Posted on 04/21/2011 11:30:46 AM PDT by logician2u
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced today that he's running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
"I'm ready for a different America," Johnson said in a statement today. "I'm ready for the day when a person can build a good life on a decent income, and we can take our government at its word."
Johnson announced his candidacy Thursday morning on the steps of the New Hampshire State House and plans to spend three days in the early-nominating state meeting with supporters and visiting local businesses.
New tagline...
A note concerning the “rape” exception pushed by one now former freeper on this thread:
Consistent with the Scriptural prohibition on punishing a child for the crime of his or her father, Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution prohibits “corruption of blood” laws.
Constitutionally, innocent persons cannot be punished for the sins of their parent.
This is Free Republic. Do we still care about the Constitution of the United States?
“He’s pro abortion and favors legalizing marijuana.”
Hope he doesn’t run then.
Yep, me too! That issue is a non-starter for me. Any candidate that doesn't get the number one unalienable right - the right to life - will NEVER get my vote. I'd sit it out before I would vote for them. The RNC had better not try that with us.
Could the Professor win in 2012? I doubt it. In 2008, the American people voted for Gilligan.
I agree with you almost entirely. I would rephrase your final paragraph. You wrote:
“All men are created equal. It’s America’s first and most important cornerstone principle, without which the whole house will fall down.”
I'd say it thusly:
“All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and it is the first duty of government to recognize and protect those rights. This is America's first and most important cornerstone principle, without which the whole house will fall down.”
sitetest
“That's exactly how the child-killers got their nose in the door. In the states. Through ‘exceptions.’”
I agree.
But I guess my view is that it won't be possible to completely protect the rights of unborn children in law until the culture changes a good deal. Without creating an authoritarian state in our country, it will be difficult to adopt laws, or a constitutional amendment, or what-have-you, that completely and totally bans abortion without first getting the folks generally to be ready to accept it, first.
In a representative democracy, it's difficult to try to run too far ahead of the people. You gotta take what you can get and then be prepared to go back for more.
And the problem is, as much as the culture shapes the law, the law also shapes the culture. And the demonic legal regime under which we now suffer has shaped, warped our culture in such a way that substantial majorities of folks in many parts of our country can't imagine living in a society without at least some limited abortion license.
A change from “abortion is a right” to “abortion should be dealt with at the state level, and by and large should be generally restricted” is a fundamental change of the tectonics of the issue. It will change the culture and make it possible eventually to adopt universally a legal regime that recognizes the inalienable right to life of every human being, born and unborn.
I'm sorry that I don't see a way from where we are today to where we must eventually go without these intermediate steps. Sometimes I wish that I'd wake up, and we'd have a couple of new justices on the Court who would lead the way in a new (and more accurate) thinking about the relationship of the Declaration to the Constitution, about the 5th and 14th Amendments, about the entire underlying purpose of the Constitution, and that the Court would then rule, perhaps 6 - 3, that not only is Roe reversed, but that the right of every unborn child to life is recognized as a matter of fundamental Constitutional law.
But my sense is that would cause as much controversy and as many years of controversy with the pro-aborts as nearly 40 years of the Roe regime have caused with us.
The law and the culture are sort of two legs that need to work together. Right now, the culture is out in front of the law, I think that there are large parts of America ready to take the step of significant and dramatic restrictions on killing unborn babies. So, now, it's the law's turn to take a step. I think that step can be a pretty big one.
However, there's nothing that I see in the culture, within the people, that suggests that folks are ready for a final step, such as passing a Human Life Amendment. At this time, enough people in the United States think abortion is a “right,” that we will not elect sufficient US Representatives and Senators to pass something like it out of the Congress, and we certainly will not elect enough supporters in 38 states to ratify such an amendment.
But if we move to a society where folks generally don't have abortion available to them, except in the “exception” cases, we stand some chance of moving the culture further to accept that even this allowance cannot stand, is not congruent with our true Constitutional principles, or the law of God.
Of course, another way to change a culture is through some sort of discontinuity, like a civil war. That will do it very quickly, within a matter of a few years, or even less.
But I'm not in favor of bringing about discontinuities. I don't like them, I much prefer trying to make things happen in peaceful, non-cataclysmic, non-catastrophic ways.
That's not to say that such an event might not come about, if for no other reason than God is just.
We should beg God for mercy, that He not treat us as we deserve.
sitetest
Just wanted to call the irony to your attention.
Thank you. :)
I am looking forward to Johnson injecting some sensible libertarian ideas into the debate. The “evangelical” wing of the GOP has held sway for too long on the debate and the tea party message is libertarian based.
For those who think he’s a RINO,, his record is New Mexico as governor was solid. Rabidly pro business, and rabid about putting individuals in charge of their own lives. He has very little tolerance for the hard left, or for any government getting into any individual’s business. Thats likely where his abortion and drug stand comes from,, for what it’s worth.
He is more afraid of a government excercising total control over the lives of everyone, than he is about people making a wrong choice personally. A fine line,,, but a real one with him.
Hogwash.
The tea party message is exactly what it has always been since Sam Adams started it.
Is that why so many of my fellow Tea Partiers are Evangelicals??
The Tea Party is CONSERVATIVE.....and some of your 'sensible libertarian ideas' are anything BUT conservative.
Silly me, Sam Adams had nothing to do with personal liberty, low taxes etc etc. He must have been a Palin-ite
Well, if you want to call yourself silly, since I don’t really know you, I won’t argue.
It also includes fiscal conservatism, Constitutional principles, personal responsibility, patriotism, and support of the military.
btw, I don't consider your question "picking a fight" in the least.
-- Samuel Adams in a letter to James Warren dated February 12, 1779."A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
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.