Not so fast with the front runner stuff

As of right now you get the impression that it’s all settled between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, not so fast, at the same point in 2008 Rudi Giuliani was the front runner trailed closely by Fred Thompson with John McCain an afterthought.  Perhaps we would have been better if McCain had remained an afterthought, but I digress. The point is, I do not accept that we have to limit our choices to the candidates that the press gives us as front runners.

I have quarrels with Rick Perry, though I have not ruled him out as my choice, I have very serious problems with Mitt Romney as well and I’ll be darned if I will let some God-awful pollster tell me rather I have to choose one of these two or not!

First of all I do not yet have a satisfactory answer from Mitt on Romney-care. He has said correctly that the constitution allows states to screw up the health care system and force odorous mandates on its citizens but does not make the same allowance for the Federal Government. Somehow I find little comfort in the fact that Romney’s only basis for undoing the piece of legislation that transforms America into a land of the formerly free is a technicality? Romney still defends Romney care and if only he had gotten more of what he wanted it would have worked. I’m sorry but that doesn’t do it for me. Romney won’t even denounce the individual mandate which in my humble opinion is the third most immoral thing in the government today, right behind abortion and the death tax. Reagan said about socialized medicine, “   "behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism.", "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."  I don’t sense that type of commitment from the Romney camp, and it will take a slew of convincing before Mitt Romney will get my primary vote.

Gov. Perry also has some ‘splainin’ to do. How dare you Mr. Governor mandate that my little girl get vaccinated against STD’s? Now he has admitted that the decision to mandate HPV vaccinations in Texas was a mistake, duh! There are things I would go to jail rather than do and this vaccine would have been one of them had I lived in Texas and had the program been implemented. Michelle Bachman was right to call him out on this but in truth I don’t care who profited the important point and the one Gov. Perry has not answered to my satisfaction is  why Gov. Perry believes that government has such a big role to play in what parents do and do not do.

It disturbs me greatly that Gov. Romney seems to have the strongly held views that please his electoral target audience. We need true conservatives not men who will campaign like Reagan and govern like Clinton. This troubles me and before I concede that Romney is viable I want proof of sincerity.

I am also concerned about the Perry position on immigration, specifically the in state tuition policy he supported in Texas. I think it certainly warrants debates as to rather in state tuition rates being extended to the children of  illegal immigrants signifies a support of lawlessness, and if it bespeaks an overall weakness on the broader issue of border security but what infuriates me is the response to criticism that the Governor has decided to pursue. if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. “  further the governor has implied that people who have a problem with this position are uncomfortable with people with different sounding names. So if we disagree with Rick Perry we are hate filled bigots. Governor you were much closer to getting my vote before these asinine comments!

Remember many people voted for McCain because they believed the media twist that he was the only one that could defeat Hillary. Please do not let the media make this decision based on polls and experts claims of electability .my advice keep studying the candidates and choose the one you believe will save this country! We will keep doing that here.

Until next time, Keep on the firing line.

The most important campaign issue no one talks about

I have friends who believe it’s all over, that America has fallen too far into the cesspool of moral decay, that Divine judgment must ensue and that our government is no longer free and that it is too late to do any thing about it. Perhaps some day it would make a fascinating article to explain why I disagree, not that we have wondered from the straight and narrow, but that it’s too late to turn around.  Still even a fool can see that our government has grown far beyond its intended constitutional bounds. Even though we have the most remarkable republic in human history it is important to note that the worst most egregious errors in our history have tended to spring from Judicial Fiat rather than democratic process. In recent years this has been aggravated by the effectiveness of the liberals to block a number of conservative appointees. Most famous was the appointment of Robert Bork by the great Ronald Reagan. Who can forget the mean spirited, hate filled and factually challenged rant by the late Ted Kennedy, “   Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

The “Liberal Lion” may have been a party hack with no regard for the truth, but he was not dumb. He understood that liberalism cannot win elections it cannot long be maintained through standard legislative process. Its mandates must be imposed by an activist court and its unconstitutional precepts must be upheld by sympathetic adjudicator. Meanwhile Republicans tend to “want to honor the traditions of the Senate” and support even the most radical nominees as a recognition of the will of the people through the election process. In principle I agree with the GOP but in application if only one side blocks nominees than their slant will be dominate in the court for years to come.

When the Republican senate finally grew the nerve to do something about this and proposed a “nuclear option” ending the ability of the left to block President Bush’s nominations to the appeals court, in rode the maverick John McCain to the lefts rescue agreeing with his “gang of 14” to stop the nuclear option in exchange for votes on less than half of the nominations in question. This trend cannot continue, either the libs must be forced to play by the same rules or we have to play by theirs.

