Skip to comments.AMERICAN RIGHT TO LIFE REJECTS RON PAUL'S PLEDGE
Posted on 12/29/2011 8:10:29 PM PST by mnehring
American Right To Life calls it politics as usual when Ron Paul tried to mislead pro-life voters by signing a pledge that he actually rejects. Just in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses Paul pledged that he will "endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children." But then he contradicted his pledge by stating, "I can't agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here."
"Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself," says Darrell Birkey, director of research for American Right To Life, "that the constitutional protection of human rights does not apply to unborn children." And Birkey adds, "Ron Paul as president would defend a fictitious right of states to legalize the murder of children, but any country that permits kids to be intentionally killed is not even civilized."
"Ron Paul is not who he claims to be," says Lolita Hanks, president of American RTL. "Paul is pro-choice, state-by-state. He believes states should be allowed to keep abortion, which is like allowing states to keep slavery." Thus as president, Paul would refuse to enforce the 14th amendment, which declares, "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." (See more at AmericanRTL.org/constitution.)
"Today's pro-life movement is strong and growing, not weak and willing to accept whatever we can get," says Hanks. "We're not going to swoon because Ron Paul or any other candidate merely claims to be pro-life. Either Ron Paul will use governmental authority to stop the slaughter of children, or he is just another worthless politician." SOURCE American Right To Life
Hope you’re happy with Romney, BTW.
“namely building enough prisons for all the baby killers and their proponents.”
It won’t take long, make it illegal and far far far fewer people will do it.
“And why? Because he wants to limit our military activities overseas”
No, there are many more reasons than that.
He is a blame America first guy. He says heterosexuals caused more problems in the military than homosexuals, and supports them out in the military, also of course, supports the redefinition of marriage. He wants street drugs and prostitution legal. He doesn’t want the federal government in any way involved in making abortion illegal again. In short he is a social liberal who hates the military and only makes sense on some economic issues.
No kidding. They spam things that have nothing to do with politics as well. I’ve seen them randomly show up and start spamming video game forums, discussion threads on new movie trailers, etc.
“American Right To Life calls it politics as usual when Ron Paul tried to mislead pro-life voters by signing a pledge that he actually rejects. Just in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses Paul pledged that he will “endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.” But then he contradicted his pledge by stating, “I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here.”
Strictly speaking that is not a contraction but rather a political compromise in agreeing to support something you disagree with in exchange for something you do agree with.
I for one am with Paul 100% on the issue of the non-applicability of the “14th Amendment”. The 14th amendment was written by empire building zealots with extraordinary carelessness, then radioed only under the gun of occupation.
In my mind that makes the 14th Amendment very much illegitimate. But that is anther issue. The issue is whether or not those zealots intended that amendment to define when human life begin and where the protection of laws applied.
I think you will find it rather clear from the history theses people had no such conception that their careless text would carry any such implication. All they wanted was to postfactto justify what they were already doing to the States then under military occupation. You know typical “Ends justify the means thinking” of emo zealots.
This is of course by far not the only consequence of their carelessly totalitarian “amendment”.
“Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself,” says Darrell Birkey, director of research for American Right To Life, “that the constitutional protection of human rights does not apply to unborn children.” And Birkey adds, “Ron Paul as president would defend a fictitious right of states to legalize the murder of children, but any country that permits kids to be intentionally killed is not even civilized.” “
Well mister Darrell Birkey I don’t care if you think us “civilized”, If giving up our right to define these matters in written law(constitutional or otherwise) is uncivilized then I don’t want to be “civilized”.
I ain’t pro-abortion, but all rights originate from God(not State, and of them rights goverment only protects a tiny & defined subset.
To imply that goverment must protect undefined rights is to simply give it power as limitless as the potential spectrum of undefined rights.
Admittedly this is one of the areas the writers of the 14th Amendment unintentionally(Carelessness driven by zealous greed really) went afoul in nearly rendering the Federal Constitution a blank check of power.
Darrell Birkey sujestion becomes laws I would be forced to switch sides in this conflict, and support “illegal” abortions in states that would otherwise be inclined to allow it.
This is not, and never was a Federal Issue (nether is murder by the way).
“Hope youre happy with Romney, BTW.”
I’m afraid i must admit to having thoughts of not voting for him in the general, dispute my previous passivity on the subject & statements of anyone better then Obama.
It seems as he gets closer to winning and i learn more about him. The more I begin to think of how a liberal can do far more dammage while pretending one of us then one against whom we are united in opposition against.
