Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Perry: Abortion is a states’ rights issue ("You either believe in the 10th Amendment or Not")
Hotair ^ | 07/28/2011 | Allahpundit

Posted on 07/28/2011 6:03:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

A smart middle-ground play for independents, but I thought he was supposed to be the great evangelical hope. Last week he said he was “fine” with New York legalizing gay marriage before clarifying today that he’s not fine with gay marriage itself. (In fact, he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now this. Why would a social-conservative voter looking for a champion who has traction in the polls prefer him to, say, Bachmann?

Maybe Perry’s willing to shed some votes in Iowa in exchange for picking some up in New Hampshire.

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”…

The National Right to Life Committee responded to Perry’s categorization of abortion as a states’ rights issue in a statement, saying, “Our society has an obligation to enact laws that recognize and protect the smallest members of our human family. Prior to Roe, states had the ability to enact laws that extended full legal protection to unborn children. We look forward to the day when Roe v. Wade is changed, and the states will once again have the ability to pass legislation that fully protects mothers and their unborn children.”

I’m surprised the NRLC gave him cover on that. Granted, the immediate first step after Roe is overturned would be state laws restricting abortion, but I’ve never understood that to be the end point for pro-lifers, as Perry seems to suggest by invoking the Tenth Amendment. The goal is a Human Life Amendment or, at a minimum, a federal statute banning abortion coast-to-coast. If you believe abortion is murder, why on earth would you want to let any state choose to legalize it? Huckabee made that point succinctly during the 2008 campaign; watch the end of the clip below.

Maybe Perry’s position on this mirrors his position on gay marriage. His argument for the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states, so the process honors the federalist principle of the Tenth Amendment even though the FMA would trump it. He could make the same argument for the HLA, although (a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree, and (b) if he didn’t make the same argument for the HLA, he’d have to explain why he thinks gay marriage requires a national solution but abortion doesn’t.

But maybe none of this matters. Neither the HLA nor the FMA will ever pass, so all we’re doing is polishing credentials here — and his already have plenty of polish. The latest whispers from his advisors, incidentally, claim that he’ll be in by late August. In fact, he’s already nudging Fox about a spot in the August 11 debate.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 5thamendment; abortion; civilrights; fifthamendment; moralabsolutes; perry; personhood; preborn; prolife; rickperry; rinoperry; staterights; tenthamendment

1 posted on 07/28/2011 6:03:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Perry wouldn't have lasted the day in Cortes' army.

Human sacrifice is such an egregious horror NO ONE should accept it.

2 posted on 07/28/2011 6:06:11 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

“You either believe in the 5th Amendment or not” - me


3 posted on 07/28/2011 6:07:43 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I've been as prolife as anyone here, and I've paid my dues, and unfortunately Perry is right-- the overthrow of Roe would mean that each state will determine its own position on abortion. Some will outlaw it completely, some will retain the unfettered Roe position. Some will fall in between. That's life in a democratic republic.
4 posted on 07/28/2011 6:08:05 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is refreshing to find a politician anywhere who even knows there is a 10th amendment


5 posted on 07/28/2011 6:16:54 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing an idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; All

It is..


6 posted on 07/28/2011 6:23:10 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Radical Islam is a bigger threat than the LDS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
I've been as prolife as anyone here, and I've paid my dues, and unfortunately Perry is right-- the overthrow of Roe would mean that each state will determine its own position on abortion.

Yes, and that what Federalism is all about. It's what the founders intended for the Country. If each state is in essence a laboratory, then we have a chance to see what works and what does not. States like New York and California can pass all the wacky legislation and suffer the consequences. That's what's happening today. Texas is "eating California's Lunch". Companies are leaving California and moving to Texas in substantial numbers. This is driving Jerry Brown nuts (yes, I know he's already nuts and needs not to be driven). But if California persists in it's stupidity, it will ultimately collapse. That's a good thing. California should collapse. It wouldn't be the end of the world. The other states can learn what not to do.

People would start to move to states where the state government is sane. I've got a prediction, Wisconsin will soon begin to reap benefits from what's going on there. Businesses will find it a more attractive place to locate or expand now that they have a first rate governor and a seemingly sane legislature. Let's hope they can keep it up and not regress.

Yes, I know there are problems here with Federalism. Not the least of which is the same type of people who destroyed New York and California will move to Texas and Wisconsin and begin the process of destroying those places.
7 posted on 07/28/2011 6:26:12 PM PDT by truthguy (Good intentions are not enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I’m surprised the NRLC gave him cover on that.

I'm not. I've worked with NRLC on a number of projects and their primary position is (a) Roe v Wade is bad law. That (b) overturning Roe v. Wade is the first necessary step and that (c) NRLC and pro-life groups need to work *within the system* to enact pro-life laws on the state level and forbid federal interference with those laws.

It's a very pro-10th position. They believe that once Roe v Wade is overturned that they can appeal to people's consciences and hearts to enact pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn.

MRLC frowns on the Operation Rescue types that try to take the law into their own hands, well-intentioned as they may be, and looks to work through repealing Roe v Wade and enacting state laws as the way to save unborn lives.

I'd say their approach to the subject and Perry's are quite well-meshed.

8 posted on 07/28/2011 6:35:00 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

So we should just accept Free and Slave states again?

I respectfully disagree with slavery and believe the unborn are due the full protections accorded under the 14th amendement.

Yes, the 10th is important, but a child in NY is no less valuable than one in TX.


9 posted on 07/28/2011 6:38:42 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

I agree...and I said so last night at a GOP meeting, as did many others.....


10 posted on 07/28/2011 6:45:12 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If you believe abortion is murder, why on earth would you want to let any state choose to legalize it?

For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it's fundamentally a state issue. If it's ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law?

11 posted on 07/28/2011 6:45:44 PM PDT by mike-zed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Well, unfortunately for conservatives, your position is the current law of the land, and it has not worked out well for the unborn. The Supreme Court has found the right to an abortion to be a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment via a non-incorporating incorporation argument of the 14th Amendment. There is now no sensible way to argue against that except via the Tenth Amendment.

