Posted on 06/11/2012 9:17:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"All officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.
Should I be elected to the office of President of the United States, I will keep my oath.
Justice Blackmun, in Roe vs. Wade, admitted that “of course” the child in the womb is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, if they are a person.
Since it is self-evident that they are a person, my first act as President, after having sworn the oath, will be to publish a presidential finding to that effect.
My second act will be to ask for the resignation of anyone in the executive branch who will not act accordingly.
My third act will be to order the closing of every abortion facility in the country, as per the explicit, imperative requirement of the Supreme Law of the Land.
'No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.'
'No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'”
-- Tom Hoefling
Like I said, find a more creative way to shill for Romney.
I join ranks with Jim Robinson on this, I won’t be voting for which ever of the two lefties you are promoting.
You know, my FRiend, I was (in a former life) an Office Manager for Psychiatrists. It was a great job and I learned a lot.
One of the way to treat Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Paxil, Prozac, etc. Most people are successfully treated in 12 Weeks.
I’ll answer you in three months.
I'll agree on that. Would you agree that Romney would be the most pro-death, pro-abortion, pro-Marxist, pro-environmentalist, pro-muzzie, pro-socialized-medicine, pro-activist judges, pro-gay, anti-free enterprise, destructive and divisive Republican president ever?
His record in Mass. certainly indicates it. And actions speak a lot louder than platitudes.
And if your answer is yes, start asking yourself if the price of ABO isn't a rip-off?
Kind of platform I, as a conservative, can support!
Wow, you are smoothe, but these are still insults even with the smoothe coating you lend to them.
>>I’d like to see a school for conservatives teaching us how to implement those rules.<<
Me too.
AND I would like someone as rich as George Soros help us out.
In the case of the equal protection of innocent human life in America, there is no difference, as I have shown you folks again and again and again. The Constitution, the supreme law of our land, expressly forbids it.
In any case, one of the oldest principles of western civilization is that "an unjust law is no law at all." I think it was Augustine who said that.
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate defense for the destroyers of innocent human life.
1. Do you know anyone who has the understanding and gained their understanding of Jesus Christ and defend it, and they got that understanding from someone like Jeremiah Wright? Do you know anyone who is a good Christian that believes there is no salvation unless there’s collective salvation?
2. Do you know somebody who is raised and/or mentored by communists?
3. Do you have friends or acquaintances that are Marxists, Communists, or have been actively engaged in the overthrow of the United States government?
4. Have you ever been at a party celebrating someone who has been accused of domestic terrorism?
5. Do you know anyone or have you ever been to a party and gave a toast to someone who is accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
6. Do you or any of your friends have the belief that terrorism doesn’t really exist? And that by definition jihad is only a holy struggle?
7. How many of you or how many of your friends have hired members of the Muslim Brotherhood to provide security for your business or their business? Or would hire members of the Muslim Brotherhood to go through and put together your security for your town?
8. Do you have any friends that believe the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and good?
9. Do you know anybody that thinks NASA’s foremost goal should be Muslim outreach, so you can help them and NASA can help them feel good?
10. Do you know anybody who believes that Occupy Wall Street features the best people in our country right now?
11. Is it even conceivable that anyone you know or associate with would think that killing Osama Bin Laden was a tough decision? With that, you have a single friend who in that case would make sure that we have a “blame someone else” memo ready just in case it went wrong?
12. Do you have anybody in your circle of friends or your circle of influence that believes America and Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the world. Do you know anyone who believes the United States constitution needs to be a photo negative to be right with the world today?
13. Would you or anyone you know take a gift given to the United States after 9/11, a bust of Winston Churchill, and try to give it back to the prime minister on your first meeting? And when he says, “No, no, that’s a gift, you can keep it,” would you or anyone in your circle of influence then take that bust, box it up, ship it back yourself and say “We don’t need it anymore”?
14. Do you know anyone, a single person, who has a wife or a husband that has never been proud of the United States of America until something good happened in their life?
15. Do you know anybody who would actively defend allowing a baby to die without treatment in a hospital if an abortion failed? That the baby would be born outside, the doctors would have it, and they would be allowed to put it in a closet and just let it die?
