Audio from Dr. James Dobson

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nang

TOL Subscriber
:up:



:up:



This is where you go overboard!



But he hasn't said that Bob. Actually he says quite the opposite.

From Ron Paul himself:
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.​

He answers it quite plainly.

An observation from a fairly a-political person . . .

Seems to me if we could vote a person into the presidency, who might be able to get Roe reversed and throw the abortion matter back to the State level, it might be a realistic beginning to possible and real biblical reform.

For do we all not have more power and Christian influence in our individuals states than can possibly be enacted on a Federal level?

I just don't see where Ron Paul is the bad guy here. Pro-lifers have to start somewhere, and I don't see Enyart proposing anything tangible or specific in contrast.

But then I am very new to the discussion, and open to learn of any Enyart's proposals and tactics to fix things.

Nang
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Bob,

Hold on to your hat,

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all.

Ron Paul

How can you possibly be against that?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
An observation from a fairly a-political person . . .

Seems to me if we could vote a person into the presidency, who might be able to get Roe reversed and throw the abortion matter back to the State level, it might be a realistic beginning to possible and real biblical reform.

For do we all not have more power and Christian influence in our individuals states than can possibly be enacted on a Federal level?

I just don't see where Ron Paul is the bad guy here. Pro-lifers have to start somewhere, and I don't see Enyart proposing anything tangible or specific in contrast.

But then I am very new to the discussion, and open to learn of any Enyart's proposals and tactics to fix things.

Nang

:up: I would just like to mention Nang, the way to defeat abortion is already in the Constitution. What Bob proposes is a monarchy led by men, which is unbiblical.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
:up: I would just like to mention Nang, the way to defeat abortion is already in the Constitution. What Bob proposes is a monarchy led by men, which is unbiblical.
Please quote me the verse that advocates either a republic or a democracy.
 

elected4ever

New member
In that the constitution makes it illegal for the state to defend the life of the unborn because of the 14th amendment; or anyone else for that matter, referring the question back to the states and to the people is an exercise in futility. The federalist 10th amendment does not apply in this case. No law passed by congress can address the problem adequately. The only solution to abortion is an amendment to the constitution to modify the 14th. amendment. Many of us, Ron Paul included, have worked for years on a false presumption and an unworkable solution. This does not make us pro abort. The question now is a proper plan of action. Row v Wade was not improperly decided basted on the law at the time the ruling was made. Row v Wade cannot be overturned with the existing law in place. Those who advocate an overturning Roe v Wade are working on a false presumption also.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Paul & popular politicians punt...

Paul & popular politicians punt...

Ron Paul, as with so many politicians, becomes popular by punting on abortion.

When they run for mayor, they say, the mayor's office has nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

When they run for state governor, they say, the states have nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

When they run for president, they say, the federal government has nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

The truth is, every human being and especially every governing official, should use their influence and authority to stop the intentional killing of the innocent. Ron Paul specifically declares that as the leader of the federal government, he would force the federal courts to stay out of the abortion mattter, and allow the states to do as they see fit. He is tolerant of murder.

That is pro-choice, state by state. It is sad drbrumley that you and others cannot see that. I'm wondering what it is in you that moves you to obfuscate and even deceive yourself. It could have to do with pride, with confused notions of right, wrong, and governance, and perhaps with the competitive spirit that makes campaigners argue subjectively as though they were callers into sports talk shows.

Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state.

And as I've said, Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and he spoke at its 2004 National Convention, and yet he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (heroin, crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

The Libertarian Party is an immoral, godless, quasi-conservative, murder-tolerant organization which therefore has no understanding of righteousness in law. Ron Paul is a leader of the Libertarian Party, and is pro-choice, state by state.

-Bob Enyart

p.s. My schedule for three weeks is intense (we're preparing to host a pro-life leaders summit in Denver), so I may not be returning to this thread again. If you'd like me to know your response to this, you'll have to call into my talk show. (If you want to schedule a segment, just email our GM Will Duffy at Will@KGOV.com.) Thanks, -Bob
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Bob, how about answering the posts instead of reguritating the same line of Bad Shenigans?

And you tell me I am obfuscating? How incredible!

