It reminds me of this:
Posted on 11/18/2007 6:55:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Make no mistake about it - when the nation's largest pro-life group endorsed Fred Thompson on Tuesday its goal was to shake up the Republican contest for the presidency. The National Right to Life's endorsement is the gold standard coveted by those Republicans seeking the White House because it bestows a legitimacy and authenticity on the candidate who receives it as the standard-bearer for those who want to end abortion on demand.
The Thompson endorsement not only signals how the organization representing 3,000 pro-life groups has grown up, but it shows just how close the country is to seeing Roe vs. Wade ended. In recent days former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who for some was the most logical choice to receive the NRTL endorsement, had become increasingly critical of Thompson's position on abortion.
Thompson, who had a 100 percent pro-life record in the Senate, said he favored ending Roe vs. Wade because in his estimation, it was wrongly decided. When asked, he said that he did not favor pursuing a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion because it was largely impractical. Thompson is a federalist and for him, ending Roe is the next step. Roe took abortion out of the democratic process and to end it would take it away from the Supreme Court and return abortion policymaking to the states.
In response, Huckabee said Thompson was soft on abortion for not supporting the constitutional amendment banning the procedure, an amendment that has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980. The thought was that Huckabee's criticism and forceful advocacy for a "life" amendment would be a marker for those primary voters who care deeply about ending abortion and would show the NRTL that he - not Thompson, not Romney, not McCain - was the most pro-life candidate.
It didn't work. The endorsement of Thompson over the other pro-life candidates is a reflection of where the movement is in 2007 and how much the country has changed.
Throughout the 1980s, NRTL's advocacy for a constitutional amendment banning abortion was a necessary step for drawing the line in the sand. Even then, the thought of receiving the supermajorities in the U.S. Senate and the state legislatures would discourage the fiercest pro-life advocates.
But in the late 1980s and 1990s the movement began to get smart, politically. The movement refocused its efforts and began to take on abortion incrementally. It started with pushing for parental notification laws, arguing that if a 14-year old girl needed her parent's permission to take an aspirin at school, she most certainly needed their permission to receive an abortion.
During that time, the country came to terms with infanticide by way of partial-birth abortion. State after state began banning the gruesome procedure. By 1997, around 70 to 80 percent of the American public opposed it. Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, NARAL and other so-called abortion rights groups were in retreat, left defending unpopular policies because they didn't want any restrictions placed on abortion.
But the country's leadership wasn't in line with its citizens. President Bill Clinton vetoed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down state partial-birth abortion laws and other limits on abortion. These events signaled that abortion on demand had taken the country somewhere a majority of Americans didn't want it to go.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected. He'd promised to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of those on the court who effectively disagreed with Roe.
Some of the common-sense limits on abortion became law. A ban on partial-birth abortion stood, states passed legislation on parental consent and informed consent, and when there were vacancies on the high court, Bush appointed solid conservative jurists.
So now in 2007, it is widely believed that the country is one or two retirements away from being able to determine the Supreme Court's next step on Roe. This is something the NRTL realized and its leadership said it thinks Fred Thompson gives the country the best opportunity to see abortion on demand ended.
As I said in #86, Fred knows that there is not enough support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion to have it passed by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states. Any candidate who says he or she will end abortion is either lying or out of touch with reality.
The only hope for greatly reducing abortion in the relatively short term is via the USSC route, in which a conservative originalist USSC majority would reverse Roe and thereby allow states to once again decide their own policy on the issue. That isn't a perfect solution by any means, but it is a long step toward that goal while a total ban is simply not achievable until enough anti-abortion sentiment is generated to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. No one is any more anti-abortion than I am, but I also realize that it won't be ended overnight no matter who sits in the Oval Office next.
You're wrong, as least as it pertains to doing what's right.
The Hegelian philosophical roots of such an idea are the same as those of Marxism-Leninism.
Incrementalism works just dandy for evil, but not for righteousness.
If you put poison in a cup of wine "incrementally," the result is a cup of poison.
If you put wine in a cup of deadly poison, even incrementally, you never end up with a cup of wine...it is and remains a cup of poison.
I've watched this process played out in the real world, in the pro-life movement, for years, and this is how things work in reality.
“And by adhereing to the fallacy that a HLA Amendment will stop abortion sooner is clinging to a false hope.”
What’s with the false-choice straw man argument?
If protecting the lives of prenatal children is the objective, you...
1. Support overturning Roe v. Wade
AND (not OR)
2. You support a Human Life Amendment that protects prenatal children’s lives in all 50 states
Doesn’t matter which one comes first, though the latter would accomplish both 1 and 2 simultaneously.
“Fred knows that there is not enough support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.”
