Dobson: GOP misled me on Rand Paul

Politico ^ | 05/03/2010 | Josh Kraushaar

[speciallybland]

Christian conservative leader James Dobson withdrew his endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson Monday, switching his support to Rand Paul’s campaign and accusing “senior members of the GOP” of misleading him about Paul’s record on abortion.

Dobson said in an audio recording that he made an “embarrassing mistake” as a result of misunderstanding Paul’s position on abortion.

“I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,” Dobson explained. “But now I've received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”

[Notary Sojac]

As I said, I've been there with this group, in a number of threads over the past year.

As best as I can figure out, what they want to do is have federal marshals or the FBI, acting on a Presidential executive order, simply padlock every abortion clinic in the country....and then let the courts sort it out.

And if the courts rule otherwise, just take the Andrew Jackson option.

Now, if the American people vote for a President who wishes to do that, then so be it. But if as President I plan to take that action, I am honor bound to make it crystal clear in my campaign.

I can NOT waffle or prevaricate while keeping my true intentions hidden from all but a favored few.

That's where I have always had my problems with EV and his cronies, and I see you going down the exact same dead end road.

[Notary Sojac]

If you are going to quote another Freeper, you need to watch your step with those ellipses.

Original: The left wing has been whining for decades that conservatives want to impose a Christian theocracy in America. I now believe that at least in the case of a few (less than ten of the whole user base) Freepers, that is true.

As misstated by EV: The left wing has been whining for decades that conservatives want to impose a Christian theocracy in America. I now believe that...that is true.

I'll refrain from calling on the mods today, but I won't the next time.

And

Ka-ching!! Rand Paul thanks you.

[EternalVigilance]

So, you’re going to threaten to complain to the mods about an ellipse, while falsely accusing me of being a “theocrat”? LOL...Okey-dokey then. You do have chutzpah, I’ll give you that. But frankly, you sound exactly like the Left. Which is why my ellipse was so accurate and fitting in terms of the post I was replying to.

But, in fact, every post I’ve ever made on FR reveals me to be a hardcore republican, in the most explicit historical American sense, not a “theocrat.”

[EternalVigilance]

I am sorry you think so, but that is not the argument I made. I am arguing from construction. The Constitution is to the Declaration what bylaws are to a mission statement. The bylaws bind action, the mission statement explains the bylaws. Such explanations are powerful aids in preventing abuse of ambiguities in the bylaws. I repeat, and you have not answered me on this, any interpretation of federalism or the Constitution which results in the justification of genocide must be flawed in terms of general principles of ethics and governance, and must be specifically flawed in term of constitutional interpretation. The Founders would not go where you (or Ron Paul) are going with their language, or their federalism.

Furthermore, with the addition of the 14th Amendment, any exploitable ambiguity has been eliminated with respect to the state’s general obligation to protect life, liberty, and property, making it unnecessary to use the Declaration as organic law (although I still think an excellent argument can be made it retains that force, despite any claims of some in the judiciary to the contrary). BTW, I note you have not yet answered me regarding the generalized impact of the 14th either.

-- Springfield Reformer

Just because it was well worth repeating.

[Christian_Capitalist]

If I were POTUS I would use every means at my constitutional disposal to stop the wholesale killing of innocent human beings. This has been obvious from all my remarks, notwithstanding your characterizations.

And yet another dodge.

If a State failed to outlaw abortion -- would "every means at my constitutional disposal" include launching a punitive military assault upon that State? Or not?

All I asked you for was a straightforward, One Word, "YES" or "NO" answer to that question. You couldn't even bring yourself to stake out such a clear-cut position.

In fact, your entire Post didn't even contain the word "Yes", or the word "No", at all -- let alone in response to the question I asked.

Figures.

Apparently, Notary Sojac was right.

[EternalVigilance]

Apparently, Notary Sojac was right.

About what? That I'm a "theocrat"? LOL...

It's sadly amusing to see how much it galls Libertarian Ron Paul cultist ideologues to be confronted with the historic American assertion of self-evident objective TRUTH and the fact that the American political philosophy and system of republican self-governance is solidly premised there.

You really shouldn't get so exercised just because I won't allow you to put words in my mouth. Take a deep breath.

[Notary Sojac]

Ka-ching!!

[Christian_Capitalist]

Apparently, Notary Sojac was right. ~~About what? That I'm a "theocrat"? LOL.... You really shouldn't get so exercised just because I won't allow you to put words in my mouth.

I never did. As you know.

I just asked you for a straightfoward "Yes" or "No" answer, to one simple question.

And you refused to take such a clear-cut position on the matter. Every single time I asked, you refused.

That tells me all that I need to know about the courage of your convictions, frankly.

[EternalVigilance]

The Patriot Post

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, May 6, 2010

"To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good." --George Washington

Today is National Prayer Day.

In 1775, on the eve of Revolution, the First Continental Congress called for "a day of publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer."

Apparently, our Founders saw a national day of prayer as a fitting observance, not unlike the establishment of Thanksgiving, of which George Washington wrote in 1777, "Being the day set apart by the Honorable Congress for public Thanksgiving and Praise; and duty calling us devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us, the General ... earnestly exhorts, all officers and soldiers, whose absence is not indispensably necessary, to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day."

Other Founders continued the tradition.

John Adams declared May 9, 1798, as "a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer ... that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it."

James Madison followed this tradition, but wrote, "I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship."

Our Founders were greatly and rightly suspect of any encroachment by government upon religious freedom, and codified that proscription in Amendment I of our Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In other words, Congress may not mandate that a particular religion be nationalized, and others be prohibited.

Our Founders were not radical secularists. Far from it. One need only examine their many writings on the subject as evidence. But, rightly, they didn't want the United States to be wedded with a particular church, as was the case with England and the Anglican Church.

Thomas Jefferson, a vigilant though skeptical Anglican, made clear this prohibition in his obscure but maliciously misconstrued 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Far from calling for the coercive stripping of all religious influences from public life, Jefferson merely assured his Baptist constituents in Connecticut that their denominational practices were safe because our Constitution provided a "wall of separation" between church and state, which would prohibit the national government from recognizing Anglicanism as the national religion. (Notably, two days after writing that letter, Jefferson attended religious services in the House of Representatives.)

But as Madison wrote, our Constitution, the one he penned, does not bar the government from designating "particular days for religious worship throughout the State."

However, in the latter half of the 20th century, judicial activists (the "despotic branch") as Jefferson called them) have "interpreted" the First Amendment to suit their political agendas, placing evermore severe constraints upon the free exercise of religion while wholly misrepresenting the aforementioned "Wall of Separation" in a concerted effort to expel religious practice from any and all public forums.

They have done so by falsely putting forth a "living constitution," a revisionist document which has little resemblance to the authentic Constitution that once was our Republic's standard for Rule of Law.

As noted by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."

The intended consequence of this artificial barrier between church and state is to remove the unmistakable influence of our Creator from all public forums, particularly government education institutions, and thus, over time, to disabuse belief in a sovereign God and the notion of natural rights. This erosion of knowledge about the origin of our rights, the very foundation of our country and basis of our Constitution, has dire implications for the future of our Essential Liberty.

In 1952, Congress established the National Day of Prayer as an annual event by a joint resolution, signed into law by President Harry Truman. The NDP designation (36 U.S.C. § 119) calls for the nation "to turn to God in prayer and meditation."

Naturally, the Despotic Branch is challenging that resolution, asserting that religion and politics don't mix.

On April 15, 2010, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb (a 1979 Jimmy Carter nominee) ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function."

That ruling, of course, has no basis in our Constitution, but merely among those who have contorted its true meaning into a grotesque remnant of its original brilliance.

Perhaps Ms. Crabb, and all other jurists who are attempting to amend our Constitution by judicial diktat in full disregard for the constitutional prescription for amendment in Article 5, should pause and consider the faith of our Founders.

Perhaps they should look into the depth of faith that motivated the actions of Patriot Founders John Hancock, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, Hugh Williamson, Benjamin Rush, Samuel Huntington, John Adams, William Williams, Robert Treat Paine, Rufus King, William Livingston, James Wilson, George Mason and Patrick Henry.

Here are but a few examples of how our Founders expressed their faith when in positions of authority.

Hancock called on his home state of Massachusetts to pray, "that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory."

According to John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. ... The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. ... Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. ... What a Eutopia -- what a Paradise would this region be!"

Henry wrote, "The Bible ... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed. ... The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."

Samuel Adams called on Massachusetts to pray that, "we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid ... [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory."

Even those who were cautious about the public expressions of religion left evidence of their views on Christianity.

Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. ... I am a real Christian -- that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "As to Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see."

Beyond these many writings -- as if further proof were needed -- our Founders unequivocally enumerated the natural rights of all men in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." These are natural rights -- gifts from God, not government.

Notably, the conviction that our rights are innately bestowed by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," is enumerated in the constitution preamble of every state in our Union.

Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. ... Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

Prayer is Almighty God's prerequisite for true hope and change, and our nation needs an abundance of both right now. The Patriot Post's National Advisory Board and staff invite you to join us, and millions of our countrymen, in prayer for our nation today at 1200 local time.

[EternalVigilance]

Time to go back to this tagline...

[EternalVigilance]

Wrong. I was very clear cut. It's just that you were trying to impose your formulation, "punitive military assault," upon me.

I stated my position as "every means at my constitutional disposal," which you, to serve your own argumentative purposes, refuse to accept. Oh well.

[Christian_Capitalist]

That may be the most useful thing you've posted all thread.
Authored by someone else, but I'll take what I can get. Perhaps you're just at your best when posting other people's thoughts.

[Christian_Capitalist]

I stated my position as "every means at my constitutional disposal," which you, to serve your own argumentative purposes, refuse to accept. Oh well.

Does "every means at my constitutional disposal" include the launching of a punitive military assault, or does it not? Would the launching of a punitive military assault be one of those "means at my constitutional disposal", or would it not be?

That's the simple, "Yes" or "No" question which you refuse to answer.

Which tells me all that I need to know about your courage of your convictions.

[EternalVigilance]

punitive military assault

So what are you imagining, Sherman's march to the sea? LOL...

As I have said, no such thing is required. All that is required are officers in government who actually understand their sworn oath to protect the lives of all innocent persons and who will do it, using the ample constitutional means at their disposal.

Unless folks like you are willing to take up arms against the United States to protect those who torture babies to death.

[Christian_Capitalist]

As I have said, no such thing is required.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln thought the same. But in the end, he decided that a military invasion of the Confederacy was "required", after all.

So, my question to you is simply this:

Does "every means at my constitutional disposal" include the launching of a punitive military assault, or does it not? Would the launching of a punitive military assault be one of those "means at my constitutional disposal", or would it not be?

That's the simple, "Yes" or "No" question which you refuse to answer.

Which tells me all that I need to know about your courage of your convictions.

[EternalVigilance]

How about the “courage of YOUR convictions”?

What are your convictions?

Are you going to take up arms to defend the mythical “right” of states to kill babies if they want?

[EternalVigilance]

‘Cuz you and your friends are sure taking up a whole lotta pixels to do so...

[conimbricenses]

The Founders would not go where you (or Ron Paul) are going with their language, or their federalism.

As much as I agree that abortion should be halted at both the state and national levels, your claim about the founders is highly dubious and historically unfounded.

"In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Barron v. Baltimore, 1833

[Springfield Reformer]

It was, I believe, an undue optimism in human nature that drove some to argue against the original bill of rights. The Constitution had emerged from a great struggle to implement a new political vision, one in which individual rights, principal of which was the right to life, would be safeguarded by the entire structure of governance. The so-called limits on the federal system were precisely those limits necessary to protect innocent human life, freedom, and property. I repeat, in such a context, it is absolutely impossible that the Founders would have seen their federalism as an excuse to murder babies on any scale, let alone millions at a time. Ron Paul’s federalism maybe, but not theirs.

For evidence of the “structural prohibition,” by which the Founders forbade the states the power to legalize murder, slavery, or theft, consider:

1) The structural argument for incorporation (nationalization) of the Bill of (individual) Rights through the 14th Amendment:

“It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law...”
~Twining v. New Jersey (1908)

Speaking in context of Due Process, the Court indicates that “immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states.”

And …

“If the Fourteenth Amendment has absorbed them, the process of absorption has had its source in the belief that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”
~Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Thus, as I originally stated, the 14th was adopted to clarify what was already inherent in the system, that inalienable rights reside in the individual, and no government, nor any member government of any collection of governments, may abridge them, without losing their status as lawful governments.

And if you think that last statement too strong, may I remind you that the Founders, whose ethical credentials you call into question, would no doubt regard your position as a misrepresentation of their views. Consider:

2) The priority of an implicit Natural Law in any scheme of law considered valid by the Founders (See http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=111)

“To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose.”
~Blackstone, THE leading legal authority during the Revolutionary Period.

“All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.”
~James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

“[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
~Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

“[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.”
~Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution

In contrast to a Natural Law Republic, which at all levels observes and protects fundamental, inalienable, individual rights, a “[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”
~John Adams

...

[rbmillerjr]

marked