Skip to comments.Tom Hoefling: "I will shut down every abortion facility in the country"
Posted on 06/11/2012 9:17:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"All officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.
Should I be elected to the office of President of the United States, I will keep my oath.
Justice Blackmun, in Roe vs. Wade, admitted that of course the child in the womb is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, if they are a person.
Since it is self-evident that they are a person, my first act as President, after having sworn the oath, will be to publish a presidential finding to that effect.
My second act will be to ask for the resignation of anyone in the executive branch who will not act accordingly.
My third act will be to order the closing of every abortion facility in the country, as per the explicit, imperative requirement of the Supreme Law of the Land.
'No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.'
'No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
-- Tom Hoefling
LOLing won't get you by that fact.
Red Headed Stranger
by Willie Nelson
Don't cross him, don't boss him.
He's wild in his sorrow:
He's ridin' an' hidin his pain.
Don't fight him, don't spite him;
Just wait till tomorrow,
Maybe he'll ride on again.
That didn’t make sense, you are on a thread promoting Romney, your posting history shows that you are indeed a romneybot, yet on this very thread you keep denying that you are posting what you are posting.
That is as weird as it gets, the Romneys have a history with Saul Alinsky but it doesn’t explain your dishonesty at this level.
“No, it’s not. That’s not possible, abortion being as it is a violation of God’s law,”
You seem to be confused between what is moral and what is lawful.
I’d like to see a school for conservatives teaching us how to implement those rules.
So, said another way, you disagree with the statement that 0bama ...
is the most pro-death, pro-abortion, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, anti-free enterprise, anti-American, anti-free enterprise, destructive and divisive administration ever?
Then reconsider your position, because I believe your position is based upon a theory that the president is required to defer to the Supreme Court when it comes to interpreting the Constitution (i.e., that the Supreme Court's opinion is "superior" to the opinion of the president), even when the language of the Constitution clearly protects life.
I guess in your mind its to implement a police state.
Show us that part of the Constitution that grants legislative authority to the courts, please.
I didn't understate who Romney is at all, but you are overstating his equivalence with the most evil administration ever. That's just an ignorant statement.
Like I said, find a more creative way to shill for Romney.
I join ranks with Jim Robinson on this, I won’t be voting for which ever of the two lefties you are promoting.
You know, my FRiend, I was (in a former life) an Office Manager for Psychiatrists. It was a great job and I learned a lot.
One of the way to treat Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is with serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Paxil, Prozac, etc. Most people are successfully treated in 12 Weeks.
I’ll answer you in three months.
I'll agree on that. Would you agree that Romney would be the most pro-death, pro-abortion, pro-Marxist, pro-environmentalist, pro-muzzie, pro-socialized-medicine, pro-activist judges, pro-gay, anti-free enterprise, destructive and divisive Republican president ever?
His record in Mass. certainly indicates it. And actions speak a lot louder than platitudes.
And if your answer is yes, start asking yourself if the price of ABO isn't a rip-off?
Kind of platform I, as a conservative, can support!
Wow, you are smoothe, but these are still insults even with the smoothe coating you lend to them.
>>Id like to see a school for conservatives teaching us how to implement those rules.<<
AND I would like someone as rich as George Soros help us out.
In the case of the equal protection of innocent human life in America, there is no difference, as I have shown you folks again and again and again. The Constitution, the supreme law of our land, expressly forbids it.
In any case, one of the oldest principles of western civilization is that "an unjust law is no law at all." I think it was Augustine who said that.
"I was just following orders" is not a legitimate defense for the destroyers of innocent human life.
1. Do you know anyone who has the understanding and gained their understanding of Jesus Christ and defend it, and they got that understanding from someone like Jeremiah Wright? Do you know anyone who is a good Christian that believes there is no salvation unless theres collective salvation?
2. Do you know somebody who is raised and/or mentored by communists?
3. Do you have friends or acquaintances that are Marxists, Communists, or have been actively engaged in the overthrow of the United States government?
4. Have you ever been at a party celebrating someone who has been accused of domestic terrorism?
5. Do you know anyone or have you ever been to a party and gave a toast to someone who is accused of being a Muslim terrorist?
6. Do you or any of your friends have the belief that terrorism doesnt really exist? And that by definition jihad is only a holy struggle?
7. How many of you or how many of your friends have hired members of the Muslim Brotherhood to provide security for your business or their business? Or would hire members of the Muslim Brotherhood to go through and put together your security for your town?
8. Do you have any friends that believe the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and good?
9. Do you know anybody that thinks NASAs foremost goal should be Muslim outreach, so you can help them and NASA can help them feel good?
