Audio from Dr. James Dobson

[Jefferson]

Audio from Dr. James Dobson

This is the show from Friday October 12th, 2007.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

It is because of our Creator that that child has a right to live. It's not because of the Constitution. If that's our foundation, what if in 60 years from now they amend the Constitution saying you have the right to abortion? What, are we all going to defend abortion then?

That's what young Christians do today. They say, "Well, you know what? It is legal. It's legal. That means it's right." They are unable to think. They're unable to think and our Christian leaders need to do a better job of saying things that are true because words have consequences.

SUMMARY:

* Hear James Dobson Renew His Pledge: to never vote for a politician willing to kill a single innocent child. Of course, this means that Dr. Dobson would never vote for a man like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, both of whom support killing the children of criminals (rapists). Also, Dr. Dobson clarified that he is not starting a third party, but will vote for a third party candidate if the Republicans nominate a candidate who supports killing even a single innocent child. Refusing to vote for someone who supports intentionally killing an innocent person is the principle that flows out of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and from God's enduring command, Do not murder.

* Ron Paul is Unqualified: to lead a Sunday school class, let alone a nation. Ron 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 (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.

The Libertarian Party is an immoral, godless quasi-conservative organization which therefore has no understanding of righteousness in law.

Ron Paul believes abortion is murder, but then he says that he would let the states decide whether to murder children. Thus, he doesn't understand the God-given right to life. He doesn't understand the foundation for law. And thirdly, he doesn't even understand that the U.S. Constitution (for all its flaws) does not allow depriving anyone of life without due process of law, that is, without being convicted of a capital crime. Ron Paul doesn't understand that human rights trump states' rights, and no government should allow any subdivision to own blacks, rape women, or murder Jews, Christians, or children. If Massachusetts legalized the lynching of blacks, the federal government should use every means at its disposal, even to the sending in of the Marines to stop them; so also to protect babies. Ron Paul doesn't understand this, and so is in need of being taught, not in need of being elected. Ron Paul has little understanding of the utmost foundation of civil government, God's enduring command, Do not murder.

Today's Resource: Enjoy reading the same information in Bob's life's work, the best-selling manuscript, The Plot! Apparent contradictions plague many Bible students. The Plot demonstrates how hundreds of such contradictions disappear when the reader applies the big picture of the Bible to its details. Tunnel vision focuses so narrowly on a problem that the solution often lies just out of view. As the pastor of Denver Bible Church, Bob Enyart teaches Christians how to use the whole counsel of God to understand the plot of the Bible and solve biblical mysteries.

 

[PKevman]

I sent a link for this show to a great Christian friend of mine who is pretty taken by Ron Paul. I wonder how he will respond to it. I suggested he should call in and maybe talk with Bob about it.

 

[Granite]

The refusal of the religious right to support Ron Paul is going to come back and bite them.

Yet another clueless, tone-deaf misstep.:doh:

 

[Bob Enyart]

TruthTalkLive listener and Ron Paul supporter Troy says WHAT?

TruthTalkLive listener and Ron Paul supporter Troy says WHAT?

Troy denies that Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state. However, Ron Paul is explicitly pro-choice state by state. (See his answer below, to a question asked of Ron Paul by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul’s his principles (actually, a lack thereof) and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder.

Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w

Question Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute? Since the constitution defends the right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]

Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don’t fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they’re charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it’s more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it’s whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn’t have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it’s very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it’s difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That’s why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it’s in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved[BE: I guess not, if Ron Paul is in charge; under his principles, pro-choice state by state, blacks could still be owned as slaves, and states would kill kids throughout his brutal reign.], and the solutions will not be perfect. We don’t live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers.

 

[drbrumley]

:sigh:

Ok Bob, what do you do with this?

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

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.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

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. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

 

[drbrumley]

Troy denies that Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state. However, Ron Paul is explicitly pro-choice state by state. (See his answer below, to a question asked of Ron Paul by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul’s his principles (actually, a lack thereof) and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder.

Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w

Question Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute? Since the constitution defends the right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]

Answer from Ron Paul:

How about this answer?

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 776
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


February 10, 2005

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.


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.


SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(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.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.


SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.


SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.


SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

 

[Jefferson]

How about this answer?

Bob answers your question HERE.

 

[drbrumley]

Bob answers your question HERE.

Ok, I will look over it later, but he hasn't addressed the the post prior.

 

[Jefferson]

Ok, I will look over it later, but he hasn't addressed the the post prior.

Call him up. It's the current hot topic so he'll definitely take the call. 5:00 - 5:30 pm eastern, 1-800-8-ENYART.

 

[drbrumley]

Call him up. It's the current hot topic so he'll definitely take the call. 5:00 - 5:30 pm eastern, 1-800-8-ENYART.

I thought about it, but he was doing a tape of the show in Toledo.

How about you? Can you address it. It's called Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

 

[kmoney]

I still don't see how thinking abortion is a state issue is the same as being pro-choice. :idunno:

 

[drbrumley]

I still don't see how thinking abortion is a state issue is the same as being pro-choice. :idunno:

It is the federalist vs anti federalist song and dance.

 

[drbrumley]

Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle. There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles.

When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”

M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government."

And most here hate that the states have any say whatsoever.

 

[drbrumley]

It is because of our Creator that that child has a right to live.

Absolutely!

It's not because of the Constitution.

Absolutely!

If that's our foundation, what if in 60 years from now they amend the Constitution saying you have the right to abortion? What, are we all going to defend abortion then?

NO! Not in the least! You make it sound, wrongly at that, as if we worship the document.

But let me add Mr.Enyart, your railing against the federal government and its' unjust usurping of the states to do what is right, and then want the federal government to usurp somemore.

That's what young Christians do today. They say, "Well, you know what? It is legal. It's legal. That means it's right."

I haven't met a christian who thinks this.

They are unable to think. They're unable to think and our Christian leaders need to do a better job of saying things that are true because words have consequences.

That's right.

 

[drbrumley]

Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts (DRB "thanks to the scriptures) the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.

Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.

Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.

The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists- showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone.

Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder's view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.

Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

 

[Turbo]

I still don't see how thinking abortion is a state issue is the same as being pro-choice. :idunno:

Because people who recognize that the unborn are people and that abortion is murder should also recognize that no level of government has the authority to legalize it.

Do you think states should get to decide whether abortion is legal?

If someone said that slavery should be a state issue, would you see that person as not being anti-slavery?

 

[drbrumley]

Because people who recognize that the unborn are people and that abortion is murder should also recognize that no level of government has the authority to legalize it.

That's right!

Do you think states should get to decide whether abortion is legal?

No and his bill doesn't provide for it. Turbo, can a bill that says "life begins at conception" really mean a state can say abortion should be legalized?

If someone said that slavery should be a state issue, would you see that person as not being anti-slavery?

Yes. Cause the position is the federal government should be decentralized. Just as the history of the Civil War demonstrates. The first and ONLY God ordained governments were the family. Not monarchies. The governments take away your liberties.

 

[drbrumley]

Just as God said,"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day. (I Sam. 8:11-18)

 

[Turbo]

No and his bill doesn't provide for it. Turbo, can a bill that says "life begins at conception" really mean a state can say abortion should be legalized?

Still haven't read this, eh? You should stop posting until you read it!

 

[drbrumley]

Still haven't read this, eh? You should stop posting until you read it!

Yeah I read it already. What's the big deal? He says it should be a state issue. No problem. That isn't biblically wrong you know. Or do you?

Let me ask you Turbo, is the crime of murder a federal or state crime? We all know what God says about it and we know how right He is, that it is a crime against humanity and Himself but in this discussion, who has the authority to carry out the sentence? Is it the states or the feds? Thats what this discussion is about.