Posted on 08/28/2011 6:48:15 AM PDT by Nicojones
If you can judge a political candidate by the enemies he makes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry stands pretty tall.
For example, the national tort-lawyer lobby is set to spend millions to try to stop the GOP presidential hopeful in his tracks.
No wonder: Perry, in his 10 years as Texas governor, has managed to implement serious tort reform in a state that even a top litigator concedes was once “the golden goose” for high-end jury verdicts.
Don’t think for a moment, though, that the tort bar is gearing up in the names of truth, justice and the American Way.
As John Coale, a former tort lawyer and major Democratic contributor, told Politico: “Most of the guys I know don’t like [President Obama] . . . But when your livelihood, your money’s on the line, it concentrates the mind.”
Which is why, adds Politico, “among litigators, there is no presidential candidate who inspires the same level of hatred — and fear — as Perry.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_guy_the_sharks_fear_etAoeHT2Z2t64YTa9ARjyM#ixzz1WKaB5P6g
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I, too, voted for Reagan. Welcome to the old school club.
He's pro-choice for states, just like Gerald R. Ford; counter to the Reagan personhood, Fourteenth Amendment plank that has been in the GOP platform since 1984.
I wonder if he said that whether or not the people could keep and bear arms should be up to the states someone would dare to call him "pro-Second Amendment."
I wonder if he said that whether or not the people could keep and bear arms should be up to the states someone would dare to call him "pro-Second Amendment."
Your ability to reason and apply logic appears to be sorely lacking, not an uncommon trait among those with PDS.
What Perry has acknowledged is the legal reality that if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned by the court, then the issue of abortion would become a state issue once again, as it has been ever since the country was founded. The only way that would change is if there was a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which Perry also supports. Contrary to your prattle, Perry is staunchly pro-life, and has been recognized for such by all major pro-life organizations.
Your second statment is just asinine. Where have you ever seen Perry argue that a right clearly defined in the Constitution should be "up to the states"? That is just a sad, pathetic attempt to smear him with a laughable innuendo.
It was only weeks ago that Perry was saying that abortion should be left up to the states. Now, with his hand being held by the corrupt Republican enablers at NRTL, he's suddenly supporting an amendment. Bleh. After we pounded the heck out of him for his Gerald R. Ford/Ron Paul/John Judas McCain position.
None of which is in support of the existing explicit, imperative constitutional requirement that all persons be provided equal protection for their God-given, unalienable right to life.
"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.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Perry is nothing but a big phony. If elected, he will do NOTHING to stop the child-killing holocaust. Nothing at all. He's just another Republican liar.
Yes, that is a legal reality - if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion becomes a state issue. You can complain about that being true, but you cannot argue that it is not a fact. Now, if you don't like that fact, you can join Governor Perry is supporting a Human Life Amendment to the 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.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
And, please explain to me why we need another amendment, and, also, why we should believe that politicians who won't follow the two explicit, imperative amendments above would keep their oath to follow another one.
Is the child in the womb a person?
Like Slick Perry, you don't even understand what Roe was about, obviously.
All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...
Perry has demonstrated his pro-life principles by supporting parental notification and parental consent laws, working to defund Planned Parenthood, signing a law requiring sonograms before an abortion can be performed, opposing federal funding of abortion, etc. Like it or not, Perry has saved real lives with his actions - he has not just taken a purist position that continues to condemn millions to their deaths, as you appear to be doing. Perry opposes abortion, but will accept incremental advances to save every life possible, while you appear to be willing to continue to allow millions to die while you wait for your "perfect" solution.
Since none of us seems to understand, why don’t you explain it to us?
Roe was decided over the humanity of the child. Everything else was just noise.
But even Blackmun and his majority colleagues admitted openly, in the written opinion, that if the child is a person, OF COURSE they are protected by the explicit provisions of our Constitution.
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"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."
Hence the question:
Is the child in the womb a person, or not?
It's the only question that matters. If you say "no" you stand in agreement with the Roe court. If you say "yes" there is no possible argument that this is "up to the states" in any way, shape or form.
Because the Constitution of the United States says:
"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.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
It's not optional, it's imperative.
By the way, even the pro-abort lawyers in Roe admitted that their case would collapse if the "fetus," or child, was a person.
Oh really? If you're so smart, why don't you honestly answer the simple questions that have been put to you?
1. Other than the supreme right, the right to live, which other God-given, unalienable rights do think the states have the legitimate authority to alienate?
2. Is the child in the womb a person, or not?
When it comes to life, there are no halfway positions. The individual is either alive or they're dead.
The incremental regulation of child-killing, which has been tried for almost forty years now, is a complete moral and practical failure.
Rick Perry and his party had a super-majority in the legislature this last session...a majority that was allegedly “pro-life.”
So, tell me, why didn’t they ban the heinous practice in the Lone Star State? Why didn’t they keep the first most important imperative of their oaths of office, which is the equal protection of the right to life of every individual within their jurisdiction?
I’ve reached the conclusion that even if you gave them 100% of the seats, they would not stop the killing of innocents. They have no real interest in doing so.
One other thing about these immoral, unconstitutional regulatory bills.
They go two steps further into barbarity than even the Roe decision did, in that...
1. They codify abortion, which Roe couldn’t possibly do, being a mere court opinion, not law.
2. Almost all of these regulatory bills describe the child in the womb as a human person, and then go on to describe the ways they can be “legally” butchered. Again, this is worse than Roe, since the Roe court admitted that if the “fetus” or child is a person, they cannot be killed under the explicit imperative requirements of our Constitution.
Thanks to “pro-life” Republicans, we now have the killing of innocent persons codified in the laws of many of the states, as well as in the U.S. Code. Totally unconstitutional, lawless laws. And they weren’t put there by NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
"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
That is the natural law basis for our republic, for our form of government, for our Constitution, for our laws, for our claim to liberty.
If you call yourself pro-life, this is where you should be standing, without compromise:
Equal Protection for Posterity
It's the only way the bloodshed is going to stop, short of the Lord destroying this republic and making the question moot.
-- Thomas Jefferson ----- "I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the RINGBOLT to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in. all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain, broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day-cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight." -- Frederick Douglass"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."
And then they can kill the baby.
parental consent
And then they can kill the baby.
defund Planned Parenthood
Except for the ones Perry doesn't think are worthy and makes exceptions for. But, in any case, they can still kill the babies.
sonograms
Take the little person's picture, show it to the heartless accomplice, and then you can kill the baby.
Why not just ban it, and live up to the first duty associated with the oath of office?
Come on. If I’m so stupid, why can’t you answer the simple questions I’ve put to you?
Show me how much smarter than me you are about God-given, unalienable rights, the Constitution, the requirements of the oath of office, and the proper jurisdiction of the States. This is your chance.
1. Other than the supreme right, the right to live, which other God-given, unalienable rights do think the states have the legitimate authority to alienate?
2. Is the child in the womb a person, or not?
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.