tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post6228886667963648738..comments2023-09-13T11:06:15.170-04:00Comments on Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY: By endorsing Rand Paul Palin confirms she’s pro-choice (for states)Alan Keyeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00205437413964197871noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-9956180185514559892010-03-29T04:16:36.956-04:002010-03-29T04:16:36.956-04:00I read your article and first and foremost I suppo...I read your article and first and foremost I support Rand Paul. On this issue of abortion I agree with Rand on being both for a constitutional amendment or overturning Rowe vs Wade and returning the power to the states. Even if 20 states banned abortion we would save millions of lives. A constitutional amendment is one of the hardest things to achieve in congress. And because of that a faster yet temporary fix is to have the supreme court over turn the decision. Until we can muster majority in both houses and have our person in the executive branch. As a Christian we must stop as many abortions as possible. How long have we been waiting for that Constitutional amendment??Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213375187083821244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-30254759070948891232010-02-12T08:48:47.834-05:002010-02-12T08:48:47.834-05:00McCracken County GOP Senate Debate Internet live s...McCracken County GOP Senate Debate Internet live stream broadcast at 12:30 PM CST Saturday, Feb. 13<br />http://www.ustream.tv/channel/kentucky-us-senat...<br /><br />Johnson v. Grayson & PaulCorpsmanUphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03472670655439480652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-53258691547647126852010-02-11T12:10:14.605-05:002010-02-11T12:10:14.605-05:00I am always thankful for Dr. Keyes' passionate...I am always thankful for Dr. Keyes' passionate advocacy on the life issue. I've frequently cited his arguments while engaging in discourse. I will continue to seriously consider his thoughts expressed in this article and elsewhere.<br /><br />But after reading this posting and the referenced blog article, I'm still finding the logic pursuant to the characterization of Rand's position as pro-choice to be a non-sequitur. It seems all of the evidence to the contrary is being rebutted as rhetoric, a logic which could be applied to politician with whom one disagrees. <br /><br />While I don't know where this vitriol against the liberty wing of conservativism originates, my suspicion is that those with sympathies with neo-conservative thought have decided (consciously or otherwise) to strike at said wing's candidates at a perceived weak point; id est, social issues. While this may be true for actual pro-choice candidates like Peter Schiff, the record is simply abundantly clear that the Pauls are pro-life in word and action (and long before either were running for public office), and the objections based on semantic nuances are just that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10450956897840176895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-50871649143152495112010-02-11T10:15:16.666-05:002010-02-11T10:15:16.666-05:00While the value of human life is of paramount impo...While the value of human life is of paramount importance in this debate, the broader issue is the decay of western civilization, which is directly related to our loss of Christian values.<br /><br />It is shameful and inexcusable for the POTUS to make this statement: "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, <b><i>and a nation of nonbelievers."</i></b><br />This is not just PC nonsense, this is blasphemy. But what can you expect from a Kenyan Muslim Marxist?IONUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775993687627321943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-78786650508801676012010-02-10T02:10:29.542-05:002010-02-10T02:10:29.542-05:00Alan: Just a question, at what point from concepti...Alan: Just a question, at what point from conception onwards does the fetal personhood laws apply? What is your opinion about the morning-after pill especially if someone was raped?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-78269414994502537112010-02-09T13:08:25.846-05:002010-02-09T13:08:25.846-05:00I have passions, they just aren't in favor of ...I have passions, they just aren't in favor of human life, is all. Which makes it lucky I generally prefer thought.<br /><br />Incoherent rage can accomplish nothing of lasting value. No matter how outrageous the wholesale murder of prenatal infants may be, the response should be carefully considered. The more so <i>because</i> it is an outrage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-29990066357140062092010-02-08T15:38:55.124-05:002010-02-08T15:38:55.124-05:00Sometimes, that's all some will do...think. Th...Sometimes, that's all some will do...think. Think, think, think. Until all sense is oblivious. <br /><br />Feel? Don't feel. Just think. Think. Analyze. But don't allow the cold, hard facts to incite ANY passion within. Cold. Very cold.<br /><br />And if anyone should say the government, neither state nor federal, actively promote infanticide, then try and block the door to a death mill. It's not the clinic workers who will remove you.<br /><br />Oh, wait. Did I say infanticide? How very emotional of me. Well, I guess since I've already been born I can afford to pontificate federal versus state sanction of the practice of terminating the products of conception.<br /><br />Give me a break.<br /><br />This isn't to diminish the importance of states rights versus the overreaching fascists. But for some of God's children time is of the essence and protection for them is the priority. Something that is likely to occur much sooner than a return to 1787 governance.Dawg_emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431372202391934379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-30104174753489950782010-02-08T14:50:21.172-05:002010-02-08T14:50:21.172-05:00MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHTMIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHTIONUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775993687627321943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-26062178616773838692010-02-08T13:27:00.141-05:002010-02-08T13:27:00.141-05:00Two wrongs don't make a right.