To be frank, If Mitt win’s a republican house or senate might be inclined (for party reason) to vote for his liberal proposals, and perhaps even stop demanding real cuts.
Even if they diden’t Mitt would only need to uses party faction to pull off enough of them to make a majority with democrats.
But with Obama (or any democrat) party faction is on ourside in making demands, as is Obama’s unambiguous love of big Goverment. Just as importanlty is Obama’s face on the compromises made.
If we went with a real conservative committed to making real cuts then there might be something to gain. But if we go with a democratic wolf in our clothing we are going to do more dammage not only to our brand but to our country.
Hence my emerging reservations about Mitt and supporting him in the general. If Mitt is our choice there may be solid reason to vote for a 3rd party or even Obama among conservatives.
In any case i am beggaring to foresee & prosseve the very real rift in our federation & people.
With that realization it is increasingly becoming my judgement that the union among theses “factions” needs to be in some way sundered for the sake of not only the freedom but happiness of both.
I hope that this can be done in the form of Strong States rights & weak to nonexistent Federal goverment. In that way the individual may at least preserve his or her right to vote with his or her feet. But one way or the other this must be done...
We cannot continue to coexist with them contentiously raising the stakes(Grabbing more power & control into the Goverment) like this.
“He is a blame America first guy.”
Perhaps I don’t know, But i supported him for his radical position on domestic Federal Goverment downsizing & cuts.
Not to nitpick but given how few homos there are in the military that’s not a hard statement to make statistically. As for their being open about their abomination that should always be forbidden in an origination that requires men to work together in a non-sexual fashion.
That being said our Military beleive it or not is a standing army for imposing the leftist agenda by force, as it was in 1861. If you recognized that, you might also see the need to break it down.
A standing army is a larger threat to our liberties then any foreigner now existing. This is true simply because all foreigners with the means to project power of that sort almost never have the interest & willingness to do so. When they do we can rebuild our army to stop em.
Here I am without reservations with you and against Paul. Marriage is not something the Government can legitimately define or redefine.
It is a pointless union unless it is for children(thus also family). Love is NOT the reason the state was ever involved in protecting marriage. Indeed the only thin the State does today to “protect” marriage, is to make divorce somewhat inconvenient & expensive, while encouraging co-existent.
Beyond I think you would agree that the State has been a catastrophic influence on Marriage given what it has done after it took over & regulated the traditionally religious & cultural institution.
The FEDERAL Constitution no more mentions plants & the power to prohibit them then it does abortion and the power to mandate their legality upon the States.
I wouldn’t say say that a social Liberal wants the nanny state power to impose cultural values(or at least try). Libertarians beleive the power in itself is an evil and we both know its unauthorized for the Federal goverment.
With Paul you still get to have your State interfere with your private culture. But Washington leaves them alone.
As with the Federal military, to be frank with regard to history they are like it or not a tool of the Federal goverment that has been successfully used by the same to shove its lawless will down our throats.
There are no major & immediate threats, and we have nether the obligation nor the finances to pick up the defense costs of all the rest of the world.
If our “Allies” were really our allies they would be defending themselves & only calling upon us when actually engaged. Right now most of them are what you call “Free loaders”.
That's not the "central finding" of Roe v Wade.
The "central finding" is that the Supreme Court can pretend to find things in the Constitution to prevent states from protecting unborn babies.
The lamestreammedia and their pundits is trying to do the same thing again that they did in the 2008 election, push a candidate on us that most of us don’t want, (Romney)
On Saturday, I heard Ron Paul being questioned about this very issue. What I heard him say and the negative comments at this thread don’t seem to be covering the same issue. Is this thread an anti Ron Paul pile-on?
So you trust what a politician says on the campaign trail?
That’s the best kind.
why the hell is he allowed to use a GOP and conservative platform to spout his platform, why is he allowed to use the GOP platform to run.
He is not a conservative nor is he a republican, he’s more liberal than most Dems on social issues.
The man can run for all he wants but use the libertarian ticket, use their platform, run as one but for crying out loud piss off from the GOP and stop using us to promote his ideas some of which are just nutty.
I always knew Ron Paul is a kook, but lately I have been finding out he is a liar.
I like Paul because he will cut the money strings to Israel, thus cutting also the leash that has held the Israeli Military back from finishing off their opponents time and time again.
On the abortion issue, I believe it is way above States Rights, since the Right to Life ....... precedes Liberty, the Persuit of Happiness and everything else.