That was the status quo ante in 1972 and it is correct. Throughout all US History, the States determined when a person was alive or not alive; at the end of life, they still do. If you want no abortion in all fifty States, campaign against it in all fifty States.

12 posted on 07/28/2011 6:58:57 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Can we be series for a moment, please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mike-zed
Well said!!
13 posted on 07/28/2011 7:04:53 PM PDT by freespirited (Stupid people are ruining America. --Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mike-zed
For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it's fundamentally a state issue. If it's ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law?

Sorry, murder is murder.

The relativistic arguments don't work on this issue.

Make it so it is no longer a choice in any state, outlaw it, NOW!
14 posted on 07/28/2011 7:24:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If something is occurring in another state, that is considered states right, Perry would not comment, since he is a governor in another state. That might change if he is running for President. He has butted heads with Obama repeatedly regarding states rights in TX. Obama has constantly butted in there especially with the EPA. Grey Eagle


15 posted on 07/28/2011 9:10:52 PM PDT by Grey Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All; hinckley buzzard
Abortion before Roe vs. Wade:


16 posted on 07/28/2011 10:43:08 PM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Absolute unmitigated nonsense. The law prior to Roe did not treat the unborn in NY different from the unborn elsewhere.

If the federal government does not have the obligation to protect the innocent throughout america, then there is no point to having a government at all.

As for the ‘incorporation’ argument failing, the unborn were and had been well protected until the passing of Roe, where abortion was recognised as a constitutional right. It’s not the fault of the incorporating law, but rather, a fault of those who wished to see abortion in ascendency.

States do not have the right to declare unpersons. A state cannot class a group of people as not deserving of citizenry or the obligations rleated to the civil protection laws that prevent all of us from committing crimes. Period.

“That was the status quo ante in 1972 and it is correct. Throughout all US History, the States determined when a person was alive or not alive; at the end of life, they still do. If you want no abortion in all fifty States, campaign against it in all fifty States.”

False, the 14th explicitly says to the contrary that they do not have this right, they cannot declare a person to be dead or alive, or declare a person to be not a person.

Prior to Roe, this was the case throughout America which is why Roe was required in order to impose a constitutional right to abortion that may not be abridged by prior amendments.

At present, the first target must be Roe, but when Roe falls, so does abortion in all 50 states.


17 posted on 07/29/2011 5:44:01 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mike-zed

“For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it’s fundamentally a state issue. If it’s ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law?”

Nonsense. The Federal government has enumerated rights and powers which is what the 10th covers. The Feds do not have the constitutional authority to intervene in state matters.

The 14th already settled this matter, that this is not in the realm of the State, but the federal government. As it should. The right to life is the most fundamental of all our rights and the federal government has the obligation to protect this right to the fullest extent.

One cannot express any of the other constitutional rights, if one is simple declared to be an unperson. CA and NY may insist on abortion, just as states insisted on slavery. Both were wrong.


18 posted on 07/29/2011 5:48:00 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Please actually learn some history and some law.

Your post is truly the most completely, thoroughly, hilariously false collection of sentences I have ever seen on Free Republic not actually made by a Democrat.

Congratulations! That is quite an accomplishment.

Abortion was legal in New York in 1970 and ten other States before that. It was illegal in Pennsylvania. It had been legal and illegal in various States before a widespread movement to ban abortion in the early 20th century. In all cases where abortion was banned, it was banned entirely on a State-by-State basis. There was NEVER a Federal ban on abortion, because prior to Roe abortion was NOT seen as an area of Federal competence.

As a matter of fact, it still is NOT. Roe actually says that neither the Federal Government nor the States may regulate first trimester abortions AT ALL, because this is a right retained by The People. (Amendment IX.) Roe was not "passed." It is not a law. It is a Supreme Court decision.

The concept of Incorporation at issue here is the question of whether an aspect of the Bill of Rights applies against the States. Contrary to common (completely incorrect) opinion, not all aspects of the Bill of Rights apply outside of Federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has decided in a period extending back to the early twentieth century exactly what aspects of the Constitution not previously explicitly applied to the States have become incorporated into the 14th Amendment's protections. SCOTUS did not decide that the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated until last year, for example.

Your notion of "incorporating" law is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I haven't the faintest clue what you even think it means. In any case, Incorporation is a Federal criterion for applying case precedent. It is not a "law" any more than Row is.

What is clear is that you have no understanding of either what is in Amendment XIV or the Bill of Rights, nor what rights are retained by the States or the People. Roe v. Wade did not come into existence in a vacuum: it is an expansion of an earlier case law result made in Griswold vs. Connecticut. In Griswold, the Court ruled that States could not regulate contraception because of a right to privacy. The decision is an even bigger mess than Roe. In Griswold the Court declared a "Right to Privacy." Some of the concurring justices made Incorporation arguments, some made arguments based directly on Amendment IX, and one justice invoked the Due Process clause of Amendment XIV directly WITHOUT invoking Incorporation.

And please note, that prior to Griswold, each State had its own laws governing contraception.

As for your entirely silly claims that States have no authority to determine when life begins and ends, please have a look here: Uniform Determination of Death Act. This act is a recommendation from the AMA and other organizations. It has not been adopted in all States, which have all retained -- without any Federal challenge, EVER -- the right to say when life ends.

(Or Google legal determination of death, where you will find several thousand places where you will discover that States do indeed have this authority, and the Federal Government DOES NOT.)

Please educate yourself before you make such an idiotic post ever again. Your statements are an embarrassment to conservatism in general, and Free Republic in particular.

19 posted on 07/29/2011 10:52:20 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Crying won't help ya, prayin' won't do ya no good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Perry wouldn't have lasted the day in Cortes' army. Human sacrifice is such an egregious horror NO ONE should accept it.

Are you trying to claim that there was no death penalty in 16th Century Spain?

Hernan Cortes held the power of life or death, and actually exercised it in Mexico, over Spaniards and Indians alike.

When Cortes hanged one of his lieutenants, Vilafana, who had the actual ability to put a stop to that execution? Did the Governor of Cuba, hundreds of miles away, who claimed authority over Cortes and considered him a rebel? Did the Spanish Crown thousands of miles away? Did the Church?