10. Do you know anybody who believes that Occupy Wall Street features the best people in our country right now?
11. Is it even conceivable that anyone you know or associate with would think that killing Osama Bin Laden was a tough decision? With that, you have a single friend who in that case would make sure that we have a blame someone else memo ready just in case it went wrong?
12. Do you have anybody in your circle of friends or your circle of influence that believes America and Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the world. Do you know anyone who believes the United States constitution needs to be a photo negative to be right with the world today?
13. Would you or anyone you know take a gift given to the United States after 9/11, a bust of Winston Churchill, and try to give it back to the prime minister on your first meeting? And when he says, No, no, thats a gift, you can keep it, would you or anyone in your circle of influence then take that bust, box it up, ship it back yourself and say We dont need it anymore?
14. Do you know anyone, a single person, who has a wife or a husband that has never been proud of the United States of America until something good happened in their life?
15. Do you know anybody who would actively defend allowing a baby to die without treatment in a hospital if an abortion failed? That the baby would be born outside, the doctors would have it, and they would be allowed to put it in a closet and just let it die?
16. Would someone in your life withhold needed money from poor countries or suggest that needed money from poor countries was withheld unless they change the Constitution to be pro-abortion?
17. Do you know anybody who believes the only way out of debt is to spend $5 trillion in three and a half years? Or believes Solyndra and other green businesses were a good bet, and that the peoples hard earned money is something you should gamble with and you think that it should continue?
18. How many people do you know personally that would give a shout out to someone to say, Hey, I just want to say hi to Bob over there and thank Bob Its been a great day, Bob, before you had to announce to the country that 13 soldiers were murdered by an Islamic extremist on our own soil?
19. Do you know anybody who claims to be a huge Israeli supporter? Do you know anybody who says, Im the biggest fan of Israel, theyre our biggest and strongest ally, and Im a huge supporter. Im the best thing that has happened. And that when the prime minister of that country flew from the other side of the globe to have a scheduled dinner with you, you would humiliate him and blow off for dinner? Let him eat alone while you had a quiet dinner someplace else with friends? Do you know anybody who says, I am the biggest supporter of Israel, and then visited all of the Muslim countries around Israel but couldnt find the time to go to Israel? And that as Israels biggest, most loyal supporter, believes they should go back to the indefensible 67 borders? I understand it if youre not a fan of Israel, but if youre a fan of Israel, do you know a soul that is a true fan of Israel that says, Yes, go back to the 67 borders?
20. Do you know any committed capitalist who believes in redistribution of wealth?
Michael, are you equating a kidney to a person? That isn’t logical. A kidney is replaceable. Persons are not. You appear to think that as long as one person is completely dependent on another, killing the dependent person isn’t murder. If I have misunderstood you, and dependency is not your criteria for withholding legal protection from unborn people, kindly explain what your criteria is.
As for ownership of the uterus, doesnt the child who depends on that uterus for life have at minimum a tenancy in common with the mother? They are both sharing the same resources, and both for the same purpose, to live and grow and become everything a human can become. Why should the mom get more than a fifty percent share of that interest in survival?
EV, I respect your objective, but laws only work because people in large numbers cooperate with them. Every system that was ever tried has to have the consent of the governed to actually work. A presidential finding would be as subject to the capricious winds of political change as executive orders. It is only useful if you expect to be president for life.
I know you dont want that, so if you really want to win back the people who believe that federalism is the best way to nurture the long-term rejection of abortion, you really have to answer the question of how that other posters are asking.
As an attorney working in the profession, which includes working with law enforcement at a state level, I can tell you with high confidence that your vehicle has no wheels. To whom will you issue your order to close all abortion facilities? Federal troops? That might work. Obama is laying the groundwork for you now by overturning our national inhibition against using federal military against civilians.
Or perhaps youll just issue the order to the state governors. How do you think compliance will go? Im guessing pretty lousy. But even if they played along with such a usurpation of the state police power, good luck trying to get the state prosecutors to convict anybody for resisting a unilateral presidential order. Theres nothing to guide them. They just wouldnt do it. Youd be stuck with brining in the federales again.
Indeed, you would provoke into being a coalition of dissenting states that would dwarf the anti-Obamacare coalition, because it would be supported by literally everyone except those few who share your eclectic view of executive power. It would be historic.
So, if you cannot put together a better justification for discarding federalism than you have done so far, you will never get out of the garage, let alone make it where you, and all other prolifers, really want to go. Yes, there is a dual sovereignty, but it is dual for a reason, to protect the states from, among other things, usurpation of the police power by an overeager, do-gooder federal. Those limits on the federal prevent Obama from forcing us into bad things like Obamacare, and they prevent the federal imposition of good things too. By design, both the power, and the obligation, to protect human life rest with the states, and that is where the battle is most likely to be won.
