Bob on Toledo's WPOS re: New Dobson Audio
Download: Dialup / Broadband Stream: Dialup / Broadband Comment: at TheologyOnline
* Talk Show Host Mark Siffer : on Toledo's FM 102.3 WPOS today interviews Bob regarding Dr. James Dobson's objection on his latest radio show that he gets criticized for celebrating the Gonzales v. Carhart partial-birth abortion manual on how to continue legally killing late-term babies in America.
* Ron Paul Supporter Dares Bob to Post the Following : TruthTalkLive listener and Ron Paul supporter Troy challenged Bob Enyart, and Bob is taking him up on his dare. Bob Enyart stated that Ron Paul wrongly believes that child killing is a states' rights issue. Surprisingly, Troy disagrees. So Troy posted at Stu Epperson's website the following and challenged Bob to post this here at KGOV.com , and so here is a Ron Paul defense, followed by Bob's rebuttal:
[P]lease refer to Ron Paul's House bill "the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 ? (for which he received little support) and now (reintroduced) the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (H.R.2597) that states:
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review 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.
Makes federal court decisions not binding precedent on the courts of any state or their subdivisions, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or their subdivisions.
Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.
[Troy continues:] If you read that, as soon as that bill becomes law, ALL abortions would immediately be deemed illegal, states are only given jurisdiction to protect the unborn, it immediately removes any authority from the courts to legislate it again, and effectively voids Roe v. Wade.
Post that on the front page of your site sir. [End excerpt of Troy's post.]
Okay, Troy, I posted that. And here is my reply which I also posted on TruthTalkLive.org (which I updated here to refer to only Paul's 2007 Act, which is identical to his 2005 Act):
Please answer this question, if you are wrong about Ron Paul, do you want to know?
If I am wrong about Ron Paul, 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). And I will take you up on your offer to post your comment on my homepage at KGOV.com, followed by this reply, which demonstrates from Ron Paul's public and legislative position that he is committed to States' Rights far more than to stopping children from being murdered.
As evidence of Paul's stand to prohibit abortion in all 50 states, you refer to Ron Paul's 2007 H.R. 1094 [States' Rights] Sanctity of Life Bill. This 1094 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.
Troy, you quoted a summary of H.R. 1094, but I will quote the actual language, to show you are indefensibly wrong in your claim that, " as soon as that bill becomes law, ALL abortions would immediately be deemed illegal."
Here's the text of Ron Paul's States' Rights H.R. 1094 from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094
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.
[Troy, this is a states' rights claim. A State has the authority to protect lives, which means they can do so if they choose, this is pro-choice, state by state, but 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 (as, 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 Troy, his 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!
Troy, 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, 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 ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-300 ) 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.
So, I will repeat, Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and spoke at it's 2004 national convention, and he has never repudiated that party, even though the Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of handicapped and sick people, etc.)
Libertarians are immoral, godless quasi-conservatives who therefore have no compass for righteousness in law.
And the above list is far more of a threat to America than is al Qaeda, for this platform is a prescription for how to destroy us from within. Yet Ron Paul does not understand these simple matters of right and wrong and governance.
-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com
Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? Check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty , Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources!