Posted on 10/14/2004 9:46:25 PM PDT by Coleus
You can't say you believe abortion is murder but you aren't going to try to stop it. That would be like Lincoln saying, "I believe all men are created equal and slavery is therefore wrong but I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it because some people may disagree"
That just proves the man has no core beliefs at all. If you are not going to try to stop what you believe is murder of children, you'll never defend anything.
I don't understand the cause-effect approach this person assumes. Is she saying guys are laying about having sex with women instead of looking for a job; or is she saying women are laying about having sex with guys instead of looking for a job? Clue me in, please.
The writing seems more that of a high school senior fulfilling an essay obligation than a professional journalist.
But so far,
Bush has done little to significantly lower the abortion rate in the United States. In some places, abortions have likely increased due to unemployment. And the U.N. Population Fund estimates that Bush's repeated withholding of U.S. funds pledged for family planning programs has led to hundreds of thousands of abortions in poor countries.George Bush has no legal, ethical, or Biblical mandate to enforce the Constitution defying and conscience defiling majority opinion stated in Roe v Wade. Mr. Bush claims to be fighting the war on terror, but abortionists routinely exterminate more human life in a day than terrorists have taken in all their carnage. The Prophet may compel the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad to blindly obey terrorist commands; but The Constitution dosen't force the President to blindly follow unconstitutional opinions. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, removes all doubt as to who the real scimitar wielding terrorist is in America:
"The judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year?
None, not even war. 40+ million dead since 1973.
17 posted on 10/15/2004 4:21:57 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
=== I believe life begins at conception
Anyone who believes this cannot possibly vote for Bush.
31 posted on 10/15/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT!
Exterminators and their innocent, virtually defenseless victims have existed throughout history. The exterminators acquired the means to terminate the lives of their victims for any, or no reason.
Extermination has occurred under various labels, such as: serial killers, terrorists, Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, abortion, and the Soviet Gulags.
R.J. Rummel has defined and classified various exterminations by government @ Definition of Democide (Genocide and Mass Murder):Genocide
: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language). Politicide
: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes. Mass Murder
: the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government. Democide
: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated:
"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."
The fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life!
R.J. Rummel:
Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide.
In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork made the following comments about Roe v. Wade:
"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that....Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."
Rummel again: War Versus Genocide And Mass MurderPublished in The Wall Street Journal (July 7, 1986).
Our century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars. World War I saw nine-million people killed in battle, an incredible record that was far surpassed within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World War II. Even the number killed in twentieth century revolutions and civil wars have set historical records. In total, this century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts is so far about 35,654,000.
Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.
Rummel's conclusion: Power, Genocide, And Mass Murder
The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom.
There is no moral difference between a government that permits abortion, from one that fails to prosecute serial killers, pursue terrorists, or promote the Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, and the Soviet Gulags!
The federal branches of government are coordinate, NOT coequal and they are all subordinate to the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law, NOT the Supreme Court:
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore and declare what the Constitution states with regard to a particular case over which they have jurisdicion - federal judges fabricate their own private interpretation from the hubris opined in novel dicta and deviant precedent, from which even greater deviation is justified in subsequent decisions.
For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Bd of School Comm., 554 F. Supp. 1104 (1983) Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970
James Madison stated in The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
" The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous....But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.''
We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''
To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.
The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; PUBLIUS.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
=========================================================================================
cognitive dissonance
n. Psychology
If you aren't conflicted, seek a conscience.
I personally believe that owning a slave, or gassing a Jew is wrong; but I can't force view that on anyone else.
Well put.
The Exception Makes the Rule Pro-Life With Exceptions A ...
Colleen Parro, "The Exception Makes the Rule '"Pro-Life With Exceptions"' A Contradiction in Terms," Republican National Coalition for Life, January 22, 2002. "This year, President Bush issued a proclamation, as have other Presidents before him, declaring Sunday, January 20, 2002 as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." It says that "the right to life itself" is chief among the rights on which the American republic is founded.
The AP reported on January 20 that, "Mr. Bush called on Americans to 'reject the notion that some lives are less worthy of protection than others' . . ." A noble thought, and one we share, but how will that happen when the President himself has never said that he would do anything to try to overturn Roe? How can that happen when he, and many politicians in the Republican Party have clearly said that abortion can be justified in some cases? How can that happen when President Bush's own position contradicts the proclamation? Indeed, he supports "exceptions" for babies conceived through rape or incest, a view that deems those babies "less worthy of protection than others." How can that happen when the President and others in power think abortion is justified if the mother's life is in jeopardy, when today's medical science and technology make it unnecessary to ever kill a baby to save his mother's life? How can it happen when Laura Bush, First Lady of the land and the person closest to the President joins his mother, Barbara Bush, in saying that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned?
Beyond that, how can protection of the right to life be restored when important leaders in the pro-life movement endorse as "pro-life" politicians whose commitment and actions do not match their rhetoric? How can it be restored as long as grassroots pro-lifers don't demand, in exchange for their support, that candidates take a position on innocent life at every stage of development that leaves no room for "exceptions" or compromise? After all, it's one thing to prefer a less-than-perfect candidate who is running against a pro- abortion activist like Bill Clinton or Al Gore. But it's quite another to pronounce him or her PRO-LIFE in big headlines, giving the false impression that the candidate intends to actively pursue our goals. While it appears that hearts and minds are changing, albeit slowly, in the end it will be public policies and laws that will restore respect for life in America. As long as pro-lifers are willing to bestow the "pro-life" mantle on politicians who truly are not, abortion, deadly experiments on human embryos, human cloning, and yes, infanticide, will remain legal.
The exception makes the rule. And so, we pray for unity in the pro-life movement. The politicians will say and do what they think they must to get our support. The outcome is our responsibility. If we are to succeed in this our Godly mission, we must demand of them total respect for all innocent life - no exceptions, no compromise.
Schwarz, Chapter 10: "Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, Health and Life of the Woman?" "The child conceived in rape is one of us, merely smaller and less developed and more dependent, and not in full view, but equally a person. Killing her is wrong, just as killing any child is wrong. We must remember that the child is absolutely innocent of the crime of her father. She is not a part of her mother's body, and she is not a part of her father's character. She inherits character traits from both her parents, but in her individual being as a person, she is absolutely distinct from both of them. Even the character traits that are received from a parent are now her own traits. The child is totally her own person. She is not responsible for the crime that led to her conception, and she is untainted by it.1 Seeing her in these negative ways is sheer prejudice, not based on reality, but at odds with it." http://www.ohiolife.org/mqa/10-0.asp
Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. "I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there’s a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16- 1pg19.html
Robert Hart, "Her Mother’s Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing—a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.1docs/17- 1pg18.html
Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion’s House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. "I, having lived through rape and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,’ feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," says Kathleen DeZeeuw in Victims and Victors. "I feel we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story." We can begin by educating the public and legislators on what the women themselves—the victims of rape and incest—say about abortion. "Get Victims and Victors to legislators. Ask them to call for congressional hearings," says Dr. Reardon. "Urge them not to provide money for abortions resulting from rape or incest until they hear what the women say." http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2001- 01/14-20.asp
David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). "In Victims and Victors, 20 women like the ones quoted above share what it is like to face a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. They speak bravely and candidly of the pain of sexual assault, of the sadness and trauma of abortion, and of the joy and healing of giving birth." http://www.afterabortion.org/Victims/
Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, (Snowflake, AZ 85937: Heritage House 76, Inc., 1998) Chapter 29, Rape. States that 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies occur per year in the United States. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_can t_we_love_them_both_29.asp
Guess the catholics aren't aware that the vatican is it's own country and the Pope is the Ambassador. They are dictators over the Holy Catholic Church.
But, nevertheless, if Bush would vote in justices to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, that just gives me goosebumps. That would be awesome! I mean it really aches my heart that China or it's Japan, imposes Abortion on to the women there.
Anything we can do to stop it here is a miracle and is Gods Holy Will!
Kerry will secure the Roe position on the SCOTUS for 20 - 30 years. Kerry will usher in homo-marriage and every other form of godlessness. With Bush there is at least some hope that he can and will appoint, and have confirmed, justices like Scalia and Thomas.
Lastly, nothing will change Kerry. Bush MIGHT be put into a situation where his actions effect a major and even unexpected benifit for the Cause.