Frankly I am really disappointed. I know your a skilled debater, but it isn't showing.

You throw the baby out with the bathwater. (pun intended)
 
Last edited:

elected4ever

New member
Ron Paul, as with so many politicians, becomes popular by punting on abortion.

When they run for mayor, they say, the mayor's office has nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

When they run for state governor, they say, the states have nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

When they run for president, they say, the federal government has nothing to do with abortion (which is not true).

The truth is, every human being and especially every governing official, should use their influence and authority to stop the intentional killing of the innocent. Ron Paul specifically declares that as the leader of the federal government, he would force the federal courts to stay out of the abortion mattter, and allow the states to do as they see fit. He is tolerant of murder.

That is pro-choice, state by state. It is sad drbrumley that you and others cannot see that. I'm wondering what it is in you that moves you to obfuscate and even deceive yourself. It could have to do with pride, with confused notions of right, wrong, and governance, and perhaps with the competitive spirit that makes campaigners argue subjectively as though they were callers into sports talk shows.

Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state.

And as I've said, Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and he spoke at its 2004 National Convention, and yet he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (heroin, crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

The Libertarian Party is an immoral, godless, quasi-conservative, murder-tolerant organization which therefore has no understanding of righteousness in law. Ron Paul is a leader of the Libertarian Party, and is pro-choice, state by state.

-Bob Enyart

p.s. My schedule for three weeks is intense (we're preparing to host a pro-life leaders summit in Denver), so I may not be returning to this thread again. If you'd like me to know your response to this, you'll have to call into my talk show. (If you want to schedule a segment, just email our GM Will Duffy at Will@KGOV.com.) Thanks, -Bob
Mr. Enyart, I believe you are working on false assumptions. What ever excuse people have for not addressing the problem is irrelevant. It does no good to cast stones. I do not know what you do when a rock is thrown at you but most people get out of the way. Usually that don't like you at all and they never listen to you.

Frankly, now that I have realized what the problem really is I can tune out the chatter and focus on solving it. Don't you think it is time for us to do something substantive rather than spend out time chasing foxes in the woods. I have never heard anyone say that the 14th, amendment had such an effect or why. It is always something else. Diverting attention away from a viable solution.

I am as justified in my suspicions of you, founded or not, as you are unjustly being critical of others. You are good at finding fault. We all know the faults but it is hi time we we find a solution. I have identified the target, now we should start firing some real bullets.

PS. I will withdraw my unjust criticism of you when you you withdraw your unjust criticism of Ron Paul.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The truth is, every human being and especially every governing official, should use their influence and authority to stop the intentional killing of the innocent.

Do you have a specific plan, Bob, to stop abortions nationwide?

Nang
 

elected4ever

New member
Do you have a specific plan, Bob, to stop abortions nationwide?

Nang
All I have heard him do is moan and complain about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Nothing about a solution or a plan unless you call that thing he calls k-gov where he replaces what we have with something worse.:sheep:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
All I have heard him do is moan and complain about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Nothing about a solution or a plan unless you call that thing he calls k-gov where he replaces what we have with something worse.:sheep:
This is the kind of unnecessary, inaccurate, divisive, spiteful, comment that you have been given infractions for in the past.

I gave you another infraction for your post which of course pushed you into "automatic TOL vacation" status for awhile. :wave2:
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Brought over from another thread, because it's hard to believe...

Brought over from another thread, because it's hard to believe...

I've brought this post over from another thread, because it's hard to believe that drbrumley and eVIe have actually read Ron Paul's 2007 bills. This post quotes most of the text of his two bills that are pro-choice, state-by-state. These emphatically state that he would not allow the federal government to interfere with the states murdering children.

If I am wrong about Ron Paul on this issue, about him being pro-choice state-by-state, I will endorse him for president on my radio show that airs on America's most powerful Christian station (Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT).

Ron Paul's H.R. 1094 [States' Rights] Sanctity of Life Bill of 2007 is an obvious states' rights bill, and utterly tosses the abortion issue to the states, with no prohibition to abortion, and explicitly by Ron Paul's 2007 bills (1094 & H.R. 300), the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to strike down, for example, California and New York laws permitting abortion.