No. In the Real World, Cortes in Mexico was a law unto himself and whether Vilafana lived or died depended on that reality and did not depend upon somebody writing that Cortes had neither a legal right or a moral right to hang Vilafana.

Likewise, in the Real World of abortion, actually STOPPING a single abortion does not depend on somebody simply WRITING that it is wrong.

Actually STOPPING a single abortion in a certain place at a certain time requires the legal authority to stop it and the enforcement capability to stop it.

Right now, who has the legal authority and enforcement authority to stop a single abortion in your State?

The Catholic Church?

The Baptist Churches?

Your State?

You?

No. As a result of the perversion of the Tenth Amendment by Roe v. Wade, that legal authority has been usurped by the JUDIACIARY of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Is that what you want?

To have such a decision be under the autocratic control of liberal judges?

Right now, the Federal Judiciary, has usurped the absolute power over life and death, regardless of what the Tenth Amendment says, just like Hernan Cortes in Mexico usurped the absolute power over life and death regardless of what the Governor of Cuba said, regardless of what the Spanish Crown said and regardless of what the Church said in regards to whether Vilafana should live or die.

Right now, even if every single Texan in the State of Texas votes to outlaw abortion in the State of Texas, under the rights reseved to the people of Texas and the State of Texas by the Tenth Amendment, abortion would still be legal because of the Federal judiciary power grab of Roe v. Wade.

Under the Constitution of the United States and specifically, the Tenth Amendment, only each STATE has the right to outlaw abortion.

Not the Catholic Church.

Not the Baptist Churches.

Not the Federal Government.

Only each STATE has the legal right to outlaw abortion.

If you insist on Federalizing the issue of abortion with an "Abortion Amendment", you had better think about that option long and hard because, with the moral degeneration of the majority of the American population, that "Abortion Amendment" will certainly be an amendment establishing abortion as a constitutional right.

You can criticize Perry all you want about saying that abortion, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, is a State's Rights issue and you can get up on your soapbox and say that it is solely a moral issue. In the Real World, however, all the moral protestations of every Church on the planet will not stop a single abortion in Texas. Only the recognition of the State of Texas' right to limit abortion will do such a thing.

20 posted on 07/29/2011 10:53:05 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You either believe in the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or you don’t. I don’t see where State’s Rights supersedes the right to Life.


21 posted on 07/29/2011 10:58:20 AM PDT by upsdriver (to undo the damage the "intellectual elites" have done. . . . . Sarah Palin for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver
You either believe in the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or you don’t.

That's not in the Constitution. It's in the United States Declaration of Independence which is not law.

However, there is language in the Constitution which supports your position:

"Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

22 posted on 07/29/2011 11:06:31 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

“Your post is truly the most completely, thoroughly, hilariously false collection of sentences I have ever seen on Free Republic not actually made by a Democrat.”

Then you should have no problem ripping it apart.

“Abortion was legal in New York in 1970 and ten other States before that.”

And in 1950? Much like we are seeing with Marriage, liberals are doing the same thing now they did then. Marriage is federal jurisdiction, and yet we see that gay marriage has passed in New York.

Abortion was uniformly banned throughout the United States until the latter half of the 20th century.

“It had been legal and illegal in various States before a widespread movement to ban abortion in the early 20th century.”

Not so.

“There was NEVER a Federal ban on abortion, because prior to Roe abortion was NOT seen as an area of Federal competence.”

Again, not so.

“As a matter of fact, it still is NOT. Roe actually says that neither the Federal Government nor the States may regulate first trimester abortions AT ALL, because this is a right retained by The People.”

Which I believe is what I said that Roe established abortion as a constitutional right. Combined with Doe, effectively all abortions are permitted at any time. This is why fr’nstance late term abortions are legal and the trimester framework of Roe is a joke.

“The concept of Incorporation at issue here is the question of whether an aspect of the Bill of Rights applies against the States.”

“As for your entirely silly claims that States have no authority to determine when life begins and ends, please have a look here: Uniform Determination of Death Act. This act is a recommendation from the AMA and other organizations.”

Uh, that’s not helping your argument. 14th explicitly says that the states can’t strip someone of their rights.


23 posted on 07/29/2011 11:15:10 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; mike-zed
One cannot express any of the other constitutional rights, if one is simple declared to be an unperson. CA and NY may insist on abortion, just as states insisted on slavery. Both were wrong.

Good grief! Even more bilge.

States were not legally wrong to "insist" on slavery. Slavery is implicitly recognized as legal in the Constitution of the United States; and explicitly recognized as a States' Right under Amendment IX and X.

Morally wrong, yes.

Remedies were provided by 1) The Emancipation Proclamation. This could only be applied to the States in rebellion during the Civil War, because they were no longer protected by the Constitution -- the Border States' slaves could not be freed by this instrument -- and subsequently throughout the US by 2) Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, which were necessary because legally slavery was fully recognized and protected by the Founders' Constitution.

After the passage of XIII, XIV, and XV, NO STATE "insisted" on slavery. Before that, they didn't have to.

Your grandiose understanding of the Fourteen Amendment might be admirable if it had not already proven itself to be the source of so much mischief and outright evil by the Federal Judiciary. An expansive interpretation of citizenship, due process, equal protection, and even Incorporation have been the root cause of every abuse of the Constitution (excluding the Commerce Clause) in modern times.

Contrary to its horrific abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment is a point-by-point demolition of Chief Justice Taney's idiotic interpretation of US citizenship in Dred Scott. It was not intended as a blunt instrument to destroy the States and establish a National, rather than Federal Constitution.

Liberals actually agree with your extravagance. Unfortunately, no Supreme Court has ever found any merit in your conclusions.

The argument you're making is EXACTLY the argument used in Griswold and later Roe to murder -- not protect -- the unborn. How does it feel to be on the side of the baby killers?

24 posted on 07/29/2011 11:24:42 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Crying won't help ya, prayin' won't do ya no good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Let me put it this way ~ I am not your enemy ~ the only reason abortion is practiced in this country is the threat of deadly force against anyone who attempts to stop it.

If they actually PRIVATIZED the practice completely, and took the power of the state entirely out of the equation, I think you might see something different.

