that life begins at conception. It is certainly life before birth but is it life right at the beginning (I believe it is, but that’s not my point)?
Since people disagree, the question becomes “well who decides when life begins”. In my view, that should should be battled out in a legislature, where the people can speak their minds and come to consensus and majority. Lawmaking this way is far preferable than having a decree passed down by robed oligarchs.
This is the essense of passing abortion back to the states to decide.
“Romney’s ‘executive experience’ now has a body count.” And of course remaining un-named to that body count are all the unborn children slaughtered in Mass. because of Mitt’s aiding and abetting the pro-choice mantra, aiding the payment schedule for abortions in Mass., and abetting the abortion providers by appointing to the state staff on Healthcare a PP-hood board member. Just imagine how he can effect the nation on pro-choice if he gets to the highest office in the land!
Logic if there is an amendment to prohibit Abortion that covers anything like it!
If it is left to the states they can add or subtract any things they want in each individual state!
Some will want include partial birth!
As far as Plan Patent Hood they will no longer be able to mandate their laws into insurance companies
correction
Plan Parent Hood
Romney supporters/promoters have a huge blindspot when it comes to Mitt’s protection of ‘choice’ in Massatwosh!ts. They have to squelch any cosnciousness of his duplicity don’tchaknow.
“Fred Thompson is the NRTL endorsed candidate. So whine all you want about how he’s not pro-life enough for you. He’s pro-life enough to be the endorsed candidate of the largest pro-life organization in the world.”
Let me be clear - I’m not taking sides. It appears that the NRTL endorsement hasn’t significantly helped Thompson. NRTL picked Thompson from a pragmatic point of view; the most electible conservative. On the issue of abortion, both Hunter and Huckabee are more in tune with the values and views of the moral/social base of the GOP. That is why Huckabee is picking up support. Huckabee is an evangelical.
As this article points out, Fred’s “excessive” federalism is hurting him in the eyes of the base. I really do appreciate that he is a man of principle. However, he may need to soften that on the abortion issue, or do a better job selling how federalism will get rid of abortion.
I’m not sure for whom to vote yet. I believe Thompson is the most electable. However, I’m concerned he just doesn’t understand evangelicals, and I admit it makes me nervous. Unless he does something to stand out more as being to person to end abortion, then he will lose many voters to Huckabee. BTW - All the negative stuff folks (I suspect the libertarians) keep posting about Huckabee is growing tiresome - and I’m not a Huckabee supporter.
Muder is neither a right of any individual, nor of any State. Nevertheless, under the Constitution, the Federal government does NOT have the power to criminalize murder, unless it happens on Federal property, or a Federal officer is the victim.
Good post! Nicely done.
Criminal law is absolutely the exclusive purview of the States, except for the few crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
If you disagree give me a reason why we even have states.
LOL. Always that two faced “I really like FRed, but...” before they proceed to chop him down. Gotta’ love their creative writing skills. Not!
And I thougth you were a man of Faith MHGinTN, through God all things are possible!
Perhaps you don’t understand the Constitution.
Abortion should be a states rights issue, and that’s exactly what it’ll be when Roe is eventually overturned. That’s not Fred’s “position” or anybody else’s. That’s simply the law.
Criminal law is under the purview of the states, not the feds.
What we have now, thanks to Roe v. Wade, is essentially a national standard for abortion access that is set arbitrarily high. Look at what it took to get even a common-sense restriction like the PBA ban into effect.
A Human Life Amendment is an admirable goal, but an abstract one, as the current political environment makes it impossible to succeed in any of the three steps required to pass the amendment.
In the meantime, overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the states will undoubtedly lead to a variety of different laws -- it is hard to see, however, any merit to a claim that the situation would be any worse than the current arbitrarily permissive situation we are in. On the contrary, it is highly likely that almost every state will adopt restrictions no looser than the current Roe v. Wade situation imposes, and most will enact much tougher restrictions, with some states banning abortions outright.
And every life saved will be a victory.
Trying their hardest to stop these mittwits from ever setting foot in the oval office.
Of course it’s not! It’s a commodity to be subsidized and offered to the public at $50 a pop. Just ask Slick Willard.
Laughing at your rank hypocrisy, Yoda.
What is there to understand about evangelicals that make them such a mystery?
Memo to Fred - Infanticide is Not a State's RightSo what's your point in posting this? He's no expert on the law, or Constitution. Some nonsense by a H.S. dropout bag-boy carries the same weight as this tripe.
By Phil Harris, Monday, November 19, 2007"Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil."
But here's a clue for mr Harris - Murder (Homicide) isn't a Federal crime in itself either. But last I checked all 50 states and U.S. territories have laws against it.
Oh, and your link is broke.
Watching how many who are pro life defend the loop holes in states options
So, now you’re taking your taking your abortion advice from a media hack?
Oh, and your link is broke.
media hack or food for thought?
I’m sorry if it bothers you that many of us Arkansas FReepers feel the need to post articles revealing Huckabee’s record as governor of our state for 10 years. Truth be told, Huckabee has been solid on abortion but has turned very left on almost every other issue during the last few years. I don’t think that, as a pro-life voter, I should have to sacrifice on every other issue just because Huckabee has a strong anti-abortion record and used to be a Baptist minister. While governor, Huckabee constantly raised taxes, encouraged and facilitated illegal immigration, started new social welfare programs, pardoned violent criminals, and did things (ethical, personal, & money problems) which weakened the Arkansas GOP.
The anti-Huckabee articles on FR might be getting “tiresome” to you, but Huckabee’s policies in Arkansas got very tiresome to Arkansans - which explains why only 7% of us support his White House bid.
You mean FREDeralism. I think if Fred becomes president he could help educate people about the concept of Federalism in a way that is no longer emphasized in schools. It’s something that conservatives should be familiar with as well, but I’m afraid they are not, some seem to want everything to be controlled in Washington by “our guy” to get our pet legislations passed, forgetting that if all the reins of power are in one place it will be too easy for a liberal to control them when one inevitably takes the presidency.
Sure and we leave it to the states also for Same Sex Marraige!
From the end of the article:
“...apply the proper role of Federal authority to your position.”
The President’s authority regarding abortion consists of: signing into law pro-life legislation if it can be gotten through the Dem Congress and vetoing anti-life legislation, selecting strict constructionist judges and hoping for an overturn of Roe v. Wade, and making pro-life appointments within the Executive Branch. Thats it. Which of these does the author not think that President Fred Thompson would do?
Coming from a supporter of a candidate that until he decided to run for the Presidency was a supporter of Gay rights, that is rather breath-taking!
Are you the ostrich or the guy next to him?
Since when did vetting become synonym with bashing!
Disagreeing with anothers approach is not bashing!
First, you have to get the issue to the voters, and that means overturning RvW and sending it back to the states. that means getting the constructionist judges on the SCOTUS AND the right case to have RvW reviewed.
Then the monetary resources can be used to get true law passed to eliminate abortion as a form of birth control.
In the meantime, hoping for a HLA to pass in Congress will only have more unborn murdered while you wait.
Why as God fearing men exercise faith, when you can take the world road of least resistance!!
Congress will not have a 2/3rds majority in either house for an HLA to pass or even 2/3rds of the states.
By waiting for the HLA to pass, MORE unborn will die while you wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.