A police state is one in which the God-given, unalienable rights of the people are destroyed.
I don't advocate that.
In fact, I advocate the exact opposite.
Regulation of abortion mills varies from state to state.
In Maryland, although other free-standing surgical clinics are licensed, regulated and open to inspection by the state, abortion mills are not. I repeat - to open an abortion mill in the state of Maryland, you do not need the sort of license required to open a surgical clinic.
Prior to new legislation signed this year or last, abortion mills in Virginia did not have to meet the same regulatory restrictions, safety measures and guidelines as other surgical clinics.
Generally speaking, the abortion industry has done its best to keep health and safety regulations in abortion mills to a minimum, and considers subjecting abortion mills to the sorts of regulations routinely imposed on other health care practitioners and facilities to be an undue burden of a woman's “right” to procure the premeditated murder of her child.
In fact, I saw one website where the pro-aborts claimed that abortion clinics are already sufficiently regulated by federal law: by OSHA (which is about worker safety, not about regulation of medical facilities or procedures for the benefit of the patient) and by HIPAA (which is about keeping medical records private and assuring enhance availability of health care and health insurance).
We conservatives at freerepublic have been dealing with you romneybots for 6 years, we have heard it all.
1. He's likely a neutral on abortion, meaning he won't push it like Bambi does, but I agree he likely won't actively work against it, and I don't like that. That's a huge difference.
2. He's now way pro-Marxist, that's an ignorant statement.
3. I don't know what he will do about Obamacare, he claims he will work to end it, I don't really trust him, but believe he can be pushed. Bambi can't.
4. I don't entirely trust him on judges, but I know Bambi will give us another Kagan, or Sotamayor, or Ginsberg, that's a fact.
5. Romney is a mix on environmentalism, he's not a radical wanting to take out our fuels and our capacity to be industrial. We know what Bambi is.
6. He's not pro-Muzzie at all, period, that's laughable.
7. He's not anti-free enterprise, that's laughable.
8. He's naive and ignorant about the gay movement, but he's not pro-gay. Bambi is 100%.
9. Divisive, yep, he is, but doesn't hold a candle to the one. Destructive? I doubt it, there is no way he appoints people in his administration as bad as Bambi, he may lean left in some things, but I'm sorry, it's almost night and day.
I'm not the one telling lies.
Gov. Reagan was not pro-abortion.
At least, not any more pro-abortion than folks who call themselves pro-life and think all abortions should be banned but those involving rape, incest and the life of the mother, as determined by a competent medical board of physicians at a hospital.
Are you pro-life? How about in cases of rape? Incest? When continued pregnancy is highly likely to kill the mother?
If you are so proud of your pro-Romney campaigning and it’s depth, then ping JR, you may as well share that brilliance with him at the same time.
Sadly, barring a miracle, you are correct.
THEREFORE the next president will be an anti-conservative statist.
My vote cannot stop an anti-conservative from taking the presidency. However, it CAN contribute toward weakening the mandate of that anti-conservative.
If you are voting to give an anti-conservative a mandate, YOU, my FRiend, are part of the problem.
Quite the exaggeration don't you think? You malign the conservatism of long-standing FReepers who are merely explaining why they are where they are with regard to this no-win scenario of the 2012 POTUS election. No one on this thread is shilling or promoting Romney and you are being intellectually dishonest to suggest so. You hate it when a FReeper posts ... "a vote for a third party is a vote for 0bama". Your post alleging shilling/promoting Romney is a classic illustration of the flip side of that same coin and is just as bad.
I believe Jim Robinson also proposed a general truce among our conservative forces!! to refrain from each of these type of attacks on each other.
I’m posting to you and no one else, but you quite clearly don’t understand you’ve lost the argument, so you obfuscate.
Obviously, I haven't been here six years, but I have to suspect that some of these folks who claim to feel compelled to reluctantly vote for Romney and who feel compelled to enthusiastically campaign here for him must in fact really like him and the policies for which he stands.
Again, I haven't been here for six years and so I really don't know what to make of the contradiction between their actions in campaigning for Romney and their claims of being Romney reluctant hostages. Therefore, I ask you, as someone who has been watching this much longer than me, are these folks really so frightened by the future or are they just ashamed of what they believe?
Are you really trying that?!LOL...
You're seriously saying that you aren't concerned about an obama win? Well, most of us are concerned about it. You will find yourself in the minority there. That's fine of course... but you appear foolish in your refusal to acknowledge that you could put obama in charge again.