Here's the text of Ron Paul's Sanctity of States' Rights Bill H.R. 1094:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

[This states' rights claim acknowledges the State's authority to protect lives, which means they can do so if they choose, for this is also pro-choice, state by state. By Ron Paul's position and this Bill, no state has the obligation to prohibit abortion. In fact, the next section prohibits the U.S. Supreme Court from striking down laws, for ex., in California and New York that permit abortion:]

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

`... the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute...
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'

So, in this extremist example of States' Rights, the federal courts would have to officially ignore state laws that regulate abortion (and by the way, the entire medical profession is regulated). And every regulation inherently authorizes and allows behavior, in this case, the slaughter of innocent children. But in truth, human rights supersede states' rights, and no state has the right to regulate the killing of Jews, raping of women, or aborting of children, because any such law would violate the fundamental rights to life and liberty, the upholding of which are every government's primary function.

And brumley and eIVe, Ron Paul's bill states: "a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Likelihood? From conception? By 2007, the term conception had long been redefined in medicine (he's a doctor and must know) and in law (he's a congressman and must know) to refer to implantation, days after fertilization. And putting in federal law this likelihood comment shows how Paul's misunderstanding of fundamental issues of governance and right and wrong undermine the truth that any nation should stand upon. Correct would have been: "The Congress finds that at the moment of fertilization, the living human being possesses the inalienable God-given right to life endowed upon each of us by our Creator." Not: a likelihood of life from [implantation]. Good grief!

Justice and valid principles of governance did not come into existence with the ratifying of the Constitution. Thus Ron Paul is handicapped because he is not thinking outside of that box. Throughout the world, when men make a Constitution, from God's perspective, that is like a side deal between themselves (between men), and that is acceptable, only if it complies with God's principles of justice. And our Constitution has violated fundamental principles of justice and governance, and where it does, should be corrected. And Ron Paul allows his commitment to our American side deal to undermine God's requirement that no nation should intentionally allow the shedding of innocent blood within their borders.

And Ron Paul's H.R. 300 repeats the same egregious misunderstanding of the fundamental responsibility of government, by requiring the federal judiciary to tolerate any and all state pro-homosexual and pro-abortion legislation. By not condemning the Libertarian Party's godless and immoral platform, Ron Paul is part of America's secular humanist problem, not part of its solution. And I blame Christian leaders and talk show hosts for not making it clear that for two decades, many believers were being misled into thinking that the Libertarians are a good match with Christian values, while in reality, the Libertarian Party is officially sexually immoral, murderous and godless.

Ron Paul's 2007 H.R. 300 "Act may be cited as `We the People Act'" and would have required the federal courts to permit, well... read it for yourself:

"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- (A) any claim involving the laws.. of any State... relating to... (B) ...any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction..."

Ron Paul is a true Libertarian, and his America could be crawling with sodomite child-killers, and he would say that the federal courts should simply look the other way. That is not principled leadership, but immorality based upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy.

-Bob Enyart
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I've brought this post over from another thread, because it's hard to believe that drbrumley and eVIe have actually read Ron Paul's 2007 bills.

I understand you do not approve of Ron Paul, and I am clear on your reasons, but I am not clear as to why you are not in favor of removing control over abortion issues from the Federal gov't and the Supreme Court.

And I am wondering if you have submitted any plan, by which would amend the present system to make the Feds protect the rights of life, or whether you have submitted a plan to abolish our present system of govenment?

I am coming to the party late, and am not picking a fight. Just wondering what the solution to all this might be in your mind.

For example: I am wondering if you advocate Reconstructionism?

Nang
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I understand you do not approve of Ron Paul, and I am clear on your reasons, but I am not clear as to why you are not in favor of removing control over abortion issues from the Federal gov't and the Supreme Court.

And I am wondering if you have submitted any plan, by which would amend the present system to make the Feds protect the rights of life, or whether you have submitted a plan to abolish our present system of govenment?

I am coming to the party late, and am not picking a fight. Just wondering what the solution to all this might be in your mind.

For example: I am wondering if you advocate Reconstructionism?

Nang
Your answer is found HERE.
 

Lucky

New member
Hall of Fame
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

`... the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute...
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'
Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top