Trite, and pro...Two wrongs don't make a right.<br /><br />Trite, and probably...well, true, but only probably so. The point being, it isn't my favorite saying. But it does apply here.<br /><br />I agree that legal (and particularly state sponsored) abortion is morally wrong. I'm not pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, as I regard human life as having very minor innate value. But what value it does have comes by virtue of...well, virtue. Which abortion destroys.<br /><br />But there are other virtues. I'm not particularly opposed to the killing of abortion doctors, as long as the killers take responsibility for their own actions. I <i>am</i> opposed to consolidating the power to regulate abortion (or any other action that is not <i>essentially</i> an act of a state government) in the already unrecognizable Federal government.<br /><br />Yes, this means I regard further corruption of the Federal character of the national government as a worse crime (and sin) than the occasional killing of murderers. A few shootings of abortion doctors wouldn't destroy a nation of hundreds of millions. Whereas the overreach of the central government has already all but accomplished it against the greatest nation in human history.<br /><br />I can applaud the sentiment that recoils in horror from contemplation of the slaughter of tiny babies in their mothers' wombs. It is right and proper to so feel, and I could wish I were able to do so. But in defense of your principles, you must <i>think</i> rather than feel.<br /><br />Abortion, like murder, is not a Federal issue. I am willing to acknowledge that the Federal government can ban active participation in abortion by state governments, or even that the Federal government may dictate that abortion is to be considered legally equivalent to murder (or at least homicide). I actually support both these measures in their good season. But that is as far as one can stretch the Constitution in this matter.<br /><br />There are dangers to this position. Mandating equivalence of abortion and homicide is likely to cause some states to rewrite their laws in ways that legalize infanticide and "euthanasia" rather than make abortion illegal. There are limits to what the Federal government can do under the Constitution...that is rather the point, but it cuts both ways. A wise policy might be to let the pro-life movement appeal to the conscience of the nation rather than to its government.<br /><br />I applaud your feelings, even though I do not share them. But without thought, they are only fodder for those who specialize in manipulations. They don't care what you want them to do with the power you surrender to their hands, they only care about consolidating that power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-20872953885234627152010-02-06T13:13:31.189-05:002010-02-06T13:13:31.189-05:00Just read the "Mommy" blog below.
The G...Just read the "Mommy" blog below.<br /><br />The GOP is only as good as its leaders. A bold colored plank is only window dressing if nobody is willing to commit to it.<br /><br />That's the gist of my post: politicians are in the business of getting and keeping their seats, a genuine grassroots movement must divorce itself of opportunistic career politicians and get back to the basics put in place by our Founders and defended to the death by countless patriots ever since.IONUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775993687627321943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-70990315753221713142010-02-06T11:36:35.775-05:002010-02-06T11:36:35.775-05:00CorpsmanUp,
Read my post again. Terminating a hum...CorpsmanUp,<br /><br />Read my post again. Terminating a human life is anathema to the Christian Constitutional Conservative dogma.IONUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775993687627321943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-9800128321895284712010-02-06T11:20:20.181-05:002010-02-06T11:20:20.181-05:00Lisa Graas,
I'm curious as to how on Earth yo...Lisa Graas,<br /><br />I'm curious as to how on Earth you are going to have any effect on the Republican platform when both parties are wholly owned by globalists? World government elitists like Rupert Murdoch and George Soros and their ilk, might allow for some favorable verbiage, but no practical implementation will be permitted. Both parties are corrupt and, in my opinion, beyond redemption. Please consider abandoning the party that has abandoned the Constitution and right reason.Dawg_emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431372202391934379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-58171545645720414402010-02-06T11:12:13.632-05:002010-02-06T11:12:13.632-05:00Ben,
Wouldn't it be better if 2/3 of the stat...Ben,<br /><br />Wouldn't it be better if 2/3 of the states were slave-free and <i>only</i> 1/3 get to own people? That was tried once, remember? Even Lincoln was content to live with the status quo (a pro-choice position, coincidentally), his only requirement was that any new state be a free state. The logic truly is simple if we can just put aside our pride. When it's our own lives on the line 'exceptions' are less tolerated.Dawg_emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431372202391934379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-42855775647646485092010-02-06T11:03:36.425-05:002010-02-06T11:03:36.425-05:00joerobertson,
Let me get this straight. Palin and...joerobertson,<br /><br />Let me get this straight. Palin and both Pauls say the states get to decide whether innocent human beings can be slaughtered. And for you that equates to being 100% prolife. Dr. Keyes says no entity, neither an idividual woman nor the state or federal governments, can decide to kill defenseless children, and he's the one who is disingenuous? Maybe in Bizzarro World, where up is down and right is wrong, would your "logic" work. Ever hear the phrase "there is none so blind as those who will not see"?Dawg_emhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431372202391934379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-18402796792415692052010-02-06T02:03:04.567-05:002010-02-06T02:03:04.567-05:00@Ben and IONU: Where does the morality of terminat...@Ben and IONU: Where does the morality of terminating a human life factor in for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-69043542791525130552010-02-06T00:46:38.501-05:002010-02-06T00:46:38.501-05:00Ben, it would appear that you stopped reading the ...Ben, it would appear that you stopped reading the Fourteenth Amendment a bit too soon. You missed the part that positively requires the states to provide for the equal protection of the laws to all persons.<br /><br />"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."<br /><br />And you certainly missed the ultimate purpose of the Constitution, according to the Constitution: "...to secure the Blessings of Liberty...to Posterity."<br /><br />The word posterity is inclusive of all persons as yet unborn. It's promise is not just to some privileged few who have passed your test of worthiness, or for those who are fortunate enough to be physically located in a particular state.<br /><br />Ben, would you apply this same line of "logic" to any other unalienable right other than the right to live?Tom Hoeflinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623135445284209126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-40093519582827541492010-02-05T22:51:26.688-05:002010-02-05T22:51:26.688-05:00[Michael, read the banner again: Alan Keyes is LOY...[Michael, read the banner again: Alan Keyes <b><i>is</i></b> LOYAL TO LIBERTY]<br /><br />Something's rotten in D.C. (the District of Criminals). The problem is the preponderance of career politicians, in contrast to the "citizen-politicians" envisioned by the Founders (think "Mr. Smith").<br /><br />Dr. Keyes' brand of principled conservatism will not suffer compromise (the hallmark of a politician). It is the very reason he has "failed" in the political arena. Dr. Keyes is much more than a stalwart defender of liberty, he is controlled by a higher moral imperative - a "Christian imperative," if you will (not coincidentally similar to our Founders).