Feedback invited
I couldn't agree with you more. They have become like the Dutch and other European theologians. They have a lot to answer for.
cognitive dissonance
n. Psychology
A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing terrorists while approving of abortion.
If you aren't conflicted, seek a conscience.
I'm personally opposed to Cognitive Dissonance, but ... but ...
=== all those embryos are just going to waste.
He stole this line from Bush.
Just like Gore "stole" the "faith-based funding partnership" thingy.
I guess my primary problem is the framing of participation in political system -- as presently set up -- as mattering in the least.
When we've got "strict Constitutionalists" who can vote, to a man, in favor of a National ID I think it's time to reassess whatever faith we've placed in the "personally opposed, but ... " party.
I think any objective review of the matter will support a finding that it's Republicans, moreso than Democrats, who have finessed the worst breaches and deconstructions of our Constitution to date ... be it their Federal War on Drug Police Force, laying the foundation not only for sanctino of population control measures but provision of those measures AND funding to "educate" the populace into using them.
I have NO PROBLEMS with anyone's voting as they see fit. A man can only be held to the exacts extent of his conscience in the matter ... just as souls will only view the Beatific Vision to the exact extent they are able to see.
If I'm not a part of this, it's only because I have educated myself and have no good choice to make on an "informed" basis.
I've placed my faith elsewhere than politics, that's all.
St. John Chrysostom wrote that the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. With the bishops of the new church of the last 35 years, that layer is probably ten times thicker than previously.
I assume you mean within the Roman Catholic tradition, because the brightest and must succinct Protestant theologians have come out of The Netherlands, Germany, Scotland, France, England. "Ambiguity" doesn't come to mind when characterizing the works of the auld schrivers or the Puritans.
If you're referring to Spinoza, Erasumus, and their ilk, I'll give a hearty amen.
56 posted on 10/16/2004 12:00:10 PM PDT by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
George Bush's Pennsylvania Treason
I have often asserted that, for the pro-life movement, the only practical distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties is that one is an enemy who will stab us in the chest and the other is a friend who will stab us in the back.
Tuesday's Republican primary in Pennsylvania proved my point. Hard-core abortion enthusiast Republican Arlen Specter was being challenged by pro-lifer Pat Toomey for the U.S. Senate. As the incumbent, Specter was predicted to win easily. But as Election Day approached, the polls clearly showed that Toomey was closing in fast and had a legitimate shot to pull off an upset.
That's when the GOP's power brokers pulled out the heavy guns. President George W. Bush personally rushed to Pennsylvania and implored Republicans to get behind the candidacy of ... Arlen Specter. Equally amazing, Pennsylvania's other senator, Rick Santorum, also chose to walk away from his long-espoused pro-life principles. He joined Bush on the campaign trail and urged voters to defeat the pro-life challenger. Should committed Pro-Lifers vote for Petrouka in order to help Kerry win, or to send some ineffective signal to the GOP, or to comfort their consciences--knowing that if Kerry wins, the Cause will be much worse off than if Bush is re-elected, if not completely lost with Kerry.
This view is widely proclaimed by the majority of protestant and Catholic leaders who refuse to hold government accountable to the U.S. Constitution. Pro-life isn't any more a priority for Bush than it is for Kerry. It is impossible to overstate that the fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life, and that Roe v Wade is an unlawful, unconstitional opinion, not a Law that Congress passed and the President signed!
This is the direction of the Republican Party, if Christian conservatives continue to vote Republican, right or wrong.
GOP should terminate the Christian right=The Hill.com= October 22, 2003
It is about time that the Republican Party realizes that the Christian right is doing to it exactly what the radical black Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson did to the Democratic Party in the ’80s — making them unelectable. Their embrace is the kiss of death. It is not that the religious right is wrong. Right or wrong, it gets in the way of so much good that the Republican Party could achieve if it were not in the Christian right’s grasp.
Will the Republican Party escape from the embrace of the pro-lifers so that it can nominate candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice?
