Posted on 10/05/2012 8:00:58 AM PDT by rhema
On the one hand, I cannot vote to re-elect President Barack Obama, who more than any other president in our history continuously exceeds the constitutional limitations of the executive branch. For example -- one of many I've documented -- Obama, without going to a judge, regularly selects those who are to be assassinated from a "kill list"; this includes American citizens suspected of being associated with terrorists.
But I have other reasons for not possibly voting for him. One is that no previous president has been so radically pro-abortion as Obama, who, when he was in the Illinois Senate, voted three times against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
[ . . .]
. . . In my article for the Human Life Review, I wrote about Luke Robinson, a black pastor confronting the first black president, who said at the 2009 March for Life in Washington, D.C.:
"Please, Mr. President, be that agent of change that can commute the sentence of over 1,400 African-American children and over 3,000 children from other ethnic groups sentenced to die every day in this country by abortion. ... At the conclusion of your term in office, may it never be said that you presided over the largest slaughter of innocent children in the history of the country."
Yet Obama increasingly supports and encourages the abortion-created corpses of innocent black children.
In my Human Life Review column I quoted LifeSiteNews.com, which reported that, in February 2009, the head of Canada's Campaign Life Coalition told our new "president of change" that "abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans in the U.S."
If Obama is re-elected, will that horrendous distinction persist?
You know the answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Nat Hentoff: "Pro-choice Bigots: A view from the pro-life Left"
Hentoff is a big lib who purports to be a protector of the Constitution. His reading of it, and mine, differ significantly. However, he is one ofbthe few libs out there who has lines they wont cross on the mrch “forward”, and for having principles, i applaud him.
Nat Hentoff is the real deal.
His mind is still sharp at 87 years old. I don’t agree with many of his other positions but I know he uses reason to arrive at them.
One more person I have to get to vote for RR to make up for these simple minded types.
I salute Nat Hentoff - America’s only honorable and principled leftist.
Your evaluation of Hentoff as a “big Lib” is way out of date.
He is and has always been a “civil libertarian”, but from the beginning, and that was over 20 years ago, saw through Bill Clinton, called him the emptiest man ever to run for President, and worked against him. He has been pro-Life for a long long time, and is one who doesn’t just hold the view privately, but writes eloquently and agitates endlessly for it. He is also the man who suggested that John McCain should take Sarah Palin as his running mate. I have no idea what kind of fault you might find with his “purported” protection of the Constitution, since he’s also done the same thing for
Free Speech, which is more under assualt than it’s ever been. I suppose what might have stuck in your craw recently was his opposition to the Patriot Act. Right?
Mitt is Pro Life, then Pro Choice now Pro Life ....next year who knows.
I am proud to say I know Nat Hentoff. He is an amazing man with a strong sense of right and wrong. I only wish we had more of these kind of writers and thinkers.
Yes, I know many people here would consider him way too liberal, but he’s a very ethical person, I think, and has been pro-life since early on (even though I’m sure it probably cost him a few friends and readers).
He is also against euthanasia. Good guy.
I remember reading his heartbreakingly scathing critiques of Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton's cowardly actions regarding Rwanda.
I remember his stressing that their's was not a failure to intervene but a decision to block all attempts at intervention.
The UN had well-armed and trained Belgian troops in country that could have stepped in to stop a genocide conducted with rocks and gardening equipment. But Clinton thought that talk of genocide and UN intervention would negatively impact the Democrat Party's chances in the upcoming congressional election, so they blocked any action.
800,000 people were slaughtered.
He is Pro Life, yet claims to be an atheist (probably an agnostic in reality). He believes in self sufficiency yet supports government intervention to aid the poor. He touts excellence yet ... well, you get the picture. Nat Hentoff is not a simple read. His sharp mind has always found the vagaries of any major issue worth exploring, to find the 'path of least action', to borrow a phrase from Physics.
IMHO, of all the evil done by Bill Clinton his failure to do anything to stop the appalling slaughter is the worst.
Wrong. I’ not a fan of much of the patriot act, especially as interpreted by fascists. As i recall, Hentoff buys into the modern view of the Constitution that it protects porn, homesexuals, and has all kinds of protections for criminals that were never there. Am i wrong?
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.