25 posted on 07/29/2011 11:25:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Put your finger on, and cite for me, the Federal Statute banning abortion.

You may have until Judgement Day, if you like.

26 posted on 07/29/2011 11:26:19 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Crying won't help ya, prayin' won't do ya no good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

You’re the one arguing that unborn children in CA should be treated differently from those in TX.

Has the expansive interprtation of the 14th caused problems? Yes. Yet, you still go back and say that the 14th completely destroyed Dred Scott.

Then the time has come for another constitutional amendment ratified by the states to ban abortion outright.

What side are you on?


27 posted on 07/29/2011 11:31:55 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Uh, that’s not helping your argument. 14th explicitly says that the states can’t strip someone of their rights.

Wow. Not only wrong but completely ineducable.

You appear to believe there has been a movement to change the definition of death which has been passed on a State-by_State basis over the last 31 years, but there is in fact no need to do that because the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't allow States to determine when death occurs. Wow. Well played. Your understanding of statute and case Law is better than that of all US Attorneys and the Attorneys General of every State, to say nothing of all State and Federal jurists.

I had no idea I was discussing law with such a super genius.

NOT.

Please point me to the Federal Case Law, or US Statute that bans States from defining the moment of death.

28 posted on 07/29/2011 11:32:33 AM PDT by FredZarguna (Crying won't help ya, prayin' won't do ya no good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

Yes, I knew that it was from The Declaration of Independence.

The Right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are unalienable rights given by God.

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.


29 posted on 07/29/2011 11:35:08 AM PDT by upsdriver (to undo the damage the "intellectual elites" have done. . . . . Sarah Palin for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; hinckley buzzard
So we should just accept Free and Slave states again?

That is a moot point because the issue of slavery has been Federalized by constitutional amendment. Right now, the Federal Government has the final say about slavery in ALL 50 States.

Is that what you want?

"One Federal Law Fits All" regarding abortion?

Do you really want the issue of abortion to be Federalized?

Think about that very carefully before you give your Final Answer.

Do you really want to surrender that much power to the Federal Government because you naively believe that you will control the Federal Government in regards to this issue instead of the Federal Government controlling you in regards to this issue?

If abortion is Federalized, with the current moral climate in America, an "Abortion Amendment" will be one GUARANTEEING abortion, not outlawing it.

That is just the political reality of 21st Century America.

If you force the issue to put abortion under "One Law Fits All", you will be enshrining legal abortion in ALL 50 States, regardless of what the people of Texas want, just like the 14th Amendment enshrined the abolition of slavery in ALL States, regardless of what the people of Texas wanted in the 1860's.

I respectfully disagree with slavery and believe the unborn are due the full protections accorded under the 14th amendment. Yes, the 10th is important, but a child in NY is no less valuable than one in TX.

See Post 20.

You will never stop a single abortion by living in a Fantasy World where you actually believe that what you think or what I think or what our mothers-in-law think about the 14th Amendment amounts to anything more than a bucket of warm spit.

In the Real World, with real consequences, what you think or what I think about the 14th Amendment and $1.29 gets us nothing more than a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

The fact remains that, under the Constitution, the only entity that can actually legally stop an abortion is a State. The U.S. Government can refuse to pay for an abortion with taxpayer's money but only a State can actually outlaw an abortion.

You can argue about the 14th Amendment until you are blue in the face but the fact remains that a branch of the Federal Government took the 14th and perverted it out of all recognition to ALLOW abortion in all 50 States REGARDLESS of the mandates of the Tenth Amendment.

What you think or what I think cannot stop a single abortion.

Maintaining and expanding the State's Right authority of the Tenth Amendment CAN stop an abortion ...... at least in the States that want to stop abortions.

Once you take abortion decisions completely out of the hands of the States and hand it over to the Federal Government, you will achieve your ideal scenario of all States having exactly the same law on this issue.

However, I will guarantee you that you will NOT .... repeat, ..... NOT like the result.

"Abortion is hereby recognized as a constitutional right. Neither Congress nor any State shall make any law prohibiting or restricting the free exercise a woman's right to an abortion under any circumstances" ..... Twenty-eigth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution making abortion no longer a States' Rights issue under the Tenth Amendment.

30 posted on 07/29/2011 12:30:58 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; mike-zed
For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it's fundamentally a state issue. If it's ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law? ..... mike-zed

With the current political climate of the United States, any increase of the degree of Federalization of the abortion issue INCREASES abortion.

The Holier Than Thou Crowd, however, is too blind and too politically naive to realize that.

Sorry, murder is murder. The relativistic arguments don't work on this issue. Make it so it is no longer a choice in any state, outlaw it, NOW! .... SoConPubbie

Well, SoConPubbie, when your Fairy Godmother waves her Magic Wand and makes you Emperor of the United States and you outlaw abortion in all 50 States by your Imperial Decree, while dressed in a Napoleon Bonaparte costume, you let us know the deal is done.

In the meantime, that rest of us have to deal with the realities of the Planet Earth.

Under the Planet Earth realities of Roe v. Wade (the mileage on your planet may vary, SoConPubbie) the only thing that is keeping ANY abortion illegal in ANY State is what remains of the State's Rights under the Tenth Amendment on this issue.

See Post 30.

While Governor Perry is dealing with Real World solutions that are not perfect, you, SoConPubbie, are are sanctimoniously congratulating yourself for offering Fairy Godmother solutions that do not stop a single abortion and strips Texas of the right to stop a single abortion.


"So, SoConPubbie's Fairy Godmother waved her Magic Wand and, ..... POOF ....., SoConPubbie was Emperor of the United States and, by his Imperial Decree, outlawed abortion in all 50 States, including Massachusetts."

31 posted on 07/29/2011 1:25:29 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

“That is a moot point because the issue of slavery has been Federalized by constitutional amendment. Right now, the Federal Government has the final say about slavery in ALL 50 States.”

And I am arguing that the 14th applies also to unborn children.

“Is that what you want?”

I don’t see any other way to ensure that children across the US are protected by law. I don’t see how having it legal in one state and illegal in another is a workable solution. Does a child stop becomeing a child just because her mother crosses the state line?