<br /><br />Back to my point. Our Republic was born of God-fearing, liberty-seeking men but will be destroyed by fawning, self-serving, power-hungry pols (a fate also foreseen by the Founders). I fear that history is in the process of repeating itself. Republics historically have a lifetime of a couple hundred years, give or take.<br /><br />Ron Paul, a crusader for financial responsibility, is a one trick pony. As an obstetrician he certainly finds abortion abhorrent but as a politician his <i>raison d'etre</i> is reelection. His reaction on being asked why he doesn't question Obama's Article II Section I eligibility: [paraphrased] "I would be laughed off the House Floor." And why did he drop out of the '08 race?<br /><br />Other pretenders to the throne of "Christian Constitutional Conservatism" include Paul's son Rand, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Scott Brown and most frightening of all (as Dr. Keyes has predicted) - the coming coronation of Mitt Romney, the Great Equivocator, the darling of the conservative pundits.IONUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775993687627321943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-53458772609181623112010-02-05T22:37:42.003-05:002010-02-05T22:37:42.003-05:00Wow, Good to know that the defining issue is what ...Wow, Good to know that the defining issue is what nobody does squat about after being elected... anyhow.<br /><br />Myself - pro-life and believe it starts at conception because without interfering - a living person joins the human race.<br /><br />Choice too... just that the person makes the choice when they decide to lie down with another.<br /><br />Having said that... what a disingenuous argument Dr. Keyes. You know Ron and Rand Paul are 100% PRO-life and they both support the sanctity of life.<br /><br /><br />Do you like the current arrangements?<br /><br />How many more Souls can be saved if made an issue for the States and then people vote with their feet?<br /><br />What is the jurisdiction for murder?<br /><br />Is this not giving the unborn “rights”?<br /><br />No logic Dr. Keyes. Very disappointing argument.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12016282687343420628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-47406766206809452522010-02-05T18:13:51.916-05:002010-02-05T18:13:51.916-05:00Ben:
Article IV, section 4 requires that the U.S. ...Ben:<br />Article IV, section 4 requires that the U.S. government guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. The defining principles and characteristics of that form of government are set forth in the Declaration of Independence which makes clear that the main purpose of such government is to secure the unalienable rights with which God has endowed all men. Any state that by law abandons this goal with respect to a whole class of individuals abandons the republican form of government. The Constitution obliges the U.S. government to make good the guarantee required in Article IV Section 4 by correcting the situation. By the way, as a matter of practical fact exempting one class of individuals from prosecution when they take the life or property of individuals in another class is one of the features of oligarchic tyranny (despotism of the few.) Clearly, in order to prevent the republican form of government from being subverted or overthrown the U.S. government is Constitutionally obliged to police systematic violations of unalienable rights by the states. You are right to see the states has having the first responsibility for the security of unalienable rights. But if and when they fail to do their duty, the U.S. government not only has the right, it has the Constitutional duty to repair their breach. As constituent members of the "more perfect union" envisaged by the Constitution, the states as such (i.e., by law and in the exercise of the sovereign powers left to them) are even less at liberty to violate unalienable rights than individuals.<br /><br />By the way, arguing that the Declaration is no part of the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land)is like saying that the laws of gravity or thermodynamics are no part of an architect's design for a building. Though nowhere spelled out in the plans, they must be everywhere assumed as those plans are prepared and carried out. That's why the early Congress was right to include the Declaration as part of the Organic [indispensable foundational] Law of the United States.Alan Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205437413964197871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-66442312955971778832010-02-05T17:54:25.668-05:002010-02-05T17:54:25.668-05:00This is my first time here and I couldn't help...This is my first time here and I couldn't help noticing the name of this website "Alan Keyes's Loyal to Liberty". It should be "Alan Keyes' Loyal to Liberty". It looks a little silly right now.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07681134332665535192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-62506941477083427902010-02-05T14:19:20.481-05:002010-02-05T14:19:20.481-05:00I wonder how many times do people in this country ...I wonder how many times do people in this country have to hear the same thing and think it will produce a different outcome. Does anyone know what insanity is? Why would you vote for someone based on their looks or personality, or some contrived statement on a WEBSITE as to what they "believe" or "would/will support" when that is what happens at EVERY ELECTION. AND THESE PEOPLE NEVER TAKE AN 100%, ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH WHEN THEY ARE GIVING A TOWN HALL, SPEECH OR TV INTERVIEW????????????????