What's worse Finny? Obama or Romney? If you answer that like Jay Carney, then YOU are part of the problem.
And why we will not settle for anything less in any potential political leader.
It's not an unreasonable demand.
Odd that as a n00b you leave out the other possibilities for voting for Rominy as a voter against letting the little bastard commie finish off the Republic. I suppose you don’t beleive the collapse can happen or you want it to so you can use the preaprpations you may have made to wait it out to whatever comes next. (See how easy it is to mischaracterize what someone posts? Welcome to Freerepublic, n00b)
LOL. Another classic meme!
How might ansel12 put it?
Find a more creative way than that to malign my realistic conservatism.
LOL, really this is your big pro-Romney roll out to persuade conservatives?
This is your big show, the 2012 campaign for Mitt Romney for President?
I like Dante's take on that.
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Bizarre, you are shilling for Romney, promoting Romney, that is what you are pestering me about, you want me to vote for your man Romney.
Thank you. You are righteous on this thread.
Reagan was never pro-abortion, yet Romney has spent 5 years telling the public that he was “adamantly” pro-abortion. Romney despised Reagan, conservatism, and was passionately pro-abortion, Romney was emotionally and sincerely pro-abortion and had become so in 1963 and remained vocally so until he started running for the GOP nomination.
Reagan quickly realized that he had been rolled in the late 1960s as a new Governor, years before Roe v Wade and the effective pro-life awakening to what was happening.
from Mark Levin:
Others have suggested that Reagan flip-flopped on abortion; this is also false. He advocated a health exception (for the life of the mother) which, as he explained later, was exploited to include virtually anything. But he wasnt pro-abortion. Giuliani and Romney were. And they are struggling with it today. Reagan learned that the exception became the rule, and he would oppose abortion of any kind from then on. To compare this with those who emphatically defended abortion on demand (and federal funding no less, in Giulianis case) is nonsense.
Moreover, Reagan did all he could as president to follow through on his pro-life position. He instituted his Mexico City policy, preventing the use of federal funds for abortions abroad. His administration was directed to deny funds, wherever it could, for abortions. He was also part of an effort, led by Jesse Helms in the Senate, to amend the Constitution. There werent enough votes, but they tried.
Read the rest here:
I think you’re in over your head Tau Food.
First, welcome to Free Republic. Second, you insult everyone here and make yourself too easy to spot when you post with such myopia.
Yes, a whole hell of a lot of people are scared shotless of what an obama 2nd term would mean - and yes I do feel compelled to do all I can to avoid it. That you do not have any such fear is telling - as is your post construction.
There is, unfortunately, only one candidate who can realistically deny Bambi that second opportunity to finish America off, and it's none of those that I supported. It's a shame, but it's what we have.
I'm sorry you wouldn't answer the question, but it does look bad to anyone looking at your posts.
you may be a nice guy (or not), but you will do nothing but make stupid purists waste their opportunity to get rid of this most evil of administrations.
And you'll likely make a living off of them at the same time. Good luck with that.
-- "Tom wants to be a dictator"
-- "Oh yeah, because yer a troll"
-- "Stop doing drugs and then perhaps people will listen."
--"hey shithead, Im not a liberal"
-- "go eat a gob of fat"
-- "Youre just showing your ignorance and lack of class."
-- "u bore me"
All things I found in a quick search of your posting history.
Who's been hurling insults again? Where have I leveled that kind of invective at folks who disagree with me?
>>Therefore, I ask you, as someone who has been watching this much longer than me, are these folks really so frightened by the future or are they just ashamed of what they believe? <<
I’m terrified that Obama will win.
I said from the beginning, ABO.
This isn't pro-homosexual?
"For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
"One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clintons dont ask, dont tell, dont pursue military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share."
I got over heated, and over zealous, good luck to you.
Well, Principled, I sure don't feel like I'm in over my head. Yes, a whole hell of a lot of people are scared shotless of what an obama 2nd term would mean - and yes I do feel compelled to do all I can to avoid it.
Thank you for answering my question, Principled. I'll repeat what I said to driftdiver in post 211: "It must be painful to feel that you are compelled to choose between the shame of voting for Romney and the fear of a future without a President Romney to protect you."
It's pitiful, really.
And, if you get what you think you want, I think you'll be sorry for it.
But, you vote the way you want for whatever reason you want. I'm going to be proud of my vote and I won't look back.
Are you people on LSD?
You get on freerepublic beating us over the head promoting Mitt Romney, attacking us for not supporting your man, and in between all that aggressive Romney posting, you interject posts saying "I'm not pro-Romney".
You are on this very thread pushing Mitt Romney!
You are pro-Romney.
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.