“Do you really want to surrender that much power to the Federal Government because you naively believe that you will control the Federal Government in regards to this issue instead of the Federal Government controlling you in regards to this issue?”

As it is right now, states can’t do anything. Constitutionally they have zero power. I’d like to see an outright ban across America.

“If abortion is Federalized, with the current moral climate in America, an “Abortion Amendment” will be one GUARANTEEING abortion, not outlawing it.”

It’s already guaranteed as a constitutional right. By the Supremes. So what’s your point here?

“That is just the political reality of 21st Century America.”

The majority of the people are against abortion in America and believe it ought to be banned.

“If you force the issue to put abortion under “One Law Fits All”, you will be enshrining legal abortion in ALL 50 States, regardless of what the people of Texas want, just like the 14th Amendment enshrined the abolition of slavery in ALL States, regardless of what the people of Texas wanted in the 1860’s.”

Horseshit. Has it ever been put up to a vote? Do you believe that the American people voted in the present situation? No. I believe that Americans are solidly behind the ban and that the worthless cowards of the last 27 years have condemened 50 million children to death.

Like Dr. King, I ask, “when?” When are we going to see justice? For all of God’s children not just some?

I respectfully disagree with slavery and believe the unborn are due the full protections accorded under the 14th amendment. Yes, the 10th is important, but a child in NY is no less valuable than one in TX.

“You will never stop a single abortion by living in a Fantasy World where you actually believe that what you think or what I think or what our mothers-in-law think about the 14th Amendment amounts to anything more than a bucket of warm spit.”

Actually, yeah. I have a damn dream and I’m not going to piss it away because folks like you believe that it can’t be done. Rubbish.

Everyone who believes that the unborn are really persons believe they deserve the full protection of the 14th.

“The fact remains that, under the Constitution, the only entity that can actually legally stop an abortion is a State. The U.S. Government can refuse to pay for an abortion with taxpayer’s money but only a State can actually outlaw an abortion.”

Uh, the Supremes could strike the bill down today. The Federal government has jurisdiction via the 14th over persons. If the Supremes strike down Roe and confirm that the unborn are legal persons, then the States have to conform with the laws of the land.

We’ve been Judicial slaves now for close to 40 years.

“branch of the Federal Government took the 14th and perverted it out of all recognition to ALLOW abortion in all 50 States REGARDLESS of the mandates of the Tenth Amendment.”

Do you believe that the use of the 14th is an illegitimate use by the federal government to protect unborn children across America? Yes or no?

“What you think or what I think cannot stop a single abortion.”

Absolutely horseshit. What I believe has stopped abortions. I know that for a fact.

“Maintaining and expanding the State’s Right authority of the Tenth Amendment CAN stop an abortion ...... at least in the States that want to stop abortions.”

As I said, it would amount to admitting that the unborn aren’t really persons, because a state could take their rights away.

I don’t believe that the ultimate compromise will net anything positive. America has two choices in front of it. If they choose to cling to abortion, they will die and be replaced by another nation that is more faithful to God. We know this. God is already punishing America. Do you not think that 50 million more American voters could have turned the tide in ‘08?

“Once you take abortion decisions completely out of the hands of the States and hand it over to the Federal Government, you will achieve your ideal scenario of all States having exactly the same law on this issue.”

They already do at present.

“Abortion is hereby recognized as a constitutional right. Neither Congress nor any State shall make any law prohibiting or restricting the free exercise a woman’s right to an abortion under any circumstances” ..... Twenty-eigth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution making abortion no longer a States’ Rights issue under the Tenth Amendment.”

Roe already has established that abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy is a constitutional right.


32 posted on 07/29/2011 6:31:35 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

Slave or free, Polybius? Are you willing to condemn children to abortion? Do you think that establishing that the line stops at the TX border is ultimately, what will protect TX children?

If you can drive across the border to another state, or fly out and if you find that those mothers that do so are subsidized, how is your solution effective at protecting any unborn children?


33 posted on 07/29/2011 6:35:52 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
“If abortion is Federalized, with the current moral climate in America, an “Abortion Amendment” will be one GUARANTEEING abortion, not outlawing it.” .... BenKenobi

As it is right now, states can’t do anything. Constitutionally they have zero power. I’d like to see an outright ban across America. ..... It’s already guaranteed as a constitutional right. By the Supremes. So what’s your point here? .... BenKenobi

The point here is that you have an extremely poor understanding of Roe v. Wade, BenKenobi.

The point here is that, by your lack of understanding and by the advocation the Federalization of all abortion power, your are playing a very dangerous game with the lives of the unborn.

Before, Roe v. Wade, the States had the power to determine abortion laws as was their right under the Tenth Amendment.

For the pro-life side, that was as good as thing ever got in the entire history of the United States.

The Roe v. Wade ruling, by the use of ridiculous concepts such as "penumbras" SEVERELY LIMITED but ..... this is the key point that you totally fail to understand ..... did NOT totally eliminate a State's right to legislate against abortion.

Whatever remaining control over abortion that there presently is comes about precisely as the result of the State's right that you want to abolish.

Do some States outlaw late term abortion?

Yes!

How many?

Thirty six of them.

"But, but, .... BenKenobi said 'As it is right now, states can’t do anything. Constitutionally they have zero power.' .... he said so. Right there on Free Republic."

"Well, BenKenobi is flat out wrong. The fact that 36 States have laws outlawing late term abortion proves the falsehood of his claim."

“That is just the political reality of 21st Century America.” ..... Polybius

The majority of the people are against abortion in America and believe it ought to be banned. ..... BenKenobi

Before you go advocating the Federalization of abortion by Constitutional Amendment, a course of action that will, literally, mean the difference to many unborn between life and death, you should really do your homework, BenKenobi.

You are wrong. DEAD wrong!

February 17, 2011 ..... Half of U.S. Voters are Pro-Choice, But 53% Say Abortion's Usually Morally Wrong .... A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters consider themselves pro-choice, while 40% say they are pro-life, .....

What that means, BenKenobi, is even though 53% say, like many Democrats politicians say, that they, personally think abortion is "morally wrong", SIXTY PERCENT of all voters will also say, "but far be it from me to tell somebody else that they cannot have an abortion".