This is a critical time, in all the levels of the courts but especially in the Supreme Court where currentky there are 4 rock solid constructionist judges (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)  dyed iin the wool liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayor) and one straw blown in the wind in Anthony Kennedy who was a poor substitute for Robert Bork. Further all federal judgeships have an impact on the government of our country and the rights of its citizens. If the trend continues Gay marriage and abortion will continue to be rights while praying at a graduation or hanging the 10 commandments will be criminalized, and government will continue to grow unchecked. However much we like a candidates policies, poor judicial appointments will negate everything else.

Mitt Romney: as with all things the actions of Gov. Romney do not always match the words of candidate Romney. While talking a great game about the dangers of activist judges, 27 of the 36 Massachusetts appointees by Romney were either Democrats or independents including two activist homosexuals. Of course state issues and Federal are not identical and on Gov. Romney’s defense his main concern was the prosecution of crime and that not being soft on the same were his key criteria. Further political party certainly should not be a consideration, it is however one more reason to be very very cautious before throwing support behind Mitt.

Rick Perry: Perry also has a record, which over all is reasonably good, but though some controversy exists over his selection of self described moderate Xavier Rodriguez over conservative Stephen Wayne Smith, who eventually prevailed in the ensuing election. My concern over this is, as when George Bush made the questionable selection of Harriet Meyers as the best woman available rather than the best justice available, was Perry pandering to Latino voters or was Rodriguez really a best choice. Overall though Perry’s record is better than Romney’s.

The rest of the candidates have no record, so we have to rely on stated positions. Here is a list of quotes compiled by:    nla.org/Blogs/blogs/public/archive/2011/06/29/unlike-obama-republican-candidates-would-appoint-impartial-judges.aspx

Michelle Bachmann: “I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench. As President of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists.” (June 27, 2011).

Herman Cain: “A justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.” (February 22, 2011).

Newt Gingrich: “I believe that the justices who believe that their personal view outweighs the voters of their state, the governor and the legislature of their state are fundamentally acting outside the American system.  I think the American system was one of a balance of power.  I think this whole modern – it starts with the Warren Court in 1958, 1959, this whole modern notion of judicial supremacy is false, and I think that that’s going to be one of the major issues in 2012 and beyond is whether you want judges dictating the nature of American or you want judges who accept the law and who have respect for the legislative and executive branches.” (May 25, 2011).

Gary Johnson: “Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited.” (Unknown Date)

).

Ron Paul: “The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society, we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.” (October 5, 2004).

Rick Santorum: “[E]xtreme liberal judges [are] destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent…The Supreme Court has become the supreme branch of the government, imposing its unrestrained will on all of the people…The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito who want to replace the hubris of this court with humility and respect for the common sense of the American people.” (July 9, 2006).

Until nest time, keep on the firing line

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Last time we began to look at the Republican candidates for President in 2012. I thought it appropriate to begin with a look at the faith of the leading candidates, this week it we will continue this. Certain things have become axioms in American politics, such as the Republican presidential nominee will be pro-life and the Democrat will be pro-choice.  This is easily understood, from the 2008 Republican national platform

 Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Like wise the Democrat view from that same year:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." "The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions”

If life is determined to begin at conception, then two things are true 1) the protections of the constitution must be extended to the unborn and 2) Roe v Wade is already obsolete. .

 The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]   for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument

All that legalese means that if the personhood of the child is established the case falls apart. Since 1973 a great deal of medical and scientific knowledge has evolved foremost is DNA no two people have the same DNA and from the moment of conception the fetus and the mother have different DNA. DNA evidence is now clearly well enough established to make this point. This is the first and foremost reason Roe v Wade is obsolete, secondly is the fact that the court does not possess the authority to invent out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right. Again the decision admits:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.

If the unborn child is human, and as my sainted mother would say, “what else could it be” then the only option is to overturn Roe v Wade, what’s more even a pro-choice believer should support the overturning of this decision if they honor the constitution. How do you justify the Supreme Court taking away the rights of all the people in a state to regulate a medical procedure as they see fit? The first, best option is a constitutional amendment establishing the personhood of the unborn child and establishing once and for all that the protections of “persons” in the constitution apply to all Americans.

The second option would be to overturn Roe v Wade and allow the states, hence the American people decide through their own legislators. Then each state could answer to conscience and creator.

What’s important to our current discussion is where the current crop of candidates stands and how reliable have they been in their records on the topic. As before I will concentrate on the main candidates and will leave out any who are still unannounced.

Mitt Romney:

In October 2002, campaigning for governorship of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would “preserve and protect” a woman’s right to choose. He now describes himself as opposing abortion.

: Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?

A: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.

Q: Do you believe life begins at conception?

A: I do. I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don’t pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I’d committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment. But each law that was brought to my desk attempted to expand abortion rights and, in each case, I vetoed that effort. I also promoted abstinence education in our schools. I vetoed an effort, for instance, to give young women a morning after pill who did not have prescriptions. So I took action to preserve the sanctity of life. But I did not violate my word, of course.

Mitt Romney is firmly in the “legal but rare camp” camp. Like 2/3 of conservative Republicans, he believes abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is threatened.

Governor Romney changed his mind on abortion. He freely admits it. Ordinary citizens change their minds, and their positions evolve in private. For public figures, however, every video clip and interview is posted somewhere in cyberspace.

From http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

Michelle Bachmann:

Q: [to Bachmann]: Gov. Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, an I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.

Before proceeding let me take on this one question. Rape and incest are the worse things men do in our society, or any other for that matter and to oppose abortion in the very rare cases that it results seems odorous. However if the mother gave up her baby for adoption then decided that she couldn’t sleep at night knowing that a toddler out there somewhere was that rapists “demon seed” so she finds the adoptive mother rips the two year old child from her arms and stabs it in the back of the head with kitchen shears. If one is alright so is the other.

As for Michelle Bachmann, she has a 100% prolife voting record according to Life News and other pro-life groups.

Newt Gingrich: a lot of conservatives like Newt, and during the early part of his speaker ship the country did accomplish wonderful and historic things yet I do not find him a reliable conservative, I find in him a man who speaks and acts like a politician. For instance Newt like all republican candidates loves babies Reagan and the flag, but he is hesitant to support a pro life amendment saying instead that judicial reform is the key (clearly we need both) and then we have a 1995 comment “  I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion." If I figure out what that means I could comment, these comments and his endorsement of radical pro abortion Dede Scozzafava over conservative Doug Hoffman in the crucial special election in New York 23d district. You will recall that Scozzafava was the NY establishment republican choice and that Hoffman was on the precipice of victory when Scozzafaza through here support to the Democrat and probably cost the Republicans a key win. Any correspondence seeking campaign support I get from Newt will be sent back with the word Scozzafaza written in big red letters.

Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum has thus far insisted on putting the social/moral issues in the forefront of his campaign. He has a perfect pro-life voting record. The Santorum’s lost a baby at 20 weeks due to Karen Santorum contracting a severe infection; sadly this was reported as an abortion which was not the case. Still it raises the question of the life and health of the mother and even the most staunchly pro life among us do not support the position that mom has to die if there is a problem. (Among other reasons the baby would die if the mother did). The important point is that health of the mother must not be so loosely defined that it becomes the convenience of the mother.

Herman Cain:

We have no voting record of Herman Cain’s stand but he has been consistent throughout his campaign and personal life.  He did pass on signing the Susan B Anthony pro life pledge; he said “The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said.  “I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues.  In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.” I don’t disagree with his interpretation and we certainly do need to reign in the power of the presidency, even though I think this may be a case of splitting hairs. One more quote “Additionally, I would be in favor of any legislation that would encourage adoptions as a loving and safe alternative to abortion. ”

Rick Parry

“Why do legislators hide behind Roe v. Wade claiming it somehow protects babies? We know it doesn’t… Let's let them know that Texas is here and Texas is Pro-Life… We need to strengthen our laws to better defend the defenseless, including a ban on using our tax dollars on abortion procedures in this state.”

Governor Perry has thrown his suppport behind ohio’s heartbeat bill wich would outlaw all abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This law is desighned to be the challenge to Roe v Wade.

Ron Paul:

Last time I detailed some of Rep. Paul’s stands as directly related to his faith. Rep Paul said in 1999 “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

I can’t disagree, but as to what to do about it here is a quote from 2007 “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”  

This would put Rep. Paul squarely in the “plan b” as far as a constitutional amendment I find no specific support from Rep. Paul and he has only a 56% pro-life record according to National Right to Life Committee.

Let me conclude by saying this, every two years we have a crisis of conscience in our home. Shelley Moore Capito is our represrntative and  her voting record on most things is strongly conservative but she is any thing but a strong pro life rep. (though she and Ron Paul have nearly the same NRLC voting record) at one time I was a single issue voter and in a mythical head to head would have supported a pro life Dem like Bart Stupac over a pro choice Rep. regardless of all other issues. Yet it was Capito who held out against Obama care and its massive increase in support for abortion when the prolife democrats proved that in their soul of souls they are Democrats first. So while life is the foremost issue, we need to examine the candidates in all elements of their governing philosophies. 

We will continue to do that next time.

Keep on the firing line.