16. Would someone in your life withhold needed money from poor countries or suggest that needed money from poor countries was withheld unless they change the Constitution to be pro-abortion?
17. Do you know anybody who believes the only way out of debt is to spend $5 trillion in three and a half years? Or believes Solyndra and other green businesses were a good bet, and that the people’s hard earned money is something you should gamble with and you think that it should continue?
18. How many people do you know personally that would give a shout out to someone to say, “Hey, I just want to say hi to Bob over there and thank Bob – It’s been a great day, Bob,” before you had to announce to the country that 13 soldiers were murdered by an Islamic extremist on our own soil?
19. Do you know anybody who claims to be a huge Israeli supporter? Do you know anybody who says, “I’m the biggest fan of Israel, they’re our biggest and strongest ally, and I’m a huge supporter. I’m the best thing that has happened.” And that when the prime minister of that country flew from the other side of the globe to have a scheduled dinner with you, you would humiliate him and blow off for dinner? Let him eat alone while you had a quiet dinner someplace else with friends? Do you know anybody who says, “I am the biggest supporter of Israel,” and then visited all of the Muslim countries around Israel but couldn’t find the time to go to Israel? And that as Israel’s biggest, most loyal supporter, believes they should go back to the indefensible ’67 borders? I understand it if you’re not a fan of Israel, but if you’re a fan of Israel, do you know a soul that is a true fan of Israel that says, “Yes, go back to the ’67 borders”?
20. Do you know any committed capitalist who believes in redistribution of wealth?
Michael, are you equating a kidney to a person? That isn’t logical. A kidney is replaceable. Persons are not. You appear to think that as long as one person is completely dependent on another, killing the dependent person isn’t murder. If I have misunderstood you, and dependency is not your criteria for withholding legal protection from unborn people, kindly explain what your criteria is.
As for ownership of the uterus, doesn’t the child who depends on that uterus for life have at minimum a tenancy in common with the mother? They are both sharing the same resources, and both for the same purpose, to live and grow and become everything a human can become. Why should the mom get more than a fifty percent share of that interest in survival?
EV, I respect your objective, but laws only work because people in large numbers cooperate with them. Every system that was ever tried has to have the consent of the governed to actually work. A presidential finding would be as subject to the capricious winds of political change as executive orders. It is only useful if you expect to be president for life.
I know you don’t want that, so if you really want to win back the people who believe that federalism is the best way to nurture the long-term rejection of abortion, you really have to answer the question of “how” that other posters are asking.
As an attorney working in the profession, which includes working with law enforcement at a state level, I can tell you with high confidence that your vehicle has no wheels. To whom will you issue your order to close all abortion facilities? Federal troops? That might work. Obama is laying the groundwork for you now by overturning our national inhibition against using federal military against civilians.
Or perhaps you’ll just issue the order to the state governors. How do you think compliance will go? I’m guessing pretty lousy. But even if they played along with such a usurpation of the state police power, good luck trying to get the state prosecutors to convict anybody for resisting a unilateral presidential order. There’s nothing to guide them. They just wouldn’t do it. You’d be stuck with brining in the federales again.
Indeed, you would provoke into being a coalition of dissenting states that would dwarf the anti-Obamacare coalition, because it would be supported by literally everyone except those few who share your eclectic view of executive power. It would be historic.
So, if you cannot put together a better justification for discarding federalism than you have done so far, you will never get out of the garage, let alone make it where you, and all other prolifers, really want to go. Yes, there is a dual sovereignty, but it is dual for a reason, to protect the states from, among other things, usurpation of the police power by an overeager, do-gooder federal. Those limits on the federal prevent Obama from forcing us into bad things like Obamacare, and they prevent the federal imposition of good things too. By design, both the power, and the obligation, to protect human life rest with the states, and that is where the battle is most likely to be won.
A police state is one in which the God-given, unalienable rights of the people are destroyed.
I don't advocate that.
In fact, I advocate the exact opposite.
Regulation of abortion mills varies from state to state.