Did you get that, BenKenobi?

Do you now understand what it will mean if the State right to legislate abortion is denied by constitutional amendment and the Federal Government gets to decide?

Given the choice between a "No Abortion Rights for Anybody Amendment" and an "Abortion Rights for Everybody Amendment" .... SIXTY PERCENT of all voters will support the "Abortion Rights for Everybody Amendment".

But, as we all learned in 5th Grade Civics, Constitutional Amendments are not based upon a popular vote: 75% of all state must ratify an amendment.

So, if you make a list of States, ranked by most Pro-Abortion first, in descending order of support for Pro-Abortion, you must be able to hit a Pro-Life State by at least Number 13 on such a list for the Abotion Amendment that you want so badly to be a Pro-Life Amendment.

How would such a list look like?

Here you go.

PRO-LIFE VS PRO-CHOICE .... SORTED BY 'PRO CHOICE' IN DESCENDING ORDER

Look over the results, BenKenobi, and see how far down the list of the 50 States you have to go before you even get to a State that even split 50/50 for the Pro-Life side.

You have to go all the way down the list to NUMBER THIRTY SEVEN (37) before the Pro-Life position even catches up with the Pro-Anbortion position.

Do you understand now, BenKenobi?

You really need to educate yourself on this issue because what you are proposing, the Federalization of abortion law, will strip whatever little protection the unborn presently have.

34 posted on 07/29/2011 7:56:56 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." -- The Declaration of Independence

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." -- The Preamble, or Statement of Purpose, of the United States Constitution

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." -- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"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." -- The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." -- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973

"You shall not murder." -- Exodus 20:13

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." -- Thomas Jefferson

35 posted on 07/29/2011 8:06:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (They've swindled every penny out of the living, so now they've moved on to swindling posterity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

“The point here is that you have an extremely poor understanding of Roe v. Wade, BenKenobi.”

Uh, what’s not to understand. Abortion is a constitutional right permitted through all nine months of pregnancy.

“The point here is that, by your lack of understanding and by the advocation the Federalization of all abortion power, your are playing a very dangerous game with the lives of the unborn.”

Constitutionally, the federal government has the obligation to protect it’s citizens. Are you suggesting that the right to life isn’t an obligation for them to protect? Should a state be able to pass laws permitting the euthanasia of the disabled, and aborting of the Unborn? No.

“Before, Roe v. Wade, the States had the power to determine abortion laws as was their right under the Tenth Amendment.”

Again, false. Abortion up until the Liberals started arguing for this (by arguing that abortion restrictions were contrary to women’s rights), was banned throughout America.

“did NOT totally eliminate a State’s right to legislate against abortion.”

It eliminated the right of any state to ban abortion throughout the US. Have any states successfully banned abortion? No. The best that TX can do is provide a limitation that restricts when they can obtain an abortion and put conditions on it. Pathetic.

Roe has to go.

“Whatever remaining control over abortion that there presently is comes about precisely as the result of the State’s right that you want to abolish.”

Hrm? I don’t value the present status of states to effectively constrain abortion. Because it’s not working right now, and if you believe the status quo is good enough, I don’t know what to say.

The unborn should not be sacrificed at the altar of the rights of a state, just like the rights of minorities should not be sacrificed either. A state does not have the right to deprive a citizen of their natural rights entitled to them by the constitution of the united states.

“Do some States outlaw late term abortion?”

Without a health exception as per Doe?

“You are wrong. DEAD wrong!”

No, I’m not on this, and accusing me of not doing the research is a bit insulting.

“You have to go all the way down the list to NUMBER THIRTY SEVEN (37) before the Pro-Life position even catches up with the Pro-Anbortion position.”

If you ask the question, “do you support Roe vs Wade”, you get very different answers.

Are you aware of Doe vs Bolton?


36 posted on 07/29/2011 9:43:22 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All

Bottom line; we need somebody who can WIN this thing. That means somebody with cross-over appeal, which our Palen, Bachmann and Cain (no matter how much we love them) simply do not have.

Until 1989, Rick Perry was a conservative Democrat. He switched parties as, like many Democrats including Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm, he saw that party moving farther and farther to the left. Under Perry’s decade as governor, hundreds of Texas Democrats have followed his lead and become Republicans. As a former Democrat, Perry can speak to that swath of his former party that has become disenchanted with their party as President Obama has taken it even farther to the left, in a way that few Republicans can. He can also speak well and credibly to all wings of the national GOP, from the fiscal cons to the social cons to the libertarian set.
He would appeal to all segments of the Republican electorate and would come armed with a record of economic success and a commitment to liberty that no other contender can match.

Texas has been voted #1 business climate for the last seven years.
Texas has been getting all of California’s jobs.
Perry must be doing something right.
We need a good business guy right now.
Perry has proved it.

.

.

CONSERVATIVE ICONS SUPPORT PERRY:

>Sarah Palin threw her endorsement to Rick Perry for governor.
Recently restated that she likes Perry
“He walks the walk of a true conservative” “And he sticks by his guns — and you know how I feel about guns.”
Sarah Palin
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/palin-perry-201.html

>Rush said that Perry is his dream candidate.
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/rush-limbaugh-on-the-record-3/

>Michael Reagan praises Perry:
“If you don’t believe Reaganomics can still work in this day and age, for whatever reason, I say you should look no further than the state of Texas.
Under the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Texas has championed and built upon the concepts my father used to rebuild America in the 1980s..
In short, Reagan Revolution is alive and well - deep in the heart of Texas.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/reagans-vision-lives-on-in-texas/?page=1

>Ted nugent is a close friend and supporter.

.

.
>Since Perry has been Governor of Texas, Texas has added more than 850,000 jobs, more than all other states combined. Texas has added over 180,000 jobs since August of 2009.

.
>According to this web site Texas is #1 this year and last year for business friendly.
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business
Obama would not want not run against a governor that has the BEST business climate in the U.S. when everything else is in a depression.

>He refused to raise taxes when Texas faced a record $10 billion budget shortfall in 2003. Instead, he was the first Texas governor since World War II to sign a budget that lowered state spending (and has now done it twice). As governor, Perry has used his line item veto to cut over $3 billion in proposed spending.

>For seven years running, CEOs polled by Chief Executive magazine have rated Texas first in business development and job growth. Texas boasts 58 Fortune 500 companies — more than any other state.

>As America’s No. 1 exporting state, Texas shipped $206.6 billion in goods abroad last year, composing 16 percent of America’s $1.28 trillion in exports. California’s $14.4 billion in exports ranked it second, with 11.2 percent of U.S. outflow.

>Texas’ achievements so stunned Gavin Newsom, California’s Democratic lieutenant governor, that he flew a delegation to Austin last May to ask Perry how he lures defectors from the Golden State.

>Of the 70 companies that fled California in 2011, the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund reported last April, 14 relocated to Texas — these exiles’ primary destination.
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2011/06/21/opinion/nh4142489.txt

>In 2005, Perry signed a historic $15.7 billion property tax cut for homeowners and businesses that also included new taxpayer protections against appraisal increases. In 2009, Gov. Perry secured a tax cut for approximately 40,000 small businesses in Texas and protected the Rainy Day Fund for future challenges.

>He led the battle to pass the country’s most sweeping lawsuit reforms, closing the door on junk lawsuits that had been making trial lawyers rich while driving countless doctors either out of the state or the profession all together. Since Texas voters approved these reforms, malpractice claims and premiums have fallen and access to healthcare is increasing across the state as doctors have applied in droves to practice in Texas.

>Perry is also known for his socially conservative views on homosexuality, and he opposes same sex marriage. He condemned the United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law. He called the law “appropriate”

.
ABORTION:

>Perry is pro-life and opposes government funding for elective abortions. In 2005, Perry, a social conservative, signed a bill that limited late-term abortions and required girls under the age of 18 who procure abortions to notify their parents. Perry signed the bill in the gymnasium of Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth, an evangelical Christian school.

>Perry signed into law a bill requiring a sonogram and doctor’s explanation before granting an abortion

>In 2005, Perry signed a new law that requires minor girls to receive parental consent before getting an abortion. This law strengthens a parental notification law Perry supported as Lt. Gov. in 1999, which
helped reduce teen abortions by 26 percent.
Perry has also signed a ban on third trimester abortions, a ban on tax dollars being used to support abortion facilities, a prenatal protection act that protects
unborn children from assault, and an informed consent law that helps expectant mothers better understand the risks and consequences of abortion. Perry supports a ban on human cloning and will veto any
legislation that provides state dollars for embryonic stem cell research, a process that ends a human life.
Perry urges to keep up pressure to roll back the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion until “Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation’s history books.

>Perry, a frequent critic of the federal government, also bashed President Barack Obama for his administration’s policy allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, saying he was deeply disturbed by studies that turn “the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material.”

>Perry has faulted Obama for reversing the so-called “Mexico City policy” that banned giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about abortions. Obama struck down the policy during his first week in office, saying it was too broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
Under Obama “our federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortion all over the world. With the stroke of a pen, abortion essentially became a U.S. foreign export,” Perry said.

.
IMMIGRATION:

>Perry adds immigration issues to lawmaker session
Perry wants passage of a measure requiring every person arrested to be run through the federal immigration databases as part of the Secure Communities program. He also wants to provide the state Department of Public Safety with the authority to make sure someone is in the U.S. legally before issuing a driver’s license.

>These measures, along with a ban on sanctuary cities, would “provide a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws,” Perry said in a statement.
“Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs,” Perry said.
http://www.rickperry.org/media-articles/perry-adds-immigration-issues-lawmakers-agenda-0?amp

>Gov. Perry has made numerous requests of the federal govt. to enforce the border in Texas including handing President Obama a letter in person when he landed in Dallas last year.
(Obama insulted governor Perry when he turned away and Perry had to hand the letter on the illegals issue to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett. Obama declined to personally accept it.)

>Gov. Perry refuses to meet/greet Obama in May 2011 at El Paso during his Texas tour.
Perry later declared, “If he wanted to meet, I was in Austin.

>Perry signed into law photo ID required before voting.

WHAT have other states done?? (with the exception of AZ Ok and Ga)

What have other candidates stated that they would do?

What has Sarah stated she would do?

What is Backmann’s plan?

What did Reagan do?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/06/rudy-giuliani/yep-reagan-did-the-a-word/
President Ronald Reagan was the first president in history to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. On November 6, 1986, he signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, [PUB L 99-603]. In so doing, he set a precedent whereby the United States would not seek to deport illegal aliens, but to reward their lawbreaking by granting them full citizenship.

NEWSFLASH! None of them are going to do much.
We have to take the best of the lot.

.

.
CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS:

In what was described as a “God and country” sermon at the Cornerstone church in San Antonio, attended by Perry and other mostly Republican candidates, the Rev. John Hagee stated, “If you live your life and don’t confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood, I’m going to say this very plainly, you’re going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket.”
Perry was asked if he agreed with those comments and said, “It is my faith, and I’m a believer of that.”[39] Perry went on to say that there was nothing in the sermon that he took exception with.
Humorist and entertainer Kinky Friedman, the Jewish independent candidate for governor in the 2006 election, said, “He doesn’t think very differently from the Taliban, does he?” Carole Keeton Strayhorn disagreed with Perry’s comments, and Democrat Chris Bell said that one who is in public office should “respect people of all faiths and denominations”.
Conservatives then responded, arguing that Perry had a right to his religious beliefs, and that he was not disrespecting Americans of other religious convictions. While visiting Israel in August 2009, Perry gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post in which he affirmed his support for Israel from his religious background, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”

.

.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

>Perry does not believe there is valid scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. He has said several times that there is no scientific consensus on the issue.[69] In a September 7, 2007, speech to California Republicans, Perry said, “Virtually every day another scientist leaves the global warming bandwagon. ... But you won’t read about that in the press because they have already invested in one side of the story.”

.

>Pro-life, Pro-guns, pro-spending cuts, pro-business

>He’s an outside-the-Beltway candidate

>He is not a Ivy League grad

>He was an Air Force captain who flew a C-130

>Speaks Spainish.
(Odumbo says everybody should speak a foreign language, but he CAN’T)

>Fighting with Obama on many fronts
Google Perry/Obama and you will see he’s been fighting him and his government for the past two years.