ABANDONMENT OF GOP CONSERVATIVES... MAY COST BUSH THE ELECTION taking Dick Morris's advice:
But in a repeat of the 2000 GOP National Convention in which the President’s theme was his pledge to form a new Republican Party that was more liberal and "inclusive" in outlook, Convention planners have stacked the convention with a lineup of what Phyllis Schlafly, the leader of the pro-life Eagle Forum, called "aggressively pro-abortion speakers." Among these are liberal GOP ideologues such as former NY Mayor Rudy Guliani, Republican National Committee Finance Director Lewis M. Eisenberg CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, NY Governor George Pataki and ultraliberal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has openly supported the right of anti-Bush protesters to attempt to disrupt the GOP convention and embarrass the President.
So, we have come to demand that America’s leaders make good on this guarantee. We have come to demand that President Bush act immediately, together with the leaders of the House and Senate, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the subject of Abortion, and to change the law to protect America’s unborn children.
They have the right to do this, under the Constitution of the United States.
"....Hope once lay in the making of new appointments, but the failure of ten consecutive appointments by four Republican Presidents to change the direction established by the Warren Court has shown this hope, too, to be unreliable. Rule by judges can certainly be solved by abolishing judicial review, but the real problem resides less in judicial review as such than in the Court's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment as a text without any definite meaning. That problem could be solved either by returning the Fourteenth Amendment to its original meaning or by giving it any definite meaning, thus making it a judicially enforceable rule." http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news100103_commenta ry.shtml#graglia
Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome. If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election.
To Vote, Or Not To Vote by Linda Schrock Taylor
The Sons of Liberty list four options:
1) Continue to vote for the Republican Party candidates. Maybe we won't end up with a Democrat – or maybe we will. Either way, the Republican Party learns once again that they have the conservative vote no matter what they do.
4) Vote for a third-party candidate.
The pamphlet points out that Option 1 has already been discussed and points out that a vote for the Republicans will assure a drive off the same cliff, but at a speed within the posted limit. They believe that Option 2 should be dismissed as not lending itself to rational discussion. Regarding the last two options, they have this to say,
Option 3 is based on the assumption that anyone would notice that people were not voting. It is also based on the assumption that the parties would know why people were not voting. Not voting at all simply means that the political strategists ignore you. Being ignored is not our intent.
Option 4 is what we believe to be the best choice at this point. The objective is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not to find and support a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, that just is not going to happen. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have nowhere else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste their vote" by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.
Again, the point of this option is not to find a third party with any chance of winning, but that the voters "take a long range view and sacrifice in the short term if needed. We are working for future generations, not for ourselves."
The Sons of Liberty end with, "The only important point in making your decision is that your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten. Choose your party/candidate wisely." They list conservative political parties: Libertarian Party; Constitution Party; America First Party; and the Southern Party.
Hmmm…"your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten." Yes, I think that it is time that we, in the words of Murray Rothbard, "ride herd" on any candidate, and the party as a whole, for "waffling" and for betraying America. We voters have been taken for granted – for far too long. We have gone with our interests misrepresented or un-represented, since that long ago era when the various political parties "were dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed." When political parties again truly and honorably represent the real wishes of the people, then and only then, should we again loyally support one particular party.
So, I will vote in the next election, but the Republicans have definitely lost my support. I will go to the polls and cast my votes for candidates from one or more of the four conservative groups listed. I will be sure to inform every Republican fundraiser of my decision, asking that they convey my message accurately to their supervisors. Why, I will even send each Republican caller a copy of my Letter to Ken Mehlman, should they profess an interest. Yes, I am relieved to finally have a voting strategy! Lets look at recent history:
Ronald Reagan, as governor signed the most permissive abortion laws in the nation at the time. Should a Christian have trusted him with their vote? Did he do everything he possibly could in defense of life in his first term to deserve a Pro-Life Christians’ vote for reelection?
Chapter 1 -- Sandra Day O'Connor
The official nomination sparked a noisy public debate. Most of Reagan's deeply conservative supporters opposed O'Connor; her record, said right-wing Republicans, showed an alarmingly liberal tinge. And because she had taken a moderate view of abortion when she served as an Arizona state legislator, antiabortion activists vowed to fight her confirmation. "We feel we've been betrayed," asserted a spokesman for the Life Amendment Political Action Committee. The Reverend Jerry Falwell, leader of the fundamentalist Moral Majority, said all "good Christians" should think twice about Sandra Day O'Connor.
