Alan Keyes' Personhood Speech at Colorado RTL

Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Alan Keyes' Personhood Speech at Colorado RTL

This is the show from Monday October 10th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

images


* Hear or Watch Ambassador Alan Keyes on Personhood at the CRTL Banquet: Alan Keyes brilliantly explains the necessary personhood strategy in the fight to protect the innocent child. With Tom Tancredo, Kevin Swanson and a couple hundred other pro-life activists in the audience, Dr. Keyes prepares Colorado to launch Round 3 of their fight to recognize the personhood and God-given right to life of the unborn child!




Today's Resource: You can join Bob's Hermeneutics seminar by way of MP3 download or CD. It's like you're there! Just click to get and enjoy our Bible seminar including the same notes handed out to the attendees and also see the slides that Bob displayed during this great event at Denver's historic Brown Palace. And you'll also be supporting BEL during our September telethon, just by enjoying Bob Enyart's Hermeneutics: Tools for Studying the Bible by clicking or by calling the BEL studio at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278)!
 
Frayed Knot

Frayed Knot

New member
I tried listening to it, I really did, but I could only make it about halfway before it was just too revolting.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
some other dude said:
Alan Keyes, the pro-abort who would accept legalized abortion if it was politically expedient? :chuckle:

As Alan Keyes said:
I MAKE an exception only for the physical life of the mother. Given the unalienable right to life (i.e., self-preservation) I see no way in principle to avoid making this exception. I would ACCEPT the rape and incest exceptions only as a matter of political necessity if that is the best legislation we could achieve at the time. I see no grounds in principle for making these exceptions, but as a matter of political prudence it would be suicidal for the pro-life movement to reject these people. Source: Letter to David Quackenbush Jun 30, 1995
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:idunno:
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Lighthouse said:
Keyes is willing to sign an executive order his first day in office, not only overturning Roe v Wade, but also overturning every other single law that states have accumulated since before Roe v Wade.

the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v Wade, but it would not have any effect on the state laws that exist. For abortion to become illegal after the act was passed, the state would have to then pass a law eradicating all the laws they have that make abortion legal.
Click to expand...

Jefferson said:
Bob is recommending Alan Keyes.
Click to expand...
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
WizardofOz said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse
Keyes is willing to sign an executive order his first day in office, not only overturning Roe v Wade, but also overturning every other single law that states have accumulated since before Roe v Wade.

the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v Wade, but it would not have any effect on the state laws that exist. For abortion to become illegal after the act was passed, the state would have to then pass a law eradicating all the laws they have that make abortion legal.
Click to expand...

Where have we heard those words before Ralphie? Hmmmm...not from Ron Paul, as murder is a "states rights issue" in his mentally deficient mind. Let me think; it's coming to me...

From David Barton's Wallbuilders site:

"Some voices naively assert that simply eradicating abortion at the federal level and returning the issue to the states will correct the problem, but they are completely wrong. When the federal courts get out of the abortion issue and return it to the states, 20 states (based on both pro-life and pro-abortion estimates) will continue their current abortion practices, and those states include many with the largest population (e.g., California, New York, Illinois, etc.). Citizens from the other 30 states will therefore travel to one of those 20 states to get an abortion; so while the number of abortions will undoubtedly go down when the issue is returned to the states, it will come nowhere close to ending. Additionally, stopping abortion at the federal level will do nothing to correct the legal rulings generated in the state courts over the past 35 years as those state courts infused federal court positions into their own state case law. State courts will remain hostile to state attempts to restrict abortion because state case law is now as infused with the broad “health” exceptions, etc., as were the federal decisions."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=7128

Keyes was and still is my main man for POTUS.
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
WizardofOz said:
aCultureWarrior supports a man not seeking office
Click to expand...

I suppose when you can't defend your candidate, the one who seems to think that murdering the innocent unborn is a "states rights issue", you have to do your best to avoid the topic and talk about ANYTHING else.

The topic is abortion Ralphie. Defend your candidate's stance on it.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
aCultureWarrior said:
I suppose when you can't defend your candidate, the one who seems to think that murdering the innocent unborn is a "states rights issue", you have to do your best to avoid the topic and talk about ANYTHING else.

The topic is abortion Ralphie. Defend your candidate's stance on it.
Click to expand...

Since you're avoiding the discussion in the Libertarian thread, I'll ask here

Would you like to see the following measure passed?


define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.



Yes or no?
 
aCultureWarrior

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
WizardofOz said:
Since you're avoiding the discussion in the Libertarian thread, I'll ask here

Would you like to see the following measure passed?


define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.



Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Give me the full text and who wrote it. If it's from Ron Paul or one of his sites, I'll guarantee you that "states rights" is in there somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top