<br /><br />Flip flop, flip flop, and yet we continue to vote so confidently, without ANY regard for the consequences of our decisions. A WEATHER PERSONALITY IS MORE RELIABLE THAN MOST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS!<br /><br />People in this country, ESPECIALLY those who SAY they are Republican and/or Conservative need to figure out what that means AND what THEY stand for. We need PEOPLE running for office, not parties, platforms or corporations. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Stop voting for words and vote for a person. <br /><br />A person will take a stand WITH CONFIDENCE, even if they are wrong. And then, upon finding out they are wrong, you will know how genuine they are by their quick and heartfelt apology and making the correct choice to undue their incorrect decision/statement/position.<br /><br />Most politicians are not people. They are collectives of ideas, advisors, rich people who would rather their sinister plots remain out of the public eye, lobbyists and all other kinds of unfeeling, uncaring, secretive and destructive groups who would turn this country into THEIR image. <br /><br />PEOPLE! Learn to think for yourself and don't believe everything you see, hear or read. Dig deeper and pray. Surely GOD would not have us relive the Tower of Babel? Is that what is going on here or are we doing it to ourselves because we are too proud to give an inch and say we are wrong?<br /><br />Stand behind a man, not an image!gilbertabretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11021337304973752919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-21646047408708192282010-02-05T13:49:55.631-05:002010-02-05T13:49:55.631-05:00Tom, you wrote that "God's law, the Natur...Tom, you wrote that "God's law, the Natural Law, the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the US Constitution, and its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Reagan personhood pro-life platform" all contradict Rand Paul and Sarah Palin's position on abortion. <br /><br />With all due respect sir, you are mistaken. In the United States, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, and the federal government which operates under it only has certain, limited, enumerated powers. All other powers, over all other matters, are retained by the States. The 14th Amendment was written to prevent States from depriving the people of their life, liberty and property. That is why the Amendment states in simple English that no STATE shall deprive anyone of... Private individuals are not States sir, even if they commit dreadful crimes against God's law. Those crimes committed by private people, without State sanction, should be punished as they are now with regards to murder, rape, and theft, at the State level. <br /><br />It is certainly true that we institute government to protect our God-given Natural rights, but that does not mean that the FEDERAL government is to be the supreme arbiter and protector of all these rights. We have a federal system of concurrent jurisdictions, where States protect the large majority of people's rights, and the federal government protects the specifically enumerated and delegated remainder. <br /><br />As for the Declaration of Independence, that has no legal power whatsoever, as it can not supercede the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is a document of secession from England by 13 colonies, it is not the supreme law. <br /><br />Likewise, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution is of no legal force whatsoever, as its role is only to assit the reader in comprehending how to interpret the legal text which follows, the enumeration of limited powers to the federal government. <br /><br />The 5th Amendment only applies to the federal government, and forbids the federal government from violating the life, liberty and property of the people without due process. <br /><br />The 14th Amendment, as mentioned above, only constrains the States to the same standard as the federal government under the 5th Amendment, it does not reach private people or behavior. If a private individual wishes to discriminate, loathsome as that is, he may do so without fearing the wrath of the government, under the 5th, or under the 14th Amendments. <br /><br />Finally, Governor Palin and Dr. Paul support Reagan's personhood pro-life platform, even advocating using the congressional power to limit, under Article III federal judicial jurisdiction over abortion cases, thus allowing State laws, like South Dakota's, to prohibit ALL abortions!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08407298637296400050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-91024320517273364332010-02-05T13:49:05.872-05:002010-02-05T13:49:05.872-05:00Dear Alan,