Kerry will secure the Roe position on the SCOTUS for 20 - 30 years.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."'
"That sentence is constitutional law, written by three sitting Justices, two appointed by President Ronald Reagan, one appointed by President George H.W. Bush. And that sentence, from Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), has now evolved from the aberration it seemed when first uttered into an ingrained element of our jurisprudence, its bedrock authority invoked just this past term to buttress the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.
....Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush appointees make up seven of the nine Justices on the Court...we have to thank this same Court for finding unconstitutional a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion, for approving racial preferences in a public-university law school, and for discovering in Lawrence v. Texas a constitutional right to sodomy.
The problem may reside in only two or three of those seven appointees. But the solution, clearly, does not rest only in electing Presidents or congressmen of one party as opposed to another. Altogether, such attempts to restrain the "imperial judiciary" have not fared well in the recent past and cannot be counted on to do better in the future." http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news100103_commentary.shtml#BENNETT
MichNews.com: Should Catholics Vote For 'Dubya'?
But Janet M. Thompson of the Fides Foundation (http://www.fidesfoundation.org/), also fed up with Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates, would not recommend that faithful Catholics vote for Bush. Why? Because Bush is not unconditionally pro-life; he allows for exceptions. And to not a few faithful Catholics, that's pro-abortion.
Writes Janet: "There is no explicit Magisterial teaching giving the moral 'green light' to the faithful to vote for pro-abortion candidates..The notion of 'choosing the lesser evil' is simply not valid - one may never licitly choose evil. As Pope Paul VI stated, 'Although it is true that it is at times lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it..'
"Appealing to 'proportional cause' to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates is erroneous; whatever good may have been gained from such a practice is far, far outweighed by the evil, not only the killing of the innocent, but the steady deterioration of the moral fabric of society - moral compromise does not build strength, it only spawns greater compromise.
"Given the above, the liceity of voting for pro-abortion candidates cannot be conclusively affirmed by the application of those principles so often appealed to; therefore, the only certain morally licit recourse is to the Fifth Commandment, 'You shall not kill.'"
So for whom will Janet vote in November? Certainly not John Kerry; and not George W. Bush, either.
Perhaps Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. Asserts Peroutka on his website, http://www.peroutka2004.com/:
"I am 100% pro-life, all nine months, no exceptions. In fact, I am so pro-life, that if elected I promise that abortion will end my first day in office.
"As President, I would advocate a total ban on all abortions and a total ban on any federal funding of abortions, here or abroad.
"As President, I would do everything in my power to end the national disgrace of abortion, starting with a formal acknowledgment of the legal person-hood of every child from the moment of conception. I would appoint U.S. Attorneys - by recess appointment if necessary - who will enforce the Fifth Amendment requirement that no person be deprived of life without due process of law.
"It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would do my first day in office. Don't let alleged 'pro-life' Presidents tell you differently. The President has an obligation under Article IV, §4 to ensure to each member State that it will be republican in form of government. Any action that is not republican in form will be utterly resisted to the grave if necessary under a Peroutka Presidency. Abortion was made 'legal' (more correctly, the prosecution of abortion was made illegal) in these United States by judicial fiat, which is anti-republican in form and in violation of the Separation of Powers and Article I, §1 of the Constitution vesting all legislative power of the Federal Government in the Congress. In an American form of government, 'all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury v. Madison. Most certainly, anti-Constitutional court decisions are not binding.
"Thus, under my presidency, Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive."
Sounds good to me.
Editor's Note: The views expressed by the author in this article do not necessarily reflect those of MichNews.com.
-----------
Matt C. Abbott is the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee and the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro- Life Action League. He is also a contributor to Cruxnews.com, RenewAmerica.us, MichNews.com, IllinoisLeader.com, AmericanDaily.com, ChristianNewsToday.com, Catholiccitizens.org, "The Wanderer" Catholic newspaper, TCRNews2.com, Catholic.net, Catholic.org, and CatholicExchange.com. He can be reached at mailto:mattcabbott@CatholicExchan ge.com
Whenever anyone says that they are Catholic but....that "but" means that they are not really Catholic.
They cannot have it both ways.
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.