Fred doesn’t say he opposes the amendment because it’s not achievable. He says he it because states should have the “right” to allow the lives of prenatal children to be terminated.
Welcome to the 21st century, Senator Douglas.
Mr. Lincoln, would you care to respond?
We're talking about the choice of a President. The "alternative" is to elect one who understands and advocates for unalienable rights, and who will keep his sworn oath of office.
Its gone far beyond not asking Fred to appear on TV.
Now the news stations like the “Fox Rooty Network” wont even mention his name.
Every panel discussion is about the poll numbers of Rooty, Mutt, or Huckster.
Fred is #2 in most every national poll but they refuse to even mention that fact!
I can see the MSM 10 second sound-byte now when the NRA endorses Fred Thompson.....
“Today the fringe gun rights radicals endorsed Fred Thompson.This is more proof that they are now meaningless in Republican Politics”
So what can he do.
The courts.
Fred wants that.
It is achievable because indeed we need more than one vote for the HLA.
Well, this isn't Abe Lincoln, but it is the closest thing we have to a Lincoln in this presidential field:
"Well, I would of course nominate judges who know how to read the Constitution. And sadly, that is not the case with many of the folks, even who are running on the Republican side. Because, they are taking the position that overturning Roe vs. Wade means you return this issue to the states, and that's nonsense.
"The Constitution of the United States requires respect for the life of the unborn. The Preamble says very clearly that the ultimate goal of our government is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
"That word, posterity, in the Preamble means those who are not yet born; those who come after us; those who are our heirs — including, necessarily and obviously, those who are already in the womb. That means that the Constitution puts them on an equal level with ourselves, and if we are to secure the blessings of liberty for them, how on earth can this be made consistent with taking their lives in the womb? It cannot be.
"The only way that Blackmun got away with Roe vs. Wade in the first place was because he did not read the Constitution.
"So I would make sure we got some judges who could read the Constitution, but I also want to make one thing clear: the ultimate decision about these matters does not lie with the Supreme Court. All the branches have an independent responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
"If the Court makes a decision that the president believes is inconsistent with the Constitution, the president is duty-bound to defend the Constitution as he understands it. So is the Constitutional majority in the legislature, if necessary.
"All three of the branches need to wake up to their responsibility to protect innocent life, and I would do so. First thing if I got into office: I would restore the Reagan-era protections of the personhood of the child in the womb, and I would pursue a policy that made sure that we were not using any funds administered under my authority to violate the constitutional rights of unborn children."
- Republican Presidential Candidate Alan Keyes, Presidential Candidate Forum, Ohio Christian Alliance, October 11, 2007
It reminds me of this:
I haven't watched TV in 4 years, yet I'm able to keep up with what Fred is doing via the internet. If you click on the fredthompson keyword on the right hand side of the forum page, you'll find all the latest Fred news. Listening to Rush is great, but if that's your only source of election news you'd think Hillary! was the only one running. Rush has been focused on her for the last couple of weeks. I'm all for exposing Hillary, but just as the dems being anti-Bush all the time isn't going to win them any votes, neither is being anti-Hillary all the time going to convince anyone to vote for the Republicans.
Well then why doesn’t he FIGHT for his time on TV?
Glad he did well. HOpe he does more.
“Now, I hereby call on all supporters of conservative candidates to discontinue the circular firing squad so that we can ultimately put forth a conservative ticket (that means TWO people) that isn’t bleeding from ‘friendly’ fire.”
I don’t think that many Thompson supporters have participated in the “circular firing squad.” I think that was almost entirely staffed by supposed Hunter supporters.
While we have rightly criticized a number of vile Hunter SUPPORTERS, most of us Thompson supporters actually very much LIKE Mr. Hunter, and about the nastiest thing most of us have said is that we just don’t think he will win the nomination.
Fortunately, Jim Robinson has gotten rid of some of the worst Hunter supporters. Frankly, I think it helps Mr. Hunter here at FR more than it helps than Mr. Thompson to be rid of this dreck, as they put Mr. Hunter’s candidacy in a poor light.
sitetest
Huh? That is a silly statement. Who is he going to whip to get them to mention his name?
“ABC has already posted it:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3882871";;
The link to Fred’s interview is above. I hope all who have not seen this will watch it! Also hope all the Freepers out there who are Fred supporters will spread this link around! GO FRED! :)
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. The moral and political battles of the 1850’s are being refought. Only thing is, those fighting to maintain unjust practices, in the name of popular state sovereignty and a “Dredful” decision of a “Supreme” Court, called themselves “Democrats” then, and now some of them call themselves “Republicans.”
