[EternalVigilance]

Let me ask you, and the others here who are following the Palin line, a couple of questions:

If a candidate said that states could outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms would you call them “pro-gun”?

If a candidate said that states, if they saw fit, could outlaw free speech, and freedom of the press, and the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, and the right to petition government for the redress of grievances, and the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers, would you call them “pro-liberty”?

Why is the supreme right, the right to life, different?

[Jeff Head]

It's not. States have done exactly what you claim...Illinois, New York, etc., etc.

We have a long hill to climb on several fronts.

There is already a specific constitutional amendment on the right to own firearms.

Sadly, apparently we must have one on life too.

But perhpas not of we go about this correctly. 1st, let's get the right justices to overturn Roe v Wade...which should have happened decades ago.

I wish we had a President who would absolutley not enforce it at all on constitutional grounds. I know that is what I would do. But I'm not running and would be probably, short of the powerful hand of God himself supporting someone like that, be un-electable.