I noticed you did not answer my quest...Dear Alan, <br /><br />I noticed you did not answer my question. <br /><br />When I invited you to speak to my group at Hillsdale College a few years ago, you presented a solid message, pro-freedom, pro-family, pro-constitution, but now you seem to have gone off the rails. I have a few questions for you:<br /><br />1) Where does the U.S. Constitution grant to the federal government the power to prohibit abortions? <br /><br />2) We know the 14th Amendment, ---by it's own language "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE...", not "Nor shall any person deprive"--- only prohibits public, State action, through State officers or a State's statutory enactment. How then does the federal government get general police powers with which to invade the hitherto reserved sphere of State powers? <br /><br />3) In light of Morrison v. United States, one of the more recent cases (See Printz and Lopez as well) in which the conservative majority has defeated federal encroachment into the domestic police powers of the States, how can you oppose overturning Roe v. Wade merely because it will have the effect of overturning the federal partial birth abortion ban? <br /><br />4) Wouldn't it be better for 2/3rds of the States to be able to ban ALL ABORTIONS and for the other 1/3rd to only ban partial birth abortion, than for a ban on partial birth abortions to stand, and younger unborn children continue to be killed?) <br /><br />Thanks!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08407298637296400050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-62705991332012063472010-02-05T11:59:19.749-05:002010-02-05T11:59:19.749-05:00Wow, how can so many "conservative" peop...Wow, how can so many "conservative" people back a states' rights candidate on abortion? Do you really believe it is okay for some states to allow abortions? You believe that it is okay to kill babies? I personally do not believe that there would be as many states as Rand Paul believes who would actually pass such legislation. Additionally, such legislation would likely be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court--the same court who started this mess in the first place.<br /><br />I understand the reasoning of some--better to save a few lives than none at all. However, I think that is false reasoning created by candidates who do not wish to take a 100% stance on abortion. It is a cop-out that allows them to look pro-life without having to bear any of the perceived negative consequences.<br /><br />Kentucky has a wonderful candidate in Bill Johnson--much more desirable than Rand Paul, who is mostly a "GOP party boy" like his father. Don't be fooled by the legislative trickery perpetrated by father and son. Neither is truly pro-life. They have the definition of life correct, but fail in other respects.<br /><br />One of Chuck Swindoll's books cantained an analogy about how much God people want in their lives. "I'll have $3 worth of God, please. Not enough to disrupt my life, just enough to make me feel good." A loose paraphrase by me.<br /><br />Is that what we're doing with the pro-life issue, too? I'll have $3 of pro-life, please. Not enough to disrupt my life, just enough to make people think I am totally pro-life.<br /><br />Think about this folks--it matters, and it matters a lot.MaryAnnHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13197265517174703436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7401694557024894060.post-24218718353175973552010-02-05T09:00:48.778-05:002010-02-05T09:00:48.778-05:00@DougSt2: I went to your link directing us to Rand...@DougSt2: I went to your link directing us to Rand Paul's position statement on abortion. <br />It is very carefully worded to first state his scientific belief that life begins at conception. <br />He further states that he would support "legislation" which opposes federal funding for abortion and pro-choice agencies. <br />He supports Sanctity of Life "legislation" and "legislation" which would restrict courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade.<br />He does say that it is the duty of government to protect life, yet he falls short of saying that it is the duty of the federal government to protect life.<br />This direct quote is troubling:<br />"In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many – including Kentucky – would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives."<br />This is a States Rights position which the National Right to Life organization has stated is a pro-abortion position. It would overturn the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act which prevents the dismembering abortion procedure of ending the lives of in utero third term babies, up to and including while in active labor.<br />Obama is the ony other politician I am aware of today who would ardently agree with Rand Paul's position. I do know that over one half of the states have indicated they would not legislate Pro-life laws if granted that authority.<br />Rand Paul should not think that he can have it both ways. He is either Pro-life or he is not. He will either fight for all unborn persons or he will not.<br />His position is clear. He will not. He would relegate that authority to the states.<br />Bill Johnson has said he would introduce a Constitutional amendment to confirm personhood rights to the unborn. He would not just fight to save "millions" or "hundreds of thousands" of lives. <br />Johnson would fight to save every life.<br />Paul would abrogate federal authority on the issue and is therefore, by default, a pro-abortion advocate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com