Stephen A. Douglas:
The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of the Dred Scott decision. On this question, also, I desire to say to you unequivocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States, either on account of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that bench. The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of government (and the Constitution of each State has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments-executive, legislative, and judicial. The right and the province of expounding the Constitution, and constructing the law, is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the Court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon which our rights, our liberty and our property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once fairly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution? I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred Scott case or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a Constitutional question to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting. I am aware that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all Constitutional questions, to Justices of the Peace.
My friend, Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that that proposition was made when I was Judge of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight or authority to the suggestion. It matters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall; the decision of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final till it has been reversed by an equally high authority. Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon this high constitutional question, to a Republican caucus sitting in the country. Yes, or any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be Republican, American, or Democratic. I respect the decisions of that august tribunal; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. I will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers have made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution.
But I am equally free to say that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from African parents, who were brought here and sold as slaves, is not, and cannot be, a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution which says that citizens of one State shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro of the privileges, immunities and rights of citizenship, which pertain, according to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine. It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or any other man of inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and humanity requires that he should have all the rights, privileges and immunities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he lived. But you may ask me, what are these rights and these privileges? My answer is, that each State must decide for itself the nature and extent of these rights. Illinois has decided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which we have adopted for ourselves. I deny the right of any other State to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maine has decided that in that State a negro man may vote on an equality with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right of negro suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of Illinois because she has denied negro suffrage.
The State of New York has decided by her Constitution that a negro may vote, provided that he own $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia and other States have provided that negroes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, having neither civil or political rights. Without indorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power by virtue of her sovereignty to protect slavery within her limits, as Illinois has to banish it forever from our own borders. I assert the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the States must all be free or must all be slave.
I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do not acknowledge that the Cooley imported into this country must necessarily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the different States.
Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the U.S. Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the right of the people to decide for themselves.
On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution. He objects to the Dred Scott decision because it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat that this nation is a white people —a people composed of European descendants—a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity, and I am in favor of preserving not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the government from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior races—this amalgamation of white men and Indians and negroes; we have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in all the Spanish-American States, and its result has been degeneration, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government.
I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the government. I would extend to the negro, and the Indian, and to all dependent races every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races; but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other respect whatever.
My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois heretofore. I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its regular nominations. I indorse and approve the Cincinnati platform, and I adhere to and intend to carry out, as part of that platform, the great principle of self-government, which recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their domestic institutions. In other words, if the Lecompton issue shall arise again, you have only to turn back and see where you have found me during the last six months, and then rest assured that you will find me in the same position, battling for the same principle, and vindicating it from assault from whatever quarter it may come, so long as I have the power to do it.
Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending campaign. I have spoken without preparation and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, and may have been less implicit on others than I could have wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made against me. The Republican leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance with a portion of the unscrupulous federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance while avoiding the common purpose, but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for their services when the Republicans come into power. I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, did not stop to inquire whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop, nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nominees. I do not include all of the federal office-holders in this remark. Such of them as are Democrats and show their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide and destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed object is to elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party.
So then we fail?
Right?
Because the same could be said for the HLA...
We have been kindred spirits on many subjects in the past, including the one you are so adamant about, The Right to Life!
I am glad I caught the /s on your Hillary statement.
You stated, "My method is to look at every single person who will be on the ballot, and pick the person who would be the absolute best President we could hope for in these dangerous times."
Of course I have done that and it is the reason I am supporting Fred Dalton Thompson. And I could care less about the GOP. Been in that mode for many years now.
I appreciate your zeal, and would never question your choices, as I know they are sincere.
But I have learned that as individuals we can quite honestly and honorably come to different choices in whom and why we support who we support.
Suffice to say, even though we agree on much, we might just have to agreeably disagree on whom I am supporting for President this election.
I still love our national treasure Alan Keyes, but the times are dangerous as you stated and my concern lays with the Republic.
I started out supporting Duncan Hunter, knowing he would more than likely not have a snow balls chance in a National election. When I heard that Mr. Thompson was considering a run, I put all my support behind that effort to A) get him to decide to run, and now B) to support him with my dollars and vote.
To be quite honest, had he not decided to run, I would have sit out the primary season and more than likely had the greatest decision to make in my life when it came to voting in a General Election at all, should the choice be between Mittoulani/Hillary.
I have followed your posts and knowing we would not agree have intentionally not posted to you. Asking and answering the question, "Why would I want to get in a disagreement, with one with whom I have found such commonality in the past?"
God Bless you and America!
Greg Adams
Brownsville, TX
formally from central South Dakota
I’m saying that it is to foolish to put your faith in the Court, and some action it may or may not take.
There are two other co-equal branches as well, with a sworn duty to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, including its protections for the lives of innocent persons.
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.