In Maryland, although other free-standing surgical clinics are licensed, regulated and open to inspection by the state, abortion mills are not. I repeat - to open an abortion mill in the state of Maryland, you do not need the sort of license required to open a surgical clinic.
Prior to new legislation signed this year or last, abortion mills in Virginia did not have to meet the same regulatory restrictions, safety measures and guidelines as other surgical clinics.
Generally speaking, the abortion industry has done its best to keep health and safety regulations in abortion mills to a minimum, and considers subjecting abortion mills to the sorts of regulations routinely imposed on other health care practitioners and facilities to be an undue burden of a woman's “right” to procure the premeditated murder of her child.
In fact, I saw one website where the pro-aborts claimed that abortion clinics are already sufficiently regulated by federal law: by OSHA (which is about worker safety, not about regulation of medical facilities or procedures for the benefit of the patient) and by HIPAA (which is about keeping medical records private and assuring enhance availability of health care and health insurance).
sitetest
We conservatives at freerepublic have been dealing with you romneybots for 6 years, we have heard it all.
Absolutely not.
1. He's likely a neutral on abortion, meaning he won't push it like Bambi does, but I agree he likely won't actively work against it, and I don't like that. That's a huge difference.
2. He's now way pro-Marxist, that's an ignorant statement.
3. I don't know what he will do about Obamacare, he claims he will work to end it, I don't really trust him, but believe he can be pushed. Bambi can't.
4. I don't entirely trust him on judges, but I know Bambi will give us another Kagan, or Sotamayor, or Ginsberg, that's a fact.
5. Romney is a mix on environmentalism, he's not a radical wanting to take out our fuels and our capacity to be industrial. We know what Bambi is.
6. He's not pro-Muzzie at all, period, that's laughable.
7. He's not anti-free enterprise, that's laughable.
8. He's naive and ignorant about the gay movement, but he's not pro-gay. Bambi is 100%.
9. Divisive, yep, he is, but doesn't hold a candle to the one. Destructive? I doubt it, there is no way he appoints people in his administration as bad as Bambi, he may lean left in some things, but I'm sorry, it's almost night and day.
I'm not the one telling lies.
Gov. Reagan was not pro-abortion.
At least, not any more pro-abortion than folks who call themselves pro-life and think all abortions should be banned but those involving rape, incest and the life of the mother, as determined by a competent medical board of physicians at a hospital.
Are you pro-life? How about in cases of rape? Incest? When continued pregnancy is highly likely to kill the mother?
sitetest
If you are so proud of your pro-Romney campaigning and it’s depth, then ping JR, you may as well share that brilliance with him at the same time.
Sadly, barring a miracle, you are correct.
THEREFORE the next president will be an anti-conservative statist.
My vote cannot stop an anti-conservative from taking the presidency. However, it CAN contribute toward weakening the mandate of that anti-conservative.
If you are voting to give an anti-conservative a mandate, YOU, my FRiend, are part of the problem.
Quite the exaggeration don't you think? You malign the conservatism of long-standing FReepers who are merely explaining why they are where they are with regard to this no-win scenario of the 2012 POTUS election. No one on this thread is shilling or promoting Romney and you are being intellectually dishonest to suggest so. You hate it when a FReeper posts ... "a vote for a third party is a vote for 0bama". Your post alleging shilling/promoting Romney is a classic illustration of the flip side of that same coin and is just as bad.
I believe Jim Robinson also proposed a general truce among our conservative forces!! to refrain from each of these type of attacks on each other.
I’m posting to you and no one else, but you quite clearly don’t understand you’ve lost the argument, so you obfuscate.
Enjoy.
Obviously, I haven't been here six years, but I have to suspect that some of these folks who claim to feel compelled to reluctantly vote for Romney and who feel compelled to enthusiastically campaign here for him must in fact really like him and the policies for which he stands.
Again, I haven't been here for six years and so I really don't know what to make of the contradiction between their actions in campaigning for Romney and their claims of being Romney reluctant hostages. Therefore, I ask you, as someone who has been watching this much longer than me, are these folks really so frightened by the future or are they just ashamed of what they believe?
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.