>PERRY ISSUES OBAMA A COUPLE OF BIG FUBOs:

1. “Texas to Allow Regular Incandescent Bulbs”
Reports are the governor will sign Bill HB2510 by June 19th.
Bill HB2510 allows for the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs otherwise banned in federal legislation of 2007, applicable from 1 January 2012 onwards.
The legality, at least in the way the proposed law is framed, has apparently been cleared with the US Attorney General’s office.
The Bill has already passed in both House and Senate with overwhelming support.
While Texas has no current manufacture, relevant parties are being invited to restart it.
Texas has been a leading US state in providing new local jobs, and this is seen as a further contributive measure.
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html

2.Perry Adds TSA Anti-Groping Bill to Call
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/tea-party/updated-perry-adds-tsa-anti-groping-bill-to-call/ ^

Gov. Rick Perry this evening announced the addition of TSA anti-groping legislation to the agenda for the special legislative session. In a statement, he said lawmakers could consider legislation “relating to the prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression on those seeking access to public buildings and transportation.”

.
>There is no such thing as ‘Perrycare’

>Signed into law sonogram and explanation by physician before abortion

>Signed into law, photo ID ident to vote

>Perry did not apply for federal “Race to the Top” education funds because he said it would force national standards upon Texas.

>He has vetoed a record 248 bills, including dozens after the 2001 session, angering many lawmakers.

>He said last year that President Barack Obama was “hell-bent” on turning America into a socialist country.

>Won governorship of state with lots of latinos

>He used to be a Democrat. So? So did Reagan.

>The Bush’s don’t like him

>He has NEVER lost an election, including an elementary school contest for “king” of the Paint Creek School Carnival. He secured that win by handing out pennies for votes.

>Perry has degree in animal science from Texas A&M University

>He is an Eagle Scout and wrote a book about the Boy Scouts, ‘On My Honor’.
Rick Perry uses the Boy Scouts to draw a battle line in what he considers a “culture war,” defending them against the American Civil Liberties Union and what he sees as a moral struggle for the country’s future.
The book also traces a 30-year history of litigation involving the Scouts — most of which they won — which Perry considers an attack on traditional values and faith in God.

Perry targets the ACLU as the primary force behind a leftist push to accept homosexuality and challenge Scouting’s duty to God.
http://www.rickperry.org/media/perrys-new-book-supports-boy-scouts-attacks-aclu

>Perry has a reputation for not sweating

.

MISC:
.

>He played quarterback on the six-man football team for the Paint Creek Pirates. He also played basketball and ran track.

>He’s a runner and triathlete.

>He is an outdoorsman who enjoys hunting and fishing.

>He plays the drums. At a January 2005 inaugural party in Washington, he played with ZZ Top in front of 2,000 people

>Perry has Romney’s looks without the other baggage.
Raised on a ranch.
Has hair.
6’ tall- presidential (especially after Obama)

.
PERRY TRASHING:

Anytime governor Rick Perry is mentioned, Free Repubic seems to turn into something resembling Democratic Underground.
Posts regarding Perry are peppered with profanity, vulgarity and downright fabrications- the likes of which is seldom seen on Free Republic.

This is hardly in the best interests of our Conservative agenda. The Loony Left does not need any help from us in the character assassination of our Conservatives.

This Perry trashing comes from the Ron ‘truther’ Paul nuts, Debra Medina sour grapers, lurking Libs- and I suspect, over zealous Sarah Palin supporters and a few Bachmann supporters.
(I love Sarah and Michelle Bachmann as much as anyone else, but we MUST face reality when it comes to our beautiful Conservative ladies’ chances of winning this thing!)

Don’t you think it more sensible to trust what the Conservative icons have to say about Perry?

>Sarah Palin threw her endorsement to Rick Perry for governor-. She recently restated that she likes Perry.

>Rush said that Perry is his dream candidate. http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/rush-limbaugh-on-the-record-3/

>Michael Reagan praises Perry:
“If you don’t believe Reaganomics can still work in this day and age, for whatever reason, I say you should look no further than the state of Texas.
Under the leadership of Gov. Rick Perry, Texas has championed and built upon the concepts my father used to rebuild America in the 1980s..
In short, Reagan Revolution is alive and well - deep in the heart of Texas.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/24/reagans-vision-lives-on-in-texas/?page=1

>Ted Nugent is a close friend and supporter.

Don’t you think it more sensible to trust what numerous politicians and scholars have said about Rick Perry than various haters?

VISIT THIS SITE

Read the official statements of dozens of Perry’s fellow politicians and scholars (both Democrats and Republicans) have had to say about Rick Perry: http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/rick-perry-for-president-in-2012.html

All (including Democrat opponents) have called him a staunch Conservative, and not one of the dozens issuing opinions has mentioned the vaccine or TTC.
Apparently they don’t consider these things an issue. They DID mention Perry threatening to secede from the union as a strike against him.

What Perry actually said; “You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention,” Perry continued. “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? So. But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

.
The Gadasil vaccine Perry tried to “force” on Texas girls?
Dead issue.
He never tried to force it.
There was an opt out. It was up to parents to choose
Always.

.

Trans Texas Hiway?
Dead issue.
If that’s the worst he’s done, I can live with it.
I just want someone who can kick the Marxist/Muslim usurper’s sorry a$$ out of our White House!!

.

Bilderberg member?
Dead issue.
Governor Perry attended one meeting in 2007.
Many prominent Americans have attended these meeting.
That does NOT mean they are members or agree with their ‘agenda’- whatever that is.
Some who attended in the past: Ford, Eisenhower, Gates

Why NOT attend if invited? I would want to know what in the heck they are all about and what they are up to.

.

>Americans WILL get it:
>Better looking
>Better record
>Rick Perry for President

.

_____________________________________________________

Hear Allen West explain eloquently why Muslims- all Muslims, are a danger to America in this short video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k

We need a place for sensible men like Cain and West who understand the Muslim and illegal alien danger to America in the new Republican administration in 2012.


37 posted on 07/30/